male playing female PC

[Mark]

I think that's what Diaglo was saying....


Hong "explaining teh joek AGAIN; -200,000 pts (repeat offender)" Ooi

I'll take your word for it...

...whacks Hong with a stick...

 

[bret]

I do not doubt that there are some excellent roleplayers out there who are able to roleplay cross-gender characters nearly effortlessly. Still, unless you know that somebody is such a great roleplayer it is safer to discourage cross-gender gaming lest it spoil your campaign until you get to know their roleplaying abilities better.

What is wrong with someone who has to work at it to roleplay? You make it sound as if you have to be a Nth level roleplayer before you're allowed the cross-gender playing feat.

I don't know about you, but I learn a lot from experimenting with new ideas. Try them out, see what works. You'll have some failures, but that just allows you to adapt. Provided you learn from the experience (keep making new errors), no problem.

Just because a person might have trouble with a particular character concept is no reason not to allow them to try it. There are several good reasons to forbid cross-gender roleplay, but I don't think that should be one of them. Immaturity, most definately. Lack of a character concept, usually. The character concept is a spiteful parody or hateful stereotype against another player, most definately. The character would be considered insulting by another player in the group, probably want to advise against it.


People shouldn't have to become a paragon of roleplaying before they are allowed to try new character concepts.

 

[fusangite]

Until I read last night's posts, it hadn't really dawned on me that anyone was taking the position that I, as a DM, didn't have the right to prohibit certain character types. Obviously, only a tiny minority of those who disagree with my position hold this view but I am nonetheless amazed that anyone out there thinks this way. I also prohibit Monks because they, like men playing women, harm suspension of disbelief in a medieval fantasy environment, in my experience.

I'm also fascinated by people's comments about Vancouver, the city with the second- or third-most drag queens per capita in North America and the densest geographic concentration of homosexuals on the continent. I'd suggest that people head back to the drawing board to explain the geographic coincidence of so many GMs who prohibit men playing women. If anything about our city is a factor in our work, I think it's probably the maxim put forward by Teflon Billy: "Men can't play women; they can only play female impersonators."

One final thought on the gender subject: since 1990, every single game I have GMed has had at least one female player. Maybe this has something to do with the high standards I have for the portrayal of female characters.

Here's a related question that may assist me in understanding the position of those of you who disagree with me: I recently ended a campaign early that was set in the modern period in part because I became dissatisfied with my portrayal of NPCs who were North American aboriginal people. For those of you who have run or played in campaigns in the modern period, have there been members ethnic or other minorities that you have felt unable to represent in an effective three-dimensional way?

 

[seasong]

Since this is turning into a coming out party (and I think the original poster has found his question more than adequately answered by now), here's the IMC for seasong:

I've had 50/50 male/female ratios in my groups since roughly 1987 (high school). I've had a LOT of different groups - when I went to college, I had to rebuild my core group about every year, and when I moved to Austin, I've had to rebuild my core group about every 2 years. That turnover is due to people moving, for the most part - I associate with a fairly mobile bunch (my current group includes someone from each of Ohio, New York, Mississippi, Louisiana and me).

Just counting off names in my head, I've had about 40 people in my core group over the last 15+ years. Of those, about half or more can do a pretty good gender bending, and the other half are not so bad that I can't occasionally allow it (although if they were going to want to do it more often, I would definitely sign them up for some solo sessions for training).

Almost all of them can do a pretty good job with other cultures, mindsets, etc. The problems they have with gender bending are mostly mental blocks (I'm not a psychologist, so unlike the many psychologists on these boards, I will not be guessing as to WHY those mental blocks are in place).

Now, when I say "pretty good gender bending", keep in mind that my groups are about half female, and have been for over a decade and a half. That opinion is based on both my own astute observations of human nature* and the observations made to me by the members of the appropriate gender in the group. I think we have a reasonable definition of "pretty good".

So that's my experience. There are some mitigating factors, of course - I cherry pick my players (where most groups seem to be more ad hoc), I encourage them to improve and offer advice (where many groups just wait for you to improve yourself), and I'm an uncommonly good GM*. All of these factors alter the probabilities, so my group is likely NOT statistically significant.

But, it does make a good extreme counter example .

* Two of the above statements may seem rather, well, not humble. That's because they aren't.

 

[diaglo]

You misinterpret what I ask. It's my conjecture that a player is just as capable of playing any character that the DM can play. You need to lose your adversarial attittude (i.e. player vs. DM) or you are bound to ruin many games.

for once i agree with hong.

i was agreeing with you.

but with all of the posts in between. i felt it necessary to quote you, to give you credit for posting my thoughts.

 

[alsih2o]

I'm also fascinated by people's comments about Vancouver, the city with the second- or third-most drag queens per capita in North America and the densest geographic concentration of homosexuals on the continent.

you miight wanna check your stats on this one. i know for years columbus ohio held this distinction.

columbus had: the largest all gay softball league in the world
the biggets gay chorus per capita
more gay bars per capita than even san francisco
"pink pages" a gay version of the yellow pages, was bigger than any other city on earth.

heck, at one point while i was living there a "summit" was held and members of san franciscos gay community showed up to learn how to deal with problems from the stronger col.s gay community.

if you ever get the chance, the columbus ohio gay chorus rocks! some great nights of entertainment there, and thew after parties ROCK!

 

[Mark]

for once i agree with hong.

i was agreeing with you.

but with all of the posts in between. i felt it necessary to quote you, to give you credit for posting my thoughts.

Hmm... Can't seem to read anything right lately. When you didn't begin with a statement of agreement, I guess I assumed you quoted me to disagree. Please accept my apologies.

...whacks Hong with stick...again...

 

[Al]

Here we go again...

Like fusangite and Teflon Billy, I fear that I am one of the veterans from the original cross-gender thread (hong was probably there too, but then hong gets everywhere ). Unlike fusangite and TB, however, I put the case for cross-gendering.

The first notion is the idea of burden of proof. For a DM to explicitly ban a player from playing an entire gender's worth of characters (i.e. half of all characters) there has to be a series of very good reasons to do so. I'm from the liberal school of DMing- if there isn't a good reason to ban something, then don't.

So fusangite has set out his shop, and I believe that he has best articulated the core arguments of the DMs who are opposed to cross-gender roleplay (apologies to Kahuna Burger, TB et al.) Unfortunately, whilst articulate, they fail (IMO) to bear up to serious scrutiny.

1. The Race Analogy: The idea of a human being playing an elf or dwarf being analogous to a male playing a female is absurd. That's because there is no living model of a fully 3-dimensional dwarf or elf character. Perhaps if there really were elves and dwarves in the world, people's reactions to humans playing them might be similar to the general reaction to men playing women ie. "Oh my God, this guy doesn't have a clue about real elves. The elves I know aren't anything like that. I don't think he has the slightest clue about elven motivation and thought patterns."

This was the source of great contention. Nevertheless, I am (and was) happy to admit that the core premise (elves don't exist) was correct. However, it does not accurately translate into an argument about cross-gender roleplay. Women are not monolithic in their personalities or psychologies, and neither are men. There exist men with personalities much closer to canon 'females' and vice versa. The Keirsey-Meyer Temperament Sorter marked a paradigmatic difference in general between men and women, with men tending towards the 'T' component and women towards the 'F'. Yet this does not preclude men from tending towards 'F' or women towards 'T'.

Obviously, there's no problem with female players playing male characters.

...which leads me on to this. This is an unjustifiable comment. Again, it is derived from a monolithic assumption of psychology. Whilst, *in general* men are, granted, less adaptable and empathic than women, it is perfectly possible for the converse to be true.

2. Easily Adapted Classes: If men are to consider playing women, I'd suggest looking for character types based on attributes that men and women use similarly. I would suggest that, for instance, playing a female Fighter, Paladin or Barbarian would be a lot easier for most men than playing a female Rogue, Sorceror or Bard. This is because, in many ways, playing a melee combat-focused woman doesn't really involve changing gender but rather sex. Generally, the women who are attracted to such roles are going to have more in common psychologically (and even physically) with men than women in more socially-based roles. Other character types I think men will have an easier time playing female characters in are Monks -- an ascetic role is often about complete denial/transcendence of sexuality

This assumes a monolithic personality common to all members of a class. There is no reason why a sorceress need not have a 'masculine' personality- sorcery is a natural talent which can come to any female; conversely, paladinhood is a religious vocation which can be undertaken by any women (and indeed, in the caring professions as would tend to be epitomised by paladins, there is a greater concentration of women than men).

3. Stay Away From Sex: If you're going to play a female character, try to stay away from romance and sex. Consciously or not, when you do this, you're using the game to work out your own psychological issues around inter-gender relations. More importantly, by engaging in quasi-masturbatory role playing, you're spoiling the game for your fellow players. Unless of course your fellow players don't mind or are right in there with you in which case I suggest that therapy may be a better use of your weekly gaming time.

Why? Gender is emphatically not equivalent to sexuality. Even those against cross-gender roleplay do not see any problem with a heterosexual man roleplaying a homosexual one. If sexuality is the fundamental underpinning objection, then it is incredulous to object to cross-gender roleplay but not cross-sexuality roleplay.

4. Game With Someone Female: I recommend strongly against men playing female characters in games where there are no female players or GM. Female players are going to be the first people to notice you failing to play a truly female character and can provide you with advice and correction if your character seems to be heading off-track. Also, by having an actual model of female behaviour present the whole time you're playing, you can have constant inspiration on which to base your gaming.

As with his first point, fusangite works from the assumption that all members of one gender have a monolithic personality and psychological composition. Were this true, this advice would be sound. However, the assumption is false. There are females with a much more 'masculine' outlook and personality who would actually find it more difficult to empathise with a 'feminine' female than a 'masculine' male.

5. Dice-Based Interactions: If you don't follow my advice and choose to build a socially-focused female character or you have a non-socially-focused character who finds themselves unavoidably entangled in a social situation, resort more readily to dice-rolling rather than playing-out interactions. Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information and other social skill rolls should be substituted for "acting like a woman" whenever possible. This isn't to suggest you should never roleplay but the processes by which women persuade men or other women of things are amongst the hardest female actions for men to comprehend and therefore play out.

This is sound advice, but then this could be argued for any concept. Dice-based interaction is always 'safer' and 'easier' than roleplayed interaction, regardless of gender, sexuality, race, class, alignment or any other such considerations. However, if the group generally prefers roleplayed interaction for 'regular' roleplay, there is no reason why it should not condone it for cross-gender roleplay.

6. Be Old: In my experience, it is easier to play middle aged or old women than it is to play women of reproductive age. Men and women become more chemically similar as they age and thus behaviourally converge to some degree. Furthermore, the "crone" role is one of the easiest roles to adopt because it is a fairly monolithic, simple archetype in literature and myth. The fantasy genre also has disproportionately more roles for older women versus younger women, thus making it easier to fit in to the literary genre. I'd recommend that if you choose to play a female spellcaster, you should select a character over 45.

I can't argue with this- it's true. However, it should again be at the discretion of the player, and again fails to identify the notion of the 'feminine' male and 'masculine' female.

In conclusion: fusangite comes from a different set of parameters to me. His canon assumption is that all members of one gender are highly similar in personality and tha no member of (the male) gender can empathise with the other. I approach from a more flexible (and accurate) set of parameters, being that personalities can vary widely amongst the genders, and that someone who is ostensibly male can be psychologically closer to a female, or vice versa. If fusangite's core assumption were to be correct, his arguments would be solid and profound. Unfortunately, his starting-point is inaccurate so wherever he proceeds from there is bound to be flawed. Not all men are the same; not all women are the same. There is no reason to ban cross-gender roleplay.

 

[seasong]

Until I read last night's posts, it hadn't really dawned on me that anyone was taking the position that I, as a DM, didn't have the right to prohibit certain character types.

I don't think you need to defend yourself against those views, however. When I was very young, I used to allow players to build whatever whacked-out character concept they had, and prided myself on being able to bring them into the story anyway. I was very good at it, and very impressed with myself.

However, after proving I could do it, I found that it was better not to. The story improves immensely when it is allowed to focus itself, and while I can do a good story without restrictions, I can do a BETTER one with restrictions.

I'm also fascinated by people's comments about Vancouver, the city with the second- or third-most drag queens per capita in North America and the densest geographic concentration of homosexuals on the continent.

Just morbid curiousity, really, but is that including San Francisco and whatever that Boston women's college is?

the maxim put forward by Teflon Billy: "Men can't play women; they can only play female impersonators."

Hahahahahaha! Of course, you forgot the correllary to that: "Gamers can't play warriors; they can only play warrior impersonators."

I mean, really, Teflon Billy's a good guy, but sometimes he's a bit inflammatory. The above is why it's called ROLEPLAYING and not POLYMORPH SELF.

One final thought on the gender subject: since 1990, every single game I have GMed has had at least one female player. Maybe this has something to do with the high standards I have for the portrayal of female characters.

There are other, more powerful factors involved. More likely, you treat them like human beings and cater to their preferences as roleplayers.

 

[Gez]

"Men can't play women; they can only play female impersonators."

Men can't play men, they can only play male impersonator.

When you are, say, a computer-scientist student and play an illiterate superstitious viking barbarian, or an acrobatic street urchin rogue, you can't play said character. You can only try to impersonate him.

And that is the definition of playing a role, right ?

Mmh...

I must also say that I like playing small people -- gnome, halfling, things like that. I'm myself rather tall. I guess I'm a cross-size player as well.

I also like to play fantasy characters -- characters that have been reared in a world where they can see dragons fly in the sky, hear the words of gods in their dream, catch glimpses of nymphs dancing in the wood, and be told and demonstrated the power of mysterious plants that may only be harvested in moonlight. I guess I'm a cross-universe impersonator.


If we take the logic to its extreme, people should only be able to play themselves -- so I could only play a lazy French computer science student who spend too much time chatting with other nerds on the Internet. Great. That's not my idea of fun -- and that's also why I dislike LARPs. I don't want to play myself.