Gender, Settings, Mechanics, and Everything Else

[S'mon]

I really don't think that's fair. I've seen a lot of bad cross-gender play. Indeed, until my most recent campaign, I had never seen it done in a manner that wasn't either game-breakingly jarring or wildly offensive. So, yeah, I had a "no cross-gender play" rule in place for many years.

Obviously, I would have made an exception for the specific examples you had cited... or just not run those games due to the inherent problems.

Well maybe you're ok, but it's a huge red flag for me if a GM bans cross-gender PCs. Most "no cross gender" GMs seem to have huge psychological issues, IME.

I guess if a female GM banned males playing female PCs I might be a bit more understanding, but AFAICR I don't think I've ever seen that. It's always been male GMs who ban it.

 

[Dark Mistress]

Mechanically i wouldn't make there be a difference. That is honestly just asking for trouble cause a lot of it is personal opinion. Not to mention some things it is hard to tell if it is genetics or culture that makes a difference in genders. Plus a lot of things one is good at or the other not is not covered real well in the rules.

As far as setting, I think that is ok with a following points.

1) Everyone is ok with it.
2) If one gender is seen as less than the other than their should be benefits to go along with it. For example if men are seen as much better warriors and women laughed at as unable to fight. Than any man fighting a women would just like in RL likely hold back. Which could prove fatal to the man if the woman can fight and doesn't hold back. Another example is guards might over look a woman going in to a place they would never let a guy into. Or might talk about stuff around her they wouldn't around men etc.

My point being if their is going to be limits and draw backs then their should be benefits as well from that.

Of course what I said could be reversed if men are seen as less in the setting. but from what you said I got the impression you wanted to go more historic.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In a fairly simulationist game like 3e D&D

In a game where a fighter can fall from an 80 foot drop and just get up and keep walking I don't think that I could take stat adjustments just for little naughty bit differences seriously.

 

[Cor Azer]

I agree with several poster who said any gender role restrictions should be restricted by culture, rather than a global custom. Adds one more point of conflict to the game's plot.

I never thought of mechanically restricting some power by gender, like men and magic in Wheel of Time. The only gender-based powers I'm familiar with are the Slayers of he Buffyverse and the concept of the "magic girl" in anime. Still , I can imagine a neat setting where something like arcane magic is limited to one gender, so the other gender develops psionics in response.

I've never understood "no cross gender PCs" DMs either. For one, I'm sure I know more about playing a female than I do about some non-existent mythological beings like elves. Also, since the DM plays ever other character in the world, isn't he/she inherently doing cross gender stuff anyways?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Unless there is a campaign reason for it- only females can handle arcane magic without going insane; races with enormous sexual dimorphism and so forth- I generally kick that whole discussion to the side of the road. Play what you want.

As for cross-gender play, I don't like being told I can't play a female Paladin just because somebody noticed I'm a male.* I see it as no different than playing another species. Human men & women have more in common than humans and Fey. Or sentient stones.




* I've only had male DMs in my entire gaming career, ( ), so I can't say if men are worse about it than women.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As for cross-gender play, I don't like being told I can't play a female Paladin just because somebody noticed I'm a male.* I see it as no different than playing another species. Human men & women have more in common than humans and Fey. Or sentient stones.

I gotta spread some around.....

What does it say about us that someone would consider playing a human female more alien then playing...........um.....an alien.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm in the camp for a variety of cultures. I don't generally have strong opinions about gender issues in campaigns, but I think even so that I would find a single culture with a strong gender bias stifling. Part of this, I'm sure, is that I'm going to be running a heroic fantasy game, and not a WW II sim or the like. I'm also not sure how much of that stifling feeling would be from the gender element or from the single culture itself.

Our group has always been about 50/50 male/female. I'm happy to give the players what they want. A couple of the females have enjoyed having places where they can confront and overcome gender bias--and also places where they don't need to deal with it. (The other three don't much care.) Sometimes, it varies by how their last few weeks have gone. So the campaign has to support both at least a little. OTOH, even in a society mostly without such bias, you can always have that one gate guard or stuffy academic or whatever to let them have their fun. I rather feel that way about most such issues (i.e. racial tensions, political system confrontations, etc.) It's more sauce than main course.

 

[Corathon]

Of course its alright to have a setting or mechanics that differentiate between the sexes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What does it say about us that someone would consider playing a human female more alien then playing...........um.....an alien.

I chalk most of it up to 1) past experience with truly bad cross-gender play or 2) possible homophobia.

So when I encounter it, I generally just go with the flow. I've only stood my ground on a couple of PCs gender. When I bend to the GM's will on that, I generally play an entirely different PC. Usually, that is NOT a problem, since I literally have hundreds of PC concepts floating around my head, and at any given time, may have a 3-4 designed for a particular campaign.

 

[Wik]

Okay. Refining the question, since there's sort of an echo here.

How do you go about defining gender roles in your setting, while keeping with the caveat that all players must still have fun? What areas are off-limits, and where are good starting grounds? Assume that it's a "soft" limit, meaning female PCs can cross those lines should they wish, but will stand out.

And, again, I'm not just talking females being excluded... what are some areas where men should not "be allowed"? Midwivery is an obvious example, but I'm thinking medicine in general might be kind of cool as a "women only" field.

I liked the idea of "no women on a ship", but since my campaign world is heavily aquatic, that might be a very bad idea, so I'll have to figure out a way to refine it, if I go with it at all.

What about having feats that are restricted to one gender? I'm not talking about, say, power attack, here. But maybe certain types of skill focus (only women could take Skill Focus: Heal, for example), or skill expansion feats. A PF Trait system that differentiates between the genders is another possibility.

FWIW, I'm debating the whole thing because, in my experience, the fact that there is no gender difference/bias in a campaign world is a huge blow to credibility in my mind - since it's something that our society STILL grapples with. To not have it there, yet have a setting where slavery can exist, there are serfs on the land, etc, just blows any credibility out of the water.