fusangite said:
I too disallow men from playing women in my games.
More power to you.
My experience is that the vast majority of men who choose to play a woman do so for one of the following reasons:
None of which bear the remotest resemblance to the reason I posted -- namely, that characters come to me with their gender already defined and I get interested in, then attached to them. I play characters I am interested in. Whether or not they resemble me in their stature, nature or plumbing has nothing to do with it.
Your reasons and your explanations as to why they indicate you disallow men from playing women are very interesting. I don't find any of your "reasons" very compelling, though I can see why you would find #5 uncomfortable. That's fair enough. The other four, however, don't seem very logical to me. But never mind.
Let me put this question to those men committed to playing female characters: what can you do as a female character that you cannot do as a male?
I guess that doesn't include me since I have never claimed to be committed to playing female characters. I have played female characters, and probably will again, for the same reason I play the male characters I play: because they interest me as people. I want to tell their stories. I want to find out what those stories are.
What can I do as a female character that I can't do as a male character? The answer is self-evident: be a female character.
Perhaps I'm being unclear. It's often as though my characters pick me, rather than the other way around. Something, maybe a picture, maybe a character class idea, maybe some story I read or hear about, or even somebody I know (or yes, somebody I wish I was or some game advantage I wish to exploit -- nothing wrong with that) sets something off in my mind. This person takes shape in my imagination and I get interested in them. I define them through the game system (which is usually a pretty fun process, trying to fit my imagination into the rule set) and then play them.
There's no question of committing to one gender role or another. If the character that grows out of my mind is female, I play a female character.
Honestly, until this thread, I never realised I was doing something so controversial. All the guys I played D&D with as a teen did the same. It was never a big deal and I'm pretty amused that it is such a big deal to people.
After all that, I find myself unable to let fusangite's points go by without comment. I want to say up front that I'm all in favour of DMs doing whatever the heck they like. Allow cross-gender play or not, as you like. I do, however, find your reasons almost completely illogical, and I can no more turn away from an illogical argument than I can... um... something I can't do. Here we go:
(1) They have found a technicality in the rules that playing a female character allows them to exploit. E.g. playing a Voria priestess in Runequest because you get Rune Magic right away.
--Often this leads to the person poorly playing the character and making "her" indistinguishable from a man.
Okay, this falls under that category of not letting people play character types different from themselves. I disagree with this notion and don't believe that the way to improve people's role-playing is to limit their choices. This logically equivalent to saying human beings shouldn't play elves because they'll do a bad job of it.
It's also logically equivalent to disallowing elves because they get bonuses to Dexterity or can take elven prestige classes. I mean, if you disallow playing women in a particular game or setting because you think they're unbalanced, that's one thing. It doesn't provide a rationale for applying a blanket policy, though.
(2) They believe that they can gain diplomatic and financial advantage on the basis of charm.
--This essentially applies enhancement bonuses to a bunch of Charisma-based skills for free.
You give female characters enhancement bonuses to Charisma-related skills for free? Why? And how does the fact that you give female characters enhancement bonuses on Charisma-related skills translate into not allowing male players to play female characters? Weird.
(3) They wish that they were attractive young women in real life and want to roleplay this experience because they find it emotionally gratifying.
(4) They are frustrated by the fact that attractive young have power over them in real life and want to roleplay this experience of disempowerment from the opposite perspective.
--I am not a counsellor and do not want to do therapy in the guise of gaming.
I see. But somehow, allowing a wimp to play a big burly fighter because he wishes he were strong and athletic in real life is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Uh-huh. Or do you also demand that your players play characters whose physical traits and abilities mirror their own?
What do you care if a player is treating themselves for some emotional problem? Why should that bother you? As long as they're having fun and you're having fun, who cares WHY anyone is doing anything? That whole "They shouldn't do this because their motivation is bad" argument always seems bizarre to me in any context. Why do you CARE what somebody's motivation is -- and how do you know?
Teflon Billy says it interferes with his enjoyment of the game because the male players he's known who have played female characters have inevitably behaved like idiots. I'm of the opinion that a player who acts like an idiot when playing a female character is likely to act like an idiot most other times, but this solution obviously works for him. But you're saying you don't allow it because you disapprove of the motivations people have. Which baffles me.
And so I see Sir T Billy has re-entered the fray with:
get ready for a deluge of "I just see the character in my head as a woman" and it's ilk.
I just have to ask -- is this a dismissal of such points? I guess I ask because, yeah, that's exactly my point (only stated in eleven words instead of fifteen paragraphs -- curse you).
but get ready for a deluge of "I just see the character in my head as a woman" and it's ilk.
