male playing female PC
- Thread starter lokiqc
- Start date
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
I hate to say it, but I watched The Tuxedo the other night only because I'm a Jackie Chan completist, and you know, Jennifer Love was pretty funny, actually.fusangite said:
Like, she was funny.
I've only ever thought of her as annoying, but no, there she was, being funny.
Weird.
Tsyr wrote to complain that people had not responded to his point so I went back and reviewed his original message
No. I would not object at all. I would not say you were "wrong." I might, however, deduce that our respective games are drawing from very different communities of people. I might conclude, based on my woefully incomplete and limited understanding of psychology and sociology, that the community from which you draw players is more removed from the social mainstream than the community from which I draw players. But even if I came to such a conclusion, it would be a value-neutral conclusion; after all, why should we be trying to draw players from the social mainstream?
You certainly know your community better than I do and are in a far better position to make house rules based on the tendencies you have observed. However, obviously making a house rule the reverse of mine would have more repercussions for your campaign world -- it would need to be less typical of medieval high fantasy because it would be a shame for female players to have a narrower range of possible classes or races than male players would. However, if your campaign setting doesn't have a more restrictive social code for women than men, more power to you I say!
Probably not. The fantasy genre has a lot more male heroes than female heroes; therefore, I would really need to have a case made that this was psychological and not simply conformity to genre expectations.
Well, that restatement of my argument is a little excessively reductive. Still, I stand by the general idea that on average, women's motivations are more complex than men's. However, I prefer Kahuna Burger's explanation as the primary explanation of why white straight men are easier to role play than other people.
Anyway, Tsyr, my apologies for losing your post in the deluge and failing to respond.
Tsyr said:
No. I would not object at all. I would not say you were "wrong." I might, however, deduce that our respective games are drawing from very different communities of people. I might conclude, based on my woefully incomplete and limited understanding of psychology and sociology, that the community from which you draw players is more removed from the social mainstream than the community from which I draw players. But even if I came to such a conclusion, it would be a value-neutral conclusion; after all, why should we be trying to draw players from the social mainstream?
You certainly know your community better than I do and are in a far better position to make house rules based on the tendencies you have observed. However, obviously making a house rule the reverse of mine would have more repercussions for your campaign world -- it would need to be less typical of medieval high fantasy because it would be a shame for female players to have a narrower range of possible classes or races than male players would. However, if your campaign setting doesn't have a more restrictive social code for women than men, more power to you I say!
Probably not. The fantasy genre has a lot more male heroes than female heroes; therefore, I would really need to have a case made that this was psychological and not simply conformity to genre expectations.
Well, that restatement of my argument is a little excessively reductive. Still, I stand by the general idea that on average, women's motivations are more complex than men's. However, I prefer Kahuna Burger's explanation as the primary explanation of why white straight men are easier to role play than other people.
Anyway, Tsyr, my apologies for losing your post in the deluge and failing to respond.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Ah, Irony, truly it has died.
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
No, wait, it moved!Plane Sailing said:
BLAM!
There. That did the trick.
Andrew D. Gable
First Post
I play females a lot in MMORPGs, but only because then you're more likely to be given free stuff. 
Kahuna Burger
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Re: What's wrong with that?
As a huge sci fi fantasy fan, I can think of exactly ONE example of a female character explicitly offering sexual favors to a man because he was going to save her. They were denied. The two leads falling into each others arms in mutual passion after a high anxiety situation is not the same thing. Give me examples from each of those genres of one character saving another and having sexual favors explicitly OFFERED as a thank you present.
Oh and bond is porn with its clothes on.
The same way they end - badly. And mutual attraction/romance is again not even vaugly what was proposed here. If you can't tell the difference... what can I say?
Kahuna Burger
Bagpuss said:
As a huge sci fi fantasy fan, I can think of exactly ONE example of a female character explicitly offering sexual favors to a man because he was going to save her. They were denied. The two leads falling into each others arms in mutual passion after a high anxiety situation is not the same thing. Give me examples from each of those genres of one character saving another and having sexual favors explicitly OFFERED as a thank you present.
Oh and bond is porn with its clothes on.
The same way they end - badly. And mutual attraction/romance is again not even vaugly what was proposed here. If you can't tell the difference... what can I say?
Kahuna Burger
Guilt Puppy
First Post
fusangite said:
Out of curiosity: What makes you think that his case is more removed from the social mainstream, and not the other way around? Is this relying on the assumption that "normal men" are simpler than "normal women," or merely a suggestion that his male players were part of social groups with more feminine identities, or something along those lines?
(In either case, the notion of a "social mainstream" is highly illusory, and differs depending on which social minority has constructed its image.)
First: You've referenced the distinction between gender and sex, so I'm wondering which you're referring to there. Are masculine people simpler than feminine people, or are people with ding-dongs simpler than people with hoo-hoos? If the former, then what is your position on highly feminine males (or even cross-dressers!) or highly masculine females (or even cross-dressers!) playing female characters? Also, what about people who don't have a well-established gender identity? Is this level too microscopic for that generalization to apply? If so, why do you use it to justify restrictions on such the equally microscopic level of character selection?
(Note that I have no disagreement with your basic premise: You've had bad experiences with men trying to play women, so you don't allow it. I have no intention of changing how you run things, I just find some flaws in the less subjective arguments you're presenting in favor of that method.)
Second: You make the point that it's not hard for a complex person to play a simpler person, but that it's hard to do things the other way around. Referencing Kahuna's point, in a way, would you agree that the motivations of fictional characters are inherently more simple than those of real people, such as players? If so, would you still say that the average fictional woman's personality is more complex than that of the average real man?
Also, not in response to that point specifically, but the "I'm not an elf but I can play one" issue has come up repeatedly, to the response that there is no living example so it can't be played "wrong" in the same way. What I'm wondering is, what about other examples where there are analagous groups between fiction and real-life? For instance, if Half-Orcs are treated like second-class citizens in your campaign, would you allow a white person to play them? Alternately, would you allow a black person who grew up in a prejudiced area to play a white person? (I don't want to bait you into saying anything offensive -- although you have done it already
-- so let's assume that, through some eldritch magic, racial sensitivities are not an issue in this hypothetical case. And if you don't feel this example warrants its own response, feel free to ignore it, because I don't want to see this discussion get misdirected.)Count me among those that don’t allow cross gender characters, mainly for the reasons stated by Teflon Billy and fusginite have already stated. In my case, call it a few bad apples spoiling the bunch. If a few people behaving badly is usually seen by the masses as an acceptable reason to ban lots of things (pornography, firearms, drugs, fireworks, cars without seatbelts, etc.) in real life, the application of the same logic in this case shouldn’t be as big of a surprise as it is to some of you. Granted, a male playing a female character isn’t likely to kill or maim anyone – like say a .32 might – but you get the general idea. You don’t have to know someone who has been the victim of bad behavior, or witnessed it, to know that it goes on. I have seen it, both firearms and gender crossing D&D, and it wasn’t pretty in either case.
Simply put, it is a headache I don’t need. It is a headache my players (male and female) have expressed they don’t want. So, for the common good of my game, I don’t allow it. It is only fair. I do have to say, however, the “I wouldn’t play if I can’t play the opposite sex” argument just strikes me as a tad immature. It’s kind of like saying “I won’t play Monopoly unless I get to be the thimble,” or “I won’t play Trivial Pursuit, unless I get to be the blue pie.” My 6 year-old used to say things like that when we played Candyland. Suffice it to say, we didn’t play Candyland for a while, until she learned to behave better. I did the same thing when I was a child, so I guess the whole Bill Cosby routine about what you did as a child coming back to haunt you is truer than I wanted to believe.
As far as the caveat of: “but what if they are mature, responsible people that have demonstrated that they can play cross-gender roles?”, try this scenario. How would you feel if you were new to a group and didn’t get to play a female character, while others did, and the reason you got for this situation from your new DM was: “You haven’t demonstrated to me that you can role-play a female (or male)?” I don’t know about you, but I would feel pretty insulted by that.
In addition, the issue of what sex a character has only really has importance if sexuality plays a part in your game. It doesn’t in mine. My dragons don’t care if you are a male or female, they are equal opportunity eaters. Anyone trying to explore their sexuality through my game, is likely to receive a response something along the lines of “The Diamond Cabaret is just across the river, head over there if that is what you are looking for. We’re here to play a game.”
(Homer Simpson: “I would like a ticket to St. Louis”
Attendant: “Don’t you mean East St. Louis?”
Homer: “Is there any other?”
Sorry, that scene from the Simpsons just popped into my head)
As far, as the whole “but gender forms the basis of thought” argument, I say it your character, you can have it behave anyway you want it too. Who cares about real life tendencies (real or imagined)? The fact that your character is male or female is as irrelevant to the rules of a D&D game as is your character’s hair color. No extra feats. No extra skill points to spend. No ability modifiers (at least not since 1E). Apply whatever personality characteristics to your character, as you want. Want your character to give birth to a child? Get yourself a wish spell if you are male and it is that important to you. Although, after watching someone go through labor, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone who didn’t really want to go through it.
Just in case anyone might interpret that last paragraph as reason to not to ban, think again. It doesn’t justify you playing a gender-opposite it my game. It is a statement about exploring character concepts without using the gender crutch. Remember, just because most people don’t blow their fingers off with firecrackers, doesn’t convince me that it is a good idea to just hand them out to people willy-nilly.
Lokigc, although I believe you have already made up your mind on this subject, if you want to ban cross-gender characters, then ban them. It doesn’t make you close-minded, homophobic, or imply that you have unresolved issues about your mother. Neither does playing cross gender roles make you open-minded, comfortable with your sexuality, or mean that you love your mother. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. On the flip side, if you are ok with it, then have at.
Nobody is going to come take your D&D manuals in either case.
Simply put, it is a headache I don’t need. It is a headache my players (male and female) have expressed they don’t want. So, for the common good of my game, I don’t allow it. It is only fair. I do have to say, however, the “I wouldn’t play if I can’t play the opposite sex” argument just strikes me as a tad immature. It’s kind of like saying “I won’t play Monopoly unless I get to be the thimble,” or “I won’t play Trivial Pursuit, unless I get to be the blue pie.” My 6 year-old used to say things like that when we played Candyland. Suffice it to say, we didn’t play Candyland for a while, until she learned to behave better. I did the same thing when I was a child, so I guess the whole Bill Cosby routine about what you did as a child coming back to haunt you is truer than I wanted to believe.
As far as the caveat of: “but what if they are mature, responsible people that have demonstrated that they can play cross-gender roles?”, try this scenario. How would you feel if you were new to a group and didn’t get to play a female character, while others did, and the reason you got for this situation from your new DM was: “You haven’t demonstrated to me that you can role-play a female (or male)?” I don’t know about you, but I would feel pretty insulted by that.
In addition, the issue of what sex a character has only really has importance if sexuality plays a part in your game. It doesn’t in mine. My dragons don’t care if you are a male or female, they are equal opportunity eaters. Anyone trying to explore their sexuality through my game, is likely to receive a response something along the lines of “The Diamond Cabaret is just across the river, head over there if that is what you are looking for. We’re here to play a game.”
(Homer Simpson: “I would like a ticket to St. Louis”
Attendant: “Don’t you mean East St. Louis?”
Homer: “Is there any other?”
Sorry, that scene from the Simpsons just popped into my head)
As far, as the whole “but gender forms the basis of thought” argument, I say it your character, you can have it behave anyway you want it too. Who cares about real life tendencies (real or imagined)? The fact that your character is male or female is as irrelevant to the rules of a D&D game as is your character’s hair color. No extra feats. No extra skill points to spend. No ability modifiers (at least not since 1E). Apply whatever personality characteristics to your character, as you want. Want your character to give birth to a child? Get yourself a wish spell if you are male and it is that important to you. Although, after watching someone go through labor, I wouldn’t wish that on anyone who didn’t really want to go through it
.Just in case anyone might interpret that last paragraph as reason to not to ban, think again. It doesn’t justify you playing a gender-opposite it my game. It is a statement about exploring character concepts without using the gender crutch. Remember, just because most people don’t blow their fingers off with firecrackers, doesn’t convince me that it is a good idea to just hand them out to people willy-nilly.
Lokigc, although I believe you have already made up your mind on this subject, if you want to ban cross-gender characters, then ban them. It doesn’t make you close-minded, homophobic, or imply that you have unresolved issues about your mother. Neither does playing cross gender roles make you open-minded, comfortable with your sexuality, or mean that you love your mother. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. On the flip side, if you are ok with it, then have at.
Nobody is going to come take your D&D manuals in either case.
Very eloquent John Brown. Good of you to refocus the debate more appropriately. I'm afraid I always get lured down the gender-behaviour rabbit hole when this debate comes up and I find myself defending myself from the alleged "double standard" about me only enforcing this rule for male players.
Thanks for pointing out the real instances of double standards in this debate. You succinctly express the point of having a blanket policy -- not having to assess the individual merits of character choices on a case by case basis and all the hurt feelings that entails.
Thanks for pointing out the real instances of double standards in this debate. You succinctly express the point of having a blanket policy -- not having to assess the individual merits of character choices on a case by case basis and all the hurt feelings that entails.
Similar Threads
