When Bob wants to play a female PC

[S'mon]

And, frankly, I find the idea that anything but indifference to cross-gender character is a sign of mental illness or deep seated psychological problems a bit offensive. It's as offensive as being told that one is mentally ill because they don't like spinach or want a car that's blue rather than a car that's white. Not every aesthetic preference is caused by a childhood trauma or deep seated emotional problem. Really. Stop trying to psychoanlayze people over the Internet, especially if you've never even met them.

I'd have a problem with GMs who didn't allow cross-racial PCs either (eg white players must play white PCs). Maybe this is unreasonable on my part, but it makes me go *ick*.

 

[Particle_Man]

What I am wondering, is, *if* you had a female player in your campaign (leaving the campaign as it is), would you rather she play a male or female character, or not care? Or would you rather not have a female player at all *given* the tone of your campaign?

I am wondering if your reluctance is more vs. "female characters in a world with rape" rather than "cross-gender roleplay in a world with rape". Since you have all male players, either could be true.

 

[S'mon]

To be fair to yourself, I'd start by eliminating any responses from Europeans as data outliers.

I do think there's a cultural difference between USA and Europe (inc UK, in this case). I'm British, I'd never heard of this 'no female PCs' thing before coming onto ENW, and like I said, it does freak me out. The US seems to have far a stronger emphasis on gender differentiation than (northern) Europe, and compared to the UK the US culture seems a lot more patriarchal*, with a strong misogynistic element at times. I'm not a fan of Political Correctness - in the UK it attacks a problem that IMO barely exists - but I understand why my Tennessean wife used to think PC was a good idea when she lived in Tennessee, and why she thinks it's a bad idea now she lives in UK.

*At my wedding in Tennessee, the elder of each family was to give a short speech. First my wife's grandfather spoke. Then there was a noticeable frisson when my mother (rather than father, who's a few years younger) then stood up to speak for my side of the family. Luckily my mother's speech was so fantastic though people mostly relaxed.

 

[S'mon]

I'm baffled that so many of you "elite" roleplayers are giving the original poster a guilt trip over this. There's nothing wrong at all not wanting your friends to play cross genders. You guys are so open minded and non restricting at your tables? So I can play a female half-orc that's into beastiality? I'm a mature person, a good roleplayer, and I can play it maturely...I swear!

Of course. I'd let a player play this PC (maybe a Druid?) without qualms, as long as they don't insist on graphically playing out what they get up to with their 'animal companion', no problem there at all. I kinda assumed beastiality was de rigeuer in D&D anyway, judging by how many templated creatures there are...

 

[hong]

 

[S'mon]

After this post started it came to my attention, I find it odd everyone is blasting him. We talked about it a little in our group. A 'female' character does, within our campaign pose certain issues, we play a "R" campaign. (I say an "R" not out of sexually explicit or anything like that, but in the grittiness of it.) The evil guys are not above kidnapping and raping to punish various people.

I don't really understand the "well naturally, the villains would torture and rape the female PC" attitude - why would your villains not torture and sodomise the male PCs, then? If there's a difference in treatment it's because of cultural values in your campaign world - eg I saw a documentary yesterday on an Israeli prison, it was noticeable the guards seemed to treat the male Palestinian prisoners a lot more respectfully than the female prisoners, but you could equally well have a chivalrous society where female prisoners were treated a lot _better_ than males. IMC any PC of either gender could in theory be captured and tortured by the bad guys, but I'm not going to dwell on it in explicit detail (and I'd let the PC spend a Fate POint to get an escape chance before anything too horrible happened).

 

[S'mon]

Think about this for a second.....most D&D players I've met don't know how to handle real women in real life. I think you're thinking about this backwards. What you meant to say is, "If they can't handle real women, how can they handle gender issues?"

Hmm... ok... this is a fair point. Thinking back to when I was 15, the guy who played female PCs did so _really_ badly, although this didn't bother us (maybe for cultural reasons above). On ENW I kinda assume the majority of posters are mature (albeit male, and American) adults, though, many married and most relatively psychologically normal. They ought to be able to handle gender issues (& real women) ok.

 

[billd91]

Maybe it's just me...but I'm hoping that's not the case. If it is, it'd mean I'm the weird one. And that would do irreparable harm to my feelings.

Pudgy D

Since you brought up the term in your original post, from my experience, you're the weird one (as are some of the other participants in this thread). I happen to think it's awfully peculiar to not allow someone to play cross-gender when playing in a game that also allows you to play characters of a wide variety of races, species and with physical abilities and skills far outside normal human experience. I think that being an elf is so far outside human experience in reality that the whole difference between genders pales by comparison. At least it ought to.
Personally, I had never heard of disallowing cross-gender playing, or even biases against it, before KoDT made such a big deal out of it when Sara play tested her convention scenario. And I had been playing over 20 years in a well-developed gaming area (the upper midwest) at that point.

 

[Lasher Dragon]

Of course. I'd let a player play this PC (maybe a Druid?) without qualms, as long as they don't insist on graphically playing out what they get up to with their 'animal companion', no problem there at all. I kinda assumed beastiality was de rigeuer in D&D anyway, judging by how many templated creatures there are...

Now THAT'S comedy and yet oh so plausible; I can hear the panties bunching as I read it

 

[S'mon]

I'm curious how many of the "don't restrict gender" crowd do restrict alignment choices for characters?

I want PCs who can work together as a group of adventurers. I no longer use the good & evil alignments, just Lawful Neutral & Chaotic. I don't mind whether the group are upholders of law & order, vigilantes, robin hood outlaws or blood-soaked psychos, as long as they can play together in the same group. If they're blood-soaked psychos they may not last too long, but that's their choice.

I certainly restrict species choices to those which actually appear IMC, which is human-dominated world - eg halflings & gnomes are not part of human society so I'd be wary to allow one, but goblins, hobgoblins & bugbears are available as PCs. Since there are female adventurers and evil people within human society IMC, these can be PCs.