roleplaying across the gender line

[Fenes 2]

I think I do have to step in and defend those players that play stereotypes. As long as everyone has fun, what is wrong with playing the dumb barbarian, the lawful stupid knight, the blonde airheaded bombshell, or the skank?

I personally will not cater to the player of a minmaxed combat freak, but I am sure he will have fun in a load of other groups, and good for him.

I have no problem with a male player playing a woman of loose morals, just as I have no problem with a womanizing swashbuckler. Fade to black works for a great many situations, both for the rogue going to a brothel as well as the barbarian starting a tavern brawl.

As far as "milking" the Charisma skills goes, what is wrong with that again? Those boards are full of minmaxing tactical tips to get the most out of a weapon and feat combo, but as soon as a player seems to "get more out of" a high charisma - even though it is absolutely in the hands of the DM how far his NPCs will go for some sexual favors - it becomes wrong? Using a charm spell is somehow more acceptable as using good looks and a PC's body?

Then there are the "fixes" for the apparently dire problem of a PC sleeping around.
Sure, actions usually have consequences. If a player has a skanky rogue sleeping her way through her opposition, then that PC is bound to encounter resistance - but not to the point of forcing the player to abandon his PC while the rest of the party can freely dominate their "social niche". If the women of a town are collecting money to get her cursed, why isn't the barbarian that has put 4 men in the temple's healing ward already getting cursed by the men? What about the party wizard showing off the mayor, or the cleric converting the flock of the local priest?

If anyone has more fun playing a stereotype than a "realistic" concept, then he or she would be a fool not to play that stereotype, as long as the group is ok with it.

 

[s/LaSH]

Character concepts: The gender of the character isn't all that important to me, really. Instead, I have a concept for a character that writhes around and forms itself, by and large, and then Mr. Brain steps in and says, "Do you have enough women in it?" You see, my mind is configured to be 'fair'. What this means in practice is that pouring Coke into separate glasses for other members of my family is a nightmarish war of cubic centimeter estimates and dark stares, but it does mean some interesting things happen in my fiction. For example, I changed an alien emperor to an empress, which makes zero difference because the ankkheris are saurians and don't have breasts.

So how many people out there let their players have female demihumans? What about a female lizardfolk? Would that be OK?

And do illithids even have genders?

 

[Bagpuss]

Well, this thread is certainly exciting.

I find it so everytime it pops up, although I never really understand the fuss.

Originally posted by fusangite Let me put this question to those men committed to playing female characters: [/B]

Not sure about "committed" but I have played female characters in the past and I'm sure I'll play them in the future. I don't limit myself to only playing female characters however. On the whole I've mainly played male characters, closer to my own experience and therefore easier to roleplay.

Originally posted by fusangite what can you do as a female character that you cannot do as a male? [/B]

As barsoome said, "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."

If your DM and other players are any good (which our group are) then they react differently to a female character than they would a male one, and therefore the whole experience is different.

It introduces different challenges and advantages. Even with the moves towards equality that there have been in the 20th Century women are still treated differently than men. They therefore have a different experience of the world, and so a female character will give you a different experience of the game than a male character would.

Same is true if you opted to play a black or chinese character in a say a roleplaying game set in a Wild West period, you character would be treated completely differently experience than if they were a white character.

 

[Al]

In response to fusangite

It seems that fusangite has been nominated the new leader of the 'anti-cross-gender' cohort, enfranchised by even Billy. As such, I feel I ought to tackle him.

fusangite's line of argument is certainly interesting. It basically revolves around setting up certain parameters for cross-gender characters, proves that within those parameters playing cross-gender is a bad idea, then backtracks to conclude that playing cross-gender is a bad idea FULL STOP.

Unfortunately, the parameters that he has set do not seem to have any bearing with the reality. He has not empirically proven that all cross-gender characters fall into one of those five categories. Indeed, in my experience (though this is purely anecdotal), and in the experience of most posters here (fusangite and Billy being the notable exceptions) the majority of cross-gender characters fall outside the parameters. His parameters are therefore moot, and his entire argument collapses.

He concludes with the rhetorical question:

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?

which misses the point.

The point is that one plays a female character because one chooses to do so. Aside from a few exceptions (such as gender-loaded prestige classes), there is no real *mechanical* difference between the genders. The whole point is to play a different character. This argument also goes at odds with much of the 'anti-cross-gender' argument: that of utilising 'sexuality' as a means of gaining favours. They would contend that 'there is no difference' and simultaneously argue that 'there is a difference because female PCs exploit sex'- a fundamental contradiction. Clearly, if there were no difference, there would be no grounds for complaint. The fact is that being female is a choice, like choosing the character's personality. There are few *mechanical* differences, but the point is that this is a roleplaying game. The roleplaying differences (read: opportunities) offered by playing a female character are tremendous. In banning female characters, you ban one half of all character archetypes: a lot of restriction for no real payoff.

 

[LostSoul]

I think that the reason I discourage (not prohibit) male players from playing female characters it that I expect more from the player in doing so. The same goes for demi-human characters. Or magic-using or spiritual characters. I would discourage a Cleric character who didn't take the time to think about his God and religion (or philosophy) as well.

I guess that, too me, it's an important aspect of the character that shouldn't be treated the same way as hair colour.

 

[CmdrSam]

I was talking with Jesus last night, and I said, "Jesus, what do you think of guys playing female characters?" and Jesus said, "Render under Caesar what is Caesar's, but let any guy mature enough to handle it do so," and then I said, "Dude, you're milking the Caesar thing"

In my mind, the debate is over -- this man wins.

--Sam L-L

 

[Agback]

When you've tried everything else...

Now, now, Eel. You resorted to ridicule in your reply to my first post in this thread, before you had tried anything.

Regards,


Agback

 

[mythago]

As far as "milking" the Charisma skills goes, what is wrong with that again?

Besides being piss-poor GMing to allow high Charisma to be an always-on Charm spell, it's unrealistic. It's accepting the bitter old chestnut about "beautiful women get to do whatever they want" as true, without thinking much about a) whether it IS true and b) whether it perhaps comes with some side-effects.

If you have a world where NPCs' Wisdom drops to zero in the presence of an elf girl with a cute butt, you also have a world where that kind of male attention is on whether she wants it to be or not. That can be rather less than fun.

As long as everyone has fun, what is wrong with playing the dumb barbarian, the lawful stupid knight, the blonde airheaded bombshell, or the skank?

Or playing a rogue from the Dark Continent who speaks in jive, likes fried chicken, and has a real thing for blonde light-skinned women? Hey, it's just a game....

 

[Fenes 2]

Besides being piss-poor GMing to allow high Charisma to be an always-on Charm spell, it's unrealistic. It's accepting the bitter old chestnut about "beautiful women get to do whatever they want" as true, without thinking much about a) whether it IS true and b) whether it perhaps comes with some side-effects.

If you have a world where NPCs' Wisdom drops to zero in the presence of an elf girl with a cute butt, you also have a world where that kind of male attention is on whether she wants it to be or not. That can be rather less than fun.

Or playing a rogue from the Dark Continent who speaks in jive, likes fried chicken, and has a real thing for blonde light-skinned women? Hey, it's just a game....

First, if you quote me, don't forget to quote all relevant sentences. I followed my first statement one sentence later with "even though it is absolutely in the hands of the DM how far his NPCs will go for some sexual favors ".

I never said I would allow a high charisma to be an always-on charm spell. IMC, I do not portray my NPCs as ready to drop anything for some nooky, but there are some persons who are suspectible to that sort of bribe - just as there are some NPCs who will do almost anything for gold, or are easily intimidated. And it is really easy to say "The guard really likes your attention, but he will not let you inside the gates".
Now, if a GM is not capable to handle a good-looking PC using his or her body to get ahead in life in a realistic and balanced way, then there may be some problems.

And yes, it is a game. A game is supposed to be fun. If everyone in the group, all players and the DM have no problem with someone playing a stereotype, then it is not wrong.

 

[mythago]

I never said I would allow a high charisma to be an always-on charm spell.

Then it's not a problem in *your* game, is it?

If everyone in the group, all players and the DM have no problem with someone playing a stereotype, then it is not wrong.

I would say it depends on the stereotype, and why it is played.

Sure, it can be fun--though frankly I think that stereotypes (rather than archetypes) are better off in games designed for that sort of character. A bimbo blonde kung-fu monk who wears skimpy robes fits much better in Macho Women with Guns than in a Forgotten Realms campaign, IMO. And comic relief can be welcome in even the stodgiest, most serious campaigns.

But honestly, I don't want to share a gaming table with somebody who thinks it would be funny to play Steppin Fetchit the rogue, or who wants to work out his issues with women by playing one badly.