Sexism in GM's Campaign World - Suggestions?

[Valvert]

Hi all! I came here to ask for advice about a problem I'm having with the GM of our current campaign. He's spent huge amounts of time developing the culture and every minute detail of his campaign world (he's had it around for decades), and is extremely attached to it. Unfortunately for our 75% female playing group, his world involves quite a bit of misogyny and in general is very biased against our largely-female party.
I understand that its his right as GM to make up the culture of his world, but its not super fun to have every enemy (and even some "allies") calling us "dumb broads" and acting like our sole male party member is the only one that matters. The GM has been playing the game for way longer than the rest of us, and isn't the type to take well to any of us trying to "mess up" his world, so none of us are super comfortable with bringing it up. Is there any nice way to ask the GM to tone it down/knock it off?
Thanks!

[Talakeal]

That depends. Is the DM himself being sexist?

If the campaign world is some sort of "misogynist utopia" he is making to fantasize a about a world he wishes were real, there is not much you can do.

If he is simply trying to replicate a realistic world with "medieval" outlooks on gender equality, I would just role with it and try and be awesome. Victory is so much sweeter when it is against the odds, and when the campaign reaches the point that you are epic heroes saving the world you can really rub it in everyone's faces and really shake up the status quo. In other words, it is a great opportunity.

[Xefas]

The integrity of a fictional world is not equivalent to the real feelings of real people. If a group of friends are participating in a shared activity, no single person's enjoyment is more significant and important than any others.

If you are uncomfortable, make it known. If your friends are cool people, it won't be awkward. Friends will not want you to be uncomfortable.

[Kalmageddon]

If it's a typical medieval world then it's just part of the challenge in playing a female character, much like in playing a half-orc some prejudice is to be expected from humans and elves, males in medieval times will have a hard time taking a female warrior seriously. Brienne from the A Song of Ice and Fire novels by George R.R. Martin comes to mind.
It might be part of the fun, proving all those chauvinistic medieval males wrong and forcing them to respect your characters because of their accomplishments and power.

On the other hand, if the DM expects you to play the role of the submissive female regardless that is a problem and you should talk about it with him.

[Felhammer]

Most societies, especially historical ones, are not as tolerant or open minded as our own. They live and breathe on excluding whole swathes of the population from power (be it in a personal, business or political). It makes sense, in part, to replicate that into game worlds because it feels realalistic. However, that discrimination is usually directed at other races rather than other genders (like Humans not wanting Half-Orcs in their town because of a history of Orc Raids, or Dwarves beating up Halflings "Because all Halflings are thieves!"). Gender is a tougher to use in-game because the in-world sexism can quickly bleed into real life (which can hurt feelings, even if completely unintentional). Doubly so when *all* the in-game praise is hoisted on the non-victimized genderd party member(s).

You are obviously not enjoying yourself. You need to be frank with your DM. Talk to him in private and raise your concerns. Word to the wise, don't confront him as a group (at least not to begin with), as he could see that as everyone ganging up on him. Additionally, having multiple players raise the same points but seemingly independent of one another staged over the course of a few weeks can work as well (i.e. you talk to the DM today, another person talks to him in a week, another a few days after that, etc.).

Additionally, I'd talk to the male player and see what his perspective is.

[kyoryu]

Three possibilities:

1) He's doing it deliberately to show what asses the enemies (and even the allies engaging in the behavior) are.

2) He's just misogynistic.

3) He's utterly unaware of the behavior.

In any case, I'd just talk to him about it. If you're uncomfortable, you're uncomfortable. He either has a chance to explain and modify the behavior if you still feel it's necessary, or you know it won't change and that he doesn't care about how you feel.

[Gavran]

This is a fantasy* game and if his portrayal of "realistic" misogyny is genuinely bothering you, then it has no place in a fantasy world that's supposed to exist to support you (the players.)

I don't think there are really tricks to this sort of thing. The best solution is just to talk it over with everyone. That said, if you're really not comfortable doing that you could at least talk to the other players - maybe the male PC could make a show of frequently showing deference to the others. At the very minimum you can all agree as a whole to not put up with it. If you bring a swift end to enemies who do it, and refuse to do business with neutral NPCs (all in-character) eventually the DM will get the hint, and as said, it can be an opportunity for RP.

*read: not reality

[Grinner]

Talk it over with the GM openly and frankly. Then, institute a sweeping civil rights reformation.


If he is simply trying to replicate a realistic world with "medieval" outlooks on gender equality, I would just role with it and try and be awesome...

I saw what you did there. :smallbiggrin:

[SiuiS]

Wow.

Okay, so te first step is for everyone to get together without the DM and discuss their problems so that they can be articulated clearly. Then sit down with the DM and tell him "we have a problem we need to discuss with you," and talk it out like adults. It's possible for things to say the same and not be a problem, even. You could start feminism in-game and work for positive change in character as a Roleplaying opportunity, for example – so long as this world isn't static and stone-set.

The second step, if this cannot be resolved, is to walk. "Dumb Broad" in particular is just :smallannoyed: for me, and an entire universe designed to make me feel like crap because "it's realistic" for a world of dragons, elves and wizards to cling to Proto Indo-European patriarchal mores rather than ah if something that stems from fantasy history? Yeah, no. Four-asterisk that. :smallsigh:


Talk it over with the GM openly and frankly. Then, institute a sweeping civil rights reformation.

This frood knows where his towel is, to use the vernacular.

[Grod_The_Giant]

When you talk to him, try to make it clear that it's not necessarily the world per se you object to, just how in-your-face the sexism is. If it's a huge part of the area you're in (say, some sort of racist-middle-east thing), ask if you can relocate to another region. If it is just a "well, that's how it was in ye olden days," ask if he can just tone it down. He doesn't have to rewrite everything to be feminist, but if he can sort of shove it to the background...

(All this in the interests of defusing confrontation over "ruining his world." I'm not endorsing sexist campaign settings)

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I agree with Xefas - the integrity of a fantasy world should not be allowed to take precedence over the comfort and enjoyment of the players, and if it comes down to it, enjoyment can slide. It's one thing for something to be offensive only in character ("My character is offended by this Humanis Poli calling him a trog.") and another entirely for something to be offensive out of character ("Could we maybe tone down the racism some? I get that Humanis is out there but having it come up all the time is making me uncomfortable.").

Since this is causing OOC issues, I'd hesitate to respond to it IC - even though it's an "in-world" issue. If the DM agrees to tone it down and invites you to start a civil rights/social justice revolution, then responding to it IC is perfectly valid. But trying to solve the issue IC when the OOC issues haven't been addressed is likely to cause more problems than it solves.

[Cognomen]

I've witnessed games that had problems stuff like this, though not on the level you're describing. People in this thread have made great suggestions. First of all, I agree with everyone who has suggested that you share your concerns with the GM asap. I would try to ascertain what his motivation(s) is/are. Gavran is right - this is a "fantasy" game and sexist/social bias are not necessary for "realism." As Talakeal says, the GM could have the more sinister motive of wanting to set up the sort of world he'd like to live in.

I think Fellhammer makes a great point about whether this game is fun for you, and is also dead on in stating that "in-world sexism can quickly bleed into real life." This is a game, but in RPGs the boundaries between fiction and rl can be quite fuzzy.

The main point I'd like to make (I'm basically echoing SiuiS and Kalaska'Agathas, I think): no matter whether a GM/DM is trying to create a "realistic" world by incorporating misogyny, sexism is something women have to deal with regularly - sometimes on a day to day basis. These games are (in part) meant as escapes, no? Those of us who are female use them for escape as much anyone else on the gender spectrum, and when we're playing female characters, it can be really hard, even depressing, to encounter in-game echoes of unpleasant attitudes we have to deal with in real life. It's the GM's prerogative to run a game in a misogynist world, and it's the player's prerogative to choose whether to play in it, but I suspect this is an aspect of the gender thing that some totally well-meaning GMs don't always realize.

[Hiro Protagonest]

...This isn't realistic cultural misogyny. Real medieval Europe didn't believe all women were weak, dumb animals whose purpose was to get married and get pregnant. They thought women were weaker, which is actually a perfectly valid conclusion with the biological role of women (if a lot of the men are killed in war, every woman can still become pregnant. If women are killed, the men can't reproduce on their own. It's made utterly invalid by how marriage worked and works, but we're talking about the Dark Ages here) but insulting a woman's intelligence or wisdom was not something to be done lightly.

[Jeff the Green]

Wow.

Okay, so te first step is for everyone to get together without the DM and discuss their problems so that they can be articulated clearly. Then sit down with the DM and tell him "we have a problem we need to discuss with you," and talk it out like adults. It's possible for things to say the same and not be a problem, even. You could start feminism in-game and work for positive change in character as a Roleplaying opportunity, for example – so long as this world isn't static and stone-set.

The second step, if this cannot be resolved, is to walk. "Dumb Broad" in particular is just :smallannoyed: for me, and an entire universe designed to make me feel like crap because "it's realistic" for a world of dragons, elves and wizards to cling to Proto Indo-European patriarchal mores rather than ah if something that stems from fantasy history? Yeah, no. Four-asterisk that. :smallsigh:

Preach it, sibling!

In the first case, the nice thing about most D&D campaigns is that as PCs you have enormous power. While this is normally used to maintain the status quo against an existential threat, there's no reason you can't decide the status quo is the problem and begin dismantling the sexist institutions. When the mid-level wizard or cleric says "knock that **** off," the world listens because not only can they enforce it they can learn about violations even if they aren't reported.

In the second case, remember that while the world as a whole has been improving in terms of gender equality for the last several milennia (and so conversely the world as a whole was significantly more sexist in past eras), there have always been places and cultures with relatively enlightened mores. Sparta during the Hellenic period, areas with important mystery cults during the Hellenistic, certain Germanic and Celtic peoples during the Roman Empire (as well as Egypt, IIRC), parts of the Islamic world and the Vikings during the European Dark Ages, some (by no means all) Native American peoples by the European Renaissance. A universally and consistently misogynistic fantasy world, especially one with different species in addition to cultures, would lack verisimilitude more so than one with largely egalitarian gender relations (since, as mentioned, the world as a whole has been improving so projected into the future one can imagine a world with almost perfectly egalitarian mores).

Edit:

...This isn't realistic cultural misogyny. Real medieval Europe didn't believe all women were weak, dumb animals whose purpose was to get married and get pregnant. They thought women were weaker, which is actually a perfectly valid conclusion with the biological role of women (if a lot of the men are killed in war, every woman can still become pregnant. If women are killed, the men can't reproduce on their own. It's made utterly invalid by how marriage worked and works, but we're talking about the Dark Ages here) but insulting a woman's intelligence or wisdom was not something to be done lightly.

Eh, YMMV. Europe from the late Roman Empire to the Victorian era was big on the idea that women were so lustful they, with the exception of a rare few (mostly dead saints), couldn't be trusted with power because their desires would eventually overwhelm whatever prudence or modesty they might have.

[Boci]

...This isn't realistic cultural misogyny. Real medieval Europe didn't believe all women were weak, dumb animals whose purpose was to get married and get pregnant. They thought women were weaker, which is actually a perfectly valid conclusion with the biological role of women (if a lot of the men are killed in war, every woman can still become pregnant. If women are killed, the men can't reproduce on their own. It's made utterly invalid by how marriage worked and works, but we're talking about the Dark Ages here) but insulting a woman's intelligence or wisdom was not something to be done lightly.

The couple of history courses I took in university disagree with that assessment. Can't get any more detailed with breaking the forum rules about religion I'm afraid.

But let's move away from that topic, it doesn't matter how realistic the approach is if its making the players uncomfortable.

[Werephilosopher]

The GM has been playing the game for way longer than the rest of us, and isn't the type to take well to any of us trying to "mess up" his world, so none of us are super comfortable with bringing it up.

I can understand an experienced GM being upset by challenges to his rules, playstyle etc. However, while he created the world, he did so for your group to play in- it's yours as much as his. If he's cool, he'll understand that a major aspect of the world he created bothers you deeply and it should be toned down, if not removed. This is a game, for everyone's enjoyment, after all.

Also... I don't know if your GM is trying to replicate a "Medieval" culture, but if so, that's not what he did. Peasant women had to work just as hard as men, and as such were generally treated the same as them, and noblewomen and royalty, while not equal to male peers, were certainly not referred to as "dumb broads."

EDIT: Although I agree with those who posted before me, that whether this is historical accuracy or not is kind of moot.

[pteromath]

Bottom line: if people at the table aren't having fun, you're doing it wrong.

Talk to your DM, but be respectful, acknowledge his work. He's put a lot of effort into designing this world, so of course he'll be touchy about it. But if he's led a step back to think about it... he PROBABLY started making it because he wanted people to enjoy it.

If it turns out he's a woman-hating jerk, bail. If it turns out he had no idea he was being a jerk, and fixes the behavior, awesome. If he argues historical precedent... explain the following.

This is, at best, a medieval-fantasy based very loosely on European (and some Asian) history.

Badass women are a staple of this genre: Eowyn, Shield-maiden of Rohan; Arya Stark; Brienne of Tarth; Vin the Mistborn; Lucy Pevensie; Hermione Granger and so on and so forth.

Badass women are not, as is commonly believed by the fantasy community, absent from history. I could write a book about different examples of female warriors from China (Hua Mulan, Mother Lu) to Japan (Tomoe Gozen, Kaihime) and into Vietnam (the Trung sisters, Trieu Au). There is no shortage in Europe either, where you have Boudica, Aethelfled, the triple warrior goddess of the Celts, Margaret of Anjou, Catherine of Aragon, Joan of FREAKING Arc.

Aisha, wife of Muhammad, led an army against Ali, the fourth caliph of Islam, who was Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law. Deborah and Judith in the Old Testament.

Specific examples go on and on and on, but so do examples of warrior traditions. In Southern France and Catalonia (for examlpe) noblewomen not only joined their husbands campaigns, but owned their own castles and soldiers for offensive and defensive warfare.

Perhaps your DM simply doesn't know about these awesome chicks and the feats they did. And these are just women who fought battles, surely there are historical precedents for females of other classes. For example, the Trobairitz of 13th century Occitan, were female troubadors, setting a precedent for bards, no?

So, maybe, point these out to him. These weren't women who were marginalized for their choices. These were NOBLEWOMEN who led armies, who were respected by their subjects and peers.

You could say, "Hey, (name), we really like your campaign setting, and all of the detail you've put into it, but we noticed there's a lack of positive feminine role-models, maybe we could work on some... maybe in another area of the map, I recently read this page about Joanna of Flanders who mustered an army and led it during the siege of Hennebont in 1342, and I think it would make for really compelling campaign material. You should check it out."

And just for fun, here are a couple of passages from The History of the Danes by Saxo Grammaticus*, a 12th century historian:

There were once women in Denmark...[who] courted military celebrity so earnestly that you would have guessed they had unsexed themselves... as if they were forgetful of their true selves they put toughness before allure, aimed at conflicts instead of kisses, tasted blood, not lips, [and] sought the clash of arm's rather than the arm's embrace.

"Among these was Lathgertha, a skilled female fighter, who bore a man's temper in a girl's body; with locks flowing loose over her shoulders she would do battle in the forefront of the most valiant warriors."

*Saxo wrote during a time when attitudes were shifting away from the acceptance of female warriors, hence his tone of amused tolerance, rather than acceptance.

[Gadzooks27]

Regardless of the integrity of the game or the specifics of medieval culture, It is the DM's job to make an environment that is comfortable and fun for his players. And it's the whole groups duty to meld well together. Take a horror themed adventure- In advance, you ask the players what they're okay with in terms of unsettling and gross concepts. Or you make somebody want to walk away when they walk in the room decorated with various severed body parts of infants. GROSS! This sort of thing needs to be discussed.
Worse comes to worse- you all petition, lol, or stop playing altogether.

Besides, "Dumb broads" isn't very medieval.

[Berenger]

While I don't disapprove of sexism (or racism / slavery / religious hatred / most other forms of douchebaggery) in game worlds on principle, too much of it can rub people the wrong way. Whether this bad feeling originates in an actual overdose or just a "weak spot" in a person is not really important. I agree that this is a problem and should be adressed out of game.

After that talk, assuming the DM does not outright refuse your request, there are several ways to handle it:

1. End that campaign. This may be undesirable for various reasons.

2. Retcon the setting for (at least an acceptable degree) of gender equality.

3. Head for a country within the campaign world where things are better, if this is feasible.

4. Agree to make it a focus of the campaign to change that situation via ingame action. I'd recommend this approach if the situation isn't so insufferable that you can't stand it for some sessions until the change becomes noticeable.



On a related note: Are his fantasy cultures obviously adapted from real historical cultures (for example ancient greece, medieval england, crusader states...)? If yes, which ones? While true equality of men and woman (or any equality between humans in general, for that matter) is admittedly rare in human history, there may be some common misconceptions concerning nature and degree of this inequality and the possibility of exceptions to certain rules. Perhaps (I'm purely guessing here) your DM is just trying to "do [inspiring culture X] right" and is just not aware of plausible possibilities to make things less grimdark for womenfolk. In that case, I think there are plenty of history buffs on this board that could help.

[Sergeantbrother]

I like a bit sexism, racism (um, speciesism), religious intolerance, or the like in my fantasy setting. It adds a bit of flavor in my opinion. Then again, it's like a bit of seasoning, good for flavor but it shouldn't overwhelm everything else. An RPG shouldn't just be about dealing with discrimination directed at your character, that would get borig after a while.

As others have said, my best advice would be to talk to him about it. Just say that it is bugging you and ask if he could tone it down a bit, he doesn't have to alt his setting or justify himself in some way, just say that the game would be more fun for you if the sexism wasn't so common and overwhelming. Any good GM, or considerate person in fact, should take into account your feelings and whether or not you are having fun.

As for realism, it is hard to say what is realistic or not, which is why I go with the having fun angle rather than arguing realism. That said, evenin an extremely sexist culture, they are still going to respect power. No medieval peasant is going to call a noble lady a "dumb broad" or try to push her around. As sexist as the Victorian era may have been, when Queen Victoria came around, very few men on the planet would have spoken disrespectfully to her. The same thing would go for extremely powerful female player characters with superhuman combat prowess or magical powers.

[Manly Man]

As pretty much everyone else here has said, this is something to take up with the DM. Be about as honest as you can, which should be completely, and talk about how this is bugging you so much. After all, this is supposed to be an experience that is enjoyed. I've had similar issues myself; a recent Pathfinder game I did involved a... severe lack of consent, for lack of a better term than what may come to mind. It was sincerely agitating, and I'd brought it up to other players. When I found out that change was highly unlikely, I quit. If something is robbing you of fun, then you have no legitimate reason to have to bear through it, and are perfectly in the right if you refuse to play with such irritants.

As for the setting itself... well, let me put it this way: the difference between being macho and being manly is that a manly man (I imagine that I, of all people, am the most qualified here for making such statements) has the stones to admit their wrongness and grant respect where it's deserved, rather than those ignorant fools who just put their sausage fingers in their ears and ignore great deeds because of an irrational, discriminatory set of beliefs. If I met a woman who has wiped the blood of a hundred foes from the blade of her sword, then I would tell societal norms to either shove their feet in their mouths or pull their heads out of their asses, because that woman is more than deserving of the humility of others in her presence.

There, you have yet another suggestion to make in-character to those who act as though your character is naught but a fly, her words that mild buzz that listening to is, at best, a laughable prospect: they are ignoble bastards who need to wipe the dirt from their eyes, because you can do much more than just wipe them.

[Mr. Mask]

I think we're missing a good potential compromise, here.


Let the GM know that this trope is getting tired (if possible, compliment how interesting it is being the underdogs to make the next part more acceptable). Then, convince him to let your group gain some fame in your next adventure. Then, you won't be "Skyla the dumb broad", but, "What, Skyla!? The woman who slew the Witch King!?"

While women do tend to be under appreciated in many ancient cultures, there are also examples of women leading men into battle, being famous individuals who were well liked.


TLDR: So, for now, remove that element from being persistent in your adventures by making fame a plot point.

[Toy Killer]

Racism is Classism for idiots. Sexism is directly correlated to birth survival rates.

Pre-sanitation, if a woman became pregnant, she had a 30% of passing from infection and a serious chance of sterility as well. However, children still needed to be born. This wasn't a conscious decision, but woman became a necessary commodity for civilizations to thrive.

How they were handled women differs from culture to culture, as how they 'justified' this decisions. But the result was the same, indefinately, treating woman as objects that were required to be used for reproduction, rather then people of society. Thus, two generations after the discovery of the positive effects of handwashing by Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was made into standard practice (He insisted his medical student, doctors and midwives were made to wash their hands before and after seeing woman in labor. This discovery was made wide spread by Dr. Lester later.), woman rose for their civil rights.

Once a generation is able to reach full maturity, with a huge child boom, woman were out populating previous numbers. Trade for daughters hands in marriage were 'over-inflated' rapidly and husbands grew old with their wives rather then worry for weather or not they would survive if she were to get pregnant. Daughters raised by their parents were able to question why they weren't allowed in college, and why they weren't able to vote. And the current adult population didn't have a response.

If your DM wants a factual misogynistic society, point out that no one in any society is just prejudice and Sexism should have died as soon as clerics were able to hit level 3. (Remove disease is a level 2 spell right? AFB)

[chainer1216]

so, lets forget about the real world for a second, this place sucks and we play these games to get away from it.

1. does racism exist in this world? if yes, does this make you uncomfortable, would you also ask him to change this? if it doesn't/you wouldn't ask yourself why.

2. does he enforce the idea that women are inferior with the mechanics somehow, or do you guys get overshadowed by male NPCs? or do your plans fail and often need to be fixed by some superman?

campaign settings are supposed to be flawed places to create drama, unless the game is supposed to be lighthearted and goofy.

now, seeing as how his group is mostly women, i somehow doubt he is truly sexist, he just envisioned his setting as being this way, and if it makes you uncomfortable, that's fine, its an icky, touchy and, in the real world, a very serious issue, but who are you to ask a person to change something they created just because you dislike it? imagine if you will, you have made something, and it took you over a decade to make, and someone asked you to change something big about it, its not gonna be a good feeling. you have the right to be uncomfortable, but no one is forcing you to be in that game, if it bugs you so much, maybe try running your own game.

[IronFist]

so, lets forget about the real world for a second, this place sucks and we play these games to get away from it.


I strongly disagree. The real world is awesome enough that we are able to create imaginary worlds of different awesome within it.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

I like a bit sexism, racism (um, speciesism), religious intolerance, or the like in my fantasy setting.

I like a bit of it as well, to give spice and flavor to a game, overdone and its wracks the game and underdone it makes the game bland.
The issue with sexism it can go both ways, just because a male npc calls a female player character a `dumb broad` does stop you from doing a sexist remark back to them.

If he is running a game with proper medieval standards, males are no better off than beasts of burden.

[Hyena]

While I won't voice my opinion, because I will be seen as insenstitive jerk for it...


so, lets forget about the real world for a second, this place sucks and we play these games to get away from it.
...I just wanted to say that this is the best phrase the forums have seen for the lasw week.

[Sergeantbrother]

While I won't voice my opinion, because I will be seen as insenstitive jerk for it...

Well, that just makes me curious :smallconfused:

[Mr. Mask]

One issue is... reality is quite variable. Some places were filled with people who would kill a woman for so much as looking at a man and dishonouring their family. Others, people were quite gentile.

I find it irritating that there is so much focus on the extremes of the former, but not much in the middle, or on the latter.


It should be possible (though not easy, often), in a realistic world, to be able to travel to somewhere that people at least behave themselves. Most places, people are very careful with what they say to adventurers carrying weapons... duels were, in many societies, quite common, and very scary.

[Nettlekid]

Can you give us some examples of sexist encounters/interactions? Because like it seems a lot of people here are, I'm on the fence about this. If the campaign world is sexist, and a world of might-makes-right like many D&D worlds are tend to be so, then I don't really blame to DM for having town guards or bandit leaders look down on the women in the party. Even if the world wasn't sexist, those sorts of characters would probably be misogynistic anyway, knowing the type. And then for you, it makes it all the more satisfying to clobber them in a Sailor Moon kind of way. Or like, I believe I've heard the story of a Mongolian warrioress who had dozens of suitors, and she declared that any man may challenge her to a wrestling match. If they win, she would marry them, if they lost, they would give her a hundred horses. She ended up unmarried and with 10,000 horses. Go ahead and kick the patriarchy where it hurts them.

Of course, if the setting is actively making you uncomfortable, then completely ignore what I just said. It's no more acceptable than if the DM insisted on describing incredibly gory, bloody murders despite having players who are potentially triggered by things like that, regardless of whether or not people do get killed in his world. Discuss first with your group if others feel the same way, and the next time the DM has an NPC say something sexist, address the DM personally and say "Hey, could you cut back on that for once? Every time we do this it's 'dumb broad' this and 'hysterical dame' that. I'm getting kind of sick of it." And hopefully the DM will understand that, and have his prejudiced characters insult something less biased, like maybe your adventurer smell or bad fashion sense. That way, the DM can still have jerk NPCs be rude to you, without offending anyone IRL on a personal level.

[Mr. Mask]

That reminds me of another point. The way the sexism is described can make a big difference, I'd say. Saying, "X was brutally murdered!" is something even most sensitive persons can withstand. If you went into the excruciating detail of the event, like Charles Dickens, then it would be disturbing to many persons involved.


Similarly, describing, "the guards make lewd comments towards you" is much less annoying than actually roleplaying the comments (least, in my experience).

[Black Jester]

All kinds of intolerance and bigotry as used within a setting are primarily a storytelling device which can have a vast amount of different functions and reasons. These can be very effective tools to develop unique and interesting settings and as such they are very valuable.
But like all tools, you need to know what you are doing with it and make a conscious effort to use them wisely and properly. Wisely used, these are really good ways to include social conflicts, offer a layer of distinct cultural attitudes and expectations. And yes, this can be very empowering and rewarding as well if you use it that way, letting the female protagonists overcome the stereotypes and prove their greatness. And these are awesome stories and can provide enthralling and thrilling adventures. Sexism as a stylistic element is not by any means a wrong, bad or in any way inappropriate way to run a game by default. It can be become
Concluding that a gamemaster who uses sexism in a fictional context has to be sexist himself holds as much water as the conclusion that D&D can be used to teach and learn black magic because it includes the description of necromantic spells.
Therefore I would think it is good idea to not so easily judge settings and their conversions from afar.

I personally do not think that a phrase like

The integrity of a fictional world is not equivalent to the real feelings of real people
is necessarily true.
That can be a valid and completely satisfactory approach to playing or running an RPG, but it is by no means universally true. In some cases
I have run a few games which were dark and very demanding of the involved players and I would have kicked out every self-entitled player who would have dared to demand to soften it or change any elements to make it more convenient. I would have done so immediately and without remorse. Sometimes, a story has to hurt. Sometimes the players have to face tough decisions and yes go to uncomfortable and dark places. Done right, these will be those adventures and tales that actually affect players. The feel-good stuff targeted at player convenience will always be a lot more forgettable and less gripping than a tragic drama.
Sure gamemasters are people and people are not infallible. Everybody makes mistakes, including the people who run an RPG game. Therefore, nonsense like "The GM is always right" is basically nonsense. Nobody is beyond criticism. But reducing the GM and his setting to a role which primarily exist to entertain the players no matter what or that the players are somehow entitled to a game tailored to their specific demands and desires is pure self-entitlement and a serious limitation of the GM's artistic integrity. Mature, sane people who are interested in a mutually fulfilling game are usually able to find a working compromise. For working game, the players just as responsible to adjust to the setting and the style of the GM as the GM has a a responsibility towards the players.

[Tengu_temp]

That can be a valid and completely satisfactory approach to playing or running an RPG, but it is by no means universally true. In some cases
I have run a few games which were dark and very demanding of the involved players and I would have kicked out every self-entitled player who would have dared to demand to soften it or change any elements to make it more convenient. I would have done so immediately and without remorse.

Did the players know what they're getting into? Because if you don't let the players know that this will be a dark, sometimes uncomfortable game, and they didn't say they're okay with it, then they have all the right to complain when you suddenly drop something heavy and uncomfortable on them. Saying "this doesn't make me comfortable, can we not have it in our pretendy fun times?" is not being self-entitled. The main purpose of RPGs is entertainment for everyone involved.

[tensai_oni]

1. You're playing a fantasy game, not a historical one. Saying "sexism is okay because it's historically accurate!" doesn't hold water.

2. Related to #1, people who say that often get history terribly wrong anyway.

3. Players having fun and being comfortable is a priority. Creating your perfect little setting is secondary - if having sexist elements unsettles the players, drop these elements fast, before the players drop you.

4. I have yet to see a female player okay with sexism in their game. Everyone I know who said "I don't mind sexism" is a guy. Likewise, I never saw a racial minority player being okay with in-character racism. Something to think about.

EDIT:


In some cases I have run a few games which were dark and very demanding of the involved players and I would have kicked out every self-entitled player who would have dared to demand to soften it or change any elements to make it more convenient. I would have done so immediately and without remorse. Sometimes, a story has to hurt. Sometimes the players have to face tough decisions and yes go to uncomfortable and dark places. Done right, these will be those adventures and tales that actually affect players. The feel-good stuff targeted at player convenience will always be a lot more forgettable and less gripping than a tragic drama.

Oh wow.

Remind me never to play a game with you.

[Drachasor]

That can be a valid and completely satisfactory approach to playing or running an RPG, but it is by no means universally true. In some cases
I have run a few games which were dark and very demanding of the involved players and I would have kicked out every self-entitled player who would have dared to demand to soften it or change any elements to make it more convenient. I would have done so immediately and without remorse. Sometimes, a story has to hurt. Sometimes the players have to face tough decisions and yes go to uncomfortable and dark places. Done right, these will be those adventures and tales that actually affect players. The feel-good stuff targeted at player convenience will always be a lot more forgettable and less gripping than a tragic drama.
Sure gamemasters are people and people are not infallible. Everybody makes mistakes, including the people who run an RPG game. Therefore, nonsense like "The GM is always right" is basically nonsense. Nobody is beyond criticism. But reducing the GM and his setting to a role which primarily exist to entertain the players no matter what or that the players are somehow entitled to a game tailored to their specific demands and desires is pure self-entitlement and a serious limitation of the GM's artistic integrity. Mature, sane people who are interested in a mutually fulfilling game are usually able to find a working compromise. For working game, the players just as responsible to adjust to the setting and the style of the GM as the GM has a a responsibility towards the players.

And I would point out that if 75% of the players are not enjoying the setting/campaign, then it is the DM that almost certainly needs to change things.

You aren't being self-entitled if you just point out that you aren't having fun. It's a game and if you are entitled to anything in a game, it is having fun. If it fails at that, then it has failed as a good game.

I'd note that having fun and feel-good adventures are two completely different things. Neither feel-good adventures nor dark adventures are innately superior. True art needn't be angsty.

While DMing is an art, the purpose of the art is to entertain and engage the players. If you fail to do that, then something has gone wrong. Maybe you have insane players, or maybe you're just running the wrong campaign for them.

[Terraoblivion]

The feel-good stuff targeted at player convenience will always be a lot more forgettable and less gripping than a tragic drama.

Thanks for enlightening me about how I have been doing it wrong all this time. Now I see that I was all wrong for loving fairly lighthearted stories and will immediately start reading more Shakespearean tragedies! After all, who cares about fun when you can have tragedy?


Sure gamemasters are people and people are not infallible. Everybody makes mistakes, including the people who run an RPG game. Therefore, nonsense like "The GM is always right" is basically nonsense. Nobody is beyond criticism. But reducing the GM and his setting to a role which primarily exist to entertain the players no matter what or that the players are somehow entitled to a game tailored to their specific demands and desires is pure self-entitlement and a serious limitation of the GM's artistic integrity. Mature, sane people who are interested in a mutually fulfilling game are usually able to find a working compromise. For working game, the players just as responsible to adjust to the setting and the style of the GM as the GM has a a responsibility towards the players.

So the GM's role isn't to provide entertainment? How exactly are you making deep artistic statements through improv with a bunch of people who don't even want to play along? If there's any artistic medium unsuited to providing deep statements, it's RP'ing where there are constant elements of random deviation from plot and themes and characters popping in and out of being present for reasons external to the work itself. Not just that, temporal progress with an extremely small audience is inherent to the medium, so if the players don't appreciate your deep artistic statements, they're meaningless because nobody else is ever going to experience them.

Beyond that, deep artistic statements are a slippery thing in the first place that is almost never agreed upon and schools of thought exist that deny it is even possible. However, pretty much every modern conception of art includes the reception of the audience as an integral aspect of what makes art have meaning, so if your audience rejects you then you're not making art and just self-indulgently pushing your own beliefs. Your little pretentious artsiness is meaningless even on its own terms if it offends the available audience to the point where it refuses to partake or just flatly rejects interpretations that don't come down to it being offensive.

I'd also like to echo the oni's statement above about how people pushing bigotry seems to always be people who aren't affected by it themselves. Not just that, due to how the social contract of gaming and the stories told work, you need to secure consent for offensive material for it to have any effect other than angering people.

In short, get off your high horse, understand your medium and show some respect for your audience and its desires. You're engaging in a cooperative experience, that means respecting the desires of those you're cooperating with, otherwise you're just trying to be a petty dictator for the group.

[Boci]

Thanks for enlightening me about how I have been doing it wrong all this time. Now I see that I was all wrong for loving fairly lighthearted stories and will immediately start reading more Shakespearean tragedies! After all, who cares about fun when you can have tragedy?

To be fair they do have a point, they are just wrongly evaluating the implications of their point. Basically, going to the pub and having a good time with friends will be more forgettable than going to the pub, getting involved in as bar fight and ending up in hospital. Despite that, I'd rather not get punched in the face at the pub, like ever.

[Tetsujin-28]

I'd recommend that you just talk to your DM about it and tell him that it makes you feel uncomfortable, and try to work out a compromise. How does the rest of your party feel about it?

[Terraoblivion]

To be fair they do have a point, they are just wrongly evaluating the implications of their point. Basically, going to the pub and having a good time with friends will be more forgettable than going to the pub, getting involved in as bar fight and ending up in hospital. Despite that, I'd rather not get punched in the face at the pub, like ever.

It doesn't necessarily apply to entertainment, though. Looking at my favorite entertainment that I can ramble about for hours on end, none of it is tragic. Similarly, looking at tragedies I know, most tend to just induce eyerolling due to contrived setups for everything to go poorly. I legitimately don't think tragedy in art is more noteworthy than fun or generally positive outcomes.

[Boci]

It doesn't necessarily apply to entertainment, though. Looking at my favorite entertainment that I can ramble about for hours on end, none of it is tragic. Similarly, looking at tragedies I know, most tend to just induce eyerolling due to contrived setups for everything to go poorly. I legitimately don't think tragedy in art is more noteworthy than fun or generally positive outcomes.

Maybe, but with a game you have personal involvement. I think I can remember the games I didn't like better than the ones I did (but I'm mostly a DM, so I don't have that diverse an experience as a player).

[Terraoblivion]

Maybe, but with a game you have personal involvement. I think I can remember the games I didn't like better than the ones I did (but I'm mostly a DM, so I don't have that diverse an experience as a player).

Hmmm, looking back I think I remember the games that went really well the best, followed by the antics of the most insane player I've played with and then all the stuff that was just kinda meh and unremarkable. In any case, remembering how much a game sucked and you argued and such isn't really what Black Jester is talking about. He's talking about tragedies and bad ends that are somehow deeper than simply having a good time.

[Boci]

In any case, remembering how much a game sucked and you argued and such isn't really what Black Jester is talking about.

Yeah, but there were already other posters constructively challenging his stance, so I decided to take an alternative approach.

[Surrealistik]

Definitely see Black Jester's point, on the idea of adversity and dark elements being used to make a more fun and memorable game overall, though as Tengu said, a campaign like the one he's talking about should probably involve some degree of forewarning/clarification that allows the players to make an informed decision about whether or not it's one they want to play in; I don't agree with stylistic ambushes (at least not as a rule and especially not where misrepresentation is involved).

Further, the quality of presentation and execution has to be there; it's not enough to simply be dark and disturbing, or to have the objectionable elements be internally consistent and justified. The totality of the campaign should be something the players want to experience overall, especially if there are parts that repulse or anger them.

[Autolykos]

I might be wrong, but until I know more I'm assuming the best*: That guy is probably just trying to make his world "realistic", but is seriously misguided about the extent of sexism in medieval societies (which was way more rampant in the Victorian era, IIRC). The first thing I'd point out is that while yes, Jeanne d'Arc was accused of being a witch for having the guts to lead the French army against the English, she was LEADING THE FRIGGIN' ARMY in the first place, and the French seemed to be quite happy about it.
FWIW, I think Mount&Blade does quite a good job of hitting the "right" amount. You'll have a slight uphill battle in the beginning, and some (very few) macho pricks will not accept you as an equal at first (most are perfectly cool with it, though), but once you get around to kick some major behind, they'll soon shut up.
And the final point to make: This isn't our world, it's fantasy. That whole "realism" business is way overrated, anyway. Your GM should present the world in a way that provides the most fun for everyone. If you stop having fun because of this (I feel with you, there are more than enough sexist pricks IRL already, ruining it for everyone), ask him to change it. He's probably unaware of the extent of the problem (I can say I was, until quite recently), and it may take some time for the message to sink in. Some "get it" late, some never.
If the majority of the group wants this to change (or if YOU are sufficiently fed up with it) and he refuses, vote with your feet.

*If he actually is a misogynistic jerk, get the hell away. Life's too short to waste it on someone like that.

[Terraoblivion]

I might be wrong, but until I know more I'm assuming the best*: That guy is probably just trying to make his world "realistic", but is seriously misguided about the extent of sexism in medieval societies (which was way more rampant in the Victorian era, IIRC). The first thing I'd point out is that while yes, Jeanne d'Arc was accused of being a witch for having the guts to lead the French army against the English, she was LEADING THE FRIGGIN' ARMY in the first place, and the French seemed to be quite happy about it.

Not just that, after the war ended the Pope himself ordered the trial investigated and in 1456 the conclusion the church came to was that she was a martyr and that Pierre Cauchon, the bishop in charge of the trial, was a heretic for abusing church authority to pursue a secular vendetta.

[Knaight]

So here's the thing: I like tragedies. I like settings that are pretty depressing in many ways, where a good ending for the protagonists is them getting executed without losing that many people with them. I enjoy settings where many of the cultures are horrible in many ways, where there are plenty of people at their worst showing just how ugly people can be. And you know what? I inform my players of this ahead of time, and if that isn't where their preferences lie then I don't use those settings. The case being discussed here appears to be a setting where some of the cultures are horribly in some ways, with small minded people at their worst reveling in their bigotry, and while that isn't inherently a problem it certainly isn't something that shouldn't just be dropped on people without so much as informing them of it ahead of time. Yet it seems like that is exactly what happened, which leaves this obvious response.

"[GM], we aren't particularly enjoying your game on account of the sexism in the setting not being fun for us. We aren't asking you to change your setting, but we also aren't willing to play in it, so either turn GMing over to somebody else or make a setting that we would actually enjoy."

[Spiryt]

The first thing I'd point out is that while yes, Jeanne d'Arc was accused of being a witch for having the guts to lead the French army against the English,


If it just happened that he lead some army, won some, lose some or whatever, she would probably wouldn't be really given that much attention for leading the army.

But since she became actual symbol of French retribution against English and so on, she had to be dealt with. And defamed, so she would be godless witch, not a symbol.

They would quite certainly try something with male leader of such magnitude, although obviously they would have to be more careful.

[Boci]

The first thing I'd point out is that while yes, Jeanne d'Arc was accused of being a witch for having the guts to lead the French army against the English, she was LEADING THE FRIGGIN' ARMY in the first place, and the French seemed to be quite happy about it.

And how many men have lead the french army over the years? Citing Joan of Arc, someone who is famous in part because she was a female in a role that overwhelmingly belonged to males, seems self-defeating if you are trying to promote an idea of a more gender tolerant history. I'm not trying to diminish her success, just questioning how well she demonstrates the point you are trying to get across.

[ericgrau]

I would talk to the DM and get him to retcon it. This is not the kind of adversity that should be in a game and it has real life effects.

Historically it may reflect many laws but not every single individual. From Shakespeare to ancient history equality is an ongoing topic that we did not suddenly realize in the past 100 years. The actions of individual foes may reflect the DM's personality more than anything, which is a bit scary.

Be polite but seriously talk to him about getting rid of this aspect of the world entirely. At worst it should be something that keeps your PC away from adventurer-irrelevant goals like being a politician or military leader, and affect some foes to varying degrees. But not fully control the views of every last foe you face. It would be simpler to remove the aspect entirely and ignore the topic. Not misogyny, not a world trumpeting its equal rights, just set it aside and crawl some dungeons.

[Knaight]

Historically it may reflect many laws but not every single individual. From Shakespeare to ancient history equality is an ongoing topic that we did not suddenly realize in the past 100 years. The actions of individual foes may reflect the DM's personality more than anything, which is a bit scary.


Laws were part of it, but there were also cultural mores fairly embedded within cultures - there still are, if to a lesser extent. With that said, the thing about cultures is that they aren't templates that the members of those cultures are stamped from, they are collections of practices, beliefs, attitudes, values, etc. that the people in that culture interact with. These interactions include rejecting parts of cultures, opposing parts of cultures, resistance to ideas and defiance towards values. Moreover, it's not like the cultures themselves are monolithic, the collections of practices, ideas, so on and so forth very much include things that oppose each other, and have conflicts built in. It is impossible to fully agree with one's culture, because the cultures don't fully agree with themselves, and as such one will never find anyone who does.

As such, the sexism in the setting? It's an incredibly unrealistic, ham-handed mess of a portrayal that may well say something about the GM. At best, his understanding of cultures is a mess, he doesn't get that there is regional and individual variation, and he has trouble separating the concepts of "male dominated" (an accurate description of a lot of fields even today, for various reasons that are usually some variety of sexism) and "male exclusive" (something that basically never applies to human activity beyond that within rigid institutions which explicitly value this and have small memberships, and even then there are usually exceptions).


Be polite but seriously talk to him about getting rid of this aspect of the world entirely. At worst it should be something that keeps your PC away from adventurer-irrelevant goals like being a politician or military leader, and affect some foes to varying degrees. But not fully control the views of every last foe you face. It would be simpler to remove the aspect entirely and ignore the topic. Not misogyny, not a world trumpeting its equal rights, just set it aside and crawl some dungeons.

I wouldn't say "crawl some dungeons", but other than that this is pretty much accurate. There's room for games which do explore things like sexism, but a) this GM isn't remotely qualified for them and b) this isn't a good group for it anyways.

[hiryuu]

*snip*

I'm with you. My own campaign setting actually has very important social gender/sex roles that are actually rather intricate (there are essentially five social genders) - but I'm the first person to drop those aspects entirely and move the "locality" of the campaign to someplace where they're not that big a deal.

Happiness of players over the long term is a priority. If they're upset because a character died or the story has a tragic element, that can be pushed through. If a major detail of the campaign world is making them uncomfortable just playing the game, then it's probably a good idea to either drop it, change it, or, if the "integrity" of the world is so important that a GM can't just alter the element that's a problem, change worlds.

If a GM really wants to keep it in character, and is willing to play it out (and they should be!), sweeping social reforms, protests, and organizing action groups make for amazing story arcs.

[The Fury]

Besides, "Dumb broads" isn't very medieval.

"Dumb broadsword" might be medieval though. Assuming you are indeed talking about a sword and not a person.

Yes, I know it's not. I'm just making fun.

A campaign setting with a history of institutionalized sexism could be interesting, and I guess having consequence to your character's identity can be cool. Though as soon as the players are getting uncomfortable with it it's time to tone it down. Setting lore be damned. I think what needs to be understood is that sexism hits too close to home for a lot of people.

I think if it's subdued to the point that maybe just the innkeeper or some other NPC is sexist then that's better. Though it sounds more like 70% of all males are sexist in this setting, and that's gross.

Though it's not impossible to have fun with this, after all who doesn't like seeing misogynists get put in their place?

[Eric Tolle]

Yeah, let's get over the "I am running a dark and intense game therefore I can be as sexist and racist as I want" crap. You are not Stanley Kubrick, you are running a game. And if you are using that as an excuse to be racist or sexist, then the players have a right to fire you.

It's simple: No gaming is better than bad gaming, and the players always have a right to say " This isn't fun, the game is over now."

[Amphetryon]

"[GM], we aren't particularly enjoying your game on account of the sexism in the setting not being fun for us. We aren't asking you to change your setting, but we also aren't willing to play in it, so either turn GMing over to somebody else or make a setting that we would actually enjoy."
Am I the only one to whom this reads a bit like a demand that completely ignores how the GM feels? I get that he may be in the minority in this situation, but in every game with a single GM and more than one Player, the GM is ALWAYS going to be in the minority. If the Players can merely demand that the GM change any aspects of the game they wish, on the grounds that they aren't enjoying that particular aspect, then what's to say the Players won't make the same demand when the fights are too hard, or the loot isn't tailored enough to the Characters' exact wish-lists? At what point does GMing under these parameters devolve into nothing but being the Fairy Godmother for the Players, dealing in unabated wish fulfillment, without regard for whether that's the job the GM thought he (in this case) was signing up for?

[Boci]

Am I the only one to whom this reads a bit like a demand that completely ignores how the GM feels? I get that he may be in the minority in this situation, but in every game with a single GM and more than one Player, the GM is ALWAYS going to be in the minority. If the Players can merely demand that the GM change any aspects of the game they wish, on the grounds that they aren't enjoying that particular aspect, then what's to say the Players won't make the same demand when the fights are too hard, or the loot isn't tailored enough to the Characters' exact wish-lists? At what point does GMing under these parameters devolve into nothing but being the Fairy Godmother for the Players, dealing in unabated wish fulfillment, without regard for whether that's the job the GM thought he (in this case) was signing up for?

That is a fair point in general, but not in this case. Yes, maybe Knaight could have worded it better, but I don't think misogyny that makes the players feel uncomfortable should be covered GMing license.

[Amphetryon]

That is a fair point in general, but not in this case. Yes, maybe Knaight could have worded it better, but I don't think misogyny that makes the players feel uncomfortable should be covered GMing license.

Does that mean misogyny is the only line the Players have the right to make the "Our way or the highway" demand on the GM quoted in my post, above? If yes, why is it the only one? If no, what defines those lines, without devolving into "well, it's different for each group" (because that discussion gets us nowhere for establishing general protocol)?

[The Fury]

Am I the only one to whom this reads a bit like a demand that completely ignores how the GM feels? I get that he may be in the minority in this situation, but in every game with a single GM and more than one Player, the GM is ALWAYS going to be in the minority. If the Players can merely demand that the GM change any aspects of the game they wish, on the grounds that they aren't enjoying that particular aspect, then what's to say the Players won't make the same demand when the fights are too hard, or the loot isn't tailored enough to the Characters' exact wish-lists? At what point does GMing under these parameters devolve into nothing but being the Fairy Godmother for the Players, dealing in unabated wish fulfillment, without regard for whether that's the job the GM thought he (in this case) was signing up for?

OK fine, I see your point. But if sexism makes the GM happy, do you really want to play with this guy?


Does that mean misogyny is the only line the Players have the right to make the "Our way or the highway" demand on the GM quoted in my post, above? If yes, why is it the only one? If no, what defines those lines, without devolving into "well, it's different for each group" (because that discussion gets us nowhere for establishing general protocol)?

Frankly it is different for every group. Different people have their different triggers and putting aside the GM/player relation for a moment, you ought to respect your friends and their opinions.

[Boci]

Does that mean misogyny is the only line the Players have the right to make the "Our way or the highway" demand on the GM quoted in my post, above? If yes, why is it the only one? If no, what defines those lines, without devolving into "well, it's different for each group" (because that discussion gets us nowhere for establishing general protocol)?

My difference would be the difference between something being annoying/disliked vs. actively making the players uncomfortable. Railroading, cliche NPCs, bad plots, overpowered encounters, restrictions on material available. Potentially annoying, but it shouldn't make anyone feel uncomfortable.

[Amphetryon]

OK fine, I see your point. But if sexism makes the GM happy, do you really want to play with this guy?

If you think that was my point, then I'm not so sure you do see.

[BayardSPSR]

This sounds bad.

When we speak about sexist societies, we have to remember that no society is reliably sexist. Even medieval Europe had Joan of Arc, as has been said. Seventeenth-century Europe had Julie d'Aubigny, an even more extreme example. Two men married each other in Spain in 1062 (seriously). Going too far in the name of realism is more Monty Python than fact. Never mind that we're speaking of fantasy here, as has been said.

Exactly how bad is it? It might be a good idea to cut and run. It's one thing to have sexist elements exist so that the players can destroy them - I've done that. It's another thing to run a world that is designed to oppress one gender in the name of consistency. That sounds like FATAL, which is something to be avoided at all costs.

Frankly, if the DM is being abusive of the players, even if it's indirectly, it doesn't matter how the DM feels, or how many years he spent on this world (it's always a he, isn't it?). If it offends him that sexism offends you, that's his problem, and it's his job to solve it, not yours to play along with his misogynistic fantasies.

[The Fury]

If you think that was my point, then I'm not so sure you do see.

OK... Maybe I didn't. I thought you meant that players should not behave entitled and that just as a good DM should care that the players have fun, a good player should care that the DM has fun.

Is that incorrect?

[Amphetryon]

OK... Maybe I didn't. I thought you meant that players should not behave entitled and that just as a good DM should care that the players have fun, a good player should care that the DM has fun.

Is that incorrect?

Indeed. Please point me to where I indicated that the GM having fun was an integral part of my point, so that I may edit that out. My point was that the approach advocated - to which I objected - was one where the GM's only job was (arguably) wish fulfillment for the Players, regardless of storyline, appropriate encounters for that point in the Characters' careers or current location in the world, or any other factors of verisimilitude within the campaign world. The method advocated for approaching the GM on this - to which I objected - was one that simply said that if the Players who weren't GMing were not having fun (regardless of the nature of their complaint) the GM NEEDED to either step aside or change the world to entirely suit the whim of the others at the table.

In short, the concern I am voicing here is an apparent approach to the job of GM as that of an unpaid employee, there merely to cater to every desire of the Players or be summarily dismissed without recompense or any concern for the notion that the GM may have any say in the matter.

I do not think the GM should just be a vending machine, manipulated by Players who tie strings around the change to get what they want without giving anything back. Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned that way.

[JadedDM]

Ah, see, this is why I've worked so hard to eliminate the patriarchy from my game world. Sexism still exists in specific individuals and certain cultures, but they're always depicted as backwards. Sexism is not an inherent part of the world as a whole.

This is because I've had more female players than male over time, and having spent years listening to their feedback, I've learned most women are tired of having to deal with misogyny all of the time in the real world, and the last place they want to deal with it is in a fantasy world designed for fun.

The whole 'realism' thing is such bull, and from my own personal experience, most DMs who make that claim are just trying to justify their own sexist viewpoints. (I notice that the DMs who insist on having women be mechanically weaker then men in their games, like a -1 to STR or whatever, also insist it's because of 'realism.') It's a fantasy game. It's make-believe. You can't insist on 'realism' in a game with magic, elves an dragons. And you know, even if you're playing in a setting completely based in the real past, with no magic or fantastic elements at all--it's still make believe. There's no reason not to treat women as equals to men in-game. Mandating sexism doesn't make your world more gritty or realistic; it just makes it a lot less fun for women.

Valvert, my advice is just get everyone together and explain to your DM what the problem is. And if he gives you the brush-off, tries to gaslight you or whatever--just walk away. It's not worth it, find a game where you don't have to deal with that kind of nonsense.

[LibraryOgre]

The couple of history courses I took in university disagree with that assessment. Can't get any more detailed with breaking the forum rules about religion I'm afraid.

But let's move away from that topic, it doesn't matter how realistic the approach is if its making the players uncomfortable.

It also varies quite widely; some areas had relatively powerful women, and others had relatively impotent women, and there were always individual stand-outs (England wasn't terribly egalitarian, but then you had Maud).

In general, I echo the bulk. Talk to your GM. "It's not the world, but could you tone down the blatant sexism? It's getting old."

[Amphetryon]

My difference would be the difference between something being annoying/disliked vs. actively making the players uncomfortable. Railroading, cliche NPCs, bad plots, overpowered encounters, restrictions on material available. Potentially annoying, but it shouldn't make anyone feel uncomfortable.

So should a GM avoid detailed descriptions of combat, in case one of the Players is hemophobic? Should the GM scrap an intended subplot dealing with the King's as-yet-unborn heir because one of the Players may be uncomfortable with pregnancy and childbirth, or even (in younger groups, generally) relationships and sexuality? These aren't hypothetical situations; they're situations I've encountered at a gaming table. Should the GM have to step aside for bringing up anything which makes a Player uncomfortable?

[Toofey]

I would talk to the DM about it, It might be a plot issue he created because your team is mostly female, and going somewhere, and whichever way it goes he can't change if he doesn't know there's a problem. but I would also recommend just going Amazon once your characters are capable of it and just start kicking the crap out of the NPCs that are pricks if it's just that the DM is a just sexist ass.

[Boci]

So should a GM avoid detailed descriptions of combat, in case one of the Players is hemophobic? Should the GM scrap an intended subplot dealing with the King's as-yet-unborn heir because one of the Players may be uncomfortable with pregnancy and childbirth, or even (in younger groups, generally) relationships and sexuality? These aren't hypothetical situations; they're situations I've encountered at a gaming table. Should the GM have to step aside for bringing up anything which makes a Player uncomfortable?

They should consider it, yes. It would have to be discussed as a group. Now personally if its just one PC then I would be inclined to favour the GM, since its their world. But when the whole group is being made uncomfortable, then yes, the GM should probably change things, or everyone agrees to part ways if its a deal breaker.

[Terraoblivion]

And to follow up on Boci's position, there's a difference between personal arbitrary discomfort and discomfort tying into personal trauma or structural issues with society. If a player has problems with undersea lifeforms the way I do, I believe you should take it into account but not be strictly dictated by it. If, on the other hand, a player has a problem with plot elements triggering uncomfortable flashbacks or reminding them of injustice they actually face in society, I'd say that unless there are very compelling reasons not to, you should accept that and avoid such plot elements.

[Knaight]

Am I the only one to whom this reads a bit like a demand that completely ignores how the GM feels? I get that he may be in the minority in this situation, but in every game with a single GM and more than one Player, the GM is ALWAYS going to be in the minority. If the Players can merely demand that the GM change any aspects of the game they wish, on the grounds that they aren't enjoying that particular aspect, then what's to say the Players won't make the same demand when the fights are too hard, or the loot isn't tailored enough to the Characters' exact wish-lists?

The GM is not always going to be in the minority, on account of how the players aren't all identical. Also, if every single player is calling the fights too hard, then the fights are probably too hard for that group, and if very single player says the loot isn't tailored enough (which seems unlikely) it's also a problem. The GM is a player just like everyone else, they just have a somewhat different task within the game, as such their opinion is worth exactly as much as that of any other player. Now, as to your examples - what, exactly, prevents a GM from having players who like nasty fights? What prevents a GM from having players who don't want tailored loot and don't have wish lists because they like having surprising stuff? Nothing.

I usually GM*, and odds are at any given time I have players who favor a less combat heavy game and players who favor a more combat heavy game, players who like worlds to be a bit happier, and players who want things a bit darker, so on and so forth. I stick to groups of friends that generally have similar styles, and as such the GM against all players situation is pretty rare, and almost exactly as common as the GM and all but one players against one of the other players.

*Read: Am a non-GM player maybe 2% of the time total.


And to follow up on Boci's position, there's a difference between personal arbitrary discomfort and discomfort tying into personal trauma or structural issues with society. If a player has problems with undersea lifeforms the way I do, I believe you should take it into account but not be strictly dictated by it. If, on the other hand, a player has a problem with plot elements triggering uncomfortable flashbacks or reminding them of injustice they actually face in society, I'd say that unless there are very compelling reasons not to, you should accept that and avoid such plot elements.
Exactly this.

[LibraryOgre]

So should a GM avoid detailed descriptions of combat, in case one of the Players is hemophobic? Should the GM scrap an intended subplot dealing with the King's as-yet-unborn heir because one of the Players may be uncomfortable with pregnancy and childbirth, or even (in younger groups, generally) relationships and sexuality? These aren't hypothetical situations; they're situations I've encountered at a gaming table. Should the GM have to step aside for bringing up anything which makes a Player uncomfortable?

Pretty much, yes. Because a GM shouldn't be a jerk to his players, even as he is a jerk to their characters. Being a jerk to the characters, especially in a funny way? That's gold. Putting a good grel in a small town full of pixie faeries? HI-larious. Having someone who is angling for an emo drow get spat on by the very humans he wants to protect? Good storytelling. Making constant sexist remarks about characters that are making the players feel uncomfortable? Jerk.

So, if one player is truly uncomfortable with graphic descriptions of blood and gore, you drop the blood and gore. If one player finds the very concept of pregnancy distasteful, then a story about the king's unborn heir is in poor taste. The GM who insists on such a plot is actively being a jerk to other people at the table.

The GM doesn't have to read the player's minds... there has to be dialogue. "Hey, man, that story is really making me uncomfortable" is a perfectly valid thing for a player to say, and a GM should pay attention to that, and talk about it. On the other hand, if the GM knows the players well, then the GM shouldn't put in things that are simply going to make the player uncomfortable... and if rampant sexism is skeeving the players out, then the GM should tone it down.

If the GM doesn't want to? If the GM is too concerned about the integrity of "my story" or "my world" to let the other players feel comfortable? Then go write a novel. Because being a jerk to the players is one of the hallmarks of a lousy GM.

[Drachasor]

Indeed. Please point me to where I indicated that the GM having fun was an integral part of my point, so that I may edit that out. My point was that the approach advocated - to which I objected - was one where the GM's only job was (arguably) wish fulfillment for the Players, regardless of storyline, appropriate encounters for that point in the Characters' careers or current location in the world, or any other factors of verisimilitude within the campaign world. The method advocated for approaching the GM on this - to which I objected - was one that simply said that if the Players who weren't GMing were not having fun (regardless of the nature of their complaint) the GM NEEDED to either step aside or change the world to entirely suit the whim of the others at the table.

If the DM is not making a game the players enjoy, then yeah, he needs to change his approach. If he views making an enjoyable game as "catering to every want or whimsy of the players" or being dictated to, then he probably isn't cut out to be a DM.

It is much rarer, in my experience, for the players to be the problem. You can have problem players, but they hardly ever compose 75% of the group and all agree with each other. This is especially true when what is being objected to is something like "this setting makes me uncomfortable." To act like most players want to be showered in loot or that being uncomfortable is equivalent to that is grossly unfair.

If the GM doesn't realize that it IS his job to provide a fun experience for the players, then he should step aside. He doesn't have the chops. One of the worst things for a GM should be finding out his players aren't having fun. If that's something the GM doesn't reallly care about, then he's a bad GM.

That said, when problems like this arise, it is best for everyone to site down and talk it over.


So should a GM avoid detailed descriptions of combat, in case one of the Players is hemophobic? Should the GM scrap an intended subplot dealing with the King's as-yet-unborn heir because one of the Players may be uncomfortable with pregnancy and childbirth, or even (in younger groups, generally) relationships and sexuality? These aren't hypothetical situations; they're situations I've encountered at a gaming table. Should the GM have to step aside for bringing up anything which makes a Player uncomfortable?

Do you seriously believe the answer to all these questions isn't YES?

You should also not do these things to friends or strangers.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Real world religion and politics are Inappropriate Topics on the forum. Thread locked for review.