When Bob wants to play a female PC

[fusangite]

I genuinely don't see what the problem is here?

Edit: except 'having to force into party' - that is certainly a problem, but hardly a cross-gender one. Players obviously need to create PCs who can operate alongside the other PCs.

I'll expand. The characters are going on a quest for the Latin Emperor of Constantinople (the Franco-Venetian puppet) to recover the grail so they can win the next crusade. The problems with the character were as follows:
1. She was not believably female.
2. She was a shallow charicature of feminity.
3. She had a bunch of modern feminist ideas that didn't fit with the setting. (That's not to say medieval women couldn't be unhappy with their roles in society; it's just that their dissatisfaction was not expressed through the prism of modern feminism.)
4. She was incompatible with the party's basis of unity.
5. She constantly transgressed all existing social protocols forcing the other characters to behave in a totally ahistorical way just to interact with her.

She couldn't even survive the introductory speech by the lead NPC in the first scene when the characters were told why they had been brought together without interrupting the nobleman giving it and threatening to quit if he didn't start treating her in the same ahistorical way she was forcing the other PCs to behave.

Basically, the character was a combination of Crothian's problem #2 and problem #3.

In other words, he not only screwed up his character but to use an Einsteinian physics metaphor, he deformed the space around him. This was an historical game; it essentially began with an extortionate demand that people cease behaving historically or the player would walk. The character had problems with medieval gender roles so the player made these difficulties everybody's problems. Fortunately, in the cold light of day, the player realized that the group was not for him and I commend him on that realization.

 

[hong]

Finally, as to the pathological question, you guys should be thankful John Morrow and others haven't turned the psychoanalytical guns on you. I've read some pretty eyebrow raising stuff on this thread -- what kind of group of men gets together once a week and pretends three quarters of them are girls, for instance?

And more to the point, do they have a webcam?

 

[der_kluge]

I'm just curious. Of those GMs who flat out say that won't allow cross-gender role-playing in their game, would they allow guys to play girls in an online game that they ran?

That's a great question. And I say it's great because I find myself saying, "Yah, I'd have no problems with a guy running a girl in an online game." In fact, I run a game on Fantasy Grounds and I'd be completely fine with that.

Now...don't ask me why - because I have no idea. But it is what it is.

Again, I'm not anti-cross-gender gaming. I simply asked a guy if he'd switch to a male PC, and since I rarely try to change PC's choices when it comes to their characters (balance concerns aside), I thought it odd. That 'oddness' was the whole reason I posted on the boards in the first place.

So, you claim that you're not anti-cross-gender role-playing, but yet... you are? You just admitted it yourself.

And if you would allow cross-gender playing in an online thread, away from having to see a 200 pound bearded guy play an elf maiden, then you'd be perfectly comfortable with it.

I have to say that I believe that you are a closet homophobe. And I hate to say that, because I don't believe that it's true. I want to not believe that, but I can't think of any other logical reason why you would allow online cross-gender play, but not RL cross-gender play. There is simply no other explanation for it. It's obvious to me that you have some problem envisioning a guy playing a girl, and that's bothering you on an deep subconcious level. And I use the term homophobe for a complete lack of a better term. You may be completely ok with homosexuality, I don't know. And while there isn't anything inherintely "gay" about a guy playing a girl, there is a perception that there is. When I played numerous female characters in college, my friend was just as sure as the sun would rise tomorrow that I was a closet homosexual, yet I constantly assured him that I wasn't. And just to be clear, this guy was very open-minded, and very acepting. But he still believed that a strong desire to play female characters meant a strong proclivity towards playing female personas. Is that true? I don't know, but the association is certainly there. Unless you believe that you have a different explanation, because I certainly do not.

 

[S'mon]

In other words, he not only screwed up his character but to use an Einsteinian physics metaphor, he deformed the space around him. This was an historical game; it essentially began with an extortionate demand that people cease behaving historically or the player would walk. The character had problems with medieval gender roles so the player made these difficulties everybody's problems. Fortunately, in the cold light of day, the player realized that the group was not for him and I commend him on that realization.

I think I understand - it was a serious historical game and the PCs were supposed to act like 'real' historical people, but this PC acted a-historically from your POV, harming suspension of disbelief. OK. The PC would not have been a problem in a fantasy game or a more light-hearted/less accuracy-concerned game, yes? The player may have been expecting something lighter, more Ars Magica-esque maybe.

 

[Al]

fusangite - It's good to hear from you in this debate, as I believed we have discussed this topic before. Then, as now, you have been one of the most articulate exponents of the wrong side .

Without sounding overly reductionist, it seems as though the argument you are making falls into the second of my three outlined reasons why to ban cross-gender RPing: that it has a direct and causal link to poorer roleplaying, for the primary reason that it is difficult for a player to satisfactorily construct a mindset radically different to his own (male v female). We will, for sake of argument, assume that there is an appreciable difference - itself a dubious proposition if taken as applicable universally.

However, whilst I may be prepared to concede that this may well be the case (more due to the fact that your arguments can be readily rebutted without challenging the premise than due to the fact that I accept this as given), I would question whether "authenticity" is in itself a legitimate reason to veto a character concept. Whilst there is doubtless a cut-off point beyond which even the most tolerant or liberal DM must pull the plug, to have a blanket ban on cross-gender characters seems excessive. As I have already outlined, and your example seems to illustrate, in any given character the main roleplaying challenge will be bridging the gulf between a modern and a medieval mindset, irrespective of gender . That "modern feminism" is one of the five critiques of the character in question further corroborates this proposition. Yet no one question the validity of fantasy roleplaying per se, in spite of an implicit assumption that it will prove less "authentic" than, say, d20 Modern.

Moreover, even if one discards the medieval/modern dichotomy (since the starting premise is that you are running a medieval campaign), there are further fundamental differences between the player and the character which would necessitate intervention. I have already alluded to the question of religion: do you permit secular players to be clerics? Surely the radical different (often totalising) world-views would place the player and the character at odds? Or is it rather the case that the initial premise is to allow the benefit of the doubt and only force change when the player proves to be incapable of adequately RPing a religious character? I would vehemently argue that there is a further greater gulf between a strongly secular person and a strongly religious person than between men and women with similar cultural traditions. On a broader personality basis, do you permit the RPing of orphans by non-orphans? Illiterate barbarians by college-educated professionals? Flambuoyant bards by introverted bookworms?

Any character archetype can disrupt the campaign. Any character with a fundamentally different background or world-view to the player will be roleplayed inadequately. Any player will poorly portray an authentic medieval PC. To therefore ringfence one particular difference - gender - but to permit radical divergences in all manner of other personality characteristics seem peculiar.

 

[Belen]

I feel no need to analyze anyone, but I do see the insults mostly coming from the side that disagrees with Destan. I am not sure what that says about the opposition or why they feel the need to thrown insults in order to feel superior.

As I have said before, I do not enjoy it when someone wants to play a character of a different sex. It just gets to be difficult to get into the game and for several reasons.

1.) Makes me more aware of the player rather than the character.
2.) Causes pronoun confusion among everyone in the group.
3.) Those that have played a different sex never made me feel that they were that sex. If you're a male playing a female and you still come off as male, then what was the point and vice versa.

The last person who played a character of a different sex in my game told me that they wanted to play a female because they could just not emvision a male character with an 8 strength. So he played the female and eventually everyone just referred to his character as "he" because no one could get to the "suspension of disbelief" stage with his character. He was not playing a female. Thus, the game just was not as satisfying for everyone.

While I have never banned it from my game, I do not enjoy it and would prefer that people stick to there own sex. I have found that it simplifies things for everyone involved.

For those of you who have no troubles with it, then more power to you. I am happy that you have enjoyable games.

Although, I can say that I would not want to game with many of those on the oposition side of this thread. I just cannot condone personal attacks and insults as a method to win an argument. It's like a pitcher greasing the baseball or going after the groin in a karate match.

 

[Belen]

So, you claim that you're not anti-cross-gender role-playing, but yet... you are? You just admitted it yourself.

And if you would allow cross-gender playing in an online thread, away from having to see a 200 pound bearded guy play an elf maiden, then you'd be perfectly comfortable with it.

I have to say that I believe that you are a closet homophobe. And I hate to say that, because I don't believe that it's true. I want to not believe that, but I can't think of any other logical reason why you would allow online cross-gender play, but not RL cross-gender play. There is simply no other explanation for it. It's obvious to me that you have some problem envisioning a guy playing a girl, and that's bothering you on an deep subconcious level. And I use the term homophobe for a complete lack of a better term. You may be completely ok with homosexuality, I don't know. And while there isn't anything inherintely "gay" about a guy playing a girl, there is a perception that there is. When I played numerous female characters in college, my friend was just as sure as the sun would rise tomorrow that I was a closet homosexual, yet I constantly assured him that I wasn't. And just to be clear, this guy was very open-minded, and very acepting. But he still believed that a strong desire to play female characters meant a strong proclivity towards playing female personas. Is that true? I don't know, but the association is certainly there. Unless you believe that you have a different explanation, because I certainly do not.

Dude, you are completely out of line here.

 

[Squire James]

I can see how a DM who tends to run "rated R" or "rated NC-17" games would feel extremely uncomfortable with cross-gender players. Those who do not normally have no reason to think about such restrictions. I don't consider the whole issue a big deal, let alone a "vote with my feet" issue.

 

[fusangite]

Hey Al,

Good to hear from you too. I agree that there were two problems in my latest encounter with cross-gender play one being bridging the male-female divide and the other being bridging the medieval-modern divide. Of course these didn't function discreetly and separately; there was instead a very unpleasant synergy between the two.

that it has a direct and causal link to poorer roleplaying, for the primary reason that it is difficult for a player to satisfactorily construct a mindset radically different to his own (male v female).

I'm with you so far.

However, whilst I concede that this may well be the case (and in your unfortunate instance, would certainly seem to be that way), I would question whether "authenticity" is in itself a legitimate reason to veto a character concept. Whilst there is doubtless a cut-off point beyond which even the most tolerant or liberal DM must pull the plug, to have a blanket ban on cross-gender characters seems excessive.

If we were discussing this on a theoretical level, I might agree with you here. But my policy doesn't come primarily from external principles. For me, it's all about risk management. I have the policy because it protects me from risk. It may be that the policy occasionally results in me missing out on some really great role playing or a really fascinating character concept but it also results in me avoiding a lot of hassle. And based on how my GMing life has gone so far, I think the policy results in an overall increase in my enjoyment of gaming. I think that it results in me avoiding a lot more bad situations than it does good one.

Yet no one question the validity of fantasy roleplaying per se, in spite of an implicit assumption that it will prove less "authentic" than, say, d20 Modern. Moreover, even if one discards the medieval/modern dichotomy (since the starting premise is that you are running a medieval campaign), there are further fundamental differences between the player and the character which would necessitate intervention. I have already alluded to the question of religion: do you permit secular players to be clerics?

As Joshua and others remind me from time to time, I tend to notice way more suspension of disbelief/authenticity problems than most members of our hobby. I probably go to a lot more trouble than most GMs to make sure that my games are self-consistent.

In my experience, some atheistic people cannot play clerics with any sense of authenticity. Other atheists play clerics better than many religious people I know. So, in my personal experience, actual belief in a modern religion doesn't seem to correspond much to being able to play an authentic cleric in a polytheistic society; if it did, I might well institute a similar policy to my gender policy.

While I've never had to enforce a rule regarding who plays clerics and who doesn't, usually, people contemplating cleric characters get the message pretty early on when I begin deluging them with theological information about my world. In a couple of cases, I did have to deal with atheists who played clerics badly and didn't seem able to adapt; in those situations, the deity simply stopped granting spells because the character pissed off his superiors at the temple and got himself kicked out of the faith. After that point, the characters were sufficiently hobbled that they retired and the player either left or came back with someone more appropriate.

On a broader personality basis, do you permit the RPing of orphans by non-orphans? Illiterate barbarians by college-educated professionals? Flambuoyant bards by introverted bookworms?

Again, I think you're mistaking my position for one based on principle when, in fact, I'm just doing risk management.

 

[der_kluge]

So he played the female and eventually everyone just referred to his character as "he" because no one could get to the "suspension of disbelief" stage with his character. He was not playing a female. Thus, the game just was not as satisfying for everyone.

I find this last statement to be a rather insightful commentary from you, BU. Let's examine that. "Thus, the game just was not as satisfying for everyone." So, because the players referred to this guy as "he", instead of "she", you are automatically assuming that the game was immediately not as "satisfying" for everyone. That's a pretty big statement. And do you really believe that? Do you believe that, if said player had played a gnome, and played it more or less as a human character that the game would not have been as satisfying for everyone? Do you believe that expert-level role-playing on everyone's part is required for a "satisfying" game.

I'm curious. Did you take a poll? Did you ask your players if they were having fun? What led you to believe that they weren't having a "satisfying" game? I'm curious, because I'd really like to know. Did the game dissolve because the guy couldn't RP his female character properly?

The real question here, BU, is this: Did YOU have a less satisfying game, or did your players?