roleplaying across the gender line

[Snoweel]

I mean, how many people actually play elves as beings who live for hundreds of years, instead of aloof humans at home in the woods? or gruff alcholics and violence-prone humans as dwarves? I've never really seen anybody "get into" a demi-human character, with all the impacts that their racial makeup would have.

Damn good point.

This is why I don't allow non-human PC's when I DM.

Of course as DM, I roleplay non-humans, but it's MY campaign, and I'm the one who decides what they're like.

I've NEVER met anyone who roleplays elves, dwarves or half-orcs to my satisfaction. And the verisimilitude of my setting is very important.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

I can't believe what I am hearing from some folks here. You play a roleplaying game, and yet think that a person should always play a character as close to themselves as possible.

The only time I would agree is when a new player is just starting out. Most new roleplayers should try to play a personality that is comfortable to them rather than try to play a character they may not understand.

After you have been roleplaying for a number of years, a DM should give some latitude to a player. Players enjoy experiementing. I base my latitude often on how much time my players put into their backgrounds.

I definitely don't care for the old "I just feel like trying this out because the powers are cool" reason. I prefer a fully developed background that gives the character a reason to exist. If the player gives me a great background, I will let them play just about anything if it fits with the theme of the campaign.

 

[Agback]

qualities that just don't lend themselves well to a violent, adventuring lifestyle

True, but most are. Are they not?

No, or at least most of mine aren't. Most are about characters who are eventually driven to violence, or about characters who will employ violence when it is justified in times of crisis. PCs in most on my campaigns lead civilised lifestyles and confine violence to those emergencies called 'adventures'.

For example, my last D&D paladin was a physician who had left the Asturias when the mob started throwing stones at his Jewish wife and who had settled in Durham and hung up his shingle. He had intended to dedicate his life to healing the sick, but his sense of lawfulness had forced him to help the bishop keep order in the palatinate, and when the community was threatened he reluctantly took his old sword down off the wall. That character led a quiet and modest lifestyle: adventures were crises that occasionally interrupted it.

I mean, otherwise you're better off with a system other than d20.

Perhaps. But then again perhaps not. And I am not certainly not prepared to write off d20 Modern so soon. D&D may be more versatile than you think.

There are, but I think we all agree that most of those alternatives are boring.

Indeed? 'We' must have come to that conclusion while I was out of the room.

Bor-ing.

The Scarlet Pimpernel boring? Zorro boring? You must be doing something wrong.

Are you playing D&D or V:tM?

No, I'm not.

Even when my PC's are nobles, I make sure they're capable of being proactively violent (eg: Samurai and every other form of feudal aristocracy throughout history).

So what does that have to with an adventuring lifestyle? Or with testicles and hairy bums?

You do realise that the majority of people in the world are utterly incapable of being violent without having their lives directly threatened, don't you?

I am aware of it. It does not convince me that only people who are not only capable of violence but also in the habit of using it as a regular part of a generally adventuring lifestyle make suitable PCs. And it is far from clear that women are incapable of violence.

Dude, cloak-and-dagger are the meat and drink of my D&D games. However, when the stakes are high, violence is always a factor. One element of villainy is seeing life as cheap. Even if the villain is unable to personally cut somebody's throat, he/she will almost always have the means of getting others to perpetrate violence on his/her behalf. And if a villain's not even capable of that, then he/she's hardly a villain worthwhile of the attention of heroes.

Sure. I still don't see that this precludes heroes with normal, civilised lifestyles.

Like the Famous Five?!?!?!? Or even Skippy??!!??!!??

Why not?

Dude, do you think my games are "kick the door open and kill things" games? As if the only options for D&D are roleplay-heavy or hack-and-slash?

You are the one who ruled out female PCs because their bums are not hairy enough for them to live a violent adventuring lifestyle.

Mystery doesn't preclude violence, except on children's TV shows.

I never said it did. I suggested it as an alternative to dungeon-crawling.

But are your PC's untouchable? I'll bet they're not. If they don't want to deal with violence, then they'd better lay off that untouchable villain. Unless of course your villain doesn't care that much about having his/her plans thwarted.

Very often the situation is that the first person to resort to open violence will do so at great cost. For example, the community will judge the first person to resort to open violence as being the aggressor and side against him.

For example, in my most successful fantasy campaign ever the PCs were in conflict with the Emperor of the country they lived in. Each side hated the other, but.... The Emperor could not simply have the PCs executed because they were prominent enough that there was a significant risk that this might provoke general rebellion. On the other hand the PCs could not openly attack the Emperor because if they did so the country would sit quietly while they were executed. The PCs frustrated a plan that the Emperor could not publicly acknowledge he was behind (the kidnap of his daughter by pirates). So he felt that he had to punish the PCs in secret. In encounter after encounter the stakes rose and the PCs position got stronger, until the Emperor realised that the danger of letting the PCs keep going as they were was greater than the political danger of attacking them openly. Then came the open warfare.

There was no shortage of violence. But then I am not arguing that there ought to be. But the intrigue surrounding the violence provided more interest and greater challenges than any campaign based on open conflict could have done.

My point is that the PCs did not lead a violent adventuring lifestyle. They lived in palaces in circumstances of great luxury. They wore exquisite clothes. They attended (and gave) Society balls. They played at sports in the gymnasium, they discussed philosophy in the agora. This lifestyle was punctuated by adventures, most of them secret. But the lifestyle itself was neither violent nor adventurous. It was sybaritic. As it happens all the PCs were male, but they need not have been.

And mine sleep in a 20'x20' room surrounded by Troglodyte carcasses?

That was the impression that you gave by stating that women are completely unsuitable to be PCs because they don't have the testicles and hairy bums required to live a violent adventuring lifestyle. That was you, wasn't it?

Regards,


Agback

 

[Al]

I've NEVER met anyone who roleplays elves, dwarves or half-orcs to my satisfaction. And the verisimilitude of my setting is very important.

Whereas I wouldn't even consider playing a character that couldn't be done with testicles and a hairy ass.

Let me get this straight:

You don't allow cross-gender PCs. You don't allow cross-racial PCs.

But...if I were to make a human male sorceror who grew up in a monastery before his sorcerous powers were manifested and was sent to a tutor to help him with his powers. The tutor became locked into a long battle with his clerical archnemesis, and, whilst I cowered in the corner, my tutor was destroyed by fires rained down from the very heavens, leaving but a charred pile of ash. I then ran away to the city and lived on the street peddling my spells for a few silver as an entertainer, until I was conscripted into the army as a battle-wizard; spent three years in the army before going on to being a mercenary, at which point the campaign begins...that would be okay?

So...I can play a man who can manifest magic from his very heritage, was an orphan brought up in a monastery, was tutored by a man who I saw burnt to death from a spell before my very eyes, lived on the street, spent time in the army and became a mercenary.

But I can't realistically play a half-elf or a woman?

 

[Agback]

G'day

Some people have suggested that players be discouraged from playing members of the other sex because it is difficult to do that well. Do these people not understand the pleasure of rising to a challenge?

"We will do this, and the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard."

Regards,


Agback

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Okay I wanted to post on this thread two days ago but my DSL went nuts during the formulation of my statement. Here is the post I wrote:

Here's some more pop-psychology for you. On the MBTI, I come out as INFP, strong NFP.

This is definitely a T/F discussion. A couple of points:


1) It would anger me too if someone said that "All guys are T's." Being boxed like that is annoying to say the least. I think a more accurate description is:

All people have both T and F, and some tend to favor one over the other.

I also think it's accurate to say:

More women tend to favor F than men.

I will not go into the reasons why the above trend is in existence. That is a debate for another time.

Which leads us to:

The discussion here is whether Men have the ability to adequately roleplay the F tool effectively.


2) "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" is a horrible title for the book. It succumbs to the same thing that angers me about #1 above.

However, if one takes the book, replaces every reference of "man" with "T" and replaces every reference of "woman" with "F", then the book starts making a whole lot of sense.

The difference being that T and F are not stereotypes of each gender, but tools that all people possess. The difference is astounding.

So the actual title of the book should be:

T is from Mars, F is from Venus


3) As relating to the character at the beginning of this thread. Just because the character is a woman does not mean she has to be played favoring F.

The way you describe her history, she could be analytical, probing, aggressive, competitive, expansionistic, prone to banter or have rational discussions about science, cars, sports, "work, serial killers, cults, occultists and psycopaths."


4) Teflon Billy has a point:

The other concept most often proposed by the guys is the "man-hating arch Lesbian". Someone who lives to take offense at sexual commentary, and is homicidal about it.

This is what happens when a man who does not favor F makes an extreme T character to compensate.

Just play Natalya like you would relate to the world, and everything will be fine. Don't try to force her to have cartoon caracatures. It's far more effective to play her like you would react in that situation, then add pieces of F as you go along.

Anyhow, good luck.






Oh yeah, look down...
|
|
|
|
\/

 

[Snoweel]

No, or at least most of mine aren't. Most are about characters who are eventually driven to violence, or about characters who will employ violence when it is justified in times of crisis. PCs in most on my campaigns lead civilised lifestyles and confine violence to those emergencies called 'adventures'.

Dude, whether your PC's resort to violence once a year or twenty times a day, they are violent.

Whether they leave home to risk their lives once a year or permanently live out of a rucksack, they are adventurers.

These death-defying PC's of yours, no matter how opulent their conditions, are willing to do the things that other people won't do. They are violent adventurers.

For example, my last D&D paladin was a physician who had left the Asturias when the mob started throwing stones at his Jewish wife and who had settled in Durham and hung up his shingle. He had intended to dedicate his life to healing the sick, but his sense of lawfulness had forced him to help the bishop keep order in the palatinate, and when the community was threatened he reluctantly took his old sword down off the wall. That character led a quiet and modest lifestyle: adventures were crises that occasionally interrupted it.

The point is, he was still prepared to use his sword to solve problems instead of cowering while others risk their lives. Maybe he listened to Alan Jones and Lawsy, but your retired Paladin was still a violent adventurer.

The Scarlet Pimpernel boring? Zorro boring? You must be doing something wrong.

The only thing I'm doing wrong is trying to hammer this into your thick Canberra skull.

The Scarlet Pimpernel and Zorro were both violent adventurers. Did they get others to fight their battles for them? Did they throw themselves on the mercy of those stronger than themselves? Did they run away or hide, leaving sterner souls to right wrongs?

No.

They were, after all, adventurous and violent.

Wearing fancy pants and waxing one's cheeks doesn't preclude a character from being a violent adventurer.

I suppose you think the PC's in my game eat raw meat and sleep in their armour? In a 20' x 20' room full of Troglodyte carcasses, no less.

Now that I think about it, they probably would, if they had to.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when my PC's are nobles, I make sure they're capable of being proactively violent (eg: Samurai and every other form of feudal aristocracy throughout history).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So what does that have to with an adventuring lifestyle?

So, my noble PC's don't hire adventurers to solve their problems. They are the adventurers solving their problems. Hell, the other nobles are likely to ask the PC's to solve their problems too.

Or with testicles and hairy bums?

Well, throughout our own history, it has been the individuals with testicles and hairy bums, whether male or female (and I mean figurative testicles and hairy bums here) who have been the heroes. The ones with the aggression, confidence and determination to risk their lives, face the unknown, and bash it to death with a stick - violent adventurers.

It does not convince me that only people who are not only capable of violence but also in the habit of using it as a regular part of a generally adventuring lifestyle make suitable PCs.

This isn't about regularity. It's about whether or not a character can.

That's a much bigger distinction.

And it is far from clear that women are incapable of violence.

I never even implied this.

But it is a fact that of the minority of people who are capable of risking their lives (adventuring) and/or perpetrating violence upon others, an overwhelming majority of them are men. And of those women you can think of who are capable of the honorific violent adventurer, they are decidedly "unfeminine".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dude, cloak-and-dagger are the meat and drink of my D&D games. However, when the stakes are high, violence is always a factor. One element of villainy is seeing life as cheap. Even if the villain is unable to personally cut somebody's throat, he/she will almost always have the means of getting others to perpetrate violence on his/her behalf. And if a villain's not even capable of that, then he/she's hardly a villain worthwhile of the attention of heroes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sure. I still don't see that this precludes heroes with normal, civilised lifestyles.

This depends entirely on your definitions of "normal" and "civilised". I never said a violent adventurer can't own a home or have a day job.

You are the one who ruled out female PCs because their bums are not hairy enough for them to live a violent adventuring lifestyle.

No, I ruled out feminine PC's.

Because they're decidly un-heroic, un-adventurous and non-violent.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mystery doesn't preclude violence, except on children's TV shows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never said it did. I suggested it as an alternative to dungeon-crawling.

Which implies that dungeon-crawling is the only activity violent adventurers are capable of successfully participating in.

Very often the situation is that the first person to resort to open violence will do so at great cost. For example, the community will judge the first person to resort to open violence as being the aggressor and side against him.

Yet you make no mention of tacit violence. Do you assume that violent adventurers are only capable of marching up to the king and hitting him with a big stick? After first having mowed down his personal bodyguard, of course.

You seem to think violent=st00pid.

You might have heard of our very own SAS. The only element of our military that has any meaningful budget allocated to it, and, funnily enough, the only Australian regiment that is almost constantly active around the world.

You know some of these guys have never killed anyone? I think it's still pretty safe to say that they are, to a man, violent adventurers. Incidentally, their numbers don't include a lot of women - 0, IIRC.

For example, in my most successful fantasy campaign ever the PCs were in conflict with the Emperor of the...

blah, blah, blah

... On the other hand the PCs could not openly attack quotethe Emperor...

There you go again. Violent = st00pid.

... because if they did so the country would sit quietly while they were executed. The PCs frustrated a plan that the Emperor could not publicly acknowledge he was behind (the kidnap of his daughter by pirates). So he felt that he had to punish the PCs in secret. In encounter after encounter the stakes rose and the PCs position got stronger, until the Emperor realised that the danger of letting the PCs keep going as they were was greater than the political danger of attacking them openly. Then came the open warfare.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

There was no shortage of violence. But then I am not arguing that there ought to be. But the intrigue surrounding the violence provided more interest and greater challenges than any campaign based on open conflict could have done.

Gee, I wish MY campaign had intrigue instead of just mindless "open conflict".

Dude, in this amazing campaign of yours that none of us could have ever dreamt up in a million years,

did the same characters who engaged in the "safe" intrigue (I assume it was safe, since your campaigns don't feature adventurers) also engage in the violence that took place?

Or did they hire mercenaries? (Since, according to you, your PC's aren't violent - they must have hired people to take care of their violence for them, right?)

My point is that the PCs did not lead a violent adventuring lifestyle.

If they actively engaged in violence (ie. they didn't run away or hide behind bodyguards), then they are violent.

If they risked their lives in the pursuit of their goals (ie. they didn't hire somebody else to take the risks while they sat in relative safety), then they are adventurers.

If, perchance, they participated in both of these activities, then they are violent adventurers.

QED.

They lived in palaces in circumstances of great luxury. They wore exquisite clothes. They attended (and gave) Society balls. They played at sports in the gymnasium, they discussed philosophy in the agora.

How does this preclude the PC's from being violent adventurers?

You seem to think that only the desperate and destitute can be violent adventurers.

I've DM'ed PC's, who were violent adventurers in every sense of the term, yet who (eventually) lived opulent lifestyles as you describe. Minus the frilly shirts and naked Greco-Roman wrestling.

The fact that they were fabulously wealthy (or backed by such individuals), ensured that they were free to go on violent adventures should the need arise.

This lifestyle was punctuated by adventures, most of them secret.

Aaahh. So, you're not a violent adventurer unless everybody KNOWS you're a violent adventurer!!!!

I like your thinking. Never underestimate the power of denial.

But the lifestyle itself was neither violent nor adventurous.

Did the characters ever resort to violence? Did they ever go on adventures?

Not even once?

Bor-ing.

It was sybaritic.

Indeed. /me looks for his dictionary...

As it happens all the PCs were male, but they need not have been.

Of course not. This is fantasy, after all.

That was the impression that you gave by stating that women are completely unsuitable to be PCs because they don't have the testicles and hairy bums required to live a violent adventuring lifestyle. That was you, wasn't it?

I never said "women" are completely unsuitable.

I implied that anyone without "balls" is completely unsuitable.

And y'know, "balls" is really a state of mind.

Throughout history, the vast majority of people with "balls" have also had testicles and a hairy ass. It might be a coincidence.

But I don't think so.

See my earlier post on the effects of sex hormones on the development of the brain. There are "maculine" qualities and "feminine" qualities.

While they are far more likely to occur in members of their respective sexes, it's obvious that there are aberrant individuals of both sexes.

Indeed, the majority of men will be incapable of achieving the level of violence and risk ("masculine" qualities) required to be successful violent adventurers, while there will be the rare woman who is more than capable of posessing such qualities.

No matter how big their castle or how floppy their hat.

 

[Snoweel]

Let me get this straight:

You don't allow cross-gender PCs. You don't allow cross-racial PCs.

But...if I were to make a human male sorceror who grew up in a monastery before his sorcerous powers were manifested and was sent to a tutor to help him with his powers. The tutor became locked into a long battle with his clerical archnemesis, and, whilst I cowered in the corner, my tutor was destroyed by fires rained down from the very heavens, leaving but a charred pile of ash. I then ran away to the city and lived on the street peddling my spells for a few silver as an entertainer, until I was conscripted into the army as a battle-wizard; spent three years in the army before going on to being a mercenary, at which point the campaign begins...that would be okay?

No it wouldn't.

But that's just because your backstory belongs on "Days of our Lives".

So...I can play a man who can manifest magic from his very heritage, was an orphan brought up in a monastery, was tutored by a man who I saw burnt to death from a spell before my very eyes, lived on the street, spent time in the army and became a mercenary.

But I can't realistically play a half-elf or a woman?

A player has to be a reeeeaaally good roleplayer before I'll let him/her play a spellcaster. It's bad enough having a sword-wielding PC who sounds like he belongs in the 21st century without having to deal with a magic-wielding PC who sounds like he belongs in the 21st century.

And really, I'd prefer if all the PC's were non-magical humans.

 

[Snoweel]

Just thought of a valid point.

Why do you think very few women play D&D?

Because adventuring and violence really don't interest them that much.

Back in Sweden, I gamed with my wife, a friend of hers, two of my friends and their girlfriends. All up, our group included me as DM, 2 males and 4 females.

The guys and I had more fun when it was just the 3 of us, since the girls were more interested in interacting with my NPC's than actually doing anything fun (from our male point of view). And Swedish girls are decidedly tomboyish.

I put it to anyone that if you know a woman (or are one) who enjoys the conflict and risk of D&D, she will also have a tomboy streak a mile wide.

 

[Tsyr]

I put it to anyone that if you know a woman (or are one) who enjoys the conflict and risk of D&D, she will also have a tomboy streak a mile wide.

I can actualy name two examples off the top of my head that do not fit that mold, so... and thats 50 percent of the female gamers I know