males playing females and the other way around, opinions?

[Theo R Cwithin]

In exactly the same way it is an issue when a DM bans monks, dragonborn, evil PCs, etc, etc, etc... but no one seems to give those DMs grief

First off, a lot of players DO give DMs grief for banning their pet race or class.

But there are a lot of rationales for banning things that might have nothing to do with . If I ban monks or dragonborn in my campaign, it's because they don't fit thematically, not because I don't want to deal with issues of people not "correctly" playing monks or dragonborn.

I have always banned evil PCs in my campaigns, precisely because I don't want to deal with those issues among players. Conversely, I don't ban cross-gender PCs because I don't mind dealing with those issues (or more accurately, it's never been an issue in my games).

The former cases have to do with the campaign world. The latter have to do with the comfort levels of me and my players. They are not the same.

 

[Kingreaper]

And, yes, Nameless1 points out, it should be helped along by other players. But, the ball is squarely in the player's court first. That player has to bring it up in play because, if that player doesn't, no one else is going to, other than maybe the DM. And, really, why should the DM? The player is obviously not interested in making gender an issue, since the player never brings it up.

How do you bring it up?

Going "Oh, and I'm female by the way" every ten minutes? That sounds bloody irritating, and depending how it's done (ie. with comments like "and I adjust my bra") really rather creepy.

Behaving feminine? (two of the three most feminine character's I've seen played have been male)

But, again, it's a matter of degree. Gender, unless there is some species reason why not, is pretty readily apparent. There's a significant difference between playing against gender expectations and completely ignoring them entirely.

Hair colour is also readily apparent. Which is why you generally mention it once or twice, then forget about it unless it comes up.

As long as the GM can remember; it'll come up when an NPC cares. Until then, not-so-much.

Even if your character is trying to be asexual, that most certainly SHOULD be brought up in play. That's something interesting about the character. That's a pretty strong trait. So, let's see it at the table.

How is being Asexual supposed to be brought up in play?
In order for it to be at all relevant, someone (presumably an NPC) has to approach the character, with sex in mind.
Then the character turns them down.
As would a chaste character, a character attracted to the other gender, a character who didn't like brunettes/redheads/whatever.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

And, yes, Nameless1 points out, it should be helped along by other players. But, the ball is squarely in the player's court first. That player has to bring it up in play because, if that player doesn't, no one else is going to, other than maybe the DM. And, really, why should the DM? The player is obviously not interested in making gender an issue, since the player never brings it up.

While I certainly like to roleplay with my players, I generally don't want to browbeat them into it.

Interesting. To me part of the DM's function is to do exactly this sort of thing, to attempt to draw out the defining rp bits on the char sheet, precisely in order to help a shy or bewildered or new player along. It doesn't seem like browbeating to bring up a PC's gender once or twice early on in the campaign. If they run with it, great; if not, drop it. At worst, the player might realize they don't really want to play across genders (or races, or whatever) and surreptitiously uncheck the "F" box on their char sheet.

IME a lot of players-- especially new ones or shy ones-- simply won't make the first stab at something like gender, so it's up to the DM to bring it up if it's a significant factor in the game world. Roleplaying, after all, is really about interaction, not action.

But, of course, D&D's also just a game, and no place for anyone to feel pressured into doing something they don't want to do, DM or player. So the topic really boils down to a question of communication between the all the people at the table. Yet again. Go figure.

 

[Sunseeker]

MWhen a player puts down a gender on their character sheet, the player is stating that they want to deal with situations in game that have to do with that gender. It is an invitation for the GM to make life difficult/interesting for the character because of their gender. A male player who playes a female fighter is asking for some joan of arc type stories. It is the GM's job to make the decision of gender have meaning, not the player's job. When a player attempts to make it meaningful without the assistance of the GM, the element of gender becomes uncomfortable.

Except that all that demonstrates is that the GM is sexist, or an ass. There is no need to be "historically accurate" in any non-history based games. There is no need to have all the villagers hate your character because they're a woman, or have the local priest want to crucify her because she's not in her "womanly role". Making "life difficult" for the player is just rude.

Certainly there are some things that the player should encounter that are different, but not to the extreme that "you're so unique that everyone hates you and you have to die."

example: In one of my friends game(a game I am fortunate to not be party to), a female friend of mine played a female character, except, the DM, being sexist and feeling that a fantasy world based off historically male-dominated "dark ages" should be oppressive towards women, which culminated at one point in the GM having some NPC attempt to rape my friend's character.

It should be needless to say she stopped playing that game, and actually stopped being friends with the GM.

THAT is the exact kind of path you put yourself on when, as a GM, you decide that because the PC is a woman, life needs to be harder for them. Sure, maybe it's a rude joke at first, but that doesn't really rile the player. Then it escalates, now it's public humiliation, and then suddenly, it's one night she's separated from the group and cornered by a dozen young men.


If you're going to "have it out" for players who do something outside your little box, make it clear, or ban it right from the start and simply deny the player the ability to join in until they meet your requirements. But going down the "life should be harder for women, and I don't like men who play female characters" ends up with situations like above. And suddenly you're not just a GM who likes things his way. You're a GM who just had a player's character get raped, and that kind of thing WILL stick with you.

I don't mean to sound overly harsh, but I keep seeing the shadow of "I am going to make playing difficult for male players who play female PCs" and I want to get it right out there that a mild difficulty escalates quickly and often gets out of control.

 

[Umbran]

Except that all that demonstrates is that the GM is sexist, or an ass. There is no need to be "historically accurate" in any non-history based games.

Need? Well, as usual, there's nothing ever needed in gaming, including the gaming itself. So that's a strawman right there.

There can be a desire to use any kind of society one can think up - including misogynistic ones, just as there's reason to use slavery or racism or class struggle or any other normal human problem.

The GM is a bit of a jerk if every single NPC acts the same way, and gives the same PC the same kind of hard time. But there's nothing sexist or wrong with using plot elements the player is inviting you to use. If you are playing a character of unknown parentage, your father may turn up in game. If you're choosing to play a specific gender, you can expect it to come up in game, too.

 

[Sunseeker]

Need? Well, as usual, there's nothing ever needed in gaming, including the gaming itself. So that's a strawman right there.

There can be a desire to use any kind of society one can think up - including misogynistic ones, just as there's reason to use slavery or racism or class struggle or any other normal human problem.

The GM is a bit of a jerk if every single NPC acts the same way, and gives the same PC the same kind of hard time. But there's nothing sexist or wrong with using plot elements the player is inviting you to use. If you are playing a character of unknown parentage, your father may turn up in game. If you're choosing to play a specific gender, you can expect it to come up in game, too.

And all of those choices and events should come from a desire to improve the game, not, as I've been repetitiously seeing throughout this thread, a desire to punish players for going outside the DM's "comfort box".

 

[Abraxas]

First off, a lot of players DO give DMs grief for banning their pet race or class.

Not on this board - as far as I have seen.

The former cases have to do with the campaign world. The latter have to do with the comfort levels of me and my players. They are not the same.

They are the same in that banning them doesn't mean you have a personality disorder - which has been suggested and implied in this thread.

 

[Umbran]

And all of those choices and events should come from a desire to improve the game, not, as I've been repetitiously seeing throughout this thread, a desire to punish players for going outside the DM's "comfort box".

You seem to be boxing with shadows.

Nameless1, above, wasn't talking about punishment, or the GM's comfort, but about giving player what they're requesting, specifically with the statement that the GM and player are supposed to be communicating.

If that makes the GM a sexist jerk... we have a fundamental lack of shared understanding.

 

[Abraxas]

I do.

It's kind of like arguing a call with the ump in baseball- it won't change things NOW, but you may get things to go your way later.

So while I might not get to play THIS disallowed aspect of a PC, the next time, I may get to play a different one the way I see fit later.

I must have better players - the only thing they give me grief over is stat generation method (roll vs point buy vs array).

I also have to say - not allowing cross gender PCs is due to 2 players (one male and one female) and other than those two the idea of playing cross gender had never been an issue in games I DM. In 32 years of D&D I have gamed with people who played cross gender PCs exactly 5 times.

In one of my most recent campaigns, I dropped the ban and allowed someone to run a cross gender PC and guess what - I regretted it and that campaign is now over. And this was someone who didn't give me any problems until that particular PC.

I don't have any of the personality or mental disorders being suggested because of my gaming preferences. The preference just makes gaming easier and more fun for me - and apparently the people I game with cause we've been playing for the last 20 years together.

 

[Sunseeker]

You seem to be boxing with shadows.

Nameless1, above, wasn't talking about punishment, or the GM's comfort, but about giving player what they're requesting, specifically with the statement that the GM and player are supposed to be communicating.

If that makes the GM a sexist jerk... we have a fundamental lack of shared understanding.

I very well might be, but my RP Senes have been tingling suggesting that some GMs who disapprove of males playing females, either openly or on the side, will take to making life(in game) difficult for players who play a PC of which they personally don't approve, even if the player plays it very well.