roleplaying across the gender line

[barsoomcore]

However, the fact that such a rule is omitted does not somehow magically invalidate everything else the core rules tell us.

No, but it DOES tell us that the designers of the game did NOT intend to apply any rules differences according to gender. If they had intended to do so, they would have done so. It is abundantly clear from the rules of D&D that they are designed to apply equally to both genders in all cases. Whatever you consider to be clear about the social implications of those rules, it is expressly clear from the rules that there ought to be no gender differences.

You want to add them because you believe they are more representative of the kind of world you want to run your campaign in. Very good. But the rules explicitly ask DMs to run campaigns where such differences do not exist.

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%.

Well, that's great. 15% of the gods are female. AND female characters have exactly the same ability score ranges as men. Perhaps you see that as inconsistent, and again, very good. It doesn't change the rules as written.

Even Christian and Islamic fundamentalists are capable of inference.

Let's not bring religion into this, er, debate. We've already had ducks.

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 may recall that it was you who brought up the issue of the existing rules in order to defend this very house rule of yours. I'm more than willing to concede that in doing so you failed to offer any meaningful evidence.

Actually, what I did was make an observation based on my understanding of the rules and then defend it.

Actually, what you did was lay out one of your house rules and then use that to justify why you don't allow cross-gender play. My argument is that it's no justification at all.

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.

You've got two house rules going on here -- firstly, that men cannot play women, and secondly, that women get Charisma bonuses. You can't really use the second to justify the former, because the simple answer is to just lose the second.

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?

Don't the guys in your campaign protest that you offer women more and better character choices than men? Is it just too darn bad for them?

Your argument was that you didn't allow men to play women because you knew that they would only do so in order to gain game bonuses. In effect, power-gaming by choosing to play women. I'm saying that's nonsense, because in allowing women to play women you clearly aren't worried about THEM power-gaming. Why do women get to powergame but men don't?

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.

Did I ever say we were? I do believe that we ought to be presented with the same sets of choices and opportunities, to do with as we please. I would certainly object if my DM said he would allow women players to choose more powerful characters than men. But perhaps your players don't and that's wonderful.

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.

No, they don't. I have never suggested that men and women ARE equal, the same, identical, anything. What I have pointed out is that the rules of D&D assume that they are in every respect. I have also pointed out that your stated reasons for disallowing cross-gender play are ridiculous, and you have been unable to defend them -- the reasons, I mean, not the practice. I have nothing against the practice. Just your reasoning.

But if you want to use simple dismissals rather than address my points, I understand.

 

[Thanee]

Don't the guys in your campaign protest that you offer women more and better character choices than men? Is it just too darn bad for them?

But he's only offering them worse character choices, since male characters do not get the same perks as female characters do.

Maybe fusangite should disallow women from playing female characters, too (because they have unfair advantages in social situations)?

Bye
Thanee

 

[fusangite]

No, but it DOES tell us that the designers of the game did NOT intend to apply any rules differences according to gender.

I'm not interested in debating the designers' intent. This isn't like a constitutional argument in which we ask "what did the framers intend?" Rather, the question that I have asked and answered for my campaign is, "What house rule will make this game more enjoyable and easy to run?"

The reason I brought up what is in the rules is to show that the the term "fantasy" when applied to D&D refers to the literary genre "fantasy" and not one of the other lexical definitions for the term. And to show that D&D is designed to run in a patriarchal world -- one in which most conflicts are resolved through coercion and most high-status roles go to men or, in rare cases, to women of masculine temperment.

apply equally to both genders in all cases. Whatever you consider to be clear about the social implications of those rules, it is expressly clear from the rules that there ought to be no gender differences.

Does the intent of the politically-correct game designers nullify all of the clearly observable truths about the D&D world?

Actually, what you did was lay out one of your house rules and then use that to justify why you don't allow cross-gender play. My argument is that it's no justification at all.

No. Observing that a woman with a Charisma of 14 is more persuasive on balance than a man with a Charisma of 14 is not a house rule. It is simply an observed fact. This is a de facto enhancement bonus.

Don't the guys in your campaign protest that you offer women more and better character choices than men? Is it just too darn bad for them?

No. I don't tend to play D&D with power gamers.

However, if a man comes to me with a female character concept, I'm more likely to suspect he's someone with whom I don't want to game.

In effect, power-gaming by choosing to play women. I'm saying that's nonsense, because in allowing women to play women you clearly aren't worried about THEM power-gaming. Why do women get to powergame but men don't?

I don't think of power-gaming as a privilege that I'm unfairly withholding from people. I think of power gaming as something unpleasant I want to avoid.

Fortunately, in my experience, female players are much less likely to power game than males so I have no real worries that a woman will play her character in a slutty, exploitive way because I've never seen it happen.

Your argument was that you didn't allow men to play women because you knew that they would only do so in order to gain game bonuses.

No. I said that this was one of five common motives I attribute to men wanting to play women in my experience. I then said that I found these five motive sufficiently common that I had done away with men playing women in my campaign. So, no, I don't claim to "know" the mind of any potential player.

 

[fusangite]

Maybe fusangite should disallow women from playing female characters, too (because they have unfair advantages in social situations)?

Why would I disallow something that's never been a problem?

 

[takyris]

Many of these problems go away once you can imagine a world where a guy would actually turn down a woman who is attempting to bribe him with sex. No guy playing a woman in my group has attempted to do so, pretty much thinking that the palace guard isn't gonna go for that behavior. Anything along the lines of "flirting to distract the guard while friends sneak past" gets handled with a Bluff check, just as if it were a man trying to "talk swords" with the guard to distract him. A bluff is a bluff, and a bribe is a bribe.

A character who is GOOD at seducing/manipulating people is one with ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy. Sex is just one potential way of doing it.

Or in other words:

In my campaign, using your femininity to try and distract a guard is like using half-concealment to hide -- you don't get a bonus to your roll because you're doing it. The fact that you're feminine or have half-concealment gives you the chance to do it. If you didn't have boobies or half-concealment, you'd have to try something else -- bluff checks of some sort.

And if guards can be tempted by a flirty rogue woman, that same rogue woman can be discriminated against, and merchants can refuse to sell to her. It's all part of the game.

-Tacky

 

[Tsyr]

1) Does the intent of the politically-correct game designers nullify all of the clearly observable truths about the D&D world?

2)No. Observing that a woman with a Charisma of 14 is more persuasive on balance than a man with a Charisma of 14 is not a house rule. It is simply an observed fact. This is a de facto enhancement bonus.

3) Fortunately, in my experience, female players are much less likely to power game than males so I have no real worries that a woman will play her character in a slutty, exploitive way because I've never seen it happen.

1) How are you "observing" anything about a DnD world, since they are completely fictional? And, (and this is doubly true as of late), they are specificly designed to being totaly balanaced in terms of gender.

2) No, this is not a de facto bonus, and yes, it is a house rule. The rules give NO more advantage to a woman with a Cha of 18 than a man with a Cha of 18. If you are giving women bonuses, that is a house rule. Not that I disagree with this mind you; I think there are situations where a woman would have an advantage in certain social situations. Likewise, however, there are times when men would have an advantage.

3) I've seen women play slutty female characters far more often than I have seen a man do the same (Well, that sorta goes without saying, since I have seen the former, and never once the latter)... should, by your logic, I forbid women to play women?

 

[jgbrowning]

Originally posted by fusangite
The reason I brought up what is in the rules is to show that the the term "fantasy" when applied to D&D refers to the literary genre "fantasy" and not one of the other lexical definitions for the term. And to show that D&D is designed to run in a patriarchal world -- one in which most conflicts are resolved through coercion and most high-status roles go to men or, in rare cases, to women of masculine temperment.

If you believe that by intentionally attempting to remove what sexual bias was inheirant in the game, they "designed to run in a patriarchal world" i might agree with you.

Unfortunately there are no rules that says it must run in a patriarchal world. You can apply the rules equally well to a completely matriarchal world. You can apply the rules in a society of magically-animated, magically-reproducing golems.

YOUR bias is not the game's bias.

Does the intent of the politically-correct game designers nullify all of the clearly observable truths about the D&D world?

I would say yep. Though they may not have succeeded in removing all the patriarchalism in the game and/or the published game settings, (because so much of the game was originally conceived with said mindset) they did attempt to remove it.

I'd say their attempt speaks enough to discredit your statement that "D&D is designed to run in a patriarchal world." D&D used to be such, it is no longer.

No. Observing that a woman with a Charisma of 14 is more persuasive on balance than a man with a Charisma of 14 is not a house rule. It is simply an observed fact. This is a de facto enhancement bonus.

I've never met a woman with a charisma of 14. When I do i'll observe if she more persuasive than a man with a charisma of 14 is, not that i've met one of them either. (Never mind that "14" is a measure of an equal amount of charisma, no matter if its a man, woman, slug.. whatever)

An observed fact? Hrm.... scientifically observed I assume? Observed by scientists raised in an non-patriarchal society so they don't have any culturally influenced predispositions?

Not to mention that Charisma is a measure of force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. It is also indepentant of other's perceptions. "It represents actual personal strength, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting." I guess that woman has more Charima than a man does when attempting to intimidate a barking dog?

Hrm... In a patriarchal world wouldn't all the FRIGGEN MEN have higher charisma's because they're the ones in control? the one's with all the physical "proof" of higher charisma?

I'd like to hear how your women in a patriarchal society have naturally more "ability to lead", or more "force of personality." and then i'd like you to show me how that natural ability manifests itself enough to allow you to observe that women have higher "natural" charisma then the men who are ruling over them

I guess the men are just tougher...


the gist of my statement is this. If you want to play on GOR go ahead. Sexist crap makes me puke.

joe b.

 

[mythago]

I suppose it's pointless to remind y'all that, according to the PH, Charisma is not Babeitude. Looks are only one of five factors that Charisma covers.

If Bob has a Charisma of 18, that doesn't mean he is prettier than George with a Charisma of 15. George might very well be far better-looking than Bob, but as the saying goes, "Not much upstairs but oh, what a staircase!"

So if the Queen of Sztheni is picking out a groom by looking at portraits, maybe she'll prefer George. But it's Bob and not George who'll be the town rake, because he's got a silver tongue to go with those pretty eyes. It's Bob you want to send in for bluff checks, diplomacy, and persuading the angry dragon not to chomp the party.

It is simply an observed fact.

Well, actually, it isn't a fact at all.

In modern Western societies, men respond more positively toward attractive than unattractive women. That doesn't mean they find them more persuasive, more authoritative, or cleverer (in fact, both men and women rate attractive women as being LESS intelligent, persuasive, and authoritative than average-looking females). It means they like looking at pretty girls more than not-so-pretty girls.

So the guards will turn their heads when the cute bard walks by; that doesn't mean they will find her explanations more credible.

As for the "facts" about how men and women are different--well, one fact on which everyone agrees is that is impossible for the strongest woman to be as buff as the strongest man. Yet D&D imposes no restrictions on this. If the Official Rules don't even codify a known, uncontroversial, easily proven difference between the genders, why do you assume it ought to codify those "factual" differences that even experts disagree on?

 

[fusangite]

1) How are you "observing" anything about a DnD world, since they are completely fictional? And, (and this is doubly true as of late), they are specificly designed to being totaly balanaced in terms of gender.

OK. Let's try again:

Step #1: D&D is the D20 game system covering the genre of fantasy.

Step #2: The genre "fantasy" is literary genre covering fictional worlds.

Step #3: D&D is designed to run games most efficaciously in the mainstream of the fantasy genre.

Step #4: The fantasy genre, like all genres, is a class of fiction which has specific characteristics that distinguish it from other genres.

Step #5: The characteristics of a genre can be observed by looking at the body of work within the genre.

2) No, this is not a de facto bonus, and yes, it is a house rule. The rules give NO more advantage to a woman with a Cha of 18 than a man with a Cha of 18.

Let me get this straight. So, you're saying that a male PC with an 18 charisma would be exactly as persuasive to a male NPC and a female PC with an 18 charisma would be? Would you also say that a male PC with a 10 charisma would be exactly as persuasive to a male NPC and a female PC with a 10 charisma would be? If so, would you consider 10 to be an average charisma score for both men and women?

3) I've seen women play slutty female characters far more often than I have seen a man do the same (Well, that sorta goes without saying, since I have seen the former, and never once the latter)... should, by your logic, I forbid women to play women?

Well, not having walked in your shoes, I can't speak to your specific circumstances.

 

[jgbrowning]

Let me get this straight. So, you're saying that a male PC with an 18 charisma would be exactly as persuasive to a male NPC and a female PC with an 18 charisma would be? Would you also say that a male PC with a 10 charisma would be exactly as persuasive to a male NPC and a female PC with a 10 charisma would be? If so, would you consider 10 to be an average charisma score for both men and women?

I'm a bit confused....

could you point me to the "women's ability modifiers and bonus spells" table? I must have the 1st printing of the PHB. The only one I have is "ability modifiers and bonus spells".....

joe b.