roleplaying across the gender line

[barsoomcore]

One need only look at the list of samples gods, the list of classes, the list of feats, the list of skills or the list of spells to see that D&D rules make certain assumptions about the world:

I notice you leave out the largest, most telling piece of information: that there is absolutely no rule differences whatsoever between males and females. Not one rule in the D&D rules distinguishes between men and women. Women can be every bit as strong as men, even though it's a straightforward fact that the strongest woman (in our world) will never be as strong as the strongest man. I refer you to the entire world of professional sports.

What do these pieces of information tell you about the role of women in this world?

That we are encouraged to apply the rules identically to men and women, and not to make distinctions between them.

We are talking about D&D, it's pretty clear that there is a working definition of fantasy for the purposes of this debate.

Excellent. By all means, let's limit the scope of the debate to D&D. I challenge you to find me one rule in the Player's Handbook that presents a rule difference based on gender. You find me one, and your position makes sense. Until then,
.
.
.
.
.
buddy
.
.
.
.
.
you're yelling smoke but there's no fire.

You know, this isn't about whether or not women should get bonuses to Charisma checks. I think that it's silly to apply blanket bonuses for that one particular condition when you don't for other equally potent social forces, but you don't and that's fine. You also don't want to address any of my arguments against your other rationales for disallowing cross-gender play by men, and I can't force you to and won't bother trying. But the reason we're talking about this in the first place was because you used this point as a reason for disallowing cross-gender play by men, and it's a silly reason.

It's silly for two reasons: one, choosing character qualities for reasons of perceived game advantage is part of the game. If I want to play a superior rogue, I'll choose an elf over a dwarf. In your campaign, if I want to play a smooth-talking diplomat who can twist others around her little finger, I'll play a woman over a man. How is this different? Two, you allow women to play women so clearly you're not opposed to PCs as women. Would you allow women to play men? I assume so. So you let women have a choice that you do not let men have -- that's silly.

But then perhaps you're just not able to resist when they use those feminine wiles on you.

 

[fusangite]

I notice you leave out the largest, most telling piece of information: that there is absolutely no rule differences

I thought that piece of information was a given, what with the subject of our debate and all. However, the fact that such a rule is omitted does not somehow magically invalidate everything else the core rules tell us. The core rules tell us a number of characteristics of the society they are designed to model; they don't cease to inform us about gender in the society simply because it is not explicitely mentioned. Just because D&D (unlike Runequest) doesn't have gender modifiers for abilities, doesn't magically make 50% of the D&D core gods female -- they're still only 15%.

Even Christian and Islamic fundamentalists are capable of inference.

Excellent. By all means, let's limit the scope of the debate to D&D. I challenge you to find me one rule in the Player's Handbook that presents a rule difference based on gender. You find me one, and your position makes sense. Until then,

You may recall that we are discussing a house rule of mine. As I have explained the most common reason people develop house rules is because they perceive a hole in the existing rule framework. Obviously, if there were such a reference, I'd be using it instead of my house rule.

You also don't want to address any of my arguments against your other rationales for disallowing cross-gender play by men, and I can't force you to and won't bother trying. But the reason we're talking about this in the first place was because you used this point as a reason for disallowing cross-gender play by men, and it's a silly reason.

Actually, what I did was make an observation based on my understanding of the rules and then defend it. I'm happy to concede that you hang out with different kinds of guys than I have encountered gaming -- good for you. None of my statements were generalized as absolutes; all I did was state that I had developed the house rule based on my assessment of the majority of cases based on what I had personally experienced.

man. How is this different? Two, you allow women to play women so clearly you're not opposed to PCs as women. Would you allow women to play men? I assume so. So you let women have a choice that you do not let men have -- that's silly.

As for women playing men, I've never had a negative experience with this, nor has any GM I know. Why would I make a house rule against it?

This "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" logic you employ above is a cheap, meaningless rhetorical device. Equal and identical are not synonyms; simply because women and men are equal does not mean we are the same.

You arguments continue to reflect this idea that constitutional equality provisions must necessarily make us blind to the wealth of sociological and scientific discoveries about how men and women are different.

 

[Thanee]

(e) valued, celebrated occupations are those of specialists in exercising physical or psychological coecrcive force directly or indirectly
(f) 15% of the gods are female

What do these pieces of information tell you about the role of women in this world? What do they tell you about the fantasy genre as understood by the framers of D&D?

If you would like to argue this point with respect to D20 systems in general, I might grant that you have a point but as we are talking about D&D, it's pretty clear that there is a working definition of fantasy for the purposes of this debate.

(g) Almost half (5 out of 11) of the PC classes are depicted as FEMALE (including the Paladin and two of the four 'basic classes', Rogue and Wizard)!

How's that for your role of women in the world of D&D adventure?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Al]

(g) Almost half (5 out of 11) of the PC classes are depicted as FEMALE (including the Paladin and two of the four 'basic classes', Rogue and Wizard)!

How's that for your role of women in the world of D&D adventure?

Bye
Thanee

In all fairness, this is because of Wizards' obsession with political correctness rather than anything else. Based purely on anecdotal evidence, I would argue rather vehemently that the vast majority of PCs in *actual campaigns* (and indeed, significant NPCs) are male.

Back to fusangite's fundamental point: that of females being played to exploit their diplomatic advantages when dealing with men. I've examined his argument, and I can't seem to find any breaking point. Well done

But...barsoomcore raises an interesting counter. If one were to ban females as they are 'better' diplomats, then surely, by extension, all variants of powergaming would have to cease. Would one ban halfling rogues, half-orc barbarians or dwarven fighters? Would there be particular combinations of feats which were banned? Would certain spell combinations be restricted?

The fact is: fusangite is right. It is perfectly possible that a PC can play a female and garner de facto mechanical advantages. Yet there are so many other legitimiate ways of building powerful characters that to ban one-half of character archetypes simply to close a minor act of potentially 'optimising' (the powergamer's word for powergaming), seems to be ignoring the whole wider scope of powergaming possibilities which remain legal. Simply put, there *is* powergaming potential in female characters, but it is negligible.

The other point at which his case (as opposed to individual argument) collapses it that this thread is about cross-gender characters. If it is female characters which are banned as they have the intrinsic advantages painstakingly detailed, then surely female players are forced to play male PCs- fundamentally undermining his own argument. I also note that the others who would take a non-cross-gender line seem rather strangely quiet on female players and male PCs. Probably because the 'you just want to play cross-gender for some hot nympho-lesbo action' argument ceases to work.

In conclusion, fusangite's individual argument is sound. Yet because he ignores the wider scope for powergaming in other avenues, and because he ignores the female player situation, his case is flawed.

 

[Fenes 2]

If you model your campaign after historical earth, don't forget that even if female PCs may have an advantage with regards to charisma, they have disadvantages that cancel that out. Some societies did not let a woman make any legal contract without a male (father/husband) supervising, many men will not take anything a woman may say seriously, and the social mobility of a female PC may be very reestricted. Plus, female nobles may be faced with arranged marriages.

IMHO, any mechanical advanatges a female PC may gain in a "male" world are canceled out or even more than compensated by the disadvantages they face.

In a Fantasy setting, L.e.Modesitt's Spellsong trilogy has provides a good picture of a woman in a fantasy world dominated by men.

 

[mythago]

In all fairness, this is because of Wizards' obsession with political correctness rather than anything else.

Sometimes I wonder when "politically correct" turned into a denigrating synonym for "vaguely progressive."

When a minority of the short list of gods in the PH are female, that proves most NPCs should be men--but when nearly half of the example characters in the PH are female, that means nothing and is just "political correctness." Huh?

D&D doesn't contemplate that you will use a One True World. Interestingly, it doesn't offer suggestions for how the gender balance or social strata of your society should be arranged.

It is perfectly possible that a PC can play a female and garner de facto mechanical advantages.

Of course it's possible . This is role-playing; anything is possible .

It's also possible that your female diplomat will not get any advantage out of her Charisma, because she won't be allowed in the presence of male diplomatic officials without her husband or father.

 

[fusangite]

To those who correctly observe that the enhancement bonuses argument, in isolation, is insufficient justification for a house rule limiting male players' choices of character, I agree.

You'll note that it is only one of five reasons I offered. It just happens to be the only one which can be defended as an objective truth in a debate amongst people with varying experiences; the other reasons are all based on my own experience and, unlike the enhancement bonuses argument cannot resort to a larger body of proven fact. However, neither can those attempting to refute these reasons resort to such a body as it does not exist.

 

[Bob Aberton]

And Bob jumps in on the argument...

Now here's a question for all you DMs who ban players from playing cross-gender:

Do You Also Ban YOURSELVES From Playing Cross-Gender?

I mean, it seems only fair to me. If your male players cannot play a woman "the right way(i.e., your way)," then why are you any better, you close-minded DMs?

Is it because players are...well, players. By virtue of that fact, they obviously don't have the maturity to play cross-gender. But you, the DM, can handle the issue.

Now, I'm not suggesting that you DMs can't handle playing cross-gender NPCs. You probably can, and quite well, too. But if you can, why can't your players even be considered to possibly be able play cross-gender?

Admittedly, you may have some bad experiences. But if a male player roleplays a female PC as a slut (and I hate to be so un-PC, but let's face it; there are some women who do happen to be sluts...please don't kill me for that comment), why can't you balance that off in-game, via roleplaying penalties? I know I could. Fine, the PC is a slut, well, "she" suffers the consequences; she gets a reputation, and all manner of scum comes to consider her 'fair game,' if you know what I mean. Priests concerned for her soul preach to her constantly, and maybe some good-hearted priest even geases her to stop behaving like a slut. These, in my opinion, are all viable solutions to guys playing girls like "sluts."

And as for those that say that only munchkins play women, well then, don't you realize that there are No Rules Differences between men and women.

And those of you that say that "The average fantasy world is obviously male-dominated, judging by the number of male gods in the PHB; playing a female character is impractical," that is rediculous. Where has WotC ever, ever suggested that in the "generic" DnD world there is a difference between the sexes?

No Flames, Please

 

[Thanee]

Originally posted by Al
In all fairness, this is because of Wizards' obsession with political correctness rather than anything else. Based purely on anecdotal evidence, I would argue rather vehemently that the vast majority of PCs in *actual campaigns* (and indeed, significant NPCs) are male.

Of course, it is political correctness, but it's nonetheless part of the game and how the game is displayed by Wizards.

Actual campaigns? Well, in our actual campaigns, there is a pretty good balance between male and female PCs being played by both males and females (cross-gender in both directions included). I can only guess about others.

In most campaigns, I guess, most PCs will be male, but that's because most players are probably male (something, I cannot prove), and most players play their own gender usually.

Bye
Thanee

 

[fusangite]

And Bob jumps in on the argument...

Bob, you might want to consider a more careful read of the posts before jumping into the argument (see below).

Now here's a question for all you DMs who ban players from playing cross-gendero You Also Ban YOURSELVES From Playing Cross-Gender?

You mean, do we create worlds in which no females ever interact with the PCs? You know the answer to this question.

I mean, it seems only fair to me. If your male players cannot play a woman "the right way(i.e., your way)," then why are you any better, you close-minded DMs?

Well, I never play a woman as a PC. But running an NPC and playing a PC are in no way equivalent experiences. This is another ridiculous goose-gander argument which makes no sense. The rules governing how PCs react to NPCs are not identical to the rules governing how NPCs react to PCs. If one could simply invert the role of DM and player or of PC and NPC in ever argument, these boards would sound even more nonsensical than they already do.

Is it because players are...well, players. By virtue of that fact, they obviously don't have the maturity to play cross-gender. But you, the DM, can handle the issue.

No. It's because players have the option of not playing women and DMs don't. It is reasonable for one person not to be female but it is not reasonable for everyone not to be female. This kind of "if it's true for one person it must be true for everyone" kind of argument is a silly piece of sophistry that in way addresses the substantive issues under discussion.

And those of you that say that "The average fantasy world is obviously male-dominated, judging by the number of male gods in the PHB; playing a female character is impractical," that is rediculous. Where has WotC ever, ever suggested that in the "generic" DnD world there is a difference between the sexes?

Please re-read my posts. First of all, I specifically state that the rules contain no gender differences; the absence of such rules is the agreed-upon basis of this entire discussion.

What I am talking about is genre; I am making generalizations about the mainstream of the fantasy genre that I think are pretty damn supportable. And I am making such generalizations in support of a single claim: that the majority of NPCs encountered by the characters in D&D will tend to be male.

No Flames, Please

A more careful reading of others' posts might help to avoid flames in future.