PDA

View Full Version : Gender bending Encounter



Hallavast
2009-09-18, 02:14 AM
I usually play by an unspoken rule that says character gender should be the same as player gender, but against what I would call conventional wisdom, one player in my current D&D group (which is fairly RP-heavy) is showing signs of trying to start a romantic relationship between his (female) character and another (male) character.

Their "relationship" is going in that direction due to extinuating circumstances (they are both outcasts from society and have saved each other's lives at great risk to themselves). The setup for the game is a round-robin DM between the 4 major players, and I'm wondering if the russian roulette round is going to fall on me.

Now, we're all straight dudes here, but obviously the friend playing the female character is a bit more "open-minded" about that kinda thing. An interesting note is the fact that we often play in a public place (local gaming store). So this situation could turn either very uncomfortable for the majority of us or absolutely hilarious ... or both depending on your point of view.

My question is, how far would you take your obligation to roleplay your character accurately? Would you "take one for the party"? Also, what are the thoughts of the playground on the matter of such cross-gendered roleplaying?
Finally, as a side note, would this situation be any more or less appropriate if one of the involved players were female?

Xenogears
2009-09-18, 02:34 AM
Well I wouldn't "take one for the team" if you mean by that do something I'm not comfortable with for the sake of versimilitude. On the other hand the given situation wouldn't be abnormal to me. So cross gender RPing or relationships aren't terribly weird or disruptive as long as everyone is okay with it IRL. If it fits the concept I want I'd play male, female, non-gendered, transgendered, straight, gay, bi, celibate, etc.

I don't think that the situation would change much if the IRL genders were different except that the two guys in question might A)feel awkward RPing a romance scene and B) be worried about people giving them funny looks, comments, etc.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-18, 02:42 AM
My question is, how far would you take your obligation to roleplay your character accurately? Would you "take one for the party"? Also, what are the thoughts of the playground on the matter of such cross-gendered roleplaying?
Finally, as a side note, would this situation be any more or less appropriate if one of the involved players were female?

I generally would not create a character I wasn't comfortable with (I do not, for example play extremely low int characters). However, I try to be as accurate as possible to what I think my character would do otherwise.

Yes, I've had characters (of both genders, and multiple sexual preferences) have sex in game.

I think it encourages people to stretch themselves as roleplayers.

Not really, although I suppose it might feel slightly odd in a public place. I would not roleplay in public personally.

kamikasei
2009-09-18, 04:07 AM
Well, what exactly is the concern? Are you worried about one of the players saying "okay, my character takes his out and wines and dines her, a fine time is had by all", the pair of them exchanging sappy dialogue, or having to break out the BoEF and make stamina rolls? Is it in-group awkwardness, or the potential for embarrassment from playing in a public place?

I play PbP so the capacity for face-to-face embarrassment is low enough that this wouldn't be an issue except in so far as it soaks up spotlight time and bores the rest of the group while it's going on. Depending on your group dynamic I'd say you should be able to treat it the same way while physically present at a table, but playing in public puts another spin on it: any involved RP where emotions are high has a high chance of mortification in that situation. I'd say the thing to do is to treat any romantic exchanges as you would any other emotional scene: if the group would squirm at one of the characters dying and the others wailing and gnashing their teeth in grief, then treat a love scene the same way and don't go in to detail; if you'd happily play out the entirety of Boromir's death scene, then brazen out the declarations of love.

(I see no particular reason to limit or elide influence of a romance on other RP, though. That is, an established couple treating one another as such. I'm only talking about scenes particularly focusing on the romance.

Actually, there is a reason for limits, but it applies across the board: if things become painfully corny, it may, depending on your group dynamic, be appropriate for someone to speak up and say "no, I'm sorry, this has become far too silly, next sketch please!".)

I'm in exactly this situation in a game at the moment, actually: my female character and another male player's male character are interested in one another. It's a minor enough aspect of the game that it's not an issue, really; they just act a little awkward around one another. In another game I'm in, a male and a female player are playing a female couple; again, it's not really an issue, and what screen time gets spent on sappiness is accepted because it's cute. That distinction, between making the rest of the table groan and roll their eyes and tune out, and saying "awww, that's sweet" and otherwise continuing with play without the mood being continually derailed, is probably the most important factor in how well this aspect of RP can be fit in at your table.


Finally, as a side note, would this situation be any more or less appropriate if one of the involved players were female?

Depends entirely on the people involved. If the group are fine with romance but just uncomfortable with two straight male players acting it out, it may be more natural to those involved. On the other hand, romantic RP where either party may confuse it for actual OOC feeling is problematic. But this isn't a question of appropriateness, it's a question of how awkward it would feel.

Yora
2009-09-18, 04:59 AM
Unless the player, whose character is the target of affection of the female character, feels a bit uncomfortable with playing out such things with his friend, I don't see why there would be any problem. It's totaly his own choice how he wants his character to react to it.

But I don't see how playing a character accurately comes into this?

Weimann
2009-09-18, 05:22 AM
My question is, how far would you take your obligation to roleplay your character accurately?I would roleplay my character as that character, no more, no less. That's not an "obligation" in my eyes, it's how I'd like the game to be played. However, I am one who loves situations that really make me consider how my character would act, and try to get under the numbers and look at the person. So, extreme situations would probably cause me to get even truer to my character concept, while commonplace situations can sometimes get boring and jokey.

Naturally, a girl falling for you isn't a particularly extreme situation, but I would personally try to act out my character as well as I could.


Would you "take one for the party"?
I'm not sure what that means. The answer could be both yes and no depending on the ramifications.


Also, what are the thoughts of the playground on the matter of such cross-gendered roleplaying?I think it's a sign that you stop playing yourself enhanced by a stat sheet, and look at your character instead. As long as the players are comfortable with it, there is nothing principially wrong about it, the other way around, I'd say.


Finally, as a side note, would this situation be any more or less appropriate if one of the involved players were female?What is "appropriate" has little to do with this. It's all about your own personal levels of comfortability. I personally have no qualms whatsoever about crossgender roleplay in the general case, but I might have problems with explicitly romantical RP from people like my brother, or longtime friends or similar.

In the end, though, I would probably be more comfortable roleplaying this with a guy, because it would mean there could be no mistake about it being an in-game thing only. If it was a girl, they might think we were flirting or something.

Yora
2009-09-18, 06:00 AM
In the end, though, I would probably be more comfortable roleplaying this with a guy, because it would mean there could be no mistake about it being an in-game thing only. If it was a girl, they might think we were flirting or something.

Cute... This is the 21st century, man! :smallbiggrin:

Riffington
2009-09-18, 06:12 AM
There's nothing inappropriate per se about it, but the real problem is how bad most people are at it. Yeah, if you're Robin Williams, go for it. But for the rest of us, we have enough trouble getting in another person's head as it is. You should stretch yourself a bit as a roleplayer, but going cross-gender is too large of a stretch for most of us to handle.

Yora
2009-09-18, 06:14 AM
Maybe, but if it is, nobody is forcing you to play a, let's say... female half-ogre. :smallbiggrin:

kamikasei
2009-09-18, 06:36 AM
You should stretch yourself a bit as a roleplayer, but going cross-gender is too large of a stretch for most of us to handle.

The question isn't exactly about cross-gender roleplay, though, but cross-gender romance. I would assume the OP hasn't seen a problem with this player having a female character, until the situation prompting the post came up.

Riffington
2009-09-18, 06:48 AM
The question isn't exactly about cross-gender roleplay, though, but cross-gender romance. I would assume the OP hasn't seen a problem with this player having a female character, until the situation prompting the post came up.

I read the OP differently than you, it seems to me he saw problems long before this. But to address your topic:
if you are making other players (characters are fine) uncomfortable, you should have a good reason for it. An important dramatic effect, a great piece of social commentary, it'll be hilarious, etc. I can see a case for "it'll improve our acting abilities", but only if both people actually want to do it and work through the discomfort. I don't think you have a right to impose on others just for your own benefit if it doesn't improve the game as a whole. And, I suspect, it isn't actually for the first person's actual benefit because most people aren't ready for cross-gender roleplay even if they think they are. So really the question is, is it hilarious enough to be worth it?

kamikasei
2009-09-18, 07:03 AM
I read the OP differently than you, it seems to me he saw problems long before this.

I read it as the OP forseeing problems, but it seems the player has already been playing this character and it's only now that he "is showing signs of trying to start a romantic relationship" that the problem is ocurring.

Your post makes me :smallconfused: a bit; yes, if you're making other players uncomfortable that's a problem, but I don't see anyone advocating that the player do so, only saying that the situation needn't be uncomfortable if handled properly.

I find the attitude that players shouldn't play their opposite genders because they're incompetent to attempt it and their friends are too... I'm not even sure what... to deal with it, hard to understand. It seems... needlessly defeatist?

Yora
2009-09-18, 07:14 AM
I find the attitude that players shouldn't play their opposite genders because they're incompetent to attempt it and their friends are too... I'm not even sure what... to deal with it, hard to understand. It seems... needlessly defeatist?
I heard it once, but argued that a human woman would probably be a lot easier to play for a guy, than a 500 year old archmage. I think the discussion ended with that.
How can you be not ready for it? If I think you like to do it, just do it. If you start saying that someone plays his character wrong or does not know how to play it, any attempt at roleplaying becomes redundant.

kamikasei
2009-09-18, 07:18 AM
I heard it once, but argued that a human woman would probably be a lot easier to play for a guy, than a 500 year old archmage. I think the discussion ended with that.

From other discussions on the topic that I've seen (and not wishing to put words in Riffington's mouth or anything), I get the feeling a lot of people have seen it done so badly on a lot of occasions that they form the impression crossplay is only done by those who think of the other gender as being more alien than another species. I've never seen an issue with it when done by people who are conscious that both genders are made up of people, who act like people, and whose reproductive habits do not form the entirety of their characters.

Yora
2009-09-18, 07:35 AM
Though I have to say I have seen far more players playing characters of non-human races than characters of a different gender. At this moment, I can only remember 4 players who did it, me included. And I probably played with at least 10 times as many people.

mcv
2009-09-18, 09:14 AM
There's nothing inappropriate per se about it, but the real problem is how bad most people are at it. Yeah, if you're Robin Williams, go for it. But for the rest of us, we have enough trouble getting in another person's head as it is. You should stretch yourself a bit as a roleplayer, but going cross-gender is too large of a stretch for most of us to handle.

Why? Plenty of roleplayers have few problems going cross-species. I've never seen anyone roleplay an Elf convincingly, but that doesn't stop people from trying. Now with fantasy races, it may be less obvious because we have no real world reference, but try playing a Japanese or African in a modern game.

Roleplaying the opposite gender is pretty minor in comparison. Sure, some people are crap at it, but some people are crap at roleplaying anything other than complete morons. A male character in their hands wouldn't be any more believable than a female one.

I, for one, am not in this hobby to play carbon copies of myself. I love playing characters with completely opposite world views and political ideas from my own. In a long PBeM game, I'm playing a very conservative, mysogynist barbarian who was seriously explaining the virtues of slavery, and sacking towns to another PC (a reformed succubus fighting her evil nature who doesn't want to seduce people if it's against their religion to have sex with a demon, which meant pretty much everybody in the campaign except my barbarian).

Telonius
2009-09-18, 09:56 AM
My advice: talk to your players about it and make sure everybody's fine with the situation. Some ground rules about how far into the RP you're willing to go might be in order, but I'd play that by ear. If they're having fun, and everybody's okay with it, you're doing it right.

Cross-gender roles can be difficult. Depending on the person, it really might be harder for them to pretend to be a particular female human than a particular 200-year-old male dwarf. Different characters demand different things of an actor, and some people are better at delivering than others. For example, John Rhys-Davies played an awesome Dwarf, but if he ever takes a gender-bending role, let me know. (... on second thought, don't.) On the other hand, Olivia Grant did an absolutely terrific job in Stardust playing a boy who'd been magically changed into a girl, but I'm not aware of her taking any fantasy-creature roles. Different actors, different talents.

Blue Paladin
2009-09-18, 10:28 AM
I don't have any problems with it, but that's me... I'm a male player, currently playing a male goblin whose mind has been sent piggybacking into a female human. My (male) friend is playing a male dwarf whose mind has similarly been sent into a female human. Apparently we make awesome women, according to one of the female players (who is playing a female human whose mind is currently in a male human). The other female player also plays a female human whose mind has been sent into a male human. Now that I think of it, most of our party has been genderswitched by the whole "send your mind into the past" event... and the two that kept the same gender got raceswitched (human to hobgoblin, human to tiefling). Our group as a whole seems to be doing fine with it.

tl;dr: Everyone is different. And even if you have IC romance going, it doesn't have to dominate the game. It can be as quick as two sentences: "My character wants to explore a personal relationship with yours." "Okay/Nah." And move on with the game.

Riffington
2009-09-18, 10:37 AM
Why? Plenty of roleplayers have few problems going cross-species. I've never seen anyone roleplay an Elf convincingly, but that doesn't stop people from trying. Now with fantasy races, it may be less obvious because we have no real world reference, but try playing a Japanese or African in a modern game.

Roleplaying the opposite gender is pretty minor in comparison.
No. No it isn't.
On a scale of difference (0-100)
Different person than yourself: 10.
Different race than yourself (realworld): 11.
Different culture than yourself (realworld): 20
Elf (as portrayed in human movies/games): 15
Elf (actually an Elf): irrelevant and unknowable.
Woman: 90.

It's really, really hard to play cross-gender. And everyone knows enough people of the opposite gender that it's glaringly obvious how bad you're doing it. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm just saying you should consider spending a few years in Hollywood or Broadway for practice first.

kamikasei
2009-09-18, 10:46 AM
No. No it isn't.
On a scale of difference (0-100)
...
Woman: 90.

It's really, really hard to play cross-gender.... I'm just saying you should consider spending a few years in Hollywood or Broadway for practice first.

How on earth do you roleplay? (Not, "how can you possibly roleplay?" but "how does roleplaying work at your table, what does it entail?".) I mean, I'm sure I'd find it hugely difficult to convince the people at the table with me that I myself was a woman, by changing my voice, mannerisms, etc. But I find the suggestion that women are so utterly alien that I cannot possibly say what my female character would do in any given situation without eliciting snorts of derision to be, well, bizarre, and frankly rather blinkered.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-18, 10:56 AM
It's really, really hard to play cross-gender.

Nope. Around 66% of all my RPG characters were female, and I never had any problems roleplaying them convincingly - in fact, many players who didn't know my gender beforehand (I mostly play online), both male and female, were surprised to learn I'm actually a guy in real life. The fact that I play online might have something to do with it, but even in real life it wouldn't be much harder nor feel that awkward. There are some things that feel much more awkward for me in real life games than online ones and which I wouldn't do in such a game, but none of them are gender-specific.

@Kami - gee, I wonder what those two games you mention in your first post in this thread are? :smallamused:

Nero24200
2009-09-18, 10:58 AM
I generally adopt a "If it's not interesting, don't bother" mentality for IC relationships. One thing I dislike alot about things such as movies is this need to overplay potential romances, even if they're completely irrlevent.

If an IC romance has potential for humour or interesting plot hooks etc or some such, I'd go for it, and I wouldn't have a problem doing it. If it's simply happaning "Just because", then I won't.

That said, I'm a little skeptical of such RP, mostly because my first few times RPing I've had to deal with quite a few problems in such a department, including players who are just plain perverted and have some desperate need to have their character laid. Other problems have been things like some players taking elements OOC. Though if you know your group well enough, these aren't likely to be problems.

For the record, I never play female PC's unless I have a reason to do so. If the idea just plain doesn't work with a male character, I'll switch gender, otherwise I'll play male.

Starsinger
2009-09-18, 11:46 AM
In the end, though, I would probably be more comfortable roleplaying this with a guy, because it would mean there could be no mistake about it being an in-game thing only. If it was a girl, they might think we were flirting or something.

Really? When I cross gender RP (and even when I don't) if another character flirts with mine I don't think it's personal flirting, regardless of the gender or orientation of the other player.

Except for the times when it is, but that's always perfectly clear when/if it happens.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-18, 11:50 AM
The concept of restricting your character's gender to your own is about as foolish as restricting your character's race to your own.

What you've said in your opening statement boils down to this:

"No man can convincingly play a woman because, hey, THEY'RE NOT A WOMAN. So no men should play women."

Let's try some word transposition!

"No human can convincingly play a woman elf because, hey, THEY'RE NOT A WOMAN ELF. So no humans should play women elves."

Telonius
2009-09-18, 12:13 PM
If you really wanted to show that one were always harder than the other, you'd have to rate something like these:

Difficulty of actor playing same-gender human
Difficulty of actor playing opposite-gender human
Difficulty of actor playing same-gender fantasy creature
Difficulty of actor playing opposite-gender fantasy creature

... and show that the results are consistent across the board. I don't think it's likely for that to hold, particularly given the extremely large number of fantasy creatures (who are in varying degrees different from humans) and the subjective nature of individual actors' talents.

Shorter: It's hard for some people, easy for others.

kamikasei
2009-09-18, 12:18 PM
What you've said in your opening statement boils down to this:

To be fair/clear, Hallavast didn't say anything like that in the OP; are you addressing Riffington?

Terraoblivion
2009-09-18, 12:19 PM
While i have personal hang-ups about playing male characters, that does not mean i have a real problem with others playing opposite gendered characters. An even moderately skilled roleplayer can play a character of the opposite gender just as well as one of their own as far as i can tell, also isn't it really easier to portray a being that is physiologically and psychologically almost identical to yourself than it is to portray someone who is only just leaving their teens at the age of 120?

mcv
2009-09-18, 12:20 PM
No. No it isn't.
On a scale of difference (0-100)
Different person than yourself: 10.
Different race than yourself (realworld): 11.
Different culture than yourself (realworld): 20
Elf (as portrayed in human movies/games): 15
Elf (actually an Elf): irrelevant and unknowable.
Woman: 90.
Nonsense. You seem to believe in the "men are from Venus, women are from Mars" claptrap. Thing is, while the average woman may differ from the average man, men and women are all human, and all unique. Not all women are the same, not all men are the same. Whatever you think women are like, there are billions out there that are completely different.

Playing a different culture is much, much harder. If I'm going to play a Japanese or a bushman or something, I'll end up with a caricature. Only nobody will notice or object, because nobody around my table is terribly familiar with how Japanese or Bushmen act in real life. Hell, even playing a convincing German (note that I'm Dutch) is likely to be either a caricature or impossible to distinguish from how I'd play a Dutchman.


And everyone knows enough people of the opposite gender that it's glaringly obvious how bad you're doing it.
That's the big thing here. It's easier to notice when you're unconvincing, because everybody knows some women. At the same time, a surprising amount of people have really odd notions about what women are like or how they should be, and will claim a particular roleplayed woman is unrealistic because it doesn't fit his notions.

In reality, a lot of women would be pretty convincing men most of the time if they'd inhabited a man-shaped body, and a lot of men would be perfectly convincing women if they happened to inhabit a woman-shaped body.

If men roleplaying as women (or vice versa) is unrealistic, it's usually because they overdo it and turn it into a caricature.. Make the character a real person, rather than only a generic woman, and you'll end up with a sufficiently plausible partrayal. Especially in conparison with all those elves, dwarves and archmages out there.

Friv
2009-09-18, 12:26 PM
Hmm...


Speaking as the usual GM of my group, I've run romantic relationships with players quite often, and it's never been awkward, but the extra degree of disconnect might factor in there (that is, NPCs aren't actually "my character").

In my limited player experience, I actually tend to find RPing a romantic encounter with a male player LESS awkward than with a woman, because there is no chance of there being, shall we say, out of character motivations behind the in-character relationship attempt (which is something that I've seen happen once or twice.)

Fax Celestis
2009-09-18, 12:26 PM
To be fair/clear, Hallavast didn't say anything like that in the OP; are you addressing Riffington?

Actually, yes I am. Got confused.

woodenbandman
2009-09-18, 12:27 PM
As long as it's tasteful I guess I could do it, but I'd probably crack up because I always imagine my friend delivering any given line rather than their character.

Murdim
2009-09-18, 12:31 PM
"No human can convincingly play a woman elf because, hey, THEY'RE NOT A WOMAN ELF. So no humans should play women elves."

And that's not finished ! After all, in Real LifeŠ, we're all commoners or experts, with almost no exceptions. So, we can say that that "no commoner can convincingly play another class because, hey, THEY'RE NOT ANOTHER CLASS. So no commoner should play another class."

Beyond even that... NOBODY in the real world qualifies as the kind of adventuring heroes we call PCs. And "no muggle can convincingly play a PC because, hey, THEY'RE NOT A PC. So no muggle should play PCs."

Anyway, I think there's a major yet overlooked difference between not playing a certain character correctly and consistently, and not magaging to be perceived as credible when playing a character. And for some reason, no matter how badly or how well he plays his characters, it's intrinsically easier to accept that the 20 year old, white, unathletic, male human you're facing is playing a 14 year old yet fully matured half-orcish war machine or a 150 year old, stout, dark-skinned dwarf, than to accept that he's playing a 20 year old white, unathletic, female human.

I guess that's why cross-playing is so much easier - almost trivial, in fact - when made in a game that doesn't involve visual and/or auditory contact with other people.

Sipex
2009-09-18, 12:31 PM
Meh, depends on who's playing and how far they go into it and how they're dealing with it ooc.

For example, my group. While we all play characters of our gender we have no problem doing these sorts of things. If the players want to be super romantic about it then it's usually because they're both comfortable with the roleplaying or they want to gross everyone out.

Sex so far has usually boiled down to "and then we did it" and then a few rolls to see if it was good for either side (which usually results in laughs)

t_catt11
2009-09-18, 12:38 PM
Shucks. I saw the thread title and was hoping for a good old "Belt of Gender Changing" or somesuch. You guys went and made this SERIOUS.

All silliness aside, I don't see how this will become a real issue, unless your group likes to act out every instant of the game. If they do decide to become intimate, can the scene not just "fade to black" for the requisite time? It's not like this is a LARP, right?

Godskook
2009-09-18, 12:51 PM
@Hallavast, it boils down to this, who's being offended? If it is the non-initiating player in the 'couple', that's a big issue, and if not stopped, is tantamount to sexual harassment. If it is the DM or another player, have the 'couple' keep the PDA 'offscreen', for the group's sake. If it is the people you're around when you're gaming, find a different place to hold those 'sessions'. Otherwise, no harm, no foul.

@Fax, despite agreeing with you on principle, I disagree with the argument. Gender a quite distinct boundary, not fairly comparable to others. For instance, the difference between being African, European, or Asian is not comparable to the difference between being male or female. Saying 'a man can't convincingly roleplay a woman' is not comparable to saying 'a European can't convincingly roleplay an Asian'. And best I can tell, Elf versus Human in D&D is more comparable to Asian versus European in real life.

Sipex
2009-09-18, 12:54 PM
Shucks. I saw the thread title and was hoping for a good old "Belt of Gender Changing" or somesuch. You guys went and made this SERIOUS.

Actually recently our wizard put on a belt after being unable to identify it.

Yeah, it's been a blast, I have to say that much.

Fax Celestis
2009-09-18, 12:55 PM
@Fax, despite agreeing with you on principle, I disagree with the argument. Gender a quite distinct boundary, not fairly comparable to others. For instance, the difference between being African, European, or Asian is not comparable to the difference between being male or female. Saying 'a man can't convincingly roleplay a woman' is not comparable to saying 'a European can't convincingly roleplay an Asian'. And best I can tell, Elf versus Human in D&D is more comparable to Asian versus European in real life.

That's the thing. You can't tell. Elves don't exist, so who's to say you can play them accurately?

Whereas women do exist. Men portray them all the time. In Shakespeare's age, women weren't allowed to act, so the men did their roles. Worse to worse, you're carrying on a fine Thespian tradition.

The fact that I have dangly bits does no preclude the concept that I am capable of portraying someone who does not.

t_catt11
2009-09-18, 01:02 PM
Actually recently our wizard put on a belt after being unable to identify it.

Yeah, it's been a blast, I have to say that much.

Hehe, always fun to spring on the unsuspecting! Which often results in said player never again weaing unidentified magic stuff.

Another_Poet
2009-09-18, 01:07 PM
Personally I feel you should get over being squeamish about this. You don't have to "take one for the party" because nothing bad is happening here. Neither character is yours so just let them play it out as they see fit and have your character react however you normally would react to a heterosexual romantic relationship between two consenting adults.

If the players involved start roleplaying sexual intercourse, or get into long mushy speeches then tell them you're uncomfortable with that at your table. Once things get R-rated or two players are hogging the spotlight, you have a right (as a player) and a duty (as a GM) to speak up and help fix the problem.

Otherwise, they should be allowed to RP the basics of their relationship. "We kiss and then split up to flank these guys" or "I won't leave her, go on without us" or "we'll get our own separate, private room at the inn, wink wink" all seem reasonable. Expect some innuendo and joking about it (and maybe get in on the joking, it might help you feel less insecure about the whole thing). As long as they are keeping the affection at a reasonable, PG-13 level then don't interfere.

This is especially important when you are the one GMing. Romance is part of any good story and this is a chance to improve the whole collective tale. Your players are actively RPing. And it sounds like they are being very mature about it. Good for them. No need to spoil it.

ap

DarknessLord
2009-09-18, 01:13 PM
Shucks. I saw the thread title and was hoping for a good old "Belt of Gender Changing" or somesuch. You guys went and made this SERIOUS.


I know right?
But honestly IC romance should only go as far and get as much screen time as A) everyone is comfortable with and B) everyone is interested in (including folks who aren't in the romance, if they are boring the non involved players, it happens off-screen).

Now, I personally think cross gender roleplaying is not as hard as some people make it out to be, however I acknowledge that it might vary from individual and group to group.

t_catt11
2009-09-18, 01:19 PM
I know right?
and B) everyone is interested in (including folks who aren't in the romance, if they are boring the non involved players, it happens off-screen).


I think this it the single most important aspect. Even were it a male and female player, no one would want to sit around and listen to them go on and on about their characters' romance. Include it, don't be so uptight, have fun with it, as long as everyone is still having a good time.

Sipex
2009-09-18, 02:01 PM
To be fair the dragon who gave it to him told the wizard to put it on to 'help him identify it' in order to convince the dragon to leave the area (as his kobold followers were raiding the nearby town).

The dragon was going to leave anyways (due to the low amount of wealth in the area...I mean, the PCs found his kobolds stealing an inn sign) and knew what the belt would do, he just did it because he's a jerk.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-18, 02:02 PM
Shucks. I saw the thread title and was hoping for a good old "Belt of Gender Changing" or somesuch. You guys went and made this SERIOUS.

All silliness aside, I don't see how this will become a real issue, unless your group likes to act out every instant of the game. If they do decide to become intimate, can the scene not just "fade to black" for the requisite time? It's not like this is a LARP, right?

Heck, I was playing 3.5 1/2 Dragon Warlock and I got a cursed Gender ring. Now I had Dragon boobs. Yes, he gave me dragon boobs.

I never got cured either (we were 11th level) because apparently the town cleric didn't like my kind (wasn't sure if he meant female or draconic).

Set
2009-09-18, 02:26 PM
In the end, though, I would probably be more comfortable roleplaying this with a guy, because it would mean there could be no mistake about it being an in-game thing only. If it was a girl, they might think we were flirting or something.

I was just thinking the same thing. It's just part of the game, obviously, in the first case. In the latter case, it could be construed as sexual harrassment (if one player goes farther than the other is comfortable with), or, in the case of two players who actually do like each other, could just get creepy for the other people at the table, as two of their friends have phone-sex with each other at the table.

Sipex
2009-09-18, 02:29 PM
We've got two couples at the table, it's happened.

Nobody cares as long as I give them something to do while notes are passed.

Umael
2009-09-18, 02:35 PM
Maybe, but if it is, nobody is forcing you to play a, let's say... female half-ogre. :smallbiggrin:

...

Mamma Hagwash cook you! It good! You eat! I smash it yesterday! Then I skin it, salute it, and merry-made-it for hours! It need more ginger, but Mamma Hagwash all out!

That remind Mamma Hagwash! Need more ginger!

You wait! Next time, Mamma Hagwash cook you Thai food!


It's really, really hard to play cross-gender. And everyone knows enough people of the opposite gender that it's glaringly obvious how bad you're doing it. I'm not saying don't do it. I'm just saying you should consider spending a few years in Hollywood or Broadway for practice first.

*blink*

*walks over*

*drops gauntlet*

...yeah. I challenge that.

I've played a female character in an on-line game well enough that one of the players (who didn't know me) had to ask if I actually was a woman (he originally thought I was male; after we started interacting, he wasn't so sure). As player and GM, I have role-played female characters without any problem in making the characters believable AS female - although the best I ever saw was a couple who switched genders - he played the female interest, she played the male interest. Twice I have played a female character IN A LARP, and done it well enough to be convincing* (not convincing as in "that's a woman!" but convincing enough that no one had any problems accepting my characters as female).

* - If you want to play a different gender than your own in a LARP, either be passable enough for either gender in real life, where concealing clothing, or be willing to cross-dressing. There is nothing wrong with any of those three. Some people end up looking like they could be either male or female (SNL called this character "Pat", I believe, but "Pat" was also a bit physically unattractive, which added to the humor). The only issue with concealing clothing is that it can get too warm. As for cross-dressing, if they did it in Shakespeare's time as professional actors, you should be able to do the same too.

And for the record, I am not just citing my own experiences. Best example - in our LARP game, we had a drag queen who looked better as a woman than as a man (the girls were all jealous of how good his legs were) who played woman characters so often that we mentioned how strange it was to see the player out of drag. His (female) characters were really well done, to the point that a few guys appreciated the added eye-candy (and the ones who were comfortable in their sexuality continued to appreciate after they realized who "she" was). I will concede that it might have helped that this player in question was gay, but you still had a male playing a female.

Riffington
2009-09-18, 03:51 PM
Nonsense. You seem to believe in the "men are from Venus, women are from Mars" claptrap. Thing is, while the average woman may differ from the average man, men and women are all human, and all unique. Not all women are the same, not all men are the same. Whatever you think women are like, there are billions out there that are completely different.

Playing a different culture is much, much harder. If I'm going to play a Japanese or a bushman or something, I'll end up with a caricature. Only nobody will notice or object, because nobody around my table is terribly familiar with how Japanese or Bushmen act in real life. Hell, even playing a convincing German (note that I'm Dutch) is likely to be either a caricature or impossible to distinguish from how I'd play a Dutchman.


That's the big thing here. It's easier to notice when you're unconvincing, because everybody knows some women. At the same time, a surprising amount of people have really odd notions about what women are like or how they should be, and will claim a particular roleplayed woman is unrealistic because it doesn't fit his notions.

In reality, a lot of women would be pretty convincing men most of the time if they'd inhabited a man-shaped body, and a lot of men would be perfectly convincing women if they happened to inhabit a woman-shaped body.

If men roleplaying as women (or vice versa) is unrealistic, it's usually because they overdo it and turn it into a caricature.. Make the character a real person, rather than only a generic woman, and you'll end up with a sufficiently plausible partrayal. Especially in conparison with all those elves, dwarves and archmages out there.
Logically what you're saying makes sense. Factually, I think you're totally incorrect. I can only convince you with empirical evidence: Turing's original test had to be abandoned because men actually couldn't successfully pose as women. If you must try it yourself: go onto a few internet forums with real communities where people talk about themselves/their lives/etc. Try posing as a woman, and see how long it takes for people to realize. Now, the difficulty of course is that it's incredibly rude to call people on this, so people may just be polite to you (I've never called out the people posing on this forum, and I won't.) But if you want, set up an AIM test for people (at a local school or something) with $ prizes. You'll find it's really, really difficult for a male to pose as female. Females are much better at posing as males.


Umael:

I've played a female character in an on-line game well enough that one of the players (who didn't know me) had to ask if I actually was a woman (he originally thought I was male; after we started interacting, he wasn't so sure).
Thanks for proving my point. You were playing in an online game, with no physical clues. You made someone wonder if you were male or female, rather than straight-up convincing him you were female. And you (rightfully) celebrate this as a success. If it were easy, you would count this as a dismal failure.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-18, 04:04 PM
Thanks for proving my point. You were playing in an online game, with no physical clues. You made someone wonder if you were male or female, rather than straight-up convincing him you were female. And you (rightfully) celebrate this as a success. If it were easy, you would count this as a dismal failure.

So in order for a male player to play a female character convincingly, you have to make the other people wonder about your actual gender? That's an interesting approach.

GreatWyrmGold
2009-09-18, 04:04 PM
I usually play by an unspoken rule that says character gender should be the same as player gender, but against what I would call conventional wisdom, one player in my current D&D group (which is fairly RP-heavy) is showing signs of trying to start a romantic relationship between his (female) character and another (male) character.

Their "relationship" is going in that direction due to extinuating circumstances (they are both outcasts from society and have saved each other's lives at great risk to themselves). The setup for the game is a round-robin DM between the 4 major players, and I'm wondering if the russian roulette round is going to fall on me.

Now, we're all straight dudes here, but obviously the friend playing the female character is a bit more "open-minded" about that kinda thing. An interesting note is the fact that we often play in a public place (local gaming store). So this situation could turn either very uncomfortable for the majority of us or absolutely hilarious ... or both depending on your point of view.

My question is, how far would you take your obligation to roleplay your character accurately? Would you "take one for the party"? Also, what are the thoughts of the playground on the matter of such cross-gendered roleplaying?
Finally, as a side note, would this situation be any more or less appropriate if one of the involved players were female?

Describe it generally, using character names. Remember this DMotR strip (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=951)? Use it as an idea. And, finally, only go as far as you both feel comfortable, no matter what your friends say (especially if they're trying to keep from falling out of their chairs when they say it).

Yora
2009-09-18, 04:48 PM
Logically what you're saying makes sense. Factually, I think you're totally incorrect. I can only convince you with empirical evidence:Turing's original test had to be abandoned because men actually couldn't successfully pose as women.
I don't know about the actual data, but I highly suspect that this statement has at some point been simplefied to make a point, but does not really stand on it's own.
Saying that men can't successfully pose as women, would mean that not a single man would be mentaly capable of doing it. And I'm very sure that it's not that case. If you make the statement, that most men have great difficulties with posing as women, I would say that it's probably true. I'd say it's common knowledge that most males grew up in an environment that made them avert behaving in any ways that would be considered girlish.

And though it probably works without any problems for a great majorty of all people, the concepts of "male" and "female" are not really that clearly defined and distinguishable. There's also always a considerable number of people at the "edges" where the idea of male and female as opposites is getting a bit fuzzy. Making a wild and completely unfounded guess, I'd say that men that are a bit "girly" have far less problems with impersonating women.
And if you made a test with a turing setup, you would get highly botchered results. The participants would know that the other person would be either male and female and they would have to make explicit inquiries to find out. In normal situations, you usually see a person and decide in the first few seconds if its a man or a woman. And usually it does not even occur to you, that you would actively look out for hints if you're really right. And after a very short while, your mind will sort out any little details that may hint you've been fooled, because they don't fit with what you are expecting. Most transsexuals don't look like Las Vegas transvestites with more make-up then the joker. The more plain, the less likely people will suspect the outfit is hiding something.

True, your stereotype RPG player with camo-shorts, army boots and more beard and belly than Santa Clause (yes, that's what the common gamer in Germany seems to look like) might just not convincingly come over playing a female gnome, just because you know him as the big and fuzzy guy.:smallbiggrin:
But I'd say there's a fare share of guys who could play a stoic elven woman as well as a stoic elven man. ^^

kamikasei
2009-09-18, 05:07 PM
So in order for a male player to play a female character convincingly, you have to make the other people wonder about your actual gender? That's an interesting approach.

Yeah, I mean, we're roleplaying. We're not trying to fool one another. This is what I was getting at with my earlier question as to how roleplaying works at your tables: do you all have to go in full costume and speak in perfect Flanaess accents appropriate to your characters' birthplaces? Are all the NPCs in the world exactly like your DM putting on silly voices and maybe a hat?

I'm reminded of a thread about this topic on the Wizards boards where someone tried to make his point by saying "Michael Clarke Duncan couldn't play Juliet". Well, no, in a live action film an enormous and deep-voiced black man probably wouldn't make a very convincing barely-pubescent Italian girl. But I have no reason to think he couldn't play her as a character in an RPG, and do it well. Shakespeare managed to write her in the first place, after all, and many lesser authors before and since have also pulled off the astonishing feat of describing the actions of a character they couldn't convincingly pretend to be in person.

waterpenguin43
2009-09-18, 05:24 PM
As long as you don't draw it out to much, they shouldn't care very much; Like if you go all twilighty on them it will get creepy, but if you don't it should be fine.

Yora
2009-09-18, 05:38 PM
Enjoy yourself doing silly things.

We're playing RPGs after all, so we've allready been over feeling uncomfortable anyone might see us.:smallbiggrin:

Umael
2009-09-18, 06:20 PM
Umael:

Thanks for proving my point. You were playing in an online game, with no physical clues. You made someone wonder if you were male or female, rather than straight-up convincing him you were female. And you (rightfully) celebrate this as a success. If it were easy, you would count this as a dismal failure.

Okay, I think I see what is going on here.

We (being you on one side and a number of other forumites who are arguing against your point on the other) are using two different ideas when it comes to the issue at hand.

I was originally going to get on your case because you seemed to have missed the part about the other player assuming (correctly) that I was male from earlier clues, but then having to go and doubt himself because my portrayal was close enough to a female. That is significantly different than the example you illustrated.

However, almost everyone, when they are role-playing, aren't taking the Turing test. Even in the case of on-line games, they break character and say things that are very much different from their characters. The clues tell people that they are not dealing with a female half-orc priestess, but a male computer programming major at Ohio State.

What most people are talking about is simply playing a character convincing such that everyone else says, "yes, I can see a (female) (half-orc) (priestess) doing that." This then is success and all that is needed.

What you are talking about (apparently) is complete immersion.

You're not saying "role-play a woman so well that everyone can imagine your character as a woman." You're saying "role-play a woman so well that everyone can imagine YOU as a woman."

And if that is indeed the case, that I believe you are setting your subjective expectations far too high.

Godskook
2009-09-18, 06:39 PM
That's the thing. You can't tell. Elves don't exist, so who's to say you can play them accurately?

Whereas women do exist. Men portray them all the time. In Shakespeare's age, women weren't allowed to act, so the men did their roles. Worse to worse, you're carrying on a fine Thespian tradition.

The fact that I have dangly bits does no preclude the concept that I am capable of portraying someone who does not.

1.I'm not arguing the point. I agree that men are capable of portraying women and vice versa.

2.I'm arguing that D&D-race is not comparable enough to sex to support the substitution argument.

Riffington
2009-09-18, 08:11 PM
So in order for a male player to play a female character convincingly, you have to make the other people wonder about your actual gender? That's an interesting approach.

No. If you are playing a female character online, they should "know" you are female. If you're playing it in person, your thought process should be convincing. I don't think that appearance needs to match at all, and I'm not sure why people keep making appearance-related comments. We're roleplaying, not impersonating. But let me explain further: Umael thinks I'm setting my expectations too high, let me explain why they have to be high.

To suspend disbelief sufficiently: for the people who know something really well, you shouldn't do that thing wrong. If other players are much smarter than you, it messes with the game if you are playing the high-Int guy. If another player is a martial arts expert, it messes with their immersion if you know nothing about martial arts but are describing your flying roundhouse punches. I leave the martial arts bits alone when someone else knows more than me, and I expect them to leave the medicine bits alone when they're playing with me. The thing is, all players know a lot of women, and when you are screwing up female thought processes, it grates. If it's done more for comedy or if it's brief, that's totally fine. Only when you are trying to seriously roleplay is it a problem.

Umael
2009-09-18, 11:14 PM
Umael thinks I'm setting my expectations too high, let me explain why they have to be high.

To suspend disbelief sufficiently: for the people who know something really well, you shouldn't do that thing wrong. If other players are much smarter than you, it messes with the game if you are playing the high-Int guy. If another player is a martial arts expert, it messes with their immersion if you know nothing about martial arts but are describing your flying roundhouse punches. I leave the martial arts bits alone when someone else knows more than me, and I expect them to leave the medicine bits alone when they're playing with me. The thing is, all players know a lot of women, and when you are screwing up female thought processes, it grates. If it's done more for comedy or if it's brief, that's totally fine. Only when you are trying to seriously roleplay is it a problem.

That's nice, but let me point out a serious flaw in your argument.

When it comes to those examples you just gave, martial arts and medicine, you point out that it is better to have someone default to the expert.

But when it comes to something as broad (no pun intended) as women, there really is no such thing.

Even a woman cannot say "I am an expert on all things womanhood," and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who isn't similarly deluded.

I grant you, yes, if you have experience doing things that are, say, medicine-related, and I wanted to play someone who was a doctor or otherwise medically inclined, then I would have to bow to your OOC knowledge. But if that was the case, you can be darn sure I'm going to tap you for hints about what to say and do so that I can do a better job role-playing.

Or are you saying that because I know next to nothing about medicine I should never play someone with 5 ranks of Heal?

Taking your example to the logical conclusion, by the by, you would have nobody playing anything that one of the other players knows better. Then again, taking to the logical conclusion, you can't even have the DM play female NPCs if the DM is male because the potential for screwing up the female mindset is too great.

You seem to buy into the whole myth of there being a female mindset whole-heartedly, as if all women share a hive mind. However, I note that you make no such allowances for men, saying that it is easier for a woman to play a man character. While this is not sexism, it is prejudiced - I challenge you to show me ANY woman as the ideal woman, or the average woman. Such a creature does not exist.

For that matter, the idea that there is a female mindset is as much a myth as the idea that there is a male mindset. You would be far better served arguing that there is a female culture mindset for a given, narrow culture with rigid roles. In our globalized world, especially in the developed world (and especially in America), there is such a blend and mixture of cultures that finding the exception is far more plausible than the notion of the reverse.

Grumman
2009-09-19, 12:29 AM
No. If you are playing a female character online, they should "know" you are female.
Bull. What if you're playing a female character and a male character on the same website?

You may know jack all about women, as evidenced by your posts in this thread, but that doesn't mean we aren't similarly disadvantaged.

Glyde
2009-09-19, 12:42 AM
Jumping on the bandwagon of being one of the folks able to play cross-gender. The majority of my characters are female, and I play them fairly convincingly. In fact, I'm playing a campaign with some other forumers right now as a female (Syda)...Wonder what they think - I never really bothered to ask, haha.

I've roleplayed romance in pretty much all possible directions... DM>PC, PC>DM, PC>PC. It's all roleplaying to me, and I've been doing it for a long time. I connect with my characters sure, but I connect just enough for me to care about them and feel that they have lives separate from mine - I don't see them as an extension of my life.

Inter-character romance adds a lot of intrigue to a game, and people who feel that their security is threatened by it are missing out :p

Women are people, too, and the topic isn't about relating them to occupations. All people are unique individuals...If you can roleplay a unique individual, why does it have to be the same gender as you? By the logic I've seen here, I'd have to play a character exactly like me in order to preserve the suspension of disbelief.

Je dit Viola
2009-09-19, 01:28 AM
Yes...if you need evidence that girls can convincingly play men and guys can convincingly play women, just hop over to Silly Message Boards, then enter "Free Form Roleplaying" subsection. There's people (both genders) playing males, females, clones, robots, 'it's, and so on. With an imagiation, it's not hard at all to role-play someone that either exists or doesn't exist in real life.

Lorien077
2009-09-19, 01:50 AM
Okay, lets step back, and look at this.
1) Are you as a player comfortable doing this? Will the game be fun to play still, or will it be something you dread?
2) If you're comfortable with this, are you comfortable with this in public?

If either answer is no then you should really just talk about it with your friends, ask how to handle it pre-game. Same situation if either answer is 'eeeeh maybe'. If you're really comfortable with it just roll with it.

I've had to quit games due to discomfort with the content, and have taken a lot of flak for it. So if you're not comfortable with it say something before it becomes unpleasant. Its a game, it should be fun. :)

Murdim
2009-09-19, 02:18 AM
Umael:

Thanks for proving my point. You were playing in an online game, with no physical clues. You made someone wonder if you were male or female, rather than straight-up convincing him you were female. And you (rightfully) celebrate this as a success. If it were easy, you would count this as a dismal failure.It didn't happen that way, and I'm pretty sure you know it full well. The player met Umael before the game began and always thought he was male, but started to have doubts about it as soon as he began interacting with Umael's female character. In other words, if he didn't know Umael out of character, he would've certainly immediately thought he was female. So, what did you call a "dismal failure", the fact that Umael's performance was not mind-blowing enough to make the other players forget about their past and present interaction with the player behind the character, or the fact that he doesn't "act female" while out-of-character ? Thing is, Umael is neither a high-level bard, nor a pre-op transsexual, just a normal man who sometimes plays women.


I don't think that appearance needs to match at all, and I'm not sure why people keep making appearance-related comments. We're roleplaying, not impersonating.Maybe because this is the whole f***ing problem you keep denying to try to prove your point, as evidenced by the fact playing a cross-gendered character is way easier when the people you play with don't see your face or hear your voice. In the eyes of most people, an obviously male person playing a female character is simply not credible, no matter how much talent and conviction he puts in his interpretation.


To suspend disbelief sufficiently: for the people who know something really well, you shouldn't do that thing wrong. If other players are much smarter than you, it messes with the game if you are playing the high-Int guy. If another player is a martial arts expert, it messes with their immersion if you know nothing about martial arts but are describing your flying roundhouse punches. I leave the martial arts bits alone when someone else knows more than me, and I expect them to leave the medicine bits alone when they're playing with me.You're essentially saying that the "One True Right Roleplaying Behavior" is to play what you are. Which is, for the lack of a more appropriate term in my limited english vocabulary, total bullsh*t. One of the foundations of the very principle of roleplaying is that the character you're playing is (usually) NOT yourself, but a fictional person with his own abilities, skills and character. Do you really think you can sacrifice this for the sake of believability ?


The thing is, all players know a lot of women, and when you are screwing up female thought processes, it grates.Male authors write non-stereotypical, rounded, believable female characters for centuries. If the so-called "female thought process" was half as alien as you describe it, it wouldn't be possible.


If it's done more for comedy or if it's brief, that's totally fine. Only when you are trying to seriously roleplay is it a problem.That's... frighteningly macho to say female characters can't be anything but insignificant, stereotypical, comedic roles in roleplaying games. I don't think you really meant it, but... still.

kamikasei
2009-09-19, 05:52 AM
The thing is, all players know a lot of women, and when you are screwing up female thought processes, it grates.

Er, how is it that all the players apparently understand women enough to know that what your character's doing isn't what a woman would do, but it's simultaneously impossible for you to understand women enough to have your character do what a woman would? (Leaving aside the whole question of whether "what 'a woman' would do" is a useful idea at all...)

Tengu_temp
2009-09-19, 06:15 AM
No. If you are playing a female character online, they should "know" you are female. If you're playing it in person, your thought process should be convincing.

So the only proper way to play a character of different gender than you online is to deceive the other players, and when you play in person, the character's thought process is more important than his/her unique quirks and personality. Even more interesting.

I'll leave the fact that you seem to think all women act in the same, stereotypical way to the others, they already make a good job at commenting on it.

mcv
2009-09-19, 09:30 AM
To give a twist to an old saying:

On the Internet, people should know you're a dog.

Ozymandias9
2009-09-19, 10:53 AM
It didn't happen that way, and I'm pretty sure you know it full well. The player met Umael before the game began and always thought he was male, but started to have doubts about it as soon as he began interacting with Umael's female character. In other words, if he didn't know Umael out of character, he would've certainly immediately thought he was female. So, what did you call a "dismal failure", the fact that Umael's performance was not mind-blowing enough to make the other players forget about their past and present interaction with the player behind the character, or the fact that he doesn't "act female" while out-of-character ? Thing is, Umael is neither a high-level bard, nor a pre-op transsexual, just a normal man who sometimes plays women.
That's really not my understanding of the encounter. The way I read it, the other person involved started with the assumption that he was male before any interaction with the character. There are no girls on the internet, after all. His acting was convincing enough that the other person to question this presumption, which many sex-starved dorks are unwilling to do without physical evidence.

That is, he acted sufficiently like a female to make a person question a foregone conclusion that he (personally, not just the character) was male.


Maybe because this is the whole f***ing problem you keep denying to try to prove your point, as evidenced by the fact playing a cross-gendered character is way easier when the people you play with don't see your face or hear your voice. In the eyes of most people, an obviously male person playing a female character is simply not credible, no matter how much talent and conviction he puts in his interpretation.
It worked for theatre companies for a dang long time. This seems like more of a personal problem. Would it help if the person playing her wore convincing drag?

NorseItalian
2009-09-19, 11:16 AM
I'm really missing the part where this effects you. By your post it certainly doesn't seem like you are one of the people involved in the relationship, so what is it to you if they want to roleplay it? You just don't want them to do it because it somehow embarrasses you? Either suck it up and deal or leave the group. You have no right to tell them how to play their characters. It would be one thing if the entire rest of the group is weirded out by it (in which case the DM would have to tell them that they are hurting the group's gameplay experience) but if it's just you, you shouldn't try to ruin other people's games just because you're closed minded.

Murdim
2009-09-19, 12:53 PM
That's really not my understanding of the encounter. The way I read it, the other person involved started with the assumption that he was male before any interaction with the character. There are no girls on the internet, after all. His acting was convincing enough that the other person to question this presumption, which many sex-starved dorks are unwilling to do without physical evidence.

That is, he acted sufficiently like a female to make a person question a foregone conclusion that he (personally, not just the character) was male.In fact, that's exactly what I wanted to say. Sorry to have been so much confusing, guess I shouldn't have put so much emphasis in attacking Riffington's (admittedly fallacious) argument, to focus instead on being at least clearly understandable :smallredface:


It worked for theatre companies for a dang long time. This seems like more of a personal problem. Would it help if the person playing her wore convincing drag?Well, I didn't say that's an absolute and timeless truth about human behavior, and that's not what I think either. Still, you can't deny that in our culture, for a set of not very wholesome reasons, the vision of a man playing a woman is considered inherently and absolutely laughable, crossdressing or not. Today, to accept a male interpretation of a female character as credible, most people need to ignore the performer's gender, or at least not having it reminded to them each time they look at him.

Riffington
2009-09-19, 05:59 PM
It didn't happen that way, and I'm pretty sure you know it full well. The player met Umael before the game began and always thought he was male, but started to have doubts about it as soon as he began interacting with Umael's female character. In other words, if he didn't know Umael out of character, he would've certainly immediately thought he was female.
I did not know this and it wasn't in the original account. Whatever, we don't need to talk specifically about Umael, the point is that most people don't do it in an interesting way.


You're essentially saying that the "One True Right Roleplaying Behavior" is to play what you are.
No, no I'm not. I'm saying that you should play someone different from yourself, and should stretch, but don't need to go from 0 to 100 in a single year. You start off with what you know and move from there; several years down the road, if you are very talented, try your hand at a woman.



Male authors write non-stereotypical, rounded, believable female characters for centuries. If the so-called "female thought process" was half as alien as you describe it, it wouldn't be possible.

There are a few dozen male authors throughout history that have been able to do this. They get specifically praised for it when it happens. There is an entire school of thought that says Shakespeare must have actually been a woman because (despite being the most insightful and amazing writer the English language has ever produced) there's no way a man could create such believable women. When you say "for centuries", it's technically true, but most centuries it didn't occur.



That's... frighteningly macho to say female characters can't be anything but insignificant, stereotypical, comedic roles in roleplaying games. I don't think you really meant it, but... still.
I didn't mean that at all. I meant that a novice can easily do it in a comedic way, but a better way would require someone more advanced - someone who doesn't need either of our advice.

Tengu:


I'll leave the fact that you seem to think all women act in the same, stereotypical way [quote]
I don't believe that at all. I believe that they think differently than men, but they don't think alike or act alike.

Kamikasei:
[quote]Er, how is it that all the players apparently understand women enough to know that what your character's doing isn't what a woman would do, but it's simultaneously impossible for you to understand women enough to have your character do what a woman would?
That's a very interesting question, and one I'd love to know the answer to. But - as a very imperfect analogy - I can't speak Spanish fluently, but if you speak Spanish in front of me and aren't fluent I will know it.

kamikasei
2009-09-19, 06:20 PM
That's a very interesting question, and one I'd love to know the answer to.

The fact that you have no answer suggests to me that it's not an interesting question at all - it's a non-issue.

Rixx
2009-09-19, 06:20 PM
I'm in this exact situation, actually (myself playing the female character). We're all having a lot of fun with it. It has a lot of interesting opportunities for character development and plot hooks, as well. It probably helps that my character's Kuudere. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Kuudere)

Something that helps is to assume more intimate / romantic encounters are implied to happen "off-screen" rather than acting them out.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-19, 07:10 PM
I don't believe that at all. I believe that they think differently than men, but they don't think alike or act alike.


You assume that women act in completely different way than men, then - with no overlap of behaviours between the two genders, and in a way such alien that it takes a man several years of practice before he can even start trying to roleplay a convincing female character. That's not much better.

Once again, playing a character of the opposite gender is not hard - once you get out of the realm of horrible stereotypes, there aren't that many differences, and even less of them will actually make themselves apparent during a roleplaying game. Personality is a much more important element that makes characters different from each other - gender is a part of it, but not even close to the most defining one. In most cases, at least.

Riffington
2009-09-19, 07:57 PM
You assume that women act in completely different way than men, then - with no overlap of behaviours between the two genders, and in a way such alien that it takes a man several years of practice before he can even start trying to roleplay a convincing female character. That's not much better
There's overlap, just like there's overlap of skin tone between Scandinavians and Nigerians. You can still tell which are which just about every time. It's got nothing to do with stereotypes - there are real differences.



The fact that you have no answer suggests to me that it's not an interesting question at all - it's a non-issue.
I don't understand this at all. Why would the fact that I don't have an explanation for an empirically-observable phenomenon make that phenomenon uninteresting?

Deadmeat.GW
2009-09-19, 08:22 PM
Hum, not sure but you have played on-line MMO's yes?

If not please stop what you are doing and play one first, write down what gender people think you are or what gender the people you play with are according to your guesses and then double-check.

You might be seriously surprised by the amount of times you get caught out or are unsure whether someone is one gender or another.
And this counts both for men and women.

As for the 'dozen' of writers have depicted women accurately across history perhaps people ought to check how many of the 'female' writers actually were male or the other way round.
They do use writer pseudonyms.

As for the overlap to be similar to skin-tone between Scandinavians and Nigerians as to men and women, that would mean we could not even remotely interact. We would be on a totally different mental plane from each other to the point that what men would call blue women would call stone type of differences.
Obviously since we have not completely died out as a species there is a tad more of an overlap then ''none whatsoever, not even in the same space-time continuum''.

I am sure you are going to claim next that you knew from reading any book from the mid seventeen century to now which authors were really men and which were not actually men?
Psychologist do not exist either do they?
The fact that psychology even remotely applies means there is a heck of a lot more overlap between the two genders then none-whatsoever you are staking a claim to.

The way this is being portrayed is that men and women will always act and react differently in any given situation.
Why?

Because if there is as much overlap between men and women as there is between black and white skin tone (lets not even go in texture or actually composition as this was not mentioned) you could not get for any given situation the same reaction or action.
And lets be honest that has been proven historically to be untrue to a quite nice degree.
Women brought up in societies where they can and do perform more militant jobs or work in industries in a manner discribed as a male specific task will show you that women in those situations react a heck of a lot like men in the same situation would do.
Of course there are always differences but they are not anywhere as divergent as mentioned here.

Tengu_temp
2009-09-19, 09:01 PM
There's overlap, just like there's overlap of skin tone between Scandinavians and Nigerians. You can still tell which are which just about every time. It's got nothing to do with stereotypes - there are real differences.


I never claimed there are no differences between men and women. However, those differences are not so large that it's impossible for a man to roleplay a woman convincingly without at least several years of experience. The difficulty of playing a character of opposite gender depends on the individual, not some hard and fast rules.

Anyway, the thread has gone quite off-topic. I suggest we focus on answering OP's question.

Hallavast
2009-09-20, 03:21 AM
I'm really missing the part where this effects you. By your post it certainly doesn't seem like you are one of the people involved in the relationship, so what is it to you if they want to roleplay it? You just don't want them to do it because it somehow embarrasses you? Either suck it up and deal or leave the group. You have no right to tell them how to play their characters. It would be one thing if the entire rest of the group is weirded out by it (in which case the DM would have to tell them that they are hurting the group's gameplay experience) but if it's just you, you shouldn't try to ruin other people's games just because you're closed minded.

I haven't hinted at anything about trying to tell people how to play the game, and implying that I would be prone to do this due to some notion of closed-mindedness that you may have of me irritates me a bit. You are more than a bit off base.

I have a "guilty" confession to make. I have so far led you all on to believe that I had a separate role from these two characters. I do not. I am the player of the male character that would be approached.

If you take a look at the language of my post you should find that while I wasn't entirely honest with you, I never actually told a falsehood. So I feel no actual guilt. In fact, I would lie to you all many times over if it led to possibly truer insights. And I believe the insight shared on this thread has been well worth it. Thanks.

As it happens, I probably wouldn't feel uncomfortable about the situation if it were to happen. However, the friend in question can be a pretty big dork about these things sometimes, so I am skeptical about how he's going to handle it. And I'm pretty sure living down all the snide ooc remarks from the rest of the table will be painful, but in a trivial, comedic way. So, again, I'm not really worried about it.


Originally posted by Rixx
Something that helps is to assume more intimate / romantic encounters are implied to happen "off-screen" rather than acting them out.

This is exactly what I anticipate (and hope) happens. Discretion would be the best bet here, because it allows for the extended depth of romance in the story without all the giggling and lewd comments that would perhaps (probably) come with it. This would also be a test to see if the other players have even picked up on it at all (which, honestly, they probably haven't). More flexibility overall, I think.

kamikasei
2009-09-20, 03:57 AM
I don't understand this at all. Why would the fact that I don't have an explanation for an empirically-observable phenomenon make that phenomenon uninteresting?

I deny that it is empirically observable, and thus lacking a principle from which to derive your assertion I say it's invalid.

Yora
2009-09-20, 04:01 AM
Well, I think it is empirical observable that many men have difficulties impersonating women.
But it's also empirical observable, that some men don't.

Rixx
2009-09-20, 04:19 AM
Regarding supposedly huge differences between male and female psychology, especially conclusions you've come to via your own experience.

Step one: Look up definition of "Confirmation bias"

Step two: Take a Sociology course.

lady_arrogance
2009-09-20, 04:27 AM
Ok. I have not read whole tread, but I'll add my thoughts about matter of playing opposite gender and romancing about in-game.

First, I myself cannot see how playing different gender than one's own should be hard. In the end, all we are people, and we have different personalities. Some women are masculine in their behaviour and some men are feminine. It's all about how you construct persona of your character, and on my opinion gender does not add any obligatory character traits.

And second, DM's role on romances between characters is make sure that all players are comfortable about things said and done. If both players with in-game romance are comfortable, let them play it. Let them have fun. :) As DM you can always say, that which level of description about romace is ok for the play, so player do not get carried away...

Riffington
2009-09-20, 02:54 PM
Hallavast: particularly now that we know you're the "victim", it's all good. You're excited about it. The guy who's initiating it surely enjoys it. So it'll be a fun and learning experience (and if people tell you to knock it off you can, but if not then great).

Deadmeat:


um, not sure but you have played on-line MMO's yes?

I played some MOOs/MUSHes back in the day. If people in modern MMOs talk like this (http://www.4guysfromviewpoint.com/?p=76) it'd be harder to tell, of course.



As for the 'dozen' of writers have depicted women accurately across history perhaps people ought to check how many of the 'female' writers actually were male or the other way round.
They do use writer pseudonyms.

Yes, but we almost always know the actual gender of writers, even those that used pseudonyms. Are there any pet writers you have a conspiracy theory about?



As for the overlap to be similar to skin-tone between Scandinavians and Nigerians as to men and women, that would mean we could not even remotely interact. We would be on a totally different mental plane from each other to the point that what men would call blue women would call stone type of differences.
We could and do interact. There are some bestselling books about this phenomenon (though not being D&D players, they say "planet" instead of "plane"). It is also notable that boys who go to an all-boys school and lack sisters have a fair bit of initial difficulty understanding girls. If the overlap was so significant, why does this difficulty exist?

It's certainly not my suggestion, btw, that women can't do "male" jobs or vice-versa. Far from it. It's my suggestion that there's little subtle differences in speech/thought patterns that you can typically notice. Perhaps a better analogy would be the way I can tell the difference between a Dubliner and a Georgian by the accent. You can generally communicate and even do one another's job, but unless one's put a great deal of effort into accents, there's a difference that a non-Irish non-Southern person can easily tell*.

Now, regarding the empirical question, here's how we can construct the experiment.
*recruit about 60 men and 60 women.
*At random, select 10 of the men and 10 of the women to be guessers.
*Each guesser will have an IM conversation of 30 minutes with 10 of the recruits, and will then classify that recruit as male or female.
*If the guesser is correct, e gets $20.
*If the recruit is classified as female, e gets $20.

Much better experimental design than 99% of the sociology studies out there <thumbs nose at Rixx>


*As a side note, unless you're quite good at it, it usually annoys people if you talk in a foreign accent all game. 30 minutes of it is fun, but 4 hours is a bit much.

kamikasei
2009-09-20, 03:19 PM
Again, though, we're not trying to fool one another as to our identities when we roleplay. The goal isn't to have the other people at the table think that you are the opposite gender. It's to have them believe that your character is of the opposite gender just as they believe your character is any of the dozens of other things that they are and you are not. That's really not at all difficult to achieve. The worst failures seem to come when people try too hard.

warrl
2009-09-20, 03:53 PM
So in order for a male player to play a female character convincingly, you have to make the other people wonder about your actual gender? That's an interesting approach.
My first deliberate cross-gender experiment was in a high-school composition class. The instructor chose my work to read out loud, and the girls in the class were looking at each other trying to figure out which of them wrote it. So I'd say I was successful in that regard. (It wasn't that great a story otherwise. But then, hey, I was in high school, what do you expect?)

Now I'm playing a male character in an all-male party (with all-but-one-male players). But:

We have four non-humans and a magically-altered-I-think human among the current group of seven PCs. I play one of the non-humans. The players are, of course, all human.
My character is homosexual. I'm in the extreme heterosexual end of the spectrum. I'm pretty sure two of the other players are homosexual, so I must be careful to not accidentally fall into some of the bad stereotypes.
My character is a melee swordsman, at the beginning of his prime years for that career - and quite possibly about the same age I am. If I had ever been a melee swordsman, it would be past time for me to retire.
In backstory, my character's life, psyche, philosophy, and perhaps alignment were severely altered by a specific event. I've had no such life-altering event.


(On the other hand, my character and I both prefer tea that is several years old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pu-erh_tea).)

warrl
2009-09-20, 04:01 PM
and many lesser authors before and since have also pulled off the astonishing feat of describing the actions of a character they couldn't convincingly pretend to be in person.

Science-fiction writer James Tiptree Jr. wrote a lot of male and female characters well. I've read a few of Tiptree's books and wasn't impressed with or drawn into the stories, but never tripped over characterization - which I HAVE done with quite a few other writers, including some of my favorite story-crafters.

James Tiptree Jr. was dead before it was publicly revealed that he was, in fact, female (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tiptree_Jr).

Rixx
2009-09-20, 04:02 PM
Much better experimental design than 99% of the sociology studies out there <thumbs nose at Rixx>


You have offended my honor! *gloveslap*

Starbuck_II
2009-09-20, 04:10 PM
So the OP thought one should have difficulty because he has difficulty or is because his male players play females bad?

Or is this just an assumption even Shakespear had it?

kamikasei
2009-09-20, 04:15 PM
I also wonder (I think this was asked earlier) how Riffington's DMs handle NPCs of the opposite sex.

Yora
2009-09-20, 04:18 PM
It's my suggestion that there's little subtle differences in speech/thought patterns that you can typically notice.
Yes, but the point is, that you can learn to emulate them.

Nero24200
2009-09-20, 04:42 PM
While I agree that occasioanlly playing as a different gender can add some variety, I should point out that it isn't always the case. Sometimes it has more effects than simply adding variety.

I'll give an example, a while back we had a player in our group that spent a fair bit of time flirting with female NPC's. However, it annoyed the group, especially when it would cause the player's character to go out his way to protect any random female NPC (even those mid-slitting his throat) over party members. And no, this isn't an exagerration, I once had him attacked by several female vampire thralls, and he actually tried to grapple them and shield them from the party's arrows, even though they were draining him.

So anyway, I tried a female PC once just for variety. I got annoyed very quickly because I had put alot of thought and effort into the character, trying to get the character to have a realistic and deep personality. I got annoyed because despite having a pretty deep character, the only trait this player ever noticed about her was that she was female, and as you might have guessed, spent the entire campaign hitting on her, both to my IC and OOC annoyment.

Once this player discovered that he too could play female characters, he did nothing but play secretive and slutty seductresses therafter.

In other words, yes, playing a PC of the opposite gender can add a little variety, but it only works if everyone in your group is mature, and not everyone is that lucky.

Umael
2009-09-20, 04:43 PM
Again, though, we're not trying to fool one another as to our identities when we roleplay. The goal isn't to have the other people at the table think that you are the opposite gender. It's to have them believe that your character is of the opposite gender just as they believe your character is any of the dozens of other things that they are and you are not. That's really not at all difficult to achieve. The worst failures seem to come when people try too hard.

This is the big thing.

Riffington, I'm going to raise my stakes a little. In addition to claiming that you are setting the bar too high, I am going to accuse you of being oversensitive about this issue.

Let's assume that there are things that a woman is more likely to do than a man, or more likely to do in a certain way than a man. That does not mean that there exists a woman who will not. I have a co-worker who grew up the only girl in a house full of boys, had a somewhat prejudiced father (still does, actually) who belittled (somewhat unconsciously, I gather) females (or at least typically female exploits), and now lives at home with her on-again off-again female lover and their FIVE boys (and not a single girl child between them). This woman does some of the most stereotypical male things - including making laughing references and jokes about bodily functions and having more testoserone (sp?) than I do. Yet she is undeniable female. In fact, physically, she would be considered quite attractive, except she does not move or talk in anything close to ladylike.

If I played a character based on her, I bet you would accuse me of just doing a poor job of playing a female.

And on the other hand, I have had several women commit that I would make a great woman. Apparently, I have the body for it, and some of my sensibilities are more stereotypically female than male (for example, I am super finicky and cannot stand getting dirty - which caused one of my other female co-workers to laugh at me and call me girly). Yet I, like my aforementioned earlier co-worker, am of an undeniable gender (in this case, male, of course).

All the little things, all the "details" that you claim break the suspension of disbelief - they don't do that for most of us!

Rixx
2009-09-20, 04:49 PM
I will confess that the female character I play was raised by her father and four male adventurers, and as such turned out rather boyish. (She even disguises herself as a man most of the time. The party didn't find out for a month.)

Though, the other players are starting to see into her inner workings, and believe that I'm playing a female very accurately. During high school, most of my friends were women, actually.

Murdim
2009-09-20, 04:51 PM
We could and do interact. There are some bestselling books about this phenomenon (though not being D&D players, they say "planet" instead of "plane"). It is also notable that boys who go to an all-boys school and lack sisters have a fair bit of initial difficulty understanding girls. If the overlap was so significant, why does this difficulty exist?What about gender roles ? Are you sure that most behavioral differences between men and women are really hard-coded in their brains at their birth or at puberty, as opposed to being acquired by living different experiences because they aren't held by the same societal standards and have some quite defining "physical" (i.e non-mental) differences ?


Again, though, we're not trying to fool one another as to our identities when we roleplay. The goal isn't to have the other people at the table think that you are the opposite gender. It's to have them believe that your character is of the opposite gender just as they believe your character is any of the dozens of other things that they are and you are not. That's really not at all difficult to achieve. The worst failures seem to come when people try too hard.Quoted for truth.


My character is homosexual. I'm in the extreme heterosexual end of the spectrum. I'm pretty sure two of the other players are homosexual, so I must be careful to not accidentally fall into some of the bad stereotypes.What do you mean by "extreme homosexual end of the spectrum" ? Absolutely exclusive homosexual who has never been remotely attracted by any woman, homosexual and oversexed, homosexual with all the culturally-associated sterotypes, or some combination of them ?

kamikasei
2009-09-20, 04:54 PM
In other words, yes, playing a PC of the opposite gender can add a little variety, but it only works if everyone in your group is mature, and not everyone is that lucky.

Well, sure, if your group contains jackasses then a whole bunch of things become difficult. That's because you're playing with a jackass, not because of anything about what you wanted to do. If this player was so irritating, why was he allowed to play female characters?

Umael
2009-09-20, 05:02 PM
While I agree that occasioanlly playing as a different gender can add some variety, I should point out that it isn't always the case. Sometimes it has more effects than simply adding variety.

*disturbingly familiar story snipped*

Once this player discovered that he too could play female characters, he did nothing but play secretive and slutty seductresses therafter.

In other words, yes, playing a PC of the opposite gender can add a little variety, but it only works if everyone in your group is mature, and not everyone is that lucky.

Yep. I've had my encounters with people like that too. It sucks. In the same online game I was talking about too (and no, not me, another guy).

I think this is the kind of person Riffington is encountering, the one who thinks that just because he CAN play a female that he SHOULD. And then he proceeds to play the same one, over and over, while not even playing one that is interesting or well done.

This is not to say that you cannot be a man and play a stereotypical male fantasy seductress, but that (all you guys out there, pay heed) you should play a well-developed one and make sure your next female character is significantly different than your last one.

For the record, for that on-line game* I was playing, I actually made four female characters for it (unusual for me, as I tend to go 50-50, but I think I hadn't been played a female character in a while and I couldn't think of a good enough male concept). All four were quite different from each other, and yet all four were quite female. All of them could seduce, and yet all of them would go about it in different manners and NONE of them approached seduction as their first choice (or second, for that matter).

(It was a Legend of the Five Rings game. Incidentally, I didn't really get to tell their stories, so the next time I could play in an L5R game, I figured I would play one of them. Go figure, I'm now in a TT L5R game, and NONE of my earlier four concepts would work. So I'm playing an ex-Hida Ronin Militant Shugenja, male, with the Large Advantage, and it looks like it's going to be fun.

Other PC: You're a big one.
My PC: Oh, I'm just the runt of the litter. That's why I became a shugenja.)

warrl
2009-09-20, 05:25 PM
What do you mean by "extreme homosexual end of the spectrum" ? Absolutely exclusive homosexual who has never been remotely attracted by any woman, homosexual and oversexed, homosexual with all the culturally-associated sterotypes, or some combination of them ?

Actually, it was "extreme heterosexual end".

And I mean that I have never seen a man who struck me as even mildly attractive.

I have managed to learn a bit about what other people find attractive in men, but it's purely intellectual and I have to work at it.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-20, 05:31 PM
Then you've never seen me. But then I agree, most men aren't attractive. I've only seen one in mirror attractive (me). :smallbiggrin:

Deadmeat.GW
2009-09-20, 06:23 PM
For information...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_authors_who_wrote_under_male_or_ge nder-neutral_pseudonyms

There are a surprising number of known female writers who had a male or neutral name...

Riffington
2009-09-20, 09:21 PM
Yes, but the point is, that you can learn to emulate them.
Sure, if you're really good and work really hard at it.


I also wonder (I think this was asked earlier) how Riffington's DMs handle NPCs of the opposite sex.

In high school we did it rarely, and it was kinda fun. It didn't add or subtract much from the experience. Since then my groups (different set of people) have forbidden it without a superb explanation.


This is the big thing.

Riffington, I'm going to raise my stakes a little. In addition to claiming that you are setting the bar too high, I am going to accuse you of being oversensitive about this issue.

Interesting. I don't know how to take that. I'm also not sure what to say about your friend other than "yes, there are people like that, and I wasn't talking about them."



What about gender roles ? Are you sure that most behavioral differences between men and women are really hard-coded in their brains at their birth or at puberty, as opposed to being acquired by living different experiences because they aren't held by the same societal standards and have some quite defining "physical" (i.e non-mental) differences ?
Most? no. Many? yes.
There are so many people who "knew" gender was just constructed, so they put their kids in yellow and gave the boys Barbie dolls and then had to watch in horror as those boys proceeded to bend Barbie at her waist, point her at the robbers, and shout "bang, bang"

Umael
2009-09-20, 09:38 PM
Interesting point.

When you mention the boys from an all-boys school having trouble identifying with girls, are you keeping in mind how much things have changed? It used to be that the boys asked the girls out. Now girls are doing the asking out a bit more.

Also interesting point.

It was given that the boys would be the ones making fools of themselves. Now, as girls are the ones taking more initiative... there seems to be more stories of THEM being the ones who make fools of themselves (intentionally or otherwise).

Addendum to interesting points.

You talk about how we try to relate to these characters if they were different genders, different occupations, and different races. You argue that it is easier to believe a computer programmer is playing a barbarian realistically, or a born-and-bred Mid-Western is playing an elf realistically, than a man playing a woman realistically.

But if the elven culture and the dwarven culture and all that is alien and made-up, how come he just can't play a female elf or a female dwarf? As you seriously saying that the male elf has more in common with the male human than the male human has in common with the female human? Or the male dwarf to the male human? The male half-orc? The male half-ogre!? The male aasimar?? The male half-dragon!!?

Or the really weird campaigns where someone wants to play a minotaur? Or a grimlock?? Or an illithid???

Riffington
2009-09-20, 09:50 PM
Interesting point.

When you mention the boys from an all-boys school having trouble identifying with girls, are you keeping in mind how much things have changed? It used to be that the boys asked the girls out. Now girls are doing the asking out a bit more.
At least in my cousins' schools, not much has changed. Perhaps yours are different? The "everything's changed, now girls sometimes ask out the boys" thing has been coming and going since 1970, as near as I can tell.



But if the elven culture and the dwarven culture and all that is alien and made-up, how come he just can't play a female elf or a female dwarf? As you seriously saying that the male elf has more in common with the male human than the male human has in common with the female human? Or the male dwarf to the male human? The male half-orc? The male half-ogre!? The male aasimar?? The male half-dragon!!?

Totally fair. Obviously a real elf should have a very foreign mind that doesn't even resemble a human one in a meaningful way. But just as obviously, we can't do it that way. So we make them humans in funny suits, and it's fun that way, and trying to come up with an alien mindset for them can be fun too but usually ends up lame. See: Ferengi.
But as long as I'm just going with what I know, can't I play a female dwarf and claim she has more testosterone than me so it's fine? Probably, but it just seems wrong.

Dervag
2009-09-20, 10:15 PM
Riffington, I have a question for you.

You contend that any man's attempt to roleplay a woman will be unsatisfactory, inadequate, and unconvincing. Other people on the thread claim not only that it can be, but that in their own experience it HAS been satisfactory, adequate, and convincing.

Why are you not satisfied when they are? Are they all so ignorant of women that they are easily fooled? Including, I assume, the women? Is that more or less likely than the idea that you are taking an extreme position that is not supported by the general experience of the role-playing public?

quicker_comment
2009-09-20, 11:33 PM
I'm also not sure what to say about your friend other than "yes, there are people like that, and I wasn't talking about them."
Weren't you making a general statement about all women, by saying that men could not play female characters convincingly? If I played a character based on Umael's female friend convincingly, would I not be playing a female character convincingly?

It seems to me that the category of people you are talking about is more specific than "women".

Disregarding even the part where this is about playing a roleplaying game and not actually trying to fool someone, the internet has made it very clear that men can, successfully, over long periods of time, fool entire online communities by pretending to be quite explicitly "gendered" women. As someone else noted, this happens very commonly in MMOs (where, in broad strokes, men who want attention pretend to be women and women who don't want attention pretend to be men to escape notice), but it's also a staple of internet drama for male-dominated online social communities in general. (Their being male-dominated provides the incentive for pretending to be female: being female is, to them, a way to attract attention.) Saying that it cannot happen, or that only Shakespeare can do it convincingly, is absurd in light of the fact that men who are neither actors, writers or geniuses do do it all the time.

Murdim
2009-09-21, 02:29 AM
Actually, it was "extreme heterosexual end".

And I mean that I have never seen a man who struck me as even mildly attractive.

I have managed to learn a bit about what other people find attractive in men, but it's purely intellectual and I have to work at it.Sorry... I read "homosexual" instead of "heterosexual", and therefore talked about your character, not you.


Most? no. Many? yes.
There are so many people who "knew" gender was just constructed, so they put their kids in yellow and gave the boys Barbie dolls and then had to watch in horror as those boys proceeded to bend Barbie at her waist, point her at the robbers, and shout "bang, bang"Fun fact : parents are far from being the only influence on the development of their children. If every little boy he sees at school or watches in television play at "killing" each other, if most people he meets outside his family says dolls are for girls and guns are for boys, then no matter what his parents can have said about the evils of gender roles, he will do that too. And that's only the most superficial layer of child psychology.

The way children react to their environment isn't as simple and predictable as you seem to think. In fact, I'm pretty sure that too much insistance from the parents to dismiss societal constructions around gender roles can (and usually) end up becoming counterproductive, when the child realizes that the world around him conforms to them and expects him to do the same. And the following quarrels would only make things worse.

kamikasei
2009-09-21, 03:37 AM
In high school we did it rarely, and it was kinda fun. It didn't add or subtract much from the experience. Since then my groups (different set of people) have forbidden it without a superb explanation.

I think you may have misread me; I asked about NPCs. Or do you really mean that your DMs never throw in an NPC not of their sex?

Riffington
2009-09-21, 05:37 AM
I think you may have misread me; I asked about NPCs. Or do you really mean that your DMs never throw in an NPC not of their sex?

NPCs are not the main characters. NPCs can have accents because you aren't hearing them constantly for 5 hours, so it doesn't grate on you. NPCs can be women. Male authors usually fail to write convincing female main characters, but a book without any female characters would be odd.


Weren't you making a general statement about all women, by saying that men could not play female characters convincingly? If I played a character based on Umael's female friend convincingly, would I not be playing a female character convincingly?

Why can't I pass as black? I'm darker than an albino Nigerian. Just because some people don't fit in pigeonholes doesn't invalidate those pigeonholes. Separately: I have no idea whether you or Umael can play a character based on his friend. Never met her, and a belch does not a man make.


Riffington, I have a question for you.

You contend that any man's attempt to roleplay a woman will be unsatisfactory, inadequate, and unconvincing. Other people on the thread claim not only that it can be, but that in their own experience it HAS been satisfactory, adequate, and convincing.

Why are you not satisfied when they are? Are they all so ignorant of women that they are easily fooled? Including, I assume, the women? Is that more or less likely than the idea that you are taking an extreme position that is not supported by the general experience of the role-playing public?

I don't think this board reflects the general experience of the role-playing public. This board tells me that wizards aren't blasters, that 20 is a low Wisdom for a 5th level cleric, and that the NPC builds listed in books are so hopeless that you can only read them for the horror value.
If you have tried it and it works for you, I obviously support your continuing with it. If you haven't tried it, or you tried it and think you might have gotten some funny looks, there you go.

Ozymandias9
2009-09-21, 10:29 AM
I don't think this board reflects the general experience of the role-playing public. This board tells me that wizards aren't blasters, that 20 is a low Wisdom for a 5th level cleric, and that the NPC builds listed in books are so hopeless that you can only read them for the horror value.
If you have tried it and it works for you, I obviously support your continuing with it. If you haven't tried it, or you tried it and think you might have gotten some funny looks, there you go.

I find that quite a leap. Most internet role playing boards do have a tendency to focus on CharOp more than is common for role players at large (and plenty of them do so to a greater extent than this one). But to assume that that means they are outliers in all other elements of role playing is... unsound.

For my part, when I role play a female character, I start by basing the characterization on a specific woman I know and alter as I see necessary to fit the fantasy background. It seems to work pretty well. No one thinks I'm actually a girl, but no one finds that the presentation strains their disbelief. This leads me to ask: is there really no girl you know well enough that you could impersonate them over, say, email or text if they asked?

Riffington
2009-09-21, 11:08 AM
I find that quite a leap. Most internet role playing boards do have a tendency to focus on CharOp more than is common for role players at large (and plenty of them do so to a greater extent than this one). But to assume that that means they are outliers in all other elements of role playing is... unsound.
It's not unsound, it's good statistics. When you find that a sample of people is unrepresentative in one regard, you can't consider them to be representative in any regard. But while we're talking unsound, you're deciding to look at those people who were attracted to a thread with the word "gender" in it.



For my part, when I role play a female character, I start by basing the characterization on a specific woman I know and alter as I see necessary to fit the fantasy background. It seems to work pretty well. No one thinks I'm actually a girl, but no one finds that the presentation strains their disbelief.
Cool, if it's fun for you and your group then keep at it.


This leads me to ask: is there really no girl you know well enough that you could impersonate them over, say, email or text if they asked?
Depends how long. 1 page email or 5 minutes of texting, probably. Past that and I'm caught.

Umael
2009-09-21, 01:20 PM
NPCs are not the main characters. NPCs can have accents because you aren't hearing them constantly for 5 hours, so it doesn't grate on you.

But if you have to RP with an NPC for a long period of time, then what? That just doesn't happen in your group?



NPCs can be women.

...oh, thank you. We have your permission.



Male authors usually fail to write convincing female main characters, but a book without any female characters would be odd.

I was going to take offense to this, but I figured, why bother?

At the rate you are going, have you cleared out any nebula recently? I mean, you use such sweeping generalizations...



Why can't I pass as black?

Um... since when did anyone as you to pass as something you are not. We're not talking about you or anyone else in real life. We're talking about the characters.

Did you miss that? The goal is not immersion.

That's what you keep insisting that the role-players do - immerse themselves so much into their characters that the players themselves are mistaken for being barbarians... or elves... or, forbid, female!

*pause to dial the sarcasm down to 0.7*

Most of the people who have replied (which, I will admit, might be a skewed slice of the percentage of gamers, although how skewed is up for grabs) have state that they have had enough experience, direct and indirect, with males playing female characters that they do not find the experience to be troublesome. They have said, in effect, "Go ahead and play a woman, dude. It's okay by me, it's just role-playing, I could believe that the character you are portraying is a woman. It's not that I could totally see a woman doing that, but I could sure see THAT woman there doing it."

By your account, it seems the only way a guy could play a woman in a tabletop game or on-line would be to dress up in drag and put on a show that would make Shakespeare get up from his grave and applaud, "Good job, milady!"

The extension of this logic says that since most guys who try to role-play a woman is going to fail to even get their wig on correctly, the whole thing will boil down to a farce and therefore it is better that they never try in the first place - and I don't think I need to illustrate to you how insulting that line of thinking is.

(Hint: You also said that it was easier for a woman to portray a man than for a man to portray a woman.)



I'm darker than an albino Nigerian. Just because some people don't fit in pigeonholes doesn't invalidate those pigeonholes.

...funny. That's... that's what most of us were using for why it is okay for guys to go ahead try to role-play a woman character, and that it won't wreck the gaming experience when they do.

Jerk players are jerk players, not jerk players because they are trying to role-play women are are coming across as insulting cardboard cut-offs (or worse, silicone love-dolls).



I don't think this board reflects the general experience of the role-playing public. This board tells me that wizards aren't blasters, that 20 is a low Wisdom for a 5th level cleric, and that the NPC builds listed in books are so hopeless that you can only read them for the horror value.

...okay, I'm going to have to agree with you there.

(In the interests of diplomacy, I'll say no more on this.)



If you have tried it and it works for you, I obviously support your continuing with it. If you haven't tried it, or you tried it and think you might have gotten some funny looks, there you go.

Wow.

That's twice I've agreed with you. In the same post nonetheless.

Riffington
2009-09-21, 01:56 PM
But if you have to RP with an NPC for a long period of time, then what? That just doesn't happen in your group?
NPCs don't get as much spotlight as PCs for as long. We don't play with DMPCs (usually).



...oh, thank you. We have your permission.

You're giving me snark for answering a direct question? Why?



I was going to take offense to this, but I figured, why bother?

Apologies then. I'm not claiming that every story has to have a female character in it, or trying to knock your favorite story if it doesn't have one. I'm only saying that most do.


That's what you keep insisting that the role-players do - immerse themselves so much into their characters that the players themselves are mistaken for being barbarians... or elves... or, forbid, female!

It's not. Perhaps you're upset because you're overestimating the extent of my claims and thinking I'm exploring nebulae. What I'm insisting is that roleplayers try to be around the same level. If you're playing around, that's fine and good; if you're writing a story together that's fine too. If it's at a light level and people start hitting on each other, then you're hitting one each other because you want to, not because you think it furthers character development. If you're trying for a serious game with serious character development to the point that you're going to be figuring out what a romance would mean for your character, then you should have a higher level of understanding of your character to start with.


(Hint: You also said that it was easier for a woman to portray a man than for a man to portray a woman.)
I'm missing the hint. I think it is easier, just look at Rowling. She does a good job with her male characters and doesn't need any special praise for it, the way a male author merits if he does that good a job with his female characters.

To be fair though, it isn't universally true. One of my favorite authors (Bujold) consistently makes minor mistakes with Vorkosigan that jar a tiny bit and make me wish she'd stick with her female leads.

Umael
2009-09-21, 02:43 PM
You're giving me snark for answering a direct question? Why?

Probably because of the way you phrased it.



It's not. Perhaps you're upset because you're overestimating the extent of my claims and thinking I'm exploring nebulae. What I'm insisting is that roleplayers try to be around the same level. If you're playing around, that's fine and good; if you're writing a story together that's fine too.

So far, so good...

(Actually, I kinda like that bit about insisting that roleplayers try to be around the same level. Definitely no argument here.)



If it's at a light level and people start hitting on each other, then you're hitting one each other because you want to, not because you think it furthers character development. If you're trying for a serious game with serious character development to the point that you're going to be figuring out what a romance would mean for your character, then you should have a higher level of understanding of your character to start with.

*blink*

Okay, I'm going to be disagreeing here a little.

Just because the tone of the game is light doesn't mean that you can't have characters hit on one another. In the canon Champions universe, the wife-husband supervillain team Thunder & Lightning carry on a bit of a banter (Lightning: Well, dear, as long as you are hitting and not hitting on the good looking superheroes, I guess I won't mind...). It's not that hard to take it a step further and have something similar happen with the NPCs flirting/bantering with the PCs (and vice versa).

Look at the fight between Roy and Sabine. The tone is light, the two are definitely bantering, and it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to imagine Roy actually flirting with Sabine while he is battling her. It isn't too hard to picture Roy's player and the DM as both male.

Then again, Rich is male - and Haley is female. Is Haley portrayed unrealistically? Do any of the female NPCs come across as unrealistic?

A light tone to the campaign does not exclude a romance. Period. It just means that you have to keep the mood of the romance light as well - and given some tempid romances I have known, that's not hard.

Once you get into serious tones, then you should have a higher level of understanding about your character, period, no matter the gender, race, occupation, or background.



I'm missing the hint. I think it is easier, just look at Rowling. She does a good job with her male characters and doesn't need any special praise for it, the way a male author merits if he does that good a job with his female characters.

To be fair though, it isn't universally true. One of my favorite authors (Bujold) consistently makes minor mistakes with Vorkosigan that jar a tiny bit and make me wish she'd stick with her female leads.

Rowling is also a very good author. She also is a mother who modeled her characters on the behavior she observed in real children. THAT, far more than making her male characters believable, is her accomplishment - that she portrayed children so accurately.

You also point out that another good author, Bujold, isn't as good when it comes to her portrayal of men.

I could point out how Author X, male, did a great job with his female characters, but then be fair and mention Piers Antho - er, Author Y, who does a horrible job. That's a piecemeal argument, because there is ALWAYS going to be people who succeed and fail when it comes to their writing.

Then again, you don't need to be a writer to role-play well (although being a good writer, like a good actor, does help).

(By the by, the hint is that claiming that women are better at portraying men than men are at portraying women smacks of sexism, since there really isn't that much evidence thereof. Personal anecdotes, maybe, evidence, no.)

Riffington
2009-09-21, 03:11 PM
Probably because of the way you phrased it.
Well, I have been guilty of that before.



Just because the tone of the game is light doesn't mean that you can't have characters hit on one another.
Agreed, but.

So first, I'm not saying you can't have characters hit on each other in a light game. I mean to say that if you have characters hit on each other in a light game, it's because it's fun for the players to do it - not because of some special character-development-related reason.

Second, by light I didn't actually mean light in tone. I meant light in effort. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a low-effort game with beer and/or guacamole - far from it. It's just a different thing from writing a novel together. The low-effort game need not be comedic, and the high-effort game can include light banter. And of course some games are in between.



I could point out how Author X, male, did a great job with his female characters, but then be fair and mention Piers Antho - er, Author Y, who does a horrible job. That's a piecemeal argument, because there is ALWAYS going to be people who succeed and fail when it comes to their writing.
Sure, but the number of male authors that can write a believable female character is tiny.



(By the by, the hint is that claiming that women are better at portraying men than men are at portraying women smacks of sexism, since there really isn't that much evidence thereof. Personal anecdotes, maybe, evidence, no.)
Maybe, but read Virginia Woolf (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91r/) on this subject. She explains far better than I can. Allow me to just say that men have difficulty portraying women, but that I don't really know whether women have difficulty portraying men, so I'm not really talking about that.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-09-21, 03:22 PM
Sure, but the number of male authors that can write a believable female character is tiny.

This made me want to stop reading this thread and jump in to say this (to all of you, not just Riffington): arguing anything about believable characters is a bit difficult, because believability is based on a subjective view point, extremely so. I, for example, have never seen a character, regardless of their gender and the gender of the author, that I considered to be unbelievable.

Telonius
2009-09-21, 04:12 PM
I'd say that the number of female authors who can write "believable" male characters is similarly tiny. The number of authors, period, who can write believable characters, period is pretty darn small. Practically everybody dips down into stereotypes, cliches, wish-fulfillment and demonization. This affects even famous authors: I'll see that Piers Anthony and raise you one Jane Austen. While her portrayals of the main female characters are phenomenal, the portrayals of men in her books are generally laughable (at least in my opinion).

Here's the thing, though: often, a cliche'd character doesn't matter. You can't always totally flesh out every single character in a book, and authors often aren't interested in doing so. If it works, it works. Austen's books are good enough - they work well enough - that most people overlook the rough parts. Piers Anthony's books generally aren't. You could say the same about any number of female genre authors (I'm looking at you, Storm Constantine).

Dervag
2009-09-21, 04:21 PM
I don't think this board reflects the general experience of the role-playing public. This board tells me that wizards aren't blasters, that 20 is a low Wisdom for a 5th level cleric, and that the NPC builds listed in books are so hopeless that you can only read them for the horror value.
If you have tried it and it works for you, I obviously support your continuing with it. If you haven't tried it, or you tried it and think you might have gotten some funny looks, there you go.I haven't tried it, but I believe that others can do it and make it work. There are much greater acting challenges than cross-gender acting, so I don't really believe that you're right when you say it's impossible- which is effectively what you're doing.

It's like saying that it's impossible to juggle four baseballs. I can't do it, a lot of people can't do it. Many of them will look like idiots if they even try. But that doesn't mean it's impossible, or that it's a categorical truth that "humans can't juggle."

Ozymandias9
2009-09-21, 04:33 PM
It's not unsound, it's good statistics. When you find that a sample of people is unrepresentative in one regard, you can't consider them to be representative in any regard. But while we're talking unsound, you're deciding to look at those people who were attracted to a thread with the word "gender" in it.

The selection bias is a relevant point: the people who have a strong opinion on an issue are always more likely to selectively respond.

The representativeness of the sample is not: knowing that a sample is non-representative sample means merely that you can't presume it representative, not you you can soundly presume it aberrant in every respect. Thus we only know that, statistically, we cannot presume the opinions of the board to be sound.

Thus, since statistics has no further comment, the next best tool is ontological reasoning. And presuming that a known aberration implies another aberration without supporting evidence violates most ontological razors.


Depends how long. 1 page email or 5 minutes of texting, probably. Past that and I'm caught.

For that 5 minutes of texting, then, you're passing yourself off not only as a girl, but as a specific girl. And you are doing so to a person who (presumably) knows her reasonably well.
In contrast, when role playing the person involved doesn't actually exist. And even if they did, no one knows them. Small errors in personality aren't going to be noticeable to anyone but you. To my mind, this should more than counter the fact that the exercise is more protracted (at least if you spend reasonable prep time examining and refining the character's mentality).

The added difficulty, then, comes from the fact that it's face-to-face. While I certainly do believe that this would strain suspension of disbelief from some, I really find it odd that it would outright break it for the majority of your table on a regular basis. That would seem imply either that you are all relatively close to disbelieving characterization on a regular basis or that you're extremely visually-oriented thinkers.

The later seems more likely to me (I've never seen a heavy RP games that hover that close to general disbelief). If that is the case, detailed and displayed character portraits might help: if you provide tools to aid the visualization of the character, you make it easier to visualize the role play as the character's actions rather than the players.

Artanis
2009-09-21, 04:34 PM
This made me want to stop reading this thread and jump in to say this (to all of you, not just Riffington): arguing anything about believable characters is a bit difficult, because believability is based on a subjective view point, extremely so. I, for example, have never seen a character, regardless of their gender and the gender of the author, that I considered to be unbelievable.

I too have a pretty easy time suspending disbelief. John Ringo's books have managed to break it once or twice, and Battlefield Earth is like a textbook on destroying suspension of disbelief*. But other than that, I can't think of any off the top of my head.




*You think the movie was bad? The movie has nothing on the book. The book sent my suspension of disbelief fleeing in terror, only to be found later curled in a corner sobbing and trying to claw its own eyes out. *shudders*

Starbuck_II
2009-09-21, 04:42 PM
It's like saying that it's impossible to juggle four baseballs. I can't do it, a lot of people can't do it. Many of them will look like idiots if they even try. But that doesn't mean it's impossible, or that it's a categorical truth that "humans can't juggle."

Agreed, I saw someone do that in real life juggle 4 at a show once.

Riffington
2009-09-21, 04:46 PM
It's like saying that it's impossible to juggle four baseballs. I can't do it, a lot of people can't do it. Many of them will look like idiots if they even try. But that doesn't mean it's impossible, or that it's a categorical truth that "humans can't juggle."

I'm fine with that analogy (though the number 4 is a bit low). I am not saying don't juggle 4 balls, I'm saying learn to juggle 3 balls before you try 4.



The representativeness of the sample is not: knowing that a sample is non-representative sample means merely that you can't presume it representative, not you you can soundly presume it aberrant in every respect.
If you don't have a strong reason to believe your sample is representative, you throw it out and find one that is.


That would seem imply either that you are all relatively close to disbelieving characterization on a regular basis
Well, we're looking for ways to improve characterization. That's sorta-kinda what you're saying, I think, in that we're not firmly in the "characters are all fine, we just gotta get more plot done" camp.

Ozymandias9
2009-09-21, 05:27 PM
If you don't have a strong reason to believe your sample is representative, you throw it out and find one that is.
That presumes that a representative sample is available. I think you would be hard pressed to find one. If there is one you know of, point me to it: statistics is fun.

If there isn't, we must use a tool other than statistics: from a rationalist standpoint, that's usually applied ontology for positive observation exercises like this. And most razors wouldn't support your supposition. Most, but certainly not all: Menger's razor is one exception I can think of off the top of my head.


Well, we're looking for ways to improve characterization. That's sorta-kinda what you're saying, I think, in that we're not firmly in the "characters are all fine, we just gotta get more plot done" camp.

I didn't mean to imply that you were ignoring characterization. I, however, also wasn't assuming that you were only attempting to use whatever characterization you could come the closest to pulling off flawlessly. Personally, I have found it both more common and more rewarding to work on characters that are more difficult but with which you can still preform at a minimally adequate level.

I'm not saying that playing a character of the opposite gender isn't more difficult. I'm merely questioning the presumption that it would be so inordinately difficult as to impede the plot and/or the table. If not, approaching difficult characters is how we grow as role players.

Murdim
2009-09-21, 06:06 PM
This debate is going anywhere, and I don't think the alternative is even remotely possible. Evidently, we all have our own visions and criteria about what masculinity and feminity are about, and it would be very hard, very long, very tiresome and above all very, very unsound to try and impose our own on each other. It happens, though, that Riffington's appears to be much more powerful, strict and uncompromising than those of most of the other speakers, who tend to share a "not such a big deal" attitude and be more wary about overplaying genders.

In other words, while most of us considers that men should be able to play women the way they want as long as they put a little effort on it and don't sink into caricature, Riffington considers that every man who play a female character without following his complex and narrow definition of feminity is doing it wrong, lacks the roleplaying skills to do it right, (as opposed to not agreeing with him about differences between genders), and thus shouldn't be allowed to play women. Hey, that's pretty much what he says, only put a bit more bluntly. But of course, he'll probably answer that he never explicitly wrote that, no matter how much his messages actually mean that.

Umael
2009-09-21, 06:09 PM
The number of authors, period, who can write believable characters, period is pretty darn small. Practically everybody dips down into stereotypes, cliches, wish-fulfillment and demonization. This affects even famous authors.

I'll go one further - sometimes it isn't just what works, but what is necessary.

Some authors deliberately go out of their ways to create charactures of people, either because those people are known figures in our society or culture, or because those people represents something. These characters are, in a sense, unreal because they are defined by an author's perception of a particular person or ideal concept.

Comedians, especially for stand-up routinues, do this kind of thing all the time. See SNL for some excellent examples of people doing deliberate over-the-line impersonations of various cultural icons, notably politicans.

When it comes to writing, look no further than Lewis Carol's Alice in Wonderland. Is the Cheshire Cat a believable character? Is Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum? What about the Queen of Hearts? You could even argue that Lewis not only failed to make Alice a believable female, but a believable child. Does this mean that the story is an absolute failure?

Most people aren't professional actors or writers, let alone professional role-players. This is a hobby, a means of letting out some steam, unwinding, relaxing, and going off to explore a cooperatively constructed contraption. As long as they aren't being obnoxious about it, what does it hurt to let some guy try to role-play as a woman?

Besides, who knows? Maybe some of these guys who try to role-play women who have never done so before get an idea of what it is actually like to be a woman.

t_catt11
2009-09-21, 06:11 PM
Wow. I truly expected this thread to be buried on page fifteen by now.

This is seriously still a debate?

Really?

Thajocoth
2009-09-21, 06:35 PM
Personally, I have no problem with any character flirting with my characters, regardless of the gender of either. I'm straight, but I'm not my character. Then again, I have no problem with it IRL either. I simply say "no thanks" if I'm not interested... That said, you're not your character... But your character is what you decide it is. If you're uncomfortable with your character's direction, then change it.

I once had a character on an RP server in WoW. When I finally quit, her personality was that of someone I didn't want to hang out with anymore. I know exactly what I did wrong too... The details on this:
I wanted a frost mage on a white tiger. Night Elves can't be mages, so I rolled a Gnome. First thing Frozanna (my female frozen gnome) did was travel to Teldrassil to live with the Night Elves. I gave her a reason for this... "After barely escaping Gnomeregon, she became unsure that her people's faith in technology was the best path and chose to see if the Night Elves' balance of nature thing offered her any insight."

So she wound up converting from worshiping The Light to worshiping Elune, the Night Elves' moon goddess as her reputation with the elves increased. Then, seeing the conflict between the Argent Dawn and the Crimson Crusade (or whatever they were called, I barely remember), she thought it ridiculous that they fight when they have a common enemy. Since they both claim to serve The Light, she takes it as confirmation that she made the right choice in converting.

Then, Burning Crusade came out. In the central city of The Outlands are a few Naaru (The Light). Obviously, she's not too happy there, especially seeing the same conflict between the Aldor and the Scryer, who fight over the Naaru's favor (and an old grudge). So, my character thinks the Naaru, who're supposedly so benevolent, can easily just tell them to stop fighting. So Frozanna's the only one in the city who doesn't think the Naaru are benevolent. She was cynical. I HATE that personality trait.

I got my Frost Mage, Frozanna the Frozen Gnome on a Winterspring Frostsaber like I wanted, but I let myself make enough bad personality choices along the way that quitting WoW the 3rd time was easy.

Note: Farming in Winterspring for reputation wasn't really all that bad as I mostly did other quests along the way. Only the last few runs around the loop were quest-less.

Riffington
2009-09-21, 10:27 PM
That presumes that a representative sample is available. I think you would be hard pressed to find one. If there is one you know of, point me to it: statistics is fun.
I already did, in my randomly select 100 Americans experiment proposal.



If there isn't, we must use a tool other than statistics: from a rationalist standpoint, that's usually applied ontology for positive observation exercises like this. And most razors wouldn't support your supposition. Most, but certainly not all: Menger's razor is one exception I can think of off the top of my head.

I would say that the best tool is to ask an authority. I nominated Virginia Woolf. You can feel free to find me a better authority and tell me why she's better.



Riffington considers that every man who play a female character without following his complex and narrow definition of feminity is doing it wrong, lacks the roleplaying skills to do it right, (as opposed to not agreeing with him about differences between genders), and thus shouldn't be allowed to play women. Hey, that's pretty much what he says, only put a bit more bluntly. But of course, he'll probably answer that he never explicitly wrote that, no matter how much his messages actually mean that.

I never wrote or meant that, and I'd rather you avoid creating strawmen. For instance:
*I don't believe in definitions.
*I certainly don't believe I (or you) get to define femininity.
*I never said that people who do it wrong shouldn't be allowed to do it. I said that people who do it wrong should be forbidden if they are reducing the fun/comfort of the other players. Which the OP (for example) doesn't seem to be doing.



I'll go one further - sometimes it isn't just what works, but what is necessary.

Some authors deliberately go out of their ways to create charactures of people, either because those people are known figures in our society or culture, or because those people represents something. These characters are, in a sense, unreal because they are defined by an author's perception of a particular person or ideal concept.

Comedians, especially for stand-up routinues, do this kind of thing all the time. See SNL for some excellent examples of people doing deliberate over-the-line impersonations of various cultural icons, notably politicans.

When it comes to writing, look no further than Lewis Carol's Alice in Wonderland. Is the Cheshire Cat a believable character? Is Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum? What about the Queen of Hearts? You could even argue that Lewis not only failed to make Alice a believable female, but a believable child. Does this mean that the story is an absolute failure?

Most people aren't professional actors or writers, let alone professional role-players. This is a hobby, a means of letting out some steam, unwinding, relaxing, and going off to explore a cooperatively constructed contraption. As long as they aren't being obnoxious about it, what does it hurt to let some guy try to role-play as a woman?

Besides, who knows? Maybe some of these guys who try to role-play women who have never done so before get an idea of what it is actually like to be a woman.

I agree with everything you just said except the last paragraph.

Ozymandias9
2009-09-22, 12:27 AM
I already did, in my randomly select 100 Americans experiment proposal.

I would say that the best tool is to ask an authority. I nominated Virginia Woolf. You can feel free to find me a better authority and tell me why she's better.

On random sampling: I would suggest rather a random sample of table-top RPG players as the relevant sample, but that ignores the underlying point. You have a proposal, not a data set. Till you have one, you can't actually use it.

Generally, appeal to authority is invalid as an interrogative tool. It merely moves the question to on what is the authority's position based and argues against it rather than directly addressing the issue.

Moreover, I would find it very difficulty to find an expert on whether or not a tendency to CharOp in RPGs related substantively to Gender Perceptions in RPGs. If I did find one, they would presumably try to answer the question through a random sample. So again, we're back to the point of we don't have one and have to make a judgement without it.

You did make a valid point about a selection bias in who responds to the thread, which is a valid possibility for the larger discussion. It does not, however, support your earlier supposition that the board represents an outlying position in its gender views merely because its position on CharOp demonstrates it not to be a representative sample.

Aside: Woolf and semi-relevant experts
Woolf, in particular, lived in a period where gender relations were substantially different than they are today. While her espoused positions (for example "If a woman is to write fiction she must have money and a room of her own.") were certainly advanced for her time, but still do not represent a good picture of how people interact with the opposite gender in modern society.

If I had to choose an expert, I would choose Dr. Micaela di Leonardo at Northwestern University. She's done quite a few statistical case studies on gender relations. Dr. Sherry Martin at Cornell is another option: her body of work on gender relations is smaller, but more recent than Dr. Leonardo's more important works. Also, Sherry is honestly a much less annoying person to talk to.

Riffington
2009-09-22, 08:02 AM
On random sampling: I would suggest rather a random sample of table-top RPG players as the relevant sample, but that ignores the underlying point. You have a proposal, not a data set. Till you have one, you can't actually use it.
Ok, well since last night, Umael helpfully provided a new thread providing/asking for advice on how to play women. In its two pages, it already contains ten times the sexism of this thread.



Generally, appeal to authority is invalid as an interrogative tool. No, appeal to inappropriate authority is invalid as an interrogative tool. If we find an appropriate authority, we can replace our dim insights with their superior ones. I can take a poll on this board about chess openings, or I can read some Kasparov. Yes, he may disagree with Karpov on points, but either would be better than the board's consensus.



Moreover, I would find it very difficulty to find an expert on whether or not a tendency to CharOp in RPGs related substantively to Gender Perceptions in RPGs. If I did find one, they would presumably try to answer the question through a random sample. So again, we're back to the point of we don't have one and have to make a judgement without it.

My claim would really be that we can analogize from authors to RPG players. Is there a reason you don't like this analogy? If you accept it, Woolf and other experts have written a fair bit about what happens when male authors attempt to write female characters.


Woolf, in particular, lived in a period where gender relations were substantially different than they are today. While her espoused positions (for example "If a woman is to write fiction she must have money and a room of her own.") were certainly advanced for her time, but still do not represent a good picture of how people interact with the opposite gender in modern society.

If I had to choose an expert, I would choose Dr. Micaela di Leonardo at Northwestern University.

I'll grant that female education has progressed a great deal in the English-speaking world since Woolf's time. But I don't think men and women have changed quite so much. Her point that male authors are not typically very interested in even trying to enter the female mind, but rather in adding a female's "perspective" to themselves is (I'd claim) still valid. Does di Leonardo have a different view of what male authors are doing when they write female lead characters?

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-22, 09:35 AM
I don't see the problem, really. Women are, secretly, just people.

Roleplay a person, and you will be alright.

Kylarra
2009-09-22, 10:27 AM
For a random sampling,

In my last group we had a bloodthirsty warrior who went around grinning and yelling "Hacky Slashy!" everytime we encountered enemies before rushing into the thick of combat. In the same game we had a ranger who drank "occasionally" and liked to gamble (the drinking was tied to "losing"). This character also had an apparent affair with one of the NPC's in their backstory, had a taste for sneaking around and shooting things, and remembered details better than the rest of us for the most part with their high WIS.

Who of the above is a female character?
Both, and both played by females :p
Of course you probably inferred that.

I don't think it's as hard as Riffington says personally, you're not trying to create a perfectly believable character, but rather a plausible character who is internally consistent in their behavior. IMO Caricaturization goes all over the place, and as long as you have your own personality with quirks and such and aren't just playing a token <$Gender/$Race> you'll be fine within a normal playgroup.

Set
2009-09-22, 11:30 AM
I don't see the problem, really. Women are, secretly, just people.

Roleplay a person, and you will be alright.

Succinct, and so true.

Murdim
2009-09-22, 12:33 PM
I never wrote or meant that, and I'd rather you avoid creating strawmen.It's quite amusing to see that you took in your quote the passage where I foresee and dismiss your coming accusation of strawmanning, and immediately then, proceed to... accuse me of strawmanning.


*I don't believe in definitions.

*I certainly don't believe I (or you) get to define femininity.I'm not talking about worded definitions. I know you don't have a dictionary in place of your brain... and neither have I, thank you very much. I'm talking about the ensemble of physical, behavioral and psychological traits one associate with feminity, or in other words, what constitutes (i.e defines) feminity for someone.

Now that we etablished what "define" and "definition" means in the context, you can't say you don't believe in definitions or don't get the right to define feminity. Not when most of your messages are based on your exceptionally deep knowledge of female psychology - superior than women's ! Not when you insist that men are from Mars and women from Venus to people (including, again, women) who basically think we're all persons. Not when you say that most men who play female characters do it wrong, implying that there's a way to do it right.

In fact, you are the exact opposite of someone who don't believe in his own definition. You believe so much in it that you think everyone should agree with. But I already stated this extensively enough in my previous message.


*I never said that people who do it wrong shouldn't be allowed to do it. I said that people who do it wrong should be forbidden if they are reducing the fun/comfort of the other players. Which the OP (for example) doesn't seem to be doing.What about your first post(s) ? It consists of you allowing yourself to disapprove the OP's choice of playing a female character without knowing anything about other people's reactions about it, and saying that roleplayers shouldn't try to go cross-gender at all because they fail at it. And the following messages aren't any better. Sorry, but I fail to see the "as long as they're not reducing the fun of others" bit.

On the other hand, if you changed your mind since then and REALLY think that way now, then you should have no problem to come to the logical conclusions of it, apologize for having been so narrow-minded, systematical and judgemental about cross-gender play, and quit the debate.

Riffington
2009-09-22, 01:11 PM
It's quite amusing to see that you took in your quote the passage where I foresee and dismiss your coming accusation of strawmanning, and immediately then, proceed to... accuse me of strawmanning.
You've presented an argument that isn't mine, and isn't even close to mine. In fact, it's nobody's but your own. You are strawmanning now and you were strawmanning then. If you want to respond to me, respond to me rather than to what you wish I'd said.



Now that we etablished what "define" and "definition" means in the context, you can't say you don't believe in definitions or don't get the right to define feminity. Not when most of your messages are based on your exceptionally deep knowledge of female psychology - superior than women's ! Not when you insist that men are from Mars and women from Venus to people (including, again, women) who basically think we're all persons. Not when you say that most men who play female characters do it wrong, implying that there's a way to do it right.
You are strawmanning right here. That's not me. That's you.
I believe that we are all people. People with slightly different ways of thinking. Just like Dubliners and Georgians have different accents. I don't get to define a Georgian accent, and I don't tell Georgians that I know their accent better than they do. But I can still tell the difference between a Georgian and a Dublin accent. There are Georgians who can pass as native Dubliners. They are few and far between.




In fact, you are the exact opposite of someone who don't believe in his own definition. You believe so much in it that you think everyone should agree with.

That describes you, not me. Also, I mean something when I say I don't believe in definitions. I mean that things are what they are, and definitions are just categories put on after the fact. Not everything falls neatly into any category; this just means that categories are imprecise.



What about your first post(s) ?
It was a response to a situation that the OP had initially presented differently, but has since clarified. The OP's changed situation prompts a different response.

Glyde
2009-09-22, 01:14 PM
I thought John Kerry's shenanigans were done with...

And I also thought that the topic this thread is about was done with. Guess I was wrong... Oh well, I'm willing to accept any reason to make popcorn.

Ozymandias9
2009-09-22, 01:24 PM
My claim would really be that we can analogize from authors to RPG players. Is there a reason you don't like this analogy? If you accept it, Woolf and other experts have written a fair bit about what happens when male authors attempt to write female characters.

I never questioned that analogy. I questioned the presumption that the board's opinions on gender relations would be necessarily schewed merely because its opinions on CharOp are.


No, appeal to inappropriate authority is invalid as an interrogative tool. If we find an appropriate authority, we can replace our dim insights with their superior ones. I can take a poll on this board about chess openings, or I can read some Kasparov. Yes, he may disagree with Karpov on points, but either would be better than the board's consensus.

But the insights themselves are not correct merely because Karpov says so. Karpov does provide backing and reasoning for the strategy, which provide a method of demonstrating the superiority of the position both you and he espouse. But that superiority is not demonstrated in a sound, logical manner merely by saying "Karpov says so".


I'll grant that female education has progressed a great deal in the English-speaking world since Woolf's time. But I don't think men and women have changed quite so much. Her point that male authors are not typically very interested in even trying to enter the female mind, but rather in adding a female's "perspective" to themselves is (I'd claim) still valid. Does di Leonardo have a different view of what male authors are doing when they write female lead characters?

I would say that men and women have changed how they interact with each other drastically in the last century, particularly with regards to how men think of women. In western society, I doubt most men still think of women as inherently less capable or intelligent.
But as I said, I wasn't commenting on the validity of using male authors as an analog for male role players. I also wasn't recommending experts on that argument: gender perceptions in literature would be outside Micaela's realm of expertise (which focuses heavily on statistical gender studies). For that, I would reccomend Brian Attebery: there's not a huge ammount of work on the subject to begin with, and his Decoding Gender in Science Fiction would have to be near the top of any list.

Incidently, I do agree with this point, which is why I didn't argue against it. But a lack of interest does not necessarily indicate a lack of capacity on the part of those who do attempt it.

Paulus
2009-09-22, 01:49 PM
Wow.

Well as a professional actor I'll just throw in my two sense then...

Men and women are no different. NO DIFFERENT. Biology is the only factor which can possibly exclude any type of differential basis, but, as we are in a game were magic can alter the very fabric of reality, (and in a world were science i.e. surgery can do the same) again, NO DIFFERENT. The composition of your cells has a much to do with binding you to a specific set of actions, thought processes, and beliefs as the color of your clothing. You speak of 'playing' a character 'correctly' when in my vast experience it has and always will remain up to the past and influences of that past which direct a character NOT their gender, sex, sexuality, NOR EVEN their cultural or historical stereotypes. If you are playing a male character and your gender is bent, that is, you body is biologically changed-

the only difference will be THAT CHARACTERS shock and surprise at dealing with pre-wired social and cultural preconceptions of stereotypes of his or her identity, AND of course the same of others. It does not actually change your characters way of thinking aside from broadening their own notions and understandings of understanding perspectives from the cultural standpoints that proliferate during the era or area. Hormones, sexual ideals, and even 'potty-time' explorations will in no way influence or 'switch' your character aside from perspective, point of view, and understanding. Everybody is exactly the same in that EVERYONE is different. No two women are alike, no two men are alike.

It is when we generalize, solely from a lack of time or able effort to place into such characters, that such voids need be filled and quickly. In which case we play the characters to 'type' which includes Stereo, mono, and THX. We FAIL in this, and upset others, because we whole heartedly believe there IS a difference and such differences must be acted upon.

If you or your friends are subject to a sudden change of 'gender' then you will only notice a slight change in body formation and thus, balance. A hormonal change and thus, temporary temperament (which is easily swallowed by the characters initial shock and panic) and hilarity will ensue, simply for watching your character flounder in whatever preconceived illconcieved notions he or she may have had for their gender identity and role. That is all.

But then I routinely play a Dragon, so who can say?

kamikasei
2009-09-22, 01:53 PM
It was a response to a situation that the OP had initially presented differently, but has since clarified. The OP's changed situation prompts a different response.

What relevant difference was there? The OP initially presented the problem as having to DM a romance with one character being crossplayed, he later revealed that he would in fact be the other party in that potential romance. I don't see what in your initial response, where you didn't even address the issue of romance but only advised against cross-gender play as being "too large a stretch for most of us to handle", saying that "the real problem is how bad most people are at it".

Stormthorn
2009-09-22, 02:06 PM
It does not actually change your characters way of thinking aside from broadening their own notions and understandings of understanding perspectives from the cultural standpoints that proliferate during the era or area. Hormones, sexual ideals, and even 'potty-time' explorations will in no way influence or 'switch' your character aside from perspective, point of view, and understanding. Everybody is exactly the same in that EVERYONE is different. No two women are alike, no two men are alike.

I think you underestimate the power of biology. Changing hormones from male to female can greatly alter the way a person thinks and even looks.

A good example of this would be that in simpler animals (rats) we can artificialy change their hormone levels throught their development to change their behavior.
Males and females dont just look different. They think, feel, and experiance the world differently. They tend to have different brain morphology (with men and women both having some parts of the brain larger and smaller) and they use language differently in social settings.

Not that this is within the scope of the OPs question.

Rixx
2009-09-22, 02:08 PM
I would think the psychological difference between a male Elf and a male Human would be bigger than between a male Human and a female Human. Nobody really brings that up, though.

Riffington
2009-09-22, 02:08 PM
But the insights themselves are not correct merely because Karpov says so. Karpov does provide backing and reasoning for the strategy, which provide a method of demonstrating the superiority of the position both you and he espouse. But that superiority is not demonstrated in a sound, logical manner merely by saying "Karpov says so".
But the insights themselves are not correct merely because they've been demonstrated in a sound, logical manner. If faced with a chess-related decision in which a sound logical argument and Kasparov appear to contradict one another, one is often best served by ignoring the argument and instead following Kasparov. Logic might provide a tiebreaker if Karpov and Kasparov disagree, of course.


I would reccomend Brian Attebery

:smallsmile:


What relevant difference was there? The OP initially presented the problem as having to DM a romance with one character being crossplayed,
He initially presented the problem as one where the entire group (and particularly the romanced player) would be likely to be highly uncomfortable, and then revealed that (as the person being romanced) he happened to know that that person would actually enjoy it. He further decided later on that the rest of the group would actually not catch on or not care.

My inital response was based on his words "highly uncomfortable", and "take one for the party". As soon as he made it clear that it would actually probably be fun and comfortable, I supported his group doing it.

Paulus
2009-09-22, 02:22 PM
I think you underestimate the power of biology. Changing hormones from male to female can greatly alter the way a person thinks and even looks.

A good example of this would be that in simpler animals (rats) we can artificialy change their hormone levels throught their development to change their behavior.

Not that this is within the scope of the OPs question.

No no, I know full well the vast changes hormonal increase or decreases can affect, but I also know how strong a human beings mind is in control of or against such hormonal influences. A factor which is directly related to their past, upbringing, training, etc. That being said, the change from male to female, does NOT describe a set change in hormonal influence. Especially since the change is magical and not purely biological. Therefore, the body may have to adapt to avoid harmful effects, but it is mostly the curse or magic whatnot that changed them in the first place supporting this altercation, weakening further such influences to be easily overcome or subsumed by the mind of the person.

In other words, in this situation of magical gender switch effect, there is STILL logically not enough change biologically, to bio-logic-ally justify a set change of behavior, action, etc etc etc aside from the previous mentioned changes and hilarity.

Now, if the change was a disease of some kind, or a mind switched into the BODY of a different gender, the argument may change. However the situational argument does not, the disease would have to be pretty specific and have a set standard of 'output' or 'this makes you THIS' for it to change a character beyond what I've already described. In which case again it is not because of anything relating to men and women being different, by the affects of a disease which is very specific and MAKES you act in this certain way. Whereas even if switched to a whole different body, mentally, the character would still be no different, nor act or behave differently aside from psychological damage from shock etc as the body is already being run by the functions of the brain which are not controlled by the mind in any tangible way of training. Sure there will of course be a 'getting use to' period so the brain can function period in the new body- and by that I mean actively run the bodily functions without harm or death- but that's a little more medical and scientific and detailed than any game really needs to be isn't it?

and still, it will have nothing to do with making the character any different or force the character to behave differently aside from adjusting to his or her new body that LACKS all of his or her previous past training and physicality. Still has nothing to do with conforming to any societal or cultural norms that haven't already been established or linked to the character's own past and mind. In which case the character and players and DM would already know the set standard of actions that are expected of the gender roles and therefore the confusion and such would be minimal- or at the very least- worthy of humorous circumstance, with no real affect on the whole in conjunction to actions or behaviors since the character will no doubt try to update or improve his or her new body to function as well if not better than their previous body. BUT. again this is all a bit to in-depth and detail for most games, otherwise reincarnation would have a GREAT deal more description to it. heh heh.

Murdim
2009-09-22, 02:33 PM
I started to answer, but finally I won't. Not because your asnwers aren't worth my precious attention, simply because our discussion is degenerating degenerated into a flame war some posts ago. And I must add that I'm probably the one who started the hostilities in message #120, out of annoyment to have such an inflexible and judgemental interlocutor.

I will say, though, that I've never wanted to impose my opinion about differences between genders on anyone. Particularly since this opinion mainly involves dismissing every specific conception of feminity and masculinity as partial and dependant of social influences.

Stormthorn
2009-09-22, 02:51 PM
I started to answer, but finally I won't. Not because your asnwers aren't worth my precious attention, simply because our discussion is degenerating degenerated into a flame war some posts ago. And I must add that I'm probably the one who started the hostilities in message #120, out of annoyment to have such an inflexible and judgemental interlocutor.

I will say, though, that I've never wanted to impose my opinion about differences between genders on anyone. Particularly since this opinion mainly involves dismissing every specific conception of feminity and masculinity as partial and dependant of social influences.

I agree the thread has degenerated.

How about i answer the question.

If im playing for RP sake and i liek the character, then i would roleplay a romance through a female character with a male controlled character of any gender.


again this is all a bit to in-depth and detail for most games, otherwise reincarnation would have a GREAT deal more description to it. heh heh.
That would be one long and invovled spell discription.

Murdim
2009-09-22, 02:54 PM
*snip*You're going into trouble waters, saying that sexual hormones are the origin of gender. People who lacks any high sex hormone level rarely see themselves as genderless, women and menopaused women aren't two distinct genders, males with comparatively low testosterone rates wouldn't appreciate being called less of a man than those with higher rates, and transsexuals... well, they exist.

I don't say this is groundless, but it can't directly explain more than a little part of what makes gender identification. With emphasis put on the "directly", though, since I do think societal gender roles didn't appear out of nowhere and were rather heavily influenced by the biological differences between males and females.

Stormthorn
2009-09-22, 03:00 PM
You're going into trouble waters, saying that sexual hormones are the origin of gender. People who lacks any high sex hormone level rarely see themselves as genderless, women and menopaused women aren't two distinct genders, males with comparatively low testosterone rates wouldn't appreciate being called less of a man than those with higher rates, and transsexuals... well, they exist.

I don't say this is groundless, but it can't directly explain more than a little part of what makes gender identification.

They arnt the only factor in gender. I didnt mean to imply that. Neither can they be dismissed.

Paulus
2009-09-22, 03:06 PM
They arnt the only factor in gender. I didnt mean to imply that. Neither can they be dismissed.

Except by a remove curse, break enchantment, dispel, miracle, wish...

Ozymandias9
2009-09-22, 11:35 PM
But the insights themselves are not correct merely because they've been demonstrated in a sound, logical manner. If faced with a chess-related decision in which a sound logical argument and Kasparov appear to contradict one another, one is often best served by ignoring the argument and instead following Kasparov. Logic might provide a tiebreaker if Karpov and Kasparov disagree, of course.

Grand-masters have reasons for those insights. There is a reason that the strategy Joe Everychessplayer suggests won't work and Kasparov's will: that is why the later is valid. The reasoning may elude those of use with lesser expertise in chess: we may even be willing to forgo the interrogative process and accept the Grand-master's word that such a reason exists when they are unwilling to share it. That does not mean, however, it is valid merely because they present it.