Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cor Azer" data-source="post: 5637630" data-attributes="member: 870">I guess I can see what you're saying here, but given the shared source of most of our "elf" knowledge (at least insofar as D&D is concerned), there is plenty to hang a concept on such that one person's interpretation is another's "doing it wrong".And unless a person knows all the 3 billion women, I have a hard time accepting that they can say someone is "doing it wrong" - as long as the player is putting in a good faith effort.I've never seen The Gamers 2, so I don't get the reference, but I do fully accept that cross gender play can be a complete and utter disaster. That's why I use the caveat of "good faith effort".I do think it's a maturity issue. It loops back onto my "good faith effort" - mature players are more likely to put in good faith efforts, in my experience.While I can certainly appreciate the issues with those things ("It doesn't work that way!"), I don't think it's quite the same thing. For one, those are technical problems and factually based. Whereas, for example, your experience may be that women don't do certain things that a player wants to do, it may not be a fact that they can't, in which case, it comes down to the good faith effort.I can see that. In my experience, (or at least, when I run a game), such short term NPCs don't really get any sort of portrayal at all (if it doesn't seem relevant, the shopkeep doesn't get any more detail than "it's a shopkeep"). It's a bit insane on my part, but every NPC that might become plot relevant (including side plots and hooks) gets some sort of development in my mind, and most get a note or two in my logs. Even if the plot relevance isn't going to occur for ages.So, in my case, yes, female NPCs can be just as long term as PCs.</blockquote>

Verification