PDA

View Full Version : The Gentleman's Agreement



Libertad
2012-02-10, 10:11 PM
In addition to the rules of sourcebooks, there are also house rules and agreements made between gamers before play starts for the mutual benefit of everyone.

Here's my group's agreement:

1. Keep things rated "R." Some of the people in the group are uncomfortable with aspects of graphic violence and sexuality, and would rather leave these subjects absent.

2. No exploitation of infinite power loops and other things which break the game.

3. The DM tells the group what kind of game he's running and what character concepts might not be appropriate for it. Warforged in Dark Sun may not gel well unless you find a reasonable way to insert it into the setting.

4. PCs cannot steal from or kill each other without universal consent from all participants at the table.

5. Due to differing political views at my table, games set in the "real world" generally shouldn't involve current events that have a lot of controversy unless the group has a unified opinion. Same goes for religious issues as well.

What is your group's Gentleman's Agreement?

Savannah
2012-02-10, 10:42 PM
The point of the game is to have fun, don't do things that make it not fun for someone. Simple as that.

Engine
2012-02-10, 11:09 PM
5. Due to differing political views at my table, games set in the "real world" generally shouldn't involve current events that have a lot of controversy unless the group has a unified opinion. Same goes for religious issues as well.

I wouldn't play in a group with this agreement. While I agree that most of the times (if not always) "dangerous" convictions should remain off the table, I feel that if a group needs this kind of agreement is prone to force its personal views into the game in an unpleasurable manner. The kind of people I wouldn't play with.


The point of the game is to have fun, don't do things that make it not fun for someone. Simple as that.

Wish could be that simple. I played once with a player who thought that my character shouldn't use a dog for personal defense, she thought I (me, not my character) was committing an abuse. Sometimes is really difficult to understand who's spoiling the fun. To her, it was me. To me, it was her.

The general agreement at my table is that nothing is strictly banned, but everything that could cause problems should be talked beforehand. It works.

bloodtide
2012-02-11, 12:01 AM
4. PCs cannot steal from or kill each other without universal consent from all participants at the table.

That rule is no fun. I'm fine with evil acts, as long as the player keeps the metagame idea of ''we are all here to have fun and play a game'' in mind. So being evil and slyly lying about things or stealing fallen loot or accidentally getting off monsters or traps is fine; but waiting for the group to sleep and then stealing their stuff or killing them is not.



5. Due to differing political views at my table, games set in the "real world" generally shouldn't involve current events that have a lot of controversy unless the group has a unified opinion. Same goes for religious issues as well.


My game is always full of this stuff, even when not in the real world. It's really impossible to set a game so no one is offended. Even Disney plots and things like the Wizard of Oz can be interpreted in ways that offend people.(Like for example how the good witch uses and abuses poor Dorthy in the Wizard of Oz).


I'd say my most important agreement is much like the evil one: We are all here to play a game and have fun, so you can't do things that are only fun for you. So you can't be a Lone Wolf with the ''oh my character just sits there'' for six hours. You can't be the Scout that is every five minutes ''I run off to scout the area and adventure by myself without the group''. You can't be the unhelpful Dr. Smith character that always ducks and covers from any fight but then runs over for the loot. You can't be the annoying Kender Jar Jar character that is just there to be annoying. You can't be a Hate filled Nazi and just automatically hate another character based on race or such. You can't be the Quiet Cloak Guy that never role-plays.

Libertad
2012-02-11, 02:03 AM
That rule is no fun. I'm fine with evil acts, as long as the player keeps the metagame idea of ''we are all here to have fun and play a game'' in mind. So being evil and slyly lying about things or stealing fallen loot or accidentally getting off monsters or traps is fine; but waiting for the group to sleep and then stealing their stuff or killing them is not.

I'd say my most important agreement is much like the evil one: We are all here to play a game and have fun, so you can't do things that are only fun for you. So you can't be a Lone Wolf with the ''oh my character just sits there'' for six hours. You can't be the Scout that is every five minutes ''I run off to scout the area and adventure by myself without the group''. You can't be the unhelpful Dr. Smith character that always ducks and covers from any fight but then runs over for the loot. You can't be the annoying Kender Jar Jar character that is just there to be annoying. You can't be a Hate filled Nazi and just automatically hate another character based on race or such. You can't be the Quiet Cloak Guy that never role-plays.

Well, that's why the universal consent thing is in effect. If a player has a problem with a PC turning on the group, then it's a course of action which should not be taken. It's intended to allow the possibility of potential conflict, but with restrictions so that it does not spire out of control. Stealing from and killing fellow PCs is so full of problems that an agreement ahead of time helps in the long run.

And the Gentleman's Agreement isn't supposed to be ironclad, although my listing may make it seem so. There are many other factors to consider, such as the degree of discomfort and how much certain events detract from the game.

The "politics" thing is more of an attempt to avoid IRL arguments. It doesn't apply to "nor political discussion EVER" so much as avoiding subject matter the players may have very strong feelings about.


The point of the game is to have fun, don't do things that make it not fun for someone. Simple as that.

Edit: Upon further examination, perhaps my agreement need not be so formal. I can do well with statements like this.

Kol Korran
2012-02-11, 07:19 AM
our rules are quite simple:
- "don't be an ass"
- "try to work towards the group's fun"

you'd be amazed how much this covers and works well if the players understand what it's good for. we do have one player who plays a sort of "Belkar-typed-bastard" at times, but since he follows these rules, it all comes up hilarious and brings much to the game.

Kalmageddon
2012-02-11, 07:53 AM
1. Keep things rated "R." I'm uncomfortable with some aspects of graphic violence and sexuality, and would rather leave some subjects absent.

2. No exploitation of infinite power loops and other things which break the game.

3. The DM tells the group what kind of game he's running and what character concepts might not be appropriate for it. Warforged in Dark Sun may not gel well unless you find a reasonable way to insert it into the setting.


Me and my friends use these ones as well, plus the following:

4- You can only play a character of your same sex or without sex at all (like a Warforged). This may sound controversial, but it's both to help immersion (a dude playing a chick still has a dude's voice and a dude's face) and to promote better roleplay, let's face it, one can hardly understand what's going through the mind of a member of the other gender, roleplaying as one? It will be a painful performance at best.

5- No rule discussions during a game session, if you have a problem with how the rules are being interpreted by the DM you bring it up when the session is over. On the other hand, if the DM intends to change any rule, he must let the players know before this comes into play and allow for a character revision if the changed rule makes the character unable to play as the player wanted.

Mono Vertigo
2012-02-11, 09:34 AM
Me and my friends use these ones as well, plus the following:

4- You can only play a character of your same sex or without sex at all (like a Warforged). This may sound controversial, but it's both to help immersion (a dude playing a chick still has a dude's voice and a dude's face) and to promote better roleplay, let's face it, one can hardly understand what's going through the mind of a member of the other gender, roleplaying as one? It will be a painful performance at best.

Now, these are your rules, and if they work and everyone agrees with them, you have every right to keep them, but I have my own objections...
- there really isn't much difference between both genders, actually. The differences are mostly cultural. If you think men/women act and think a certain way, chances are they actually don't, but you expect them to conform to your expectations. (I'm not going to develop this argument further; this thread shouldn't derail on the issues of sex and gender.)
- does it mean you're only playing humans? It mustn't be easy understanding what's going through the mind of another species, let alone a fictitious one. How about immersion? Do you mind a scrawny teenager playing a musclebound half-orc? Or a preteen playing a very old wizard?

Vknight
2012-02-11, 10:10 AM
-Have fun
-Keep it at a Pg13 to the occasional R rating. I'm the oldest member of my group at soon to be 19. The youngest is 12
-Never mention 2ed D&D. As one of my players loves it(For all the wrong reasons) and I hate the system(Thaco, etc).
-If the Dm wants to take a break and do a different game we are doing a different game.
-I won't pull my punches if a monster hits it hits. If a monster crits it crits. I won't flub die rolls to keep PC's alive.
-Your actions have consequences within the setting.
-Only your gender unless you have a compelling backstory and accept the consequences of being a female/male within the setting. Long long story I should put in the funny stories topic

GolemsVoice
2012-02-11, 10:10 AM
Now, these are your rules, and if they work and everyone agrees with them, you have every right to keep them, but I have my own objections...
- there really isn't much difference between both genders, actually. The differences are mostly cultural. If you think men/women act and think a certain way, chances are they actually don't, but you expect them to conform to your expectations. (I'm not going to develop this argument further; this thread shouldn't derail on the issues of sex and gender.)
- does it mean you're only playing humans? It mustn't be easy understanding what's going through the mind of another species, let alone a fictitious one. How about immersion? Do you mind a scrawny teenager playing a musclebound half-orc? Or a preteen playing a very old wizard?

I'd agree, but as she said, your game, your rules. After all, I can play a fighter, and I've never really touched a weapon in my life. I can play a spy or an assassin, and I don't kill people for a living, and as in the quoted post, I can play someone who has no gender and is literally a machine (though fully sentient). Imagine not needing to breathe, sleep, or eat, and all things that come with being a robot. I think the differende between a warforged and a human are much bigger than between a man and a woman.

That is, if gender even comes into play. I figure, many of the situations I could get in during a session won't be different for a man or a woman, especially in combat-centric games or games which feature worlds with near equality between the sexes. And even in games where women would be supposed to act differently, say a 1930s Call of Cthulhu game, I either act the way I think my female character would act, and most of the time, everybodies happy. I don't have to be the perfect actor, after all, just a good character.

EDIT: our rules:

- fun is the central aspect of the game, and is created by the GM and the players together. The GM won't be the enemy of the players and respect their characters, while the players respect the fact tht the GM created the story and will try not to ruin it.

- while we never had this happen, I guess if somebody was really uncomfortable with what is happening ingame, we'd change that thing. But we are a group that frequently plays horror games, so we're okay with violence and horrific things.

- intra-party conflict is fine, but it always stays within the game. This goes together with the first rule, however, so a bunch of investigators during a CoC game that tear each other apart out of paranoia is fully intended.

- the GM has the final word, but he is not an omnipotent ruler. See first rule.

Engine
2012-02-11, 10:29 AM
Now, these are your rules, and if they work and everyone agrees with them, you have every right to keep them, but I have my own objections...
- there really isn't much difference between both genders, actually. The differences are mostly cultural. If you think men/women act and think a certain way, chances are they actually don't, but you expect them to conform to your expectations. (I'm not going to develop this argument further; this thread shouldn't derail on the issues of sex and gender.)
- does it mean you're only playing humans? It mustn't be easy understanding what's going through the mind of another species, let alone a fictitious one. How about immersion? Do you mind a scrawny teenager playing a musclebound half-orc? Or a preteen playing a very old wizard?

I agree. And I wish to add: if roleplaying a character of the opposite sex doesn't help immersion for players, why that should help for the DM? The rule, to be consistent, should apply to the DM as well. My DM has a beard, there's no chance I could see him and imagine a girl. So what? He should play only male NPC? It would be a boring game, IMHO.

But, as you said: their rules, their game, if they're fine with that I'm fine too.

Kalmageddon
2012-02-11, 10:40 AM
But, as you said: their rules, their game, if they're fine with that I'm fine too.

Yup. And we do fine with them. :smallsmile:
If you had seen a player roleplay a teenager elf having sex with a female tiefling you'd probably understand the need to put such rules into play! :smallbiggrin:

Jay R
2012-02-11, 10:51 AM
Play with people who already get along, who respect each other and enjoy each other's company.

If you have this, you won't need any other rules. (This is equivalent to saying that the unspoken social contract that exists at other times is the same one you need for the game.)

A few game-specific problems will come up, early on, but if the group respects each other and gets along, they will get worked out.

Having said that, the newest person to our group has known us all for six years, and I've known two of them since the eighties. Any personality problems have been long since worked out.

bloodtide
2012-02-11, 02:37 PM
Well, that's why the universal consent thing is in effect. If a player has a problem with a PC turning on the group, then it's a course of action which should not be taken. It's intended to allow the possibility of potential conflict, but with restrictions so that it does not spire out of control. Stealing from and killing fellow PCs is so full of problems that an agreement ahead of time helps in the long run.

I just don't like it being so formal, and worse being so group think. So if four out of five players vote for evil, the whole game stays good as the one player voted the other way.:smallsmile:

And all too often 'good' people will automatically vote good....like zombies, so it's not even a vote at all.

dsmiles
2012-02-11, 04:04 PM
The point of the game is to have fun, don't do things that make it not fun for someone. Simple as that.This is eerily similar to my group's unwritten rules. As a matter of fact, it's the same. (I think someone's been spying on me.)

Totally Guy
2012-02-11, 04:11 PM
I use a same page tool to communicate what kind of game we're playing.

I made a thread about it a couple of weeks ago. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229976).

If I was starting to play with a new group I'd talk about content stuff too.

Pechvarry
2012-02-11, 04:38 PM
1. Keep things rated "R." I'm uncomfortable with some aspects of graphic violence and sexuality, and would rather leave some subjects absent.

2. No exploitation of infinite power loops and other things which break the game.

3. The DM tells the group what kind of game he's running and what character concepts might not be appropriate for it. Warforged in Dark Sun may not gel well unless you find a reasonable way to insert it into the setting.

We seem to adhere to these, as well.


4. PCs cannot steal from or kill each other without universal consent from all participants at the table.

This is a perfect example of what a Gentleman's agreement really means: the threat of mutual destruction. When someone says "I'm going to attack X PC in their sleep", they see the uneasy faces of the other players. A line has been crossed, and something decidedly ungentlemanly is about to occur. There will be counterstrokes and nuclear launches.

The last time this happened, the campaign ended with our Lawful Good Knight-type character getting most of us arrested or exiled. That may sound very much like a party-pooper, but I tell you, by the time that came to an end, it was a relief to all of us. Interparty warfare just isn't fun.

---

The only real additional Gentleman's agreement I like to add is one of optimization. Char Op superbuilds means you've crossed a line with the GM, and he will come back next week with ridiculous builds straight from the Interwebs.

Engine
2012-02-11, 04:50 PM
Yup. And we do fine with them. :smallsmile:
If you had seen a player roleplay a teenager elf having sex with a female tiefling you'd probably understand the need to put such rules into play! :smallbiggrin:

Well, the worst player I ever met (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11453559&postcount=5) played a teenage half-elf, half-naked and all-disturbing. I just don't play anymore with him, it was creepy to see this middle-aged man playing such a character who consistently tried to reach someone's pants. I would ban this kind of behaviour, and I could agree with this kind a rule. Banning crossgender roleplaying? Not so much (mostly because I have a girlfriend who sometimes plays male characters, she's good at that and she has fun while doing that. I see no reason to spoil her fun because of people who couldn't restrain themselves). By the way, you're banning crossgender roleplaying not because you find that a man could not roleplay a women (or the other way around) or because you feel that a man roleplaying a women diminishes the immersion (because you should then ban every race except humans, and you should tell your DM that he\she's not allowed to use NPC of the opposite gender): it's because you found a couple of players who did that bad.

Coidzor
2012-02-11, 05:28 PM
That rule is no fun. I'm fine with evil acts, as long as the player keeps the metagame idea of ''we are all here to have fun and play a game'' in mind. So being evil and slyly lying about things or stealing fallen loot or accidentally getting off monsters or traps is fine; but waiting for the group to sleep and then stealing their stuff or killing them is not.

People that gloat about how they're pulling one over on you to your face are also not fun, which is the only way I've ever seen anyone play what you're talking about at an actual table.

Even disregarding what they were doing in game and how they bogged down play time with their endless sleight of hand rolls and note passing with the DM while we were trying to finish up for the night, the smarmy, I'm better than you as a player attitude always lead to interpersonal friction.


I just don't like it being so formal, and worse being so group think. So if four out of five players vote for evil, the whole game stays good as the one player voted the other way.:smallsmile:

Yes, because the one guy who gets ganged up on by the rest of the group is going to be experiencing some interpersonal friction.

Think about it from an empathy standpoint and it should become more clear.


It's really impossible to set a game so no one is offended.

Take a look at our Play By Post board and do a poll here. I guarantee that you will find a non-trivial number of games that managed to not offend anyone and even be fun. :smalltongue:

Really, saying things like this just makes you run the risk of sounding like you cannot have fun except at the expense of others.

Solaris
2012-02-11, 06:06 PM
Yup. And we do fine with them. :smallsmile:
If you had seen a player roleplay a teenager elf having sex with a female tiefling you'd probably understand the need to put such rules into play! :smallbiggrin:

Well, I think the solution might be something more along the lines of "It's not that kind of fantasy, kids," rather than banning cross-gender roleplaying for such thin reasons.
Or at least come out and admit the above is the reason.

Talakeal
2012-02-11, 06:59 PM
What does cross gender roleplaying have to do with graphic sex in the first place? Can't you just as easily have an adult situation arise when the player is male and the DM female as vice versa?

Coidzor
2012-02-11, 09:24 PM
What does cross gender roleplaying have to do with graphic sex in the first place? Can't you just as easily have an adult situation arise when the player is male and the DM female as vice versa?

Just do a ban on anything past, what, 1st base being roleplayed out, with 2nd base possibly OK to imply, and the rest left entirely up to subtext?

bloodtide
2012-02-11, 11:20 PM
People that gloat about how they're pulling one over on you to your face are also not fun, which is the only way I've ever seen anyone play what you're talking about at an actual table.

Even disregarding what they were doing in game and how they bogged down play time with their endless sleight of hand rolls and note passing with the DM while we were trying to finish up for the night, the smarmy, I'm better than you as a player attitude always lead to interpersonal friction.

It's true most people play 'Stupid Evil', so I'm not surprised that is the only evil you have encountered in games. And yes the 'I stole your stuff..again..as I'm evil' does get old. As does the 'I'm gonna stop the game every couple of minutes to run a privates, secret game with the DM at the expense of the group'.

But I'm not talking about either of them kinds of 'Stupid Evil'.




Yes, because the one guy who gets ganged up on by the rest of the group is going to be experiencing some interpersonal friction. Think about it from an empathy standpoint and it should become more clear.

I'm against bullying(You don't even want to know what I'd do in real life that would automatically guarantee to stop bullies) And this would violate my general rule of 'you must play and work with the group'. So even if your evil, you must 'come to terms with it somehow'.




Take a look at our Play By Post board and do a poll here. I guarantee that you will find a non-trivial number of games that managed to not offend anyone and even be fun. :smalltongue:

Really, saying things like this just makes you run the risk of sounding like you cannot have fun except at the expense of others.

I can say it's easy to offend people. I wear my infractions on my avatar....

Say the players go to a run down city, made of both orcs and humans. They get wrapped up in the politics, and soon enough comes the election. It's old human warrior vs half-orc cloistered cleric of Hope. One side wants to keep the way things are, the other side wants change. The PC's have to make sure the election is fair and balanced and stop the radicals that don't want a half orc to move into the pure house with his tusks and spears.

Read the above paragraph....I'm sure I just offended someone with that game plot. And it's a perfectly reasonable plot of a political game.

Ashtagon
2012-02-12, 03:33 AM
If you ban cross-gender role-playing, does that mean all NPCs are automatically the same gender as the DM?

PersonMan
2012-02-12, 06:03 AM
If you ban cross-gender role-playing, does that mean all NPCs are automatically the same gender as the DM?

To be honest, we should make a new thread on this - I (and, presumably, several other people) are interested in the discussion, but this isn't the right place for it.

Kalmageddon
2012-02-12, 06:25 AM
You guys are honestly waaay overthinking it.

In my gaming group we just find it more immersive to roleplay characters of our own gender, other reasons are there, but are not the important ones, and the exemple I gave earlier was just ment to be funny, even if players like that do unfortunately exist (guys that like to roleplay a female just to make a lesbian slut and fulfill their sexual fantasies).

The DM is also quite obviously extempted from this rule for the sake of not having a whole world populated only by males, which would break the immersion a lot more then having the DM roleplay a female NPC for a few minutes, maybe without even having to use the "first person" and only describing what the character does/says.

As for all the witty comments about my gaming group not being able to roleplay anything but human males, I'll just answer "suspension of disbelief". If I am in front of a guy it's easier to imagine him as a male elf/genasi/dwarf (expecially if he has a beard! :smalltongue:)/whatever then as a female.
And I think this is pretty much true for everyone, as sex is one thing we are naturally inclined to evaluate above all else when talking to someone.

Now if we really want to create another thraed and discuss this "issue" any more I'd gladly partecipate, but please try not to go overboard to prove me and my gaming group wrong, I don't care and it's just a preference, there aren't arguments that will change our mind since we are just doing what we feel like doing, no one is forcefully restraining himself from the urge of letting his feminine side go! :smallbiggrin:

dps
2012-02-12, 11:08 AM
Wish could be that simple. I played once with a player who thought that my character shouldn't use a dog for personal defense, she thought I (me, not my character) was committing an abuse. Sometimes is really difficult to understand who's spoiling the fun. To her, it was me. To me, it was her.

The general agreement at my table is that nothing is strictly banned, but everything that could cause problems should be talked beforehand. It works.

It's easy to say things should be talked about beforehand, but sometimes you just get blindsided. Your situation with the dog is a perfect example. I would never have thought that having a guard dog could be considered abusive. How can you talk about potential problems like that beforehand if you have no inkling that they might be problems?

Roxxy
2012-02-12, 01:53 PM
I like to include issues of sexual violence, violence involving children, and graphic content, but that can make many players very uncomfortable, so I ask my players beforehand whether they can tolerate this materiel. If they can, I include it. If they say no, I leave it out with no objections.

Engine
2012-02-12, 03:52 PM
It's easy to say things should be talked about beforehand, but sometimes you just get blindsided. Your situation with the dog is a perfect example. I would never have thought that having a guard dog could be considered abusive. How can you talk about potential problems like that beforehand if you have no inkling that they might be problems?

Well, with my current group we discuss beforehand how will be our characters. We talk about them (a lot), so most of the times we know what to expect from them and we're aware of potential conflicts OOC and IC. And we have played for some time together, so we know each other quite well. I know, it's not perfect, but it works for my group: with a new group, full of people I don't know, I would probably be more strict about my rules.

Slipperychicken
2012-02-12, 05:58 PM
What is your group's Gentleman's Agreement?

Similar to yours, #3 is relaxed when playing less-serious games. For my groups, these are implicit rather than explicit. For one of my current groups, we have a "Communist Collective Party Fund" so stealing is very counterproductive (not to mention the DM keeps us far under WBL).


One (male) player in the group was going to play a female character, but that was stopped with more peer-pressure than overt banning. I'm not opposed to the idea of cross-gender-RP (DMs do it all the time), as long as the player is mature enough. But knowing this particular guy and his quite-vocal opinion of women in fantasy, I feel like we made the right decision.

Hashmir
2012-02-12, 10:05 PM
One (male) player in the group was going to play a female character, but that was stopped with more peer-pressure than overt banning. I'm not opposed to the idea of cross-gender-RP (DMs do it all the time), as long as the player is mature enough. But knowing this particular guy and his quite-vocal opinion of women in fantasy, I feel like we made the right decision.

Yeah, I'd be willing to bet that 95% of the time player/character gender differences are a problem, it's because the player is a guy who is being creepy or sexist, and often who has unilaterally decided that D&D means "roleplaying hot sexy lesbian elf chick sex time." As others have noted, of course, this has nothing to do with player's and character's respective genders, and everything to do with the player being a sexist prat.

Also as others have noted, this makes "no sexualizing the D&D game/no being a sexist jackwagon" a better general rule than "characters must match their players' genders" - although, Slippery, I wholly agree with your group's approach, which amounted to "characters must match their players' genders for you." :smallbiggrin:

Ashtagon
2012-02-13, 12:50 AM
As for all the witty comments about my gaming group not being able to roleplay anything but human males, I'll just answer "suspension of disbelief". If I am in front of a guy it's easier to imagine him as a male elf/genasi/dwarf (expecially if he has a beard! :smalltongue:)/whatever then as a female.

And I think this is pretty much true for everyone, as sex is one thing we are naturally inclined to evaluate above all else when talking to someone.


I've met people who can consistently and believably present themselves as either gender in real life -- including extended conversations. If such a person were in your gaming group, would you ban them from playing one gender?

Kalmageddon
2012-02-13, 07:00 AM
I've met people who can consistently and believably present themselves as either gender in real life -- including extended conversations. If such a person were in your gaming group, would you ban them from playing one gender?

You mean if a player came to a D&D session dressed as a woman? :smallconfused:

Mono Vertigo
2012-02-13, 07:17 AM
You mean if a player came to a D&D session dressed as a woman? :smallconfused:
What do you mean, "dressed as a woman"?
Right now, I'm wearing jeans and a sweater, none of which are particularly feminine in their shape or color. There's such a thing as neutral clothes. I know a few people who could pass as men/women with unisex clothes, such as what I'm wearing right now.

Ashtagon
2012-02-13, 07:22 AM
You mean if a player came to a D&D session dressed as a woman? :smallconfused:

What I mean is, if this person wore 'male' clothes and pitched their voice just right, they'd pass as male. And if they wore female clothes and pitched their voice just right, they'd pass as female. In both cases, this person has managed to stay 'in character' for extended meetings, with the other person no wiser as to their 'true gender'.

Kalmageddon
2012-02-13, 07:50 AM
I guess that if someone shows this kind of commitment to roleplay as a female character it would be fair to let him do that...? I guess? If he's so good at it...

Look, I'm getting the horribile feeling you are seeing this issue from a more serious point of view then it is worth it... Me and my gaming group are just a bunch of friends having fun with a tabletop game, we don't need to consider every possibile situation when applying a general rule because none other then us will be affected, we are not WotC staff.

Unless I've missed something here, none of you people who are trying really, really hard to prove us wrong play with us and I'm pretty confident that I will never even get to know you in person, so why instist so much? Do I give you the impression of wanting to change your way of playing the game? I assure you that it' not my intention!
If I got to play with your gaming group I wouldn't complain if some 30 year old guy with dwarfish beard wanted to roleplay as a Char 18 Elf female, I might have troubles finding his character believable, but I wouldn't try to impose my point of view on the issue: your group, your rules, it's as simple as that.

If I offended someone by sharing my group rules I apologize, but it's just a game, chill out... :smallsmile:

Blacky the Blackball
2012-02-13, 08:01 AM
Our group has never had a problem with cross-gender roleplaying. People are just people, really. Men, women, and those who place themselves elsewhere on the gender spectrum all behave much the same in 95% of situations; and the other 5% of situations generally aren't those that come up in RPGs.

I've always played in mixed groups, and in the last twenty years I can only remember one instance when a member of one gender commented that someone else who was cross-gender roleplaying was being unrealistic in how they were portraying their character.

And in that one instance it transpired that there was a good reason for it - unknown to the other player, the character was a robot and only pretending (badly) to be human in the first place!

As for a more general "Gentleman's Agreement", my group is old enough that the following code of conduct still resonates with us:

1) Be excellent to one another.
2) Party on dudes.

Bastian Weaver
2012-02-13, 08:04 AM
Not really. I think we're all just saying that "the rule prohibiting cross-gender roleplaying probably is good for your group, but not for every group", which is kind of obvious.
And by the way, I used to play a terrific damsel.

Kalmageddon
2012-02-13, 08:12 AM
Not really. I think we're all just saying that "the rule prohibiting cross-gender roleplaying probably is good for your group, but not for every group", which is kind of obvious.
And by the way, I used to play a terrific damsel.
Yes, it is obvious, that's why I'm getting confused at the need to point that out again and again and argue over it... I guess that's the Internet, when someone says something it immediatly becomes a claim of intellectual superiority and universal truth instead of simple personal preference... :smalltongue:

dsmiles
2012-02-13, 08:36 AM
Not really. I think we're all just saying that "the rule prohibiting cross-gender roleplaying probably is good for your group, but not for every group", which is kind of obvious.I've always found that the sex of my character is determined by which mini I want to paint at the time. Unfortunately, for roleplay purposes, my females end towards a more stereotypical masculine personality, lately.

And by the way, I used to play a terrific damsel.So did I. Even had an in-game relationship with another character (also played by a male). Somehow, it wasn't even creepy (at the time). :smalleek:

tbarrie
2012-02-13, 08:40 AM
If I am in front of a guy it's easier to imagine him as a male elf/genasi/dwarf (expecially if he has a beard! :smalltongue:)/whatever then as a female.
And I think this is pretty much true for everyone,


No.



If I offended someone by sharing my group rules I apologize, but it's just a game, chill out... :smallsmile:

Sure, it's just a game. But as an analogy, imagine I had posted my table's rules and included "Nobody can play Jewish characters". Do you not see why that might make people uncomfortable, and feel compelled to post "Wait, what? Why"-style responses?

PersonMan
2012-02-13, 09:48 AM
Sure, it's just a game. But as an analogy, imagine I had posted my table's rules and included "Nobody who isn't Jewish can play Jewish characters". Do you not see why that might make people uncomfortable, and feel compelled to post "Wait, what? Why"-style responses?

Fixed that for you. As an analogy, it's iffy anyways, but now it's a bit better.

Kalmageddon
2012-02-13, 10:00 AM
Sure, it's just a game. But as an analogy, imagine I had posted my table's rules and included "Nobody can play Jewish characters". Do you not see why that might make people uncomfortable, and feel compelled to post "Wait, what? Why"-style responses?

No, I don't, and your exemple isn't even close to making sense, and if you stop and think for a while you might understand why.
Anyway, I explained everything I could in my previous posts, if someone still wants to argue it's probably just for the sake of arguing, so I'll just stop answering.

Also, because I'm not an idiot and I see where you are trying to go:
I feel bad for you people who are so scared of intolerance that you become intolerant yourself, without thinking two times before attacking someone because he said something that you don't like, regardless of context.

This is just pathetic and I'm not going to discuss this further, you make of that what you want, I don't care.

Ooooh! I must be a bad person! :xykon:

Name_Here
2012-02-13, 10:15 AM
1. If the DM doesn't want something to happen due to physics/whatever but it won't ruin everything you get a 50-50 chance for it to happen but when he says no he expects it to stand without question.

2. Any... adult encounters are settled by the dice. On success you get to give a PG-13 description. The DM doesn't want to flirt with anybody at the table.

3. No interparty conflict. No not even then.

4. The DM will accept the player's rolls and math without question but will investigate if the other players wish or upon the 3rd critical roll in a row.

5. If the DM tells you where the line is. You respect that and you don't cross it.

dsmiles
2012-02-13, 10:24 AM
This is just pathetic and I'm not going to discuss this further, you make of that what you want, I don't care.
Meh. I'm an "agree to disagree" type of guy, myself. I wouldn't want to play at your table (because sometimes I don't have a male mini to suit the character I want to play), you wouldn't want to play at mine (because we run cross-gender characters frequently). What's fun for one group isn't necessarily fun for another.

Coidzor
2012-02-13, 03:19 PM
^: You're fine with changing the sex of your character simply because you can't find a mini of the sex for the original character concept...

But you're not ok with using a mini of the opposite sex as the character? :smallconfused:

Why?


Not really. I think we're all just saying that "the rule prohibiting cross-gender roleplaying probably is good for your group, but not for every group", which is kind of obvious.

If that's all there is to it, then the point has been well past belabored.

Deepbluediver
2012-02-13, 04:49 PM
Our group had the basic rule "don't throw a temper tantrum if something happens to your character; play the outcome as best you can".

It was mostly about social interactions, like if the dice say you failed your sense motive check then you failed your sense motive check and you don't get to keep acting OOC just for because "my character says so"; stuff like that; but it sometimes came into play for planning or combat purposes as well.

Basically, we would agree to let the DM guide us along a story (instead of insisting on having it all our way all the time) and the DM wouldn't send hordes of rampaging dragons to devour us. To put it another way, the players wouldn't try to declare any actions as "player fiat" and the DM would restrict himself from the same.
It usually worked out pretty well, since we had a friendly DM who, if he saw your character taking a particularly bad set of beats and you kept up a good attitude about it, would eventually reward you somewhere down the line.

Hashmir
2012-02-14, 12:51 AM
Our group had the basic rule "don't throw a temper tantrum if something happens to your character; play the outcome as best you can".

It was mostly about social interactions, like if the dice say you failed your sense motive check then you failed your sense motive check and you don't get to keep acting OOC just for because "my character says so"; stuff like that; but it sometimes came into play for planning or combat purposes as well.

Basically, we would agree to let the DM guide us along a story (instead of insisting on having it all our way all the time) and the DM wouldn't send hordes of rampaging dragons to devour us. To put it another way, the players wouldn't try to declare any actions as "player fiat" and the DM would restrict himself from the same.
It usually worked out pretty well, since we had a friendly DM who, if he saw your character taking a particularly bad set of beats and you kept up a good attitude about it, would eventually reward you somewhere down the line.

Yeah, it seems like a lot of D&D disaster stories (or at least minor frustrations) stem from differing expectations between the DM and the player(s). On these boards, I've seen a number of situations where a DM is running a big sandbox world, but the players are reluctant to grab onto plot hooks when they find them; or the players just want to adventure, explore, and fight, but the DM is more interested in punishing the wizard for failing to secure their spellbook properly; or the players are paranoid and insist on ending the adventuring day after each single encounter, even though the DM only wants them to carry on at a reasonable pace and isn't interested in ambushing them while they're not at full power.

Barring people being just plain immature, a lot of this has to do with people carrying in the wrong set of assumptions about the type of game that's being played. The sandbox DM needs players that are proactive and interested in exploring what the world has to offer, and who know and care that the time spent doing one thing is time that other things are happening in the rest of the world. That DM's players, on the other hand, might be better served by a campaign that is more linear, especially if they spend time trying to figure out what the DM "wants" them to do (more incorrect assumptions!).

The spellbook-stealing DM, on the other hand, clearly has players who want to take their class abilities for granted, and are far more interested in swinging swords and casting spells than in how best to buckle their backpacks in order to deter pickpockets, or other silly minutiae. If the DM wants to play that game, then they will need players who like a certain (very specific) interpretation of verisimilitude, and who appreciate a somewhat adversarial DM/player relationship.

From what I can tell, most (D&D) games work like so: The DM creates a game world with a certain amount of depth and a main plotline. The DM doesn't actively railroad the players to specific locations in specific orders, and in return, the players play along and follow the plot hooks the DM throws out. In return for that, the DM makes an effort to allow meaningful choices between certain plot hooks, as well as how the players approach problems, etc. All in all, this usually works pretty well.

Except, of course, for when someone has different expectations. :smallbiggrin:

Coidzor
2012-02-14, 02:26 AM
Except, of course, for when someone has different expectations.

Hence why communication skills are so key.

dsmiles
2012-02-14, 03:50 AM
^: You're fine with changing the sex of your character simply because you can't find a mini of the sex for the original character concept...

But you're not ok with using a mini of the opposite sex as the character? :smallconfused:

Why?
I'm not sure I follow. Lemme 'splain: Sometimes I find a female mini that fits a particular character concept, but can't find a male one. So I make the character female (as opposed to using a female mini to represent a male character, at least I think that's what you're getting at). It's not really an issue in the group I game with for a male to play a female character (or a female to play a male character, though that happens a little less often, with only one female gamer in the group).
I'm personally not fine with my characters being misrepresented on the table. (I honestly don't care what other people, even in the same group, do with their minis/characters.) If I have a female mini, it's a female character. If I have a male mini, it's a male character. Very rarely does the character come before the mini for me. Playing certain tabletop wargames (WarmaHordes and Malifaux) gives me the advantage that the majority of my character concepts are well represented by the minis I already have. The majority of said minis are male. The situation has come up before, and recently, that I don't have a male mini for the character I want to play. If I can't afford to go out and feed my addiction buy a new mini, I have to make due with what I've got, and what I've got is sometimes a female mini.
Did that make any more sense? It's more about an accurate representation of the character than it is about cross-gender roleplaying, for me.

TL;DR: I'm a mini addict first and a gamer second. (Maybe that clarifies it a little.)

EDIT: Also, if I have both male and female minis to represent a character concept, it goes to the one with the better paint job.

Necroticplague
2012-02-14, 07:17 AM
In my group, our gentlepersons' agreement goes something like this:

"You, as a player, have the right to powergame, optimize, and rollplay to your hearts' content, as long as you keep it RAW. Just keep in mind, my favorite creatures are all from the ELH, WBL and CR are just suggestions, and I'm better at optimizing than all of you are. You have been warned."