roleplaying across the gender line

[barsoomcore]

Re: Re: In response to fusangite

Which must be disappointing for all the out-of-work moral crusaders in this thread. I guess that's why they resort to misrepresenting anyone who might give them reason to burn with outrage and thus feel very important.

Hey! I have a job. And I feel important ALL the time. And my outrage burns with an unceasing flame of purity, no matter who I misrepresent. Dagnabit.

Seriously, I have no problem with anyone banning anything in their game. If it makes more fun for you, off you go. Heck, if it makes you less fun for you, but you like it when it's less fun because deep down you don't really like yourself and don't believe you really truly deserve to have fun so you sabotage every chance at true happiness you ever come across just so you won't have to face the heartbreak and anguish of love lost, found, torn from your arms and beaten into a soft, bloody pulp like a fresh lemon danish that had too much fruit and has lost its flaky, buttery goodness you were so looking forward to because it reminded you (much like the French novelist we all love to pretend to have read since jeez, hasn't EVERYONE read Proust, and heck, what if someone laughs at me when they find out I haven't so I'll just learn a few choice quotes, read this article

.
.
.
.
.

Sorry, lost control there for a sec. Where was I? Oh, it's not important. I just like amusing myself at the expense of other people's silly logic. I'm a bad, bad man.

 

[Snoweel]

Agback!!!!!!!!! You DID make an effort to reply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

And just for that, here's your easter-egg:

Sorry for being a prick.

Why was I such a prick? Read on...

In a conventional D&D campaign the PCs have a series of unconnected or loosely-connected adventures.

Here's where I started having a problem with you. As soon as I mentioned violent, adventuring lifestyle, you assumed I run such a "conventional" game.

You'll find, however, that campaigns as "conventional" as this one are thin on the ground here in ENWorld. Almost everybody who has an opinion on such things as story, plot and character (like the types of people who post in this thread) run a far less "conventional" game than the orgy of violence you refer to.

To then go on and on about the amazing roleplaying and story opportunities possible in D&D (or whatever system), citing your own superior experiences is as close to an insult to another person's creative ability as I've ever seen here in ENWorld.

However, although women who will so resort to violence may be uncommon, that is not a compelling reason why PCs should not be women, because even if uncommon such women are not non-existent and therefore not inconceivable, and there is no reason why a group of PCs need be a representative sample (of anything). So there is no reason on those grounds to forbid male players from playing female characters, still less to forbid female players from playing males characters. (I think we are on the same page so far.)

I thought I had made it clear that:

1. I don't disallow cross-gender PC's, though I discourage it.

2. Having stated myself that even if a tiny minority of women are capable of proactive violence (and now I've said "proactive" so many times, I'm reminded of that Simpsons episode...), female PC's can obviously be considered part of this minority.

3. The reason I don't like males playing female characters is because of the less-than-politically-correct social climate of my campaign world.

And sure, my homebrew might be the mad ravings of a frustrated mysogynist, but it might instead be based on real-life history, sociology and anthroplogy.

(You can take that as another concession if you like, but I will maintain that it has been my clearly-stated position since I joined this thread.)

My problem never was with your position (all those slights on the entertainment value of your game - "bor-ing", IIRC, were vindictive attempts at humour), but rather with your condescending misinterpretation of my position.

But we aren't limited to discussing the conventional D&D campaign because there are alternatives. These alternatives cannot be dismissed out of hand because we are not, despite you flip dismissal, agreed that these boring.

While I personally don't like such games as you describe, and really do find them boring, I'm not such an idiot that I don't realise everyone has their own tastes.

In fact, many here are entirely justified in their labelling my NO-NON HUMAN PCs rule as boring. I'm sure a lot of people would think so.

In the first place, there are unconventional D&D campaigns. For instance, a GM can run a campaign with strong continuity instead of the conventional episodic structure.

I loathe episodic campaigns. When I design a campaign, I have an intended finishing point in mind. This is always one or more plot elements that the PC's and/or certain NPC's either will or won't fulfill. And for the PC's to deviate from the (vaguely linear, but never noticeably so) plotweb bores me to tears.

I don't like random exploration and looting either as a concept or as a gaming style.

(This is your cue to try to misrepresent my statement into a vain and pompous claim that I have run something that no-one else has done or could do...

I addressed this above. Maybe on a messageboard for 12-year old gamers such a "lesson in the finer points of D&D" would be welcome, but we're all adults here and most of us are proud of the complexity of our settings. If you want to share your stuff, do so, but don't preach to people.

It is true that police detectives have occasionally to resort to the use of force, but it is certainly possible to play a police detective who shrinks from the use of deadly force except when pressingly threatened. A PC in such a campaign certainly leads an adventurous lifestyle (insofar as police investigations are adventures) and is often violent (to the extent of using some force). But is it fun to play the kind of detective who does the equivalent of refusing to kill an orc on the basis that it has dependants?

Here's where you completely miss the point.

My assertion that "all these characters are violent adventurers" doesn't only refer to their ability to perpetrate violence against others. Neither does it specifically refer to lethal violence.

There is also the fact that such characters, whether violent or pacifistic, expose themselves to the likelihood of being involved in violent situations.

For example, I prefer the PC's in my game to avoid combat (partly because it eats into game time - it can take several hours to resolve a 5 minute combat encounter, whereas I dig it when I can snap my fingers and say "You spend the rest of the week eating, sleeping and gambling without event. At sunrise on Airday, the innkeeper's son opens your door without knocking and announces your ship has just pulled in to port." Bor-ing, I know), but skulking around and asking dangerous people dangerous questions about even more dangerous people is not for the faint-hearted. Whether the character intends violence or not, he or she has to be prepared for the possibility.

 

[Snoweel]

The real problem is behaviour.

Oh no dude. The problem's motivation. I mean, saying "The real problem is behaviour" is like saying "Who cares if he's got Syph! The problem is it burns when he pees!!!!!"

Solve that problem and stop worrying about people's motivation. That's what I'm saying.

If you know the motivation, you deal with the bad behaviour before it starts.

And motivation is always evident from behaviour. Take you for example - we all know your motivation in this thread.

It's just that we're embarassed to talk about it.

 

[barsoomcore]

Oh no dude. The problem's motivation. I mean, saying "The real problem is behaviour" is like saying "Who cares if he's got Syph! The problem is it burns when he pees!!!!!"

Well, given that the fellow who originally had the problem is on record as stating he doesn't want to act as therapist for his gaming group, I'd expect he'd be happy with the "Stick it in ice, moron!" sort of treatment.

If you know the motivation, you deal with the bad behaviour before it starts.

Again, sure, if you want to play doctor with your friends, go right ahead. Er.

Anyways (shaking horrible images from his mind, our hero bravely soldiers on), of course if your goal is to solve someone's personality problems, then yeah, sure, spend a few hours delving into their personality, form a amateur judgement about their psychological state and take your best shot at providing them with meaningful therapy. Good luck.

Or, when your buddy does something that really irks you, slap him upside the head and tell him to stop it.

The point wasn't "What is the most humanitarian way to treat our fellow man?" It was "I don't let guys play women in my games because I know what they're really thinking and it grosses me out." Which smacks more than a bit of unhealthy obsession to me and you know, I just wouldn't want somebody with that attitude helping me with my emotional issues.

Not that I have any. Not me, no sir. All emotionally non-issued in here.

And motivation is always evident from behaviour. Take you for example - we all know your motivation in this thread.

It's just that we're embarassed to talk about it.

You're so easily embarrassed. Everybody's got one, you know. Everybody does it. Monkeys do it all the time. You need to loosen up. I know a great place...

 

[Fenes 2]

IMHO, motivation is not the problem, nor should it be. This is not a disease, this is tolerance. As long as everyone has fun in a group, why should anyone care about the individual motivations?

The only thing that matters, imho, in a roleplaying game is whether or not everyone had a good, fun time playing.

 

[Thanee]

Most of the NPCs in a bronze age or medieval fantasy adventure world will be male

WHAT?! Most people are male? Where did all the women go? Are they hiding because they can't find players to play them? Are they ashamed of all these great bonuses they get? This is great, really. Great stuff.

While I certainly agree with the baseline of your post, here you are clearly actively misunderstanding him!

Sure, every person in a fantasy world is de fact an NPC (if it's not a PC, that is), but he surely means, that most persons, that the PCs commonly interact with or that are in any position of power here.

Sometimes it helps to read between the lines!

Anyways, I completely agree, that being a pretty woman might grant a circumstance bonus on social interactions in some situations (and rightly so), it does not in ALL situations!

Hey, maybe the problem is, that Appearance can be chosen freely (and most people prefer to be handsome)! Assign a 7th stat to Comliness as a house rule and the pretty women will have to 'pay' for their obvious advantages! Now you cannot have a guy playing a female character, just because it offers free advantages!

Bye
Thanee

 

[barsoomcore]

While I certainly agree with the baseline of your post, here you are clearly actively misunderstanding him!

Sure, every person in a fantasy world is de fact an NPC (if it's not a PC, that is), but he surely means, that most persons, that the PCs commonly interact with or that are in any position of power here.

You know what? I was going to agree with you but then I re-read his post. He doesn't say "My campaign features mostly men." He says, "Most of the NPCs in a bronze age or medieval fantasy adventure world will be male."

It's a ridiculous thing to say. That isn't remotely true. It's not even similar to a true statement. It's complete and utter nonsense. If he's talking about HIS campaign, then he should have said so. He did not. He is making a blanket statement about fantasy adventure worlds.

Besides, it was funny.

 

[Thanee]

I was referring to the use of NPC.

NPCs are only the people, the PCs are interacting with (or at least I assume he means it this way).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Bonedagger]

There is an issue that I think has not been attended enough here.

What do players think about DM's who cross-gender? Do they really have to put up with this behaivour that is clearly based in some psycological problem? And how can the players trust that the DM has the capacity to give these characters what they need in order to be realistic? Is it because of sexual fantasies the DM cross-gender his NPC-characters? The players are not attending the game so that the can council the DM.

 

[Agback]

Agback!!!!!!!!! You DID make an effort to reply!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not my first.

Here's where I started having a problem with you. As soon as I mentioned violent, adventuring lifestyle, you assumed I run such a "conventional" game.

Actually, no. My problem with your use of the word 'lifestyle' is that I understood it (mistakenly, as it turns out, though I think the mistake was natural) as referring to the characters' regular way of life. Whereas the hairy-arsed and testicular activities that constitute adventures need by no means be the characters' regular way of life. My initial complaint was that you seemed to be asserting that PCs (even in non-episodic campaigns) have to be rough, tough he-men (with testicles and hairy bums). And that is why my first counter-examples, Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel, were chosen for smoothness and refinement, for their urbane and elegant lifestyles. They are violent and adventurous right enough. What they are not is hairly-arsed.

Now you have made it clear that you mean a character's lifestyle to include just about anything he or she does that is worth mentioning either for frequency or for importance, and that by 'testicles' you meant 'resolution'. I'm still not clear what you meant by 'hairy bums'.

You'll find, however, that campaigns as "conventional" as this one are thin on the ground here in ENWorld. Almost everybody who has an opinion on such things as story, plot and character (like the types of people who post in this thread) run a far less "conventional" game than the orgy of violence you refer to.

I'm glad to hear it. Though I must say that when I hear of whole groups of players who cannot be trusted to play women without drooling into their Fanta I have my worries.

To then go on and on about the amazing roleplaying and story opportunities possible in D&D (or whatever system), citing your own superior experiences is as close to an insult to another person's creative ability as I've ever seen here in ENWorld.

Here I think you wrong me. As I stated in my last post, I sometimes cite my experience as evidence of my assertions. When this means describing one of my campaigns, and the campaign has been a success, I say so because that is part of the evidence. Because if I had tried something in a campaign and the campaign had been a miserable failure that would not have been evidence that the whatever-it-is was such a good idea.

I don't mean to put down anyone else, and I certainly don't mean to put down everyone in general. I am perfectly aware that a lot of other GMs run campaigns every bit as good as mine, and that not a few run better. But, when you say that, for instance, PCs ought to have big hairy bums, and my experience is that they don't, I will say that I have run a campaign in which they were slim-hipped and waxed weekly, and that it was a success (if that is indeed the case). My point in saying this in a public debate is *precisely* that I think this is possible to [almost] anyone, and general property of the way things are, and not at all that I think that only I can manage it.

I thought I had made it clear that:

1. I don't disallow cross-gender PC's, though I discourage it.

2. Having stated myself that even if a tiny minority of women are capable of proactive violence (and now I've said "proactive" so many times, I'm reminded of that Simpsons episode...), female PC's can obviously be considered part of this minority.

3. The reason I don't like males playing female characters is because of the less-than-politically-correct social climate of my campaign world.

And sure, my homebrew might be the mad ravings of a frustrated mysogynist, but it might instead be based on real-life history, sociology and anthroplogy.

Well, as it happens my homebrew is also a pretty bad place for women. The situation of women in Gehennum is described in brief here, and is based in substantial part on the position of women in ancient Athens as described by Thucydides and on the career of Aspasia. Additional inspiration for the social role of women in Gehennum, especially in the Decadent Period, was drawn from English Society in the reign of George III.

Despite this, I have never found it necessary to discourage people from playing women in Gehennum: it generally discourages itself. A few players have decided to take on the additional challenges, with general success.

My problem never was with your position (all those slights on the entertainment value of your game - "bor-ing", IIRC, were vindictive attempts at humour), but rather with your condescending misinterpretation of my position.

Then you would have done better to clear up my apparent misunderstandings than to throw petrol on the flame with taunts, to insist on the word 'lifestyle' though it was clear that I did not understand it in the sense in which you had meant it, then to describe the word to which I had initially objected as irrelevant, then to deny that you had done so, etc. etc. etc.

While I personally don't like such games as you describe, and really do find them boring, I'm not such an idiot that I don't realise everyone has their own tastes.

I don't understand. Here you say that alternatives to the conventional D&D campaign are boring, but below you say that they are all you run.

In fact, many here are entirely justified in their labelling my NO-NON HUMAN PCs rule as boring. I'm sure a lot of people would think so.

Well, my campaigns are not only free from non-human PCs, but also almost free from non-human NPCs and from monsters. To each his own.

I loathe episodic campaigns. When I design a campaign, I have an intended finishing point in mind. This is always one or more plot elements that the PC's and/or certain NPC's either will or won't fulfill. And for the PC's to deviate from the (vaguely linear, but never noticeably so) plotweb bores me to tears.

I don't like random exploration and looting either as a concept or as a gaming style.

Nor do I. But I find your argument that PCs need to be such as to knowingly and willing put themselves in the way of violence and having to commit violence to be most compelling in that context. In the case of the long adventure style of campaign that you claim to prefer it is possible (without too much of a bueden on plausiblity or on the resources of the GM) for characters who are not such to be sucked in by circumstances and swept along against their wills, swept along by considerations that are more important to them than their disinclination to violence.

I addressed this above. Maybe on a messageboard for 12-year old gamers such a "lesson in the finer points of D&D" would be welcome, but we're all adults here and most of us are proud of the complexity of our settings. If you want to share your stuff, do so, but don't preach to people.

I explained about this in advance. When I cite my own experience as evidence of a general point I do so because I consider it rather ordinary. If I thought it exceptional it would be poorer evidence. You are quite wrong to construe my mentioning one of my own campaigns as bragging.

Here's where you completely miss the point.

My assertion that "all these characters are violent adventurers" doesn't only refer to their ability to perpetrate violence against others. Neither does it specifically refer to lethal violence.

There is also the fact that such characters, whether violent or pacifistic, expose themselves to the likelihood of being involved in violent situations.

I don't think I missed that point. I understood it, and feel that I have addressed it by pointing out that characters can be drawn into adventures and intrigues against their inclinations, for example by circumstances or by larger considerations being at stake.

For example, I prefer the PC's in my game to avoid combat (partly because it eats into game time - it can take several hours to resolve a 5 minute combat encounter, whereas I dig it when I can snap my fingers and say "You spend the rest of the week eating, sleeping and gambling without event. At sunrise on Airday, the innkeeper's son opens your door without knocking and announces your ship has just pulled in to port." Bor-ing, I know), but skulking around and asking dangerous people dangerous questions about even more dangerous people is not for the faint-hearted. Whether the character intends violence or not, he or she has to be prepared for the possibility.

Yes (except where the campaign is about a character who is drawn unwillingly into what he or she is not prepared for), but I really don't think that that militates against female PCs, PCs of sex opposite to their players, or characters who are not sufficiently cold-blooded to kill and orc because it has dependants.

You asked: Is it really fun to play a character who cannot bring himself to kill an orc because it has dependants. Of course doing so is a pain in the arse for the GM and other players if you do it in the wrong campaign. But nevertheless, that answer is still 'yes, in the right circumstances it can be'.

Regards,


Agback