Gender, Settings, Mechanics, and Everything Else

[Balsamic Dragon]

Playing around with gender roles (and the resulting mechanics) in a game setting is fine, as long as you remember the number one goal of the game is to have fun. I could see having fun playing a ground-breaking woman in society, doing things that women had not previously done. I could see having fun playing a woman who had to disguise herself as a man in order to join a particular group or profession. What would not be fun for me is a general fiat by the GM that "women can't do that in my world." It would also not be fun for me if women were generally treated poorly, as opposed to simply having designated gender roles in certain parts of society.

As far as the whole physical strength thing, it depends entirely on how important physical strength is to the game. If it is very important, such as in most super hero games and most fantasy games, then I think the system should assume that a female character can be as physically strong as a male character (see the "fun" rule above). If it is a computer hacking game or something like that, where physical strength isn't really going to come into play very often, then who cares. But in that case, physical strength is unlikely to be an stat on the character sheet anyway.

Note also that we are only talking about characters here, and not players. Players can play characters of different genders if they like, but they shouldn't feel forced to because of the rules. (We won't mention my Sailor Moon game where I made all the guys play Japanese high school girls, ... ahem!)

 

[BriarMonkey]

I don't use gender differences for PCs. I see no point as the PCs are "special" anyway.

In the background, I tend to let stereotypcial norms run though with regards to roles. So with a fantasy setting, you will most likely find the men in the labor intensive jobs, and women in the others. I can't say that I've really thought about that, and it has never come up in play. (That's not to say you won't find female blacksmiths and male cooks though.)

But, I don't have any differences in mechanics for the background, or NPC, folks either. It is just flat out cumbersome and I feel it doesn't add anything to the campaign environment.

<shrug>

 

[ExploderWizard]

The whole issue needs to be defined in relation to the game at hand. With regard to mechanics, are the rules of the game attempting to be simulationist or more abstract? D&D and other heroic fantasy games lean more toward the abstract and attempts to shoehorn in gender based simulationist mechanics makes as little sense as any other type of simulationism.

If the basic rules of the game are more simulationist then it would seem like gender based mechanics would be more acceptable so long they fit with the rest of the game. For example,why lower the average strength for female characters if basic physics are ignored in the rest of the design?

No matter what type of mechanics are involved, gender differences can be fun to play with as a cultural tool. Having parts of society only open to either men or women can make gender choice as important as any other during character creation even if there are no mechanical differences in play. The options available should be balanced and not favor one sex over another for the same reason that creating a race that is superior to all others and that every player would be stupid not to choose is a bad design decision.

 

[S'mon]

Players can play characters of different genders if they like, but they shouldn't feel forced to because of the rules. (We won't mention my Sailor Moon game where I made all the guys play Japanese high school girls, ... ahem!)

If you're GMing a Japanese High School game or a Combat Soldiers in WW2 game, it's ok to require that all the PCs are of the appropriate sex, age, race & species. Obviously this may require cross-gender play. This is one reason why those "No Cross Gender Play!" GMs suck, IMO.

I think though that for a typical D&D campaign, it should be possible for PCs to be of either gender, there should be no mechanical penalties for gender choice, and any societal sex-role distinctions* should usually have little or no impact on the PCs, who should be treated as exceptional.

*In the 'home' culture of the PCs. It doesn't matter so much if the Hobgoblins don't allow female warriors, if the PCs are mostly killing hobgoblins & taking their stuff. Likewise it doesn't matter so much if a faraway human culture keeps their womenfolk cloistered, as long as it's not the setting for long-term play.

ALL IMHO, YMMV.

 

[Umbran]

But it raised a question, one that'd been on the backburners of my head for a while. Namely, what role should gender play in a fantasy campaign? And what role should it play in the mechanics of an RPG?

Those are, I should mention, two entirely different questions.

Different, but linked.

Take, for example, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series - men who use magic go violently mad, which means women have a very specific role to play in society. The societal and mechanical issues go hand-in-hand.

I think that gender can play a role in a fantasy campaign just like it does in fiction - some want to play strongly on the topic, others do not.

I think mechanical impact should be very carefully chosen to support the setting conceits. If you are playing Wheel of Time, you ought to have a mechanic for how men with the power go off the rails. But, I'm not a big fan of small, generic mechanical modifications for gender (like a +2 or -2 to a stat to support how one gender is marginally better or worse at some functions). Make it a major point, or take it to be a purely societal issue not supported by physical reality.

 

[delericho]

Is it alright to have a setting where women (or men!) are relegated to secondary social status? What about having a setting where women (or men) are the only gender allowed in certain positions - leadership, for example, or religious functions?

Well, I don't believe that the setting should really be a single, homogenous place. There should be various races, nations and organisations, each with their own cultural norms and traditions.

And I feel it's entirely reasonable for a given race/nation/organisation to have differentiated gender roles.

However, I don't think it would be reasonable for the main (or only) culture in the setting to maintain and enforce such roles, except perhaps in a very short-term campaign. It's really not fair for the players of female characters (or, indeed, female players regardless of their character) to have to deal with endless sexism in what is supposed to be a pasttime, just because "that's the way the setting's built."

(I don't excuse problem players who are "just playing my character". They created the character, and so they chose the problem behaviours; I expect them to choose otherwise, or play a different character. Likewise, if the DM encodes heavy sexism into his setting, saying "I'm just running my setting" is a poor excuse.

I suppose that's the key thing right there: if the societies are sexist but the DM is not, that's probably fine. But if the DM is sexist, but using the game as a means to work out that sexism, that's the problem. I'm not sure quite where the dividing line lies, but I bet I'd know it when I saw it.)

My preference, FWIW, is for the baseline setting to take a "Battlestar Galactica" approach to things: not only are there no fixed gender roles, but this isn't even remarked on by the characters. Of course a woman can be president/a fighter pilot/whatever! Of course a man can be a nurse/teacher/house-husband/whatever! But it is just that, a preference.

As for mechanics, same question. Is it alright to have mechanics that differentiate between the genders?

For human characters, I'm going to say "no".

The thing is, in 3e/4e/PF, stat modifiers really need to be +/-2 to be meaningful. But that's a relatively massive shift. The differences in strength between the genders are comparitively small.

Consider this: men are stronger on average than women. But this is in large part because men are also taller and heavier than women on average. So, what happens if a player decides his human male will have an 18 Str, but that he will also assign him the lowest allowed height and weight values? Are you going to allow that, despite it being unrealistic? Or hit him with a penalty? If so, what penalty?

It just opens up a huge can of worms, IMO. I'd much rather just leave it in the hands of the player: if he wishes his female fighter to be weaker than an equivalent male, he can choose to assign a lower strength. But if he wishes his female fighter to have maximum strength, well, she must just be an exception. No big deal.

Things get a bit different when dealing with non-human characters. Obviously, there could be some species where the differences between the sexes are much more pronounced. (The bug-women in "Perdido Street Station" spring to mind.) However, for all of the PC races given in the PHB (all versions), I would imagine that this does not apply.

 

[delericho]

If you're GMing a Japanese High School game or a Combat Soldiers in WW2 game, it's ok to require that all the PCs are of the appropriate sex, age, race & species. Obviously this may require cross-gender play. This is one reason why those "No Cross Gender Play!" GMs suck, IMO.

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.

 

[Jack7]

There is no difference between women and men
As anyone who is one will know
They're quite interchangeable in all of their bits
No matter wherever you go,
And as for thinking and acting and such
Why they're close as two peas in a pod
Their outlook's the same wherever you range
The ancient as well as the mod,
So if anyone asks or takes me to task
I always give this evidence -
See the boys are the girls and the girls are the boys
Why that's only the commonest sense.

 

[S'mon]

But, I'm not a big fan of small, generic mechanical modifications for gender (like a +2 or -2 to a stat to support how one gender is marginally better or worse at some functions). Make it a major point, or take it to be a purely societal issue not supported by physical reality.

In a fairly simulationist game like 3e D&D, I'll give typical human males average STR 10-11, typical human females average STR 6-7, which roughly corresponds to IRL differences in most of what the STR stat models. I'll typically give the human males more hp too, as with 1e's stats for 0-level humans. Having gone through Army training in a mixed-sex unit, I have zero belief in claims that human average strength & resistance to direct damage don't vary by sex. I'll also cap mundane human female NPC STR at 16, as opposed to 18 for males, and while I've often played human female Fighters in 3e I don't give my PCs an initial STR higher than 16. I've spoken with female players of warrior PCs in 3e and IME they do the same, in the interests of credibility they keep their PC's mundane STR to 16. Note that this is NOT THE SAME as a PC stat penalty - points not spent on getting STR 18 are freed up to be spent on other stats. And as DM I've never forced a player to limit their female PC's STR score.

In less simulationist games like 4e, this does not come up - I don't stat out NPC commoners, I haven't played a female warrior in 4e yet but I would discourage players from not assigning a STR 20 to their female Fighter PC out of realism concerns; unlike in 3e I feel this would be a disbenefit to the PC with no real benefit in versimilitude.

Incidentally my Savage Worlds PC is an ordinary size & build human female, again I gave her d4 STR - 'low' in SW terms, the 'average' stat is d6. STR seems to have little effect in SW though, there are no recoil rules in SW and I can fire my Desert Eagle handgun just fine.

 

[S'mon]

Consider this: men are stronger on average than women. But this is in large part because men are also taller and heavier than women on average. So, what happens if a player decides his human male will have an 18 Str, but that he will also assign him the lowest allowed height and weight values? Are you going to allow that, despite it being unrealistic? Or hit him with a penalty? If so, what penalty?
.

For 3e I have a house rule that humans, dwarves, half-orcs & similar have a minimum weight of 10lb per point of STR - realistically human females would have a very slightly higher minimum weight per point of STR than human males, but it's not enough to worry about. When I play a human female Fighter of STR 16, she's a strapping lass of 160 lb+, like the Barbarian in the 2nd D&D movie.

For 4e I treat the stats as a dissociated mechanic & don't worry about it.