Gender, Settings, Mechanics, and Everything Else

[Pheonix0114]

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.

Um.....really? Could you explain more please?

I haven't allowed cross-gender role play because I know seeing my friend with a beard playing a female pc, or my friend that is a girl playing a male pc would constantly break my personal immersion. When I have to cross gender as a DM I can see that it begins to for my players as well. I've had wimpy male PCs in my games, I've had 20 STR at level 1 Female PCs, and I've also had NPCs like that. Just because I'd prefer to not have a male play a female character doesn't mean I have a psych issue.

I even gave it a try once, one of my good friends is homosexual and felt he could identify more with a female character than a male one, and even though he did a good job portraying the character, it was always his baritone voice speaking for the slight female wizard.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Um.....really? Could you explain more please?

Not speaking for S'mon- but noting he used the qualifier "most"- I related my PoV on this in post #29.

IME, the 2 types of GMs accounting for the bulk of those who banned or strongly discouraged cross-gender PCs had had extremely bad past experiences with players running cross-gender PCs in the past and guys who I know to be homophobes.

Only one cited an experience such as yours, namely, breaking the immersive experience.

But again, I have to wonder why that is more difficult to accept than Joe Gamer playing a sentient pile of rocks, a tinman, a walking plant or a host of other things that show up in D&D...much less the hobby as a whole.

(Do we need Phil Phoglio's "Special Shoes?")

 

[Pheonix0114]

Lol, its just how my imagination works I guess, though I admit I've never had a person play something that wasn't human or demi human.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Consider the psyche of the Elf. They aren't just humans with pointy ears- they live as much as 10x longer than we do. That fact alone is going to make them more alien than a member of the opposite sex.

Consider the Dwarf. They, too, live much longer than humans. In addition, they happily live in conditions that would drive most humans insane. Again, they are considerably more alien than another gender within our species.

Ditto the other typical D&D races.

 

[Pheonix0114]

A quick glance into a fantasy book shows that they aren't really portrayed as such. Characters like Drizzt Do'urden and Bruenor Battlehammer wouldn't be well loved if we couldn't identify with them. Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, etc. are all just human in personality with certain aspects of their personality exaggerated. And I'm a psych major that knows that men and women aren't that different really (personality wise), it is more the gender roles we place ourselves in that define us. Its just hearing a man's voice and having to think of a female character or vice versa stretches my brain to its limits. Maybe after I've been doing tabletop roleplaying for longer (hasn't quite been 2 years yet) that'll change.

 

[S'mon]

Not speaking for S'mon- but noting he used the qualifier "most"- I related my PoV on this in post #29.

IME, the 2 types of GMs accounting for the bulk of those who banned or strongly discouraged cross-gender PCs had had extremely bad past experiences with players running cross-gender PCs in the past and guys who I know to be homophobes.

Only one cited an experience such as yours, namely, breaking the immersive experience.

But again, I have to wonder why that is more difficult to accept than Joe Gamer playing a sentient pile of rocks, a tinman, a walking plant or a host of other things that show up in D&D...much less the hobby as a whole.

(Do we need Phil Phoglio's "Special Shoes?")

I agree with Danny. They - and I'm mostly talking about guys posting on the Internet, such as here (I've rarely if ever seen these GMs IRL) - normally say it 'squicks them out' and such. Dunno about 'homophobia' exactly, but I do think they're making an inappropriate connection between player and PC, between game-world and real-world.

I can certainly see how immersion-breaking would be an issue in a LARP - for that matter I can understand why a LARP GM wouldn't want tall people playing dwarves. But in a tabletop game? My male PCs don't look or sound like me either. If the GM is constantly projecting 'me' onto my PC, well that is not right. If I as a player can accept the male GM playing the elf princess, the GM can damn well accept me playing a female elf PC.

 

[S'mon]

Consider the psyche of the Elf. They aren't just humans with pointy ears- they live as much as 10x longer than we do. That fact alone is going to make them more alien than a member of the opposite sex.

Consider the Dwarf. They, too, live much longer than humans. In addition, they happily live in conditions that would drive most humans insane. Again, they are considerably more alien than another gender within our species.

Ditto the other typical D&D races.

Well, I think Tolkien's Dwarves & Hobbits display psychology very close to human, and I think that's how lots of players approach those races. His elves do seem more alien to me (moreso than his Orcs!), but D&D has a long tendency towards portraying them as humans with pointy ears.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think Tolkien's Dwarves & Hobbits display psychology very close to human

In what ways?

A preference for living underground? (Both.)
Isolationist tendencies so strong that adventurers are essentially outcasts? (Hobbits.)
Genders so similar in appearance and mannerisms as to be indistinguishable by others? (Dwarves.)

Certainly, JRRT humanized his races to make them more accessible to the reader. But, like many Sci-fi/fantasy races, the representatives of the races display far less variation than real humans. There is a lack of variety in elves; a sameness to most dwarves; a commonality to most hobbits you won't find in human cultures.

 

[delericho]

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.

There are 3 billion plus human women; there are no elves. Because of that, when a human player runs an elf character, there is no concept of "doing it wrong", it's all just about interpretation. But when a male player portrays a female character (or vice versa), this same is not true.

In my experience, cross-gender play has almost always been a disaster. Like the cross-gender play portrayed in "The Gamers 2", only worse. Much, much worse. That said, I'm not seeing the same issues in my current campaign - it may well be a maturity issue.

(It's much the same problem as the "universal roaming" mobile phone in Doctor Who, or the Macbook hacking the alien mothership in Independence Day. I have no problem with arcane and futuristic technology; I accept that as part of the genre. But I know these technologies, probably better than the writers, and I know they don't work like that, and that really causes problems.)

Also, since the DM plays ever other character in the world, isn't he/she inherently doing cross gender stuff anyways?

The difference is that the DM plays huge numbers of different characters, almost all very briefly. If the portrayal is off, it's probably a matter of minutes before it's done and forgotten. A bad cross-gender PC is a problem for the duration, which may be months of play.

 

[delericho]

How do you go about defining gender roles in your setting, while keeping with the caveat that all players must still have fun?

Same way I develop anything else about the campaign. I ask "who does what?" and "why?". The same applies when setting up a social heirarchy or caste system, religious and arcane social roles, government structures, and so on.

With every culture, I always try to drop in one or two obvious differences from the norm, and at least one mystery. (To quickly and easily protray the culture, and draw the players into the setting, respectively.) These are not necessarily to do with social roles, of course - perhaps one nation has a taboo against eating in public.

However, the base area will typically be fairly vanilla - in my experience players won't read large amounts of background material, so it's generally best to start with The Kingdom of Generica, and work outwards from there.

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.

Off-limits areas are anything that will make the players at the table uncomfortable, or that will require excessive explanation to a "likely onlooker". (So, for example, if we're playing in a public location, any sort of racial insult is simply barred. On the other hand, if we only ever play in private locations, that may not be the case.)

The two big no-nos are the two that have just had the new moderation policy put in place.

Likely starting areas are ownership of property, education levels, labour-intensive jobs, religious practice, military service and command, marriage rights (and the place of children born out of wedlock), inheritance, and so on.

What about having feats that are restricted to one gender?

Sort of. I have no problem with a particular deity accepting only women (or men) as priests. I also have no problem with organisations (and prestige classes tied to organisations) being limited to women.

I'm much less keen on 'generic' prestige classes being tied to a particular gender (the Mystic Theurge, for example). If these aren't tied to a "setting element", I don't think the rules should differentiate.

As regards feats, I don't like them being tied to gender. However, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be tied to a prestige class that is itself tied to gender. (I'm actually not a fan of tying feats to classes, but since that battle was lost even with the 3.0e PHB...)

Basically, I see feats as a 'trick' the character can learn. Therefore, unless it's simply impossible for the character to learn it, I don't think there should be a restriction. (Skill Focus: Heal is a good example. While it may be very rare for a male character to learn it, should it really be literally impossible? I don't think so. YMMV, of course. And yes, that means that in the one-in-a-million exception case, I do believe a human should probably be able to learn an elf-only feat if they can somehow get the training required.)