roleplaying across the gender line
- Thread starter Ancalagon
- Start date
- Status
Tsyr
Explorer
Snoweel said:Yeah, but I can't lose this one.
See, if they do happen to enjoy such elements of the game, then they're tomboys by default!
That's like saying any girl who watches an action movie (other than to, say, drool at the hero) is a tomboy. Nuh-uh. Aint gonna buy that definition of the phrase. I know plenty of girls/women who enjoy mindless violence as entertainment but are still otherwise "normal" (For whatever that word really means) girls/women.
And even if I were to accept your definition (which I don't), it still doesn't mean "a streak a mile wide".
Snoweel said:
*Chuckle* that would pretty much take 50% of the fun out of D&D for me then.
I'd love to play a female character again (I'm DMing at the moment and would pretty much love to play again), but the suspension of disbelief that it requires of my group is more then I would ask of them. I am a reasonable large man with a furry face and i fear that it would be too hard for my group to look past it. Ah well, perhaps another group in the future.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re
Not my character, just offering a supportive view. And if you don't think Sean Bean/Boromir isn't a hottie, you're sadly mistaken. Woof!
LostSoul said:
I would never play a "pretty boy"!I've pictured my character as Sean Bean (aka Boromir), or maybe the guy from the Transporter.
*snip*
Not my character, just offering a supportive view. And if you don't think Sean Bean/Boromir isn't a hottie, you're sadly mistaken. Woof!
Queenie
Queen of Everything
Snoweel said:
I have been reading this thread since the beginning, but I am new to the boards and a little shy about posting. After reading this post I just had to respond.
I am a women, and I love playing D&D. I don't think I have any tomboy tendencies at all and if you knew me you would agree.
I love playing because I can be / do things that I never could in reality, like cast fireballs and go toe to toe with a dragon. I like to get invloved in battle, as much as I like to roleplay with other characters. I feel there should be a balance between these two.
I am currently playing a VERY feminine sorcereress, who cries when her friends almost die and pouts to get her way. You know what? It's FUN. And the men in the group love it. They see her as someone who needs protection. Truthfully, she is very protective of them and has saved their butts in battle MANY times. She risks her life for them.
I joined the group (all men) after they had been playing for a while and everyone says it is much better since I started playing. It brings more conflict and fun to the game.
I don't see why there should be so many labels put on people. If you are a man and you want to play a girl play a girl. Put on a dress and pout all you want. You can play a manly girl or a feminine man, why should it matter? You can play elves and dwarves and magic users and axe weilding barbarians, so why can't you play cross gender?
This game is about doing things we can only dream of. Why put limits on our imagination?
Queenie
Hoping I don't get flamed for my first real opinion on these boards
Bagpuss
Legend
Snoweel said:
Oh oh I know this one, is it because in your fantasy roleplaying game they are force into playing mudane humans?
They arn't bright enough to play a none human race, or a human with any abilities outside there own.
Do you allow folks to play anything outside there own life experience?
And here's me thinking fantasy roleplaying games were about using your imagination.
Last edited:
s/LaSH
First Post
Here're my thoughts on the matter, and some observations. Before I start, I'll state for the record that I'm male.
Roleplaying should be an escape into wild worlds of adventure. I don't want to pick up a sword and risk my butt fighting something with more tentacles than eyes (and that can be a LOT), but I'm perfectly willing to do it on paper. In the spirit of such things, why not do something a little different than yourself? If you do it right, you can expand your perspectives and become a better person. I know from experience that's a great feeling.
On the other hand, if some cheap player wants to play a walking abomination like the oft-mentioned 'slut' characters (I'd say stereotypes, but I can't actually think of anyone that stereotype might be based on - am I too sheltered?), there's a reason people don't do that in real life. People have mentioned all manner of ways of getting back at someone with disease or vengeful NPCs, but someone else mentioned that you could use sluttiness as a quick way to earn a buck, superior to Profession skills. Not true! If you're going to do this, you need the profession skill in whatever distasteful field you want. Simply finding willing customers is a difficult proposition, especially when you've got competition; I'd limit someone to the standard profession rules, and if they're untrained so much the worse for them. Or if you're targeting specific individuals rather than making an abstract roll, either they're not the type to solicit such services (thus you'd have a DC of 30 or 40 easy, and it's not really a Bluff situation ("You want to sleep with me, Archbishop!"... where's the trickery?), making it nearly impossible to seduce them), or they've already got a concubine or favourite escort.
I'd like to make it clear that I don't condone such activities on the part of a PC either. Thus I provide a possible way of discouraging it in-game rather than metagame.
My next point: Sure, women are different to men. But I have two sisters, and they're not THAT much different. One of them occasionally tries to beat me up (and fails, of course). The other isn't so violent, but I suspect that's because she's got a hip condition. The mother of one of my players watches Star Trek with us. One of my best friends from school was a young woman who fitted every criterion for geekhood better than some geeks I know. Really, femininity isn't all that important except in ancient history; women (to me) are just like me only with different goals. Not as different as my brother, though, so there you go.
Speaking of ancient history, we can blame the pre-Roman patriarchs for deposing the pre-pre-Roman matriarchs, but that's beside the point.
Finally, my gaming group is me and two other guys. Each of them plays two characters, one male, one female. Here are the characters, without reference to gender or race:
'A', the cleric, a gentle soul who doesn't like to resort to violence;
'C', the thief, who frequently gets the party into trouble yet rarely feels the consequences and is never sorry;
'L', the fighter, who lurks in the darkness of a cloak and wields a vicious scythe;
'T', the mage, who loves to find and claim anything that's shiny. Also head and shoulders taller than anyone else in the party.
Any guesses as to the genders of these PCs? Think about it. These are summaries of the characters in action. Can you guess?
Well, here're the answers. 'A' is an elven male. 'C' is a human female. 'L' is a human male, and 'T' is a triton female.
Oh, and you should also check out my comic (link below) for a non-typical female villain. Be warned, there's nearly 60 strips of plot leading up to the present.
My point is, it doesn't matter much whether a character is female or not so long as you've got good role-players that can handle physiology without going X-rated.
And on the subject of charisma: The aforementioned thief 'C' is blessed with a CHA somewhere around 12. Despite this, it's pretty clear from the campaign that she's as beautiful as the dawn, etcetc. So why the comparatively low CHA? Simple: She's an awful person to know. She's possessive, glory-hogging, spoiled and rude. (And a thief.) Remember, people, CHA isn't just good looks (every adventurer is striking in appearance, IMHO), something which Natasha's player seems to have realised.
Just for kicks, I'd like to mention that the scifi homebrew I'm working on has several races with three genders, and one with four. Does that make anyone feel... uncomfortable?
PS: Queenie, I couldn't agree more. Good on ya, as the people of my land say.
Roleplaying should be an escape into wild worlds of adventure. I don't want to pick up a sword and risk my butt fighting something with more tentacles than eyes (and that can be a LOT), but I'm perfectly willing to do it on paper. In the spirit of such things, why not do something a little different than yourself? If you do it right, you can expand your perspectives and become a better person. I know from experience that's a great feeling.
On the other hand, if some cheap player wants to play a walking abomination like the oft-mentioned 'slut' characters (I'd say stereotypes, but I can't actually think of anyone that stereotype might be based on - am I too sheltered?), there's a reason people don't do that in real life. People have mentioned all manner of ways of getting back at someone with disease or vengeful NPCs, but someone else mentioned that you could use sluttiness as a quick way to earn a buck, superior to Profession skills. Not true! If you're going to do this, you need the profession skill in whatever distasteful field you want. Simply finding willing customers is a difficult proposition, especially when you've got competition; I'd limit someone to the standard profession rules, and if they're untrained so much the worse for them. Or if you're targeting specific individuals rather than making an abstract roll, either they're not the type to solicit such services (thus you'd have a DC of 30 or 40 easy, and it's not really a Bluff situation ("You want to sleep with me, Archbishop!"... where's the trickery?), making it nearly impossible to seduce them), or they've already got a concubine or favourite escort.
I'd like to make it clear that I don't condone such activities on the part of a PC either. Thus I provide a possible way of discouraging it in-game rather than metagame.
My next point: Sure, women are different to men. But I have two sisters, and they're not THAT much different. One of them occasionally tries to beat me up (and fails, of course). The other isn't so violent, but I suspect that's because she's got a hip condition. The mother of one of my players watches Star Trek with us. One of my best friends from school was a young woman who fitted every criterion for geekhood better than some geeks I know. Really, femininity isn't all that important except in ancient history; women (to me) are just like me only with different goals. Not as different as my brother, though, so there you go.
Speaking of ancient history, we can blame the pre-Roman patriarchs for deposing the pre-pre-Roman matriarchs, but that's beside the point.
Finally, my gaming group is me and two other guys. Each of them plays two characters, one male, one female. Here are the characters, without reference to gender or race:
'A', the cleric, a gentle soul who doesn't like to resort to violence;
'C', the thief, who frequently gets the party into trouble yet rarely feels the consequences and is never sorry;
'L', the fighter, who lurks in the darkness of a cloak and wields a vicious scythe;
'T', the mage, who loves to find and claim anything that's shiny. Also head and shoulders taller than anyone else in the party.
Any guesses as to the genders of these PCs? Think about it. These are summaries of the characters in action. Can you guess?
Well, here're the answers. 'A' is an elven male. 'C' is a human female. 'L' is a human male, and 'T' is a triton female.
Oh, and you should also check out my comic (link below) for a non-typical female villain. Be warned, there's nearly 60 strips of plot leading up to the present.
My point is, it doesn't matter much whether a character is female or not so long as you've got good role-players that can handle physiology without going X-rated.
And on the subject of charisma: The aforementioned thief 'C' is blessed with a CHA somewhere around 12. Despite this, it's pretty clear from the campaign that she's as beautiful as the dawn, etcetc. So why the comparatively low CHA? Simple: She's an awful person to know. She's possessive, glory-hogging, spoiled and rude. (And a thief.) Remember, people, CHA isn't just good looks (every adventurer is striking in appearance, IMHO), something which Natasha's player seems to have realised.
Just for kicks, I'd like to mention that the scifi homebrew I'm working on has several races with three genders, and one with four. Does that make anyone feel... uncomfortable?
PS: Queenie, I couldn't agree more. Good on ya, as the people of my land say.
ConcreteBuddha
First Post
Snoweel said:
I think your heart is in the right place, but the way you get there is incorrect. First of all:
Fewer women than men play DnD because:
1) DnD favors T competition more than F cooperation. (It has both, but T outweighs the F.)
2) More men than women favor T. (As per my previous post.)
3) Therefore, more men than women play DnD.
.
.
.
This, of course, is not to say that "No F women can play DnD." That would be inane. This is an example of an F woman playing DnD:
.
.
.
I would like to plead to everyone here: The genders cannot be boxed into permanent, unchangeable, absolute, psychological roles.
It is possible to take a look at this subject without using the faulty terminology that implies the above statement. Namely:
Women = Feminine = F
and
Men = Masculine = T
These are horrible statements to make, and completely invalidate the idea that all people require both functions to operate.
.
.
.
I am working off the idea that:
Masculine, competition, expansion, violence, aggression propagation, rationality, and domination are all T traits.
Feminine, cooperation, equality, emotion, irrationality, and peacefulness, are all F traits.
The reason why I prefer not to use the terms "Masculine" and "Feminine" is because these words are charged with centuries of enforcing gender stereotypes.
T and F describe a series of behaviors that have nothing specifically to do with gender. They can be applied to gender, but they do not equal gender.
.
.
.
I prefer the cleaner terms of T and F. You step on a lot less toes, and you get a lot more done if you first define how you are using those words. (Websters doesn't count.)
This is especially true in an emotion-charged issue like this one. Of course, this is all, IMHO...
- Status
