When Bob wants to play a female PC

[der_kluge]

It is a combination of suspension of disbelief coupled with intrinsic vs. extrinsic characteristics.

Thank you, Wulf. This has to be one of the most insightful responses I've seen in this thread yet, including my own.

But, why is it not equally as hard to comprehend the burly bearded guy as a gnome, or as an elf?

It seems to me that seeing someone as a completely different race would be equally as hard as envisioning him as a different sex?

Why is me playing a human female so much more different than me playing a male gnome?

Is it because the gnome is a fantasy creature, and we can't relate to it?

Would GMs have a problem if I tried to play an awakened dog? Would that be as hard to imagine as me playing a female?

I suppose that could be one reason. It's the ability to be able to relate to the thing being played that makes it hard for some to create that leap of faith?

 

[Belen]

Good for you. But it sounds like people had more of an issue with the player, and not necessarily the fact that he played a female character. I mean, it sounds like they would have taken an issue with this person no matter what he chose to play.

Except no where did I say that they have a problem with the player. I said that they had a problem with the cross-gender character, specifically the "suspension of disbelief" with regards to his character.

 

[der_kluge]

Except no where did I say that they have a problem with the player. I said that they had a problem with the cross-gender character, specifically the "suspension of disbelief" with regards to his character.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you intended.
This line:
"Everyone mentioned the cross-gender PC, including the person who played that character."

I took it to mean that everyone mentioned (i.e. cited as the reason for unhappiness) the person who played the female character.

Perhaps, in reading it again, you meant that the person who played the character cited his own cross-gender PC as a reason for his unhappiness?

That's just bizarre. Why would you continue to play a character you weren't happy with, or was causing you unhappiness in the game, and knew that it was causing others to be unhappy?

 

[Al]

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

This makes this much more interesting regarding your stance. If I read this correctly, it means that you tend to oppose cross-gender RPing for pragmatic rather than principled reasons. Would it be out-of-line for me to further speculate that if a male player with a proven track record for good cross-gender (say, if you played in another group where he was also a player) wished to play a female character in your campaign, you would allow him? If so, would it be also right for me to infer that this doesn't make gender unique in this regard? The comments you have made regarding atheists and religious characters seems to imply that gender is thus not ringfenced - as the more absolutist opponents of cross-gender RPing have argued - but that in your judgement there is greater "balance of risks". Could I therefore be really presumptious and go so far as to say that you're not actually against cross-gender RPing at all?

If the GM has had a negative history with cross-gender PCs, then they should not be allowed. Period.

The problem with this is that it curiously moves the focus from the player to the GM. Again, as with fusangite, it seems that whilst your position is rhetorically more ardent, the bracketing of female characters with "evil, trollish and marsupial" ones implies a more measured opposition than stated. Again, I would posit the same question as above: if you knew a player to have RPed cross-gender in, say, another group, and done so well, would you still oppose that player RPing cross-gender in your campaign? Or is it your contention that no player can ever RP cross-gender well?

If the player cannot handle the different gender of the character, then it should not be allowed. Period.

This seems antithetical to the above statement. The previous quotation implies that the GM should authorise cross-gender characters or not on his own personal history; this signifies that the track record of the player is paramount. Indeed, I would hold this statement to be largely true but the above one not. As you have agreed, however, the same applies to atheist players and religious characters. It is reasonable to mandate that those players incapable of RPing cross-gender should be prevented from doing so - in the same way that those who cannot play clerics should be - but this does not implicate a blanket ban.

So, in between that time and now, some things have changed. The hyperbole and bitterness displayed here has, ironically, made me more comfortable with the decision I first made.

I'm sorry that the boards have made you feel that way. Many contributors from both sides have posted cogent and polite arguments, and I hope that you would listen to them (especially those I agree with ) and ignore the ranters, bashers and name-callers. Since I think you've more or less made your mind up, can I offer one last appeal. Let the guy play the female character - he seems pretty balanced and a fairly decent RPer, and the archetype hardly seems stereotypical, crass or offensive - and see how it pans out. If you still feel really uncomfortable, perhaps you could ask him to retire the character. Hopefully, a positive experience will change your mind. It seems that most of the posters arguing against cross-gender aren't doing so from any dogmatic position but from the simple experience of some poor RPers. Just as, say, a single atheist playing a cleric badly shouldn't deter you from general principles, so isolated cases ought not avert you from a general course of action. Judge the player, not the principle: I don't know the guy in question, so I'll leave it to your judgement. To argue for a general blanket ban seems excessive.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But, why is it not equally as hard to comprehend the burly bearded guy as a gnome, or as an elf?

It seems to me that seeing someone as a completely different race would be equally as hard as envisioning him as a different sex?

Because you are instinctively accustomed, as an animal and a human being, to looking for sexual characteristics-- accepting them, and categorizing them. This is a very subconscious thing.

The categorization of people as elves or gnomes or awakened dogs doesn't have to cut against the grain of instinct, because we have no instinct to categorize such things. It's easier to remember by an order of magnitude because you are simply assigning a new value, not un-assigning a very obvious value that your instincts have already made and then rewriting it with a new value.

You might note that other intrinsic values-- like race (white/black) or age (the very young and the very old) are also difficult to roleplay against what the eye sees-- but they do not have anywhere close to the same subconscious power as SEX.

Yes, obviously, it is possible to get past that, to train yourself to see the character -- and the measure of your success there is based on how good a job Bob does playing a woman. But, it is an uphill battle for Bob to constantly rewrite your instincts.

Bob doesn't have that problem online, nor do you have the problem of having to "lie to your eyes."

Same with race and age.

Quite a few intrinsic values lose their power online.


Wulf

 

[Belen]

Why is me playing a human female so much more different than me playing a male gnome?

Females exist. Gnomes do not. When we are sitting around a table we can all see if someone is not playing a female correctly. However, we cannot say that someone is playing a gnome incorrectly.

In many cases, fantasy races have built-in stereotypes that help people relate to them. So a person playing an elf can rely on certain stereotypes in order to play that elf. This is why most racial sections have "personality or culture" as part of the description. It gives people an idea of how to play the race and others and idea of how to relate to them.

A guy playing a gal and vice versa cannot rely on the stereoptypes because those can be offensive. So we are left with the following options:

1.) Play the character neuter-gender.
2.) Play the character like you would play your male characters.
3.) Play the character as a fully developed member of the sex.

Guess what? I have never seen option 3 done correctly.

The difference between online and real life is that you can play the stereotypes without offense. People do not know one what or another if the person is female or male. Thus, the stereotypes can work because you're not looking at the beared guy drinking the mountain dew and acting like an a-hole.

 

[Belen]

That's just bizarre. Why would you continue to play a character you weren't happy with, or was causing you unhappiness in the game, and knew that it was causing others to be unhappy?

He was having fun with the storyline. He tends to develop the PC from level 1-20 before he evens begins play, so he did not want to scrap all that work.

The rest of the group said it was annoying and kept them from really getting into the game, although no one complained about it until the campaign ended. No one wanted to be the bad guy and tell him that it was an annoyance.

 

[Belen]

The problem with this is that it curiously moves the focus from the player to the GM. Again, as with fusangite, it seems that whilst your position is rhetorically more ardent, the bracketing of female characters with "evil, trollish and marsupial" ones implies a more measured opposition than stated. Again, I would posit the same question as above: if you knew a player to have RPed cross-gender in, say, another group, and done so well, would you still oppose that player RPing cross-gender in your campaign? Or is it your contention that no player can ever RP cross-gender well?

I have never seen it done well and I do allow it in my games unless I have strong reservations about the person creating the cross-gender character.

Should I witness it done well elsewhere, then I would allow someone to play it.

Personally, I do not ban it, but I support those who do and I can identify with them.

 

[Particle_Man]

fusangite: I assume that if someone who completed a double major in drama and medieval cultural studies wanted to play cross-gender, you might relax your limit a bit? Oh, what if a woman player played a female medieval character that badly? Banned? Forced to play a male character?

Destan: Still curious. If you had a female player, would you prefer she play a male character, to avoid that whole "off camera rape" scenario? Or will you simply ban female players from your "off camera rape" games?

 

[der_kluge]

Because you are instinctively accustomed, as an animal and a human being, to looking for sexual characteristics-- accepting them, and categorizing them. This is a very subconscious thing.

But certainly not ever GM seems to have this problem. A lot of GMs have chimed in on this thread that they happily allow it.

So, do some people have a problem with this, and others not so much?

In looking back, ironically, I don't think I've ever GM'd for a guy who played a girl, even though I played numerous female characters myself. I can recall one guy playing a girl once, I think, but I only have a very sketchy memory of that. It was planescape, and he wanted to play a sort of feline character. I recal it being female, but it might have just as easily been male. The campaign didn't last long. We grew bored with it. But I don't recall his character causing any problem for me, or anyone else.