roleplaying across the gender line

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by Teflon Billy

On a related note, have you ever read the writeup for Angelsboi's homebrew? It's awseome.

Where would one get a look at Angelsboi's homebrew?

 

[seasong]

Not to jump into the fray of what looks to be holy writ, but...

I roleplay opposite gender characters on occasion because it is fun.

It's fun to occasionally try out a different culture, a different species, a different gender.

Regarding a character needing to be a woman... I've never seen a character that needed to be an elf, dwarf or half-orc. I've seen some bundles of stats that needed those races to get a particular bundle of bonuses, but I've never seen a character that would not translate faithfully to being a human.

My character never needs to be a different hair color, eye color, skin color, height, build or look from me, either.

It's an absurd argument - roleplaying doesn't mean looking like me, no matter how attractive I may be.

 

[Enchantress]

To go back to the topic that started this whole weird conversation, I'm a woman, and Im just fine with being a male character. How come guys aren't?

 

[SemperJase]

I'm a woman, and Im just fine with being a male character. How come guys aren't?

A question for the ages. Another one is, why is it comedy when a man dresses in drag (Milton Berle anyone?) but not when a woman dresses as a man?

 

[Teflon Billy]

Re: Re: Re

So the only reason she's female is because you think Halle Berry is hot. Nothing in that history screams "I'm a woman (hear me roar)"; it's not like you discovered sorcerous powers after your first period, or were accepted into a female-only group or secret society.

I think that Teflon Billy's argument (I hope I'm not misrepresenting him) is that you can play the same character as a male, and you would probably do a better job because you are a male.

Nope, you hit the the nail right on the head.

I wish I had such clarity and brevity

 

[Dinkeldog]

A question for the ages. Another one is, why is it comedy when a man dresses in drag (Milton Berle anyone?) but not when a woman dresses as a man?

You need to watch more "I Love Lucy" reruns is all.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Re: Re: Re: Re

So the only reason she's female is because you think Halle Berry is hot. Nothing in that history screams "I'm a woman (hear me roar)"; it's not like you discovered sorcerous powers after your first period, or were accepted into a female-only group or secret society.

I think that Teflon Billy's argument (I hope I'm not misrepresenting him) is that you can play the same character as a male, and you would probably do a better job because you are a male.

Nope, you hit the the nail right on the head.

I wish I had such clarity and brevity

Sure, there are probably formatting problems in this. Not really caring right now.

The one thing in the history that screams, "I'm a woman" is the kinship that she feels with her sister, as opposed to her brothers that followed the "family business" of Tyr-mongering. It's good enough for me. I'm less concerned about the "I want to play a woman that's really hot" aspect, since almost every guy plays super-hot muscular, handsome to pretty guys.

 

[Bonedagger]

As a male DM I decided males playing women wasn't such a great concept after having experienced one of my male players starting to flirt with male NPC's. That was to weird. Had he just played gay I could have wriggled out of it but oh no. He had to be a chick with 18 cha.

I never felt the same conflict when women in my games though. I must be biased.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...If that rule is important to you and your group, then chances are that's a group that I don't want to play with. You've already admitted the reason for the rule in the first place was because of the incredibly immature and silly portrayals of women in the game. As I implied earlier in the thread, the rule treats a symptom, not a root cause.

Well, not exactly. Think of it as preventetive treatment of a disease rather than suppressing a symptom (should you want to use this kind of analogy). I no longer play with the people who started this rule.

If that's the case, no, I don't want to play. And if that's the best solution you can come up with as a DM -- I'm not terribly impressed by that either. It's not that I so terribly want to play a woman character, it's just that a group that can't handle cross-gender play has deeper issues, IMO. No, I probably wouldn't want to play in a group that can't even handle something as simple as a cross-gender character without handling it immaturely and badly....

Hmmm wierd. I'd give any group a shot once. if they sucked, then yes, I would bow out.

But to write them off based on one factor (Cross Gender RP in this case---A factor that you haven't even seen in action yet) says more about "deeper issues" than my ban ever could.

But hey, you go where you're comfortable.

 

[Agback]

There are certain qualities that just don't lend themselves well to a violent, adventuring lifestyle.

Sure. But not all RP games need to be about people who live a violent, adventuring lifestyle. There are lots of alternatives. For example, most of my fantasy campaigns tend to be urban, and the PCs are very often elegant and even exquisite gentlemen of leisure. Moreover my campaign are rarely about skirmishes in an open war between races: they are more often about detecting and foiling villains within the PCs' own society, and subtlety and perceptiveness are usually more important than the capacity to commit violent crimes.

Killing obvious enemies is not the only possible goal of characters in RPGs. Alternatives include building cases, unravelling mysteries, and foiling the plots of villains who are for various reasons untouchable. None of these need necessarily be wholly non-violent. But on the other hand they certainly permit characters who do not lead an adventuring lifestyle and who may be vastly less violent than typical dungeoncrawlers. Lots of PCs sleep at night in their beds at home, and play out their adventures in their home towns.

Is it REALLY such fun to play a character who can't summon the guts to kill an Orc because it's got dependants?

In the right campaign, yes. I remember, for example, a RuneQuest campaign in which my friend Dr Tony Purcell was playing a Chalana Arroy initiate who eventually rose to High Healer. Not only was this character very useful to our Humakti, Storm Bulls, and Orlanthi, but her interactions with the more violently inclined characters were a source of a great deal of amusement to all concerned.

In Champions campaigns it is very common for PCs to have codes against killing. This is generally reckoned to add interest both to the characters' stories and to their players' efforts to overcome problems.

In Vampire campaigns most characters have very strong reason not to kill unless they absolutely must, and a pervading issue of most campaigns is walking the knife-edge between sins of commission and sins of omission, of preventing evil without doing evil. Yet people manage to enjoy Vampire.

One last thing. It is easy but inaccurate to misrepresent as mere squeamishness the moral courage of refraining from killing someone who frightens you. But it is the small-souled man, not the hero, who kills because he is scared.

For a lot of people, role-playing games are an opportunity to escape from the wearisome constraints of real life. To a certain extent, various preferred styles of play reflect the different RL constraints that different players find chafing. Some of us bridle at the fact that in the real world we dare not kill. Others not.

Regards,


Agback