Guys that like to roleplay female characters

[Esprit15]

In my experience, there are two things to consider:
Is the guy about to play a female character going to play a teenage nymphomaniac bisexual girl with huge boobs?
Hey now! The big boobed, lesbian ninja princess is one of the best developed characters in our game! :smalltongue: (Seriously, guy actually RPs just fine)

On a more serious note, I found that in PbP I prefer a female character. Like several have said before me, if the character is a different gender, it's yet another thing distancing them from me. It helps with the immersion of being someone else in the game. Most male characters I make end up feeling flat, for some reason. Sure, I'll admit flaw on my part as well, but that's what the anecdotal evidence points to.

IRL, I can see it being awkward at first, but it's something I would be totally willing to try at some point. Just once the group I'm in gets more established.

[ShadowFighter15]

I have to admit - I did come close to the stereotype mentioned in Espirit15's post with, of all things, a paladin.

Demon-blooded tiefling paladin of Lymnieris for a Wrath of the Righteous game. The idea started off as two separate ideas I've had in mind for a while - a tiefling paladin (which itself came from an idea I had for an NPC in an Eberron campaign - a half-fiend paladin of the Silver Flame) and a womanising paladin who still managed to keep their alignment and vows. The former was for the reason just about anyone makes a tiefling paladin - the juxtaposition - while the latter was sort of a challenge and a way to show that the paladin's code isn't as restrictive as some people believe.

WotR is the perfect campaign for paladins to shine so I figured I'd cram the two together and see the result while still trying to play her as plausibly as possible. Part of that was that she doesn't hit on teammates (romantic relationships in combat make things way too sticky... that and the only woman in the party was another tiefling, but this one had hooves and the paladin wasn't into those) and that she can compartmentalise well - basically saves the flirting for when there isn't a chance of horrible death around the next corner.

So in a dungeon or the like - a semi-normal paladin (albeit with a sense of humour) in functional armour who does the job well. When out on the town, an attractive young woman who flaunts what she's got and flirts with just about any good looking (and unattached) girl she meets while making sure not to accidentally lead them on about the relationship.

I was a bit worried that I'd tried to do too much with her, but she seems to be turning out alright so far (none of the other players have complained, at least).

[Alroy_Kamenwati]

Wow folks, didn't expect so many replies. Well I guess I'll update for you. My group is cool with it so far, other than actual in game sexism (which I expected and found it a cool rping opportunity) I haven't had any problems. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. This is by no means a 'stop posting here thing' but I thought y'all would like some closure.

[Scow2]

...What? This thread had an OP?!

[Alroy_Kamenwati]

Yeah xD I've been busy and haven't checked in awhile

[A Tad Insane]

...What? This thread had an OP?!

At one point, yes. But now the thread has gone off the rails and is doing möbius loops in the sand

[Delusion]

Two months ago I was a guy roleplaying only female characters by all appearances, and it helped me through some pretty bad depressions and alleviated the gender dysphoria I felt (I am mtf transsexual).

So I am really thankfull for my group not having a problem with it.

I just wanted to bring out another reason why a 'guy' might want to roleplay a girl. :smalltongue:

[The Insanity]

But you're not a guy, practically speaking. :smallconfused:


:P

[Avilan the Grey]

So...
Reading through all this.

I am a guy who plays mostly female characters, regardless of game or setting.
Statistically this is higher in computer games; if given a choice I tend to go female 90-95% of the time in computer games but maybe 60-70% in PnP games.

Anyway.

I took a break from pen-and-paper roleplaying from the age of 16 to the age of 35. Nobody to play with. So my experiences of "that guy" is kind of limited but I ran across it on occasion back then. Our own group was fairly tight and quite mature (I have come to realize afterwards) for a bunch of 13-14 year old boys playing in 1988-89. I tended to be the only one playing a female, but after the first time nobody commented on it, and nobody did the "groping, seducing, virtual drooling or rapey comments". It was different when we invited players that we normally didn't play with much. A couple of them made me want to facepalm already at the age of 14. Not sure why, but either we were truly more mature, or the fact that we were very close friends and fairly serious about the gaming in general prevented this kind of things...?

At the moment I am playing a male dwarf rogue in DnD Next, but that's because it is my first time with a new DM and we set up the whole thing over facebook, so I let him roll a character for me (my only demand was "a rogue-ish character) so to not take a lot of time from actual gaming when we met IRL.

I have never had a feeling of "immersion-breaking" when it comes to ANY kind of character that is played well. Or not even "well", but played "not bad". I don't get how someone find it immersion breaking with a male at the table across from him/her playing a female anymore than that person playing an elf, or a kobold for that matter, because I can picture it in my head. It's the same mechanism that makes me say "I try to slit his throat" instead of "<Charname> tries to slit his throat" and makes me address the other characters as "you" instead of "your character". No matter if I play a female half-orc, a male dwarf or a slightly malfunctioning factory robot ("kiss my shiny metal ass" :smalltongue:) I refer to the character as "I".

I AM the character. Everything taking place takes place in my head. It's like reading a book, really.

That said I am not really sure if I play female and male characters differently. I don't think I do, at all.

As for the other discussions: I don't see anything wrong with a campaign that forbids female PCs, as long as it is a specific campaign. If we are paratroopers dropped over France after D-day, I fully understand the "no females" rule. And yes, I find the whole "historically correct" bit VERY important at that point because well... that IS the point. If you are setting a game in WWII it's because you WANT the historical background. Otherwise you could just put it in any random setting.
It's the same as when playing Call of Chthulu in Victorian London... Of course my female character will wear a certain kind of clothes, lack tattoos, and be very... well Victorian in her ways. The point is that such a setting has just as rigid guidelines as the WWII setting, but different ones.

[PersonMan]

Of course my female character will wear a certain kind of clothes, lack tattoos, and be very... well Victorian in her ways. The point is that such a setting has just as rigid guidelines as the WWII setting, but different ones.

Every culture has its odd ones.

Besides, the poor people couldn't really afford everything-covering dresses and women who didn't work, so she could always just be someone without the money for that kind of thing.

[Avilan the Grey]

Every culture has its odd ones.

Besides, the poor people couldn't really afford everything-covering dresses and women who didn't work, so she could always just be someone without the money for that kind of thing.

Of course. On the other hand, as for point one above... If you don't want to play in the atmosphere of a specific historical setting, why play that setting?

[Evandar]

One of my groups isn't mature enough in terms of sexuality to really be comfortable having a male playing a female (not to say they're homophobic or anything of the sort -- it just strikes them as really weird).

My other group is like, "Whatever floats your boat."

It depends a ton on the group in question, methinks. Personally I think they'd get over it very quickly unless you attempted to employ a more effeminate voice.

[mrzomby]

If people get weird about this, they probably aren't worth gaming with, in my opinion at least.

[PersonMan]

Of course. On the other hand, as for point one above... If you don't want to play in the atmosphere of a specific historical setting, why play that setting?

I may be mistaken, but 'rough, fight-loving young woman who dresses like a miner' plays differently in a Victorian setting than in a modern one.

Specific historical atmosphere =/= playing only things culturally accepted.

[Raimun]

I have never rolled a female character, since I like to play characters of my own gender. When given the choice, I'll always play a man.

I have played a female character once in a one shot adventure. The characters were drawn randomly and there were no take backs, even though I would have wanted one. Still, it wasn't that bad and the only problem I had playing the character was that she didn't have any clear strenghts or weaknesses and her skills and abilities were all strictly average, with no clear focus. Playing an average joe or jane is equally unexciting.

Some dudes I play with have chosen to play female characters and I never even batted an eye to it... since they weren't That Guy. :smalltongue:

[Miriel]

I played two female characters as a guy. Both were rather serious, and both experienced sexual harassment nonetheless: "Show us your boobs!", "Maybe you could have sex with the guards and they'll let you through?", "I put the psychotic potion is the drink, and give it to [my character]." (despite the rape overtones, nothing worse happened), etc. It was not pleasant.

[AttilaTheGeek]

As long as it's not badly done, I don't think it's strange or weird. Why should a roleplayer restrict themselves to playing half the population? For example, I'm in a long-running PbP with someone who's posted in this thread, but I won't say who. They're playing a female character, but I just noticed today that the poster is male.

Finding out that the character is played by someone of the opposite gender only changes my impression of them by realizing there must be a reason for them to be that gender. Other than that, it doesn't really matter to me.

[Avilan the Grey]

I may be mistaken, but 'rough, fight-loving young woman who dresses like a miner' plays differently in a Victorian setting than in a modern one.

Specific historical atmosphere =/= playing only things culturally accepted.

The point is that we can't all be Sweet Polly Oliver.

[PersonMan]

The point is that we can't all be Sweet Polly Oliver.

But if there is one, then a group of exceptional people (the PCs) is the perfect place to find them.

It may be that only one in a thousand women do X in that time period. This is just that one, then. Just like only one in a thousand men slay a dragon, or [resolve] a [plot device], or...

You know what I mean?

[Scow2]

The point is that we can't all be Sweet Polly Oliver.The Monstrous Regiment lead by Sergeant Jackrum strongly disagrees.

[AMFV]

But if there is one, then a group of exceptional people (the PCs) is the perfect place to find them.

It may be that only one in a thousand women do X in that time period. This is just that one, then. Just like only one in a thousand men slay a dragon, or [resolve] a [plot device], or...

You know what I mean?

This however depends entirely on your game, setting, and group. Primarily your tone, in all games PCs are not exceptional or unusual, for some players in some settings this is jarring rather than exhilarating. Not all settings are based around the idea that the characters are exceptional. In fact some are the opposite, slice of life games (rare but they could exist), horror games (particularly those that end badly), certain suspense genres.

This "Main characters are exceptional" is very much a genre trope, and not all roleplaying games are in the same genre.

[Avilan the Grey]

This however depends entirely on your game, setting, and group. Primarily your tone, in all games PCs are not exceptional or unusual, for some players in some settings this is jarring rather than exhilarating. Not all settings are based around the idea that the characters are exceptional. In fact some are the opposite, slice of life games (rare but they could exist), horror games (particularly those that end badly), certain suspense genres.

This "Main characters are exceptional" is very much a genre trope, and not all roleplaying games are in the same genre.

Exactly. Call Of Chthulu is very much the case. Our group for example: A One opium-addicted artist (male, starting with very low SAN), one ex-Catholic Irish priest who is now trying to rally the poor and downtrodden in the poor districts of London in his own Christian cult (and doing it rather badly), one young librarian (female), one retired Army Colonel. Of these people only the officer has higher standing in society, and any kind of money, really. Also, he is the only one with any kind of weapon training or similar. None of them are more special than any other commoner in London 1880.

[JusticeZero]

I know that a lot of people are arguing historical accuracy, but I ask this :
How many people have been in a game where "accuracy" meant that the entire party had to be female?

[Tengu_temp]

I know that a lot of people are arguing historical accuracy, but I ask this :
How many people have been in a game where "accuracy" meant that the entire party had to be female?

I never actually played such a game, but I wanted to play in a few (the plans ultimately fell through), and know people who did play in such games. And I'm currently DMing a very long-running game where male PCs are the exception rather than the rule, by design due to the setting and not just by accident.

[Toliudar]

I've run in one PBP game in which all of the characters (not all of the players) were female, and one in which all of the characters that happened to be submitted were female. Both were fun, and neither ran particularly differently than any other PBP game.

[JusticeZero]

The issue is that there is not a lot of games where male playing players have to bend to fit the setting, but lots of people are arguing historical reasons for female characters to be barred from some games.

[Red Fel]

The issue is that there is not a lot of games where male playing players have to bend to fit the setting, but lots of people are arguing historical reasons for female characters to be barred from some games.

But that's just it. The setting is, or should be, malleable. The setting is under the control of the DM. If the DM wanted to make one gender or another available or banned within the setting, he could.

If you're doing a campaign with the Imperial Chinese Army, wherein it is treason for a woman to serve, you can nonetheless permit a Hua Mulan. If you have a medieval Europe campaign, where strong women are seen as witches, you can still have an army led by Jeanne d'Arc. And if you are running a game of politics, where women are seen as little more than bargaining chips to be married off in exchange for political power, or trophies to hang from a man's arm, you may nonetheless find a Dowager Empress, an Elizabeth I, or even a more modern Margaret Thatcher.

In any setting where the roles of women are limited for historical reasons, you may nonetheless bend that rule as DM. The same holds true in reverse - even among the female society of the Amazons, Queen Hippolyta respected Heracles and gave him her girdle without resistance (although in some versions of the myth she was abducted). You can find a role for either gender if you simply try hard enough, and are willing to do so.

I'm going to make a bold statement here, which might be a bit controversial, but off the top of my head I can't think of a counterpoint to it: The only reason for a DM to ban characters based upon gender, absolutely and as a blanket rule, is that the DM wishes it to be so. I can think of no other reason - historical accuracy, setting or societal integrity, plot devices - that could not be bent or massaged to allow for an exception, albeit one that might entail penalties.

I am not arguing that a Mulan, a Joan, or an Elizabeth would be played exactly the same as a Hercules or Charlemagne. Where history or society dislikes or minimizes the role of women, playing a female character carries certain challenges. Rather, I am arguing that these characters should be playable, despite these challenges, and I can think of no reason to refuse them that cannot be adjusted short of DM fiat.

[LibraryOgre]

But that's just it. The setting is, or should be, malleable. The setting is under the control of the DM. If the DM wanted to make one gender or another available or banned within the setting, he could.


"Dude can play an elf who's going to live several thousand years, and cast spells that let him fly and shoot lightning, and he's fine, but the moment you make him a girl, he starts talking about historical reality."

Really, in historical games, the nonexistence or inappropriateness of women is way overstated.

[Frozen_Feet]

I know that a lot of people are arguing historical accuracy, but I ask this :
How many people have been in a game where "accuracy" meant that the entire party had to be female?

*raises hand*

Okay, that's a lie. There's nothing Historical about Tähti, as it is set in near future. Regardless, we were all underage female Finnish mutant pop idols and liked it. :smalltongue:

Also, Kagematsu demands this in its very rules: only a woman is allowed to play the titular male character. Men are forced to play the girls.

[nedz]

I know that a lot of people are arguing historical accuracy, but I ask this :
How many people have been in a game where "accuracy" meant that the entire party had to be female?

I've never played it, but the JRPG Maid assumes precisely this.

[TuggyNE]

*raises hand*

Okay, that's a lie. There's nothing Historical about Tähti, as it is set in near future. Regardless, we were all underage female Finnish mutant pop idols and liked it. :smalltongue:

Were you at least underage female Finnish mutant ninja pop idols?

[Coidzor]

Were you at least underage female Finnish mutant ninja pop idols?

I know my heart's just going to be broken if they weren't.

[AMFV]

The issue is that there is not a lot of games where male playing players have to bend to fit the setting, but lots of people are arguing historical reasons for female characters to be barred from some games.

There are lots of settings where male players might have to bend or change to play in the setting depending on what setting we're talking about, and those are fine too, the point is that historical realism is going to be of different importance in differing genres, there are genres where playing historical realism are very important (World War 2 stuff is usually very concerned with this and is why I brought it up), and those where it's not (fantasy, or superhero type stuff springs to mind).


But that's just it. The setting is, or should be, malleable. The setting is under the control of the DM. If the DM wanted to make one gender or another available or banned within the setting, he could.

If you're doing a campaign with the Imperial Chinese Army, wherein it is treason for a woman to serve, you can nonetheless permit a Hua Mulan. If you have a medieval Europe campaign, where strong women are seen as witches, you can still have an army led by Jeanne d'Arc. And if you are running a game of politics, where women are seen as little more than bargaining chips to be married off in exchange for political power, or trophies to hang from a man's arm, you may nonetheless find a Dowager Empress, an Elizabeth I, or even a more modern Margaret Thatcher.


But what about a modern military campaign? Or one set in World War 2, where faking is going to be nigh impossible, that's part of the problem, I believe in the earlier debates we stated that a medieval setting faking malehood was certainly an option. The settings we provided were World War 2, and Vietnam, both of which would be extremely difficult to fake.



In any setting where the roles of women are limited for historical reasons, you may nonetheless bend that rule as DM. The same holds true in reverse - even among the female society of the Amazons, Queen Hippolyta respected Heracles and gave him her girdle without resistance (although in some versions of the myth she was abducted). You can find a role for either gender if you simply try hard enough, and are willing to do so.

This is not again true, if you're playing as paratroopers in Operation Market Garden, there is really no rule where a woman could continually occupy the party. There are few settings that would overtly restrict gender.

Furthermore in certain settings, being exceptional is not the point or desirable, as I've pointed out, it's more a genre convention than anything else, meaning that in certain genres it wouldn't fit to have a woman bucking the trend in society.


I'm going to make a bold statement here, which might be a bit controversial, but off the top of my head I can't think of a counterpoint to it: The only reason for a DM to ban characters based upon gender, absolutely and as a blanket rule, is that the DM wishes it to be so. I can think of no other reason - historical accuracy, setting or societal integrity, plot devices - that could not be bent or massaged to allow for an exception, albeit one that might entail penalties.

Well explain a role for a female in Operation Market Garden and I'll agree.



I am not arguing that a Mulan, a Joan, or an Elizabeth would be played exactly the same as a Hercules or Charlemagne. Where history or society dislikes or minimizes the role of women, playing a female character carries certain challenges. Rather, I am arguing that these characters should be playable, despite these challenges, and I can think of no reason to refuse them that cannot be adjusted short of DM fiat.

There are settings where that is simply not the case, very few, but they do exist.

[Scootaloo]

My characters tend to be female, and for one important reason... They're easier to visualize.

I regularly conduct "trawls" to collect fantasy art that I can use in my campaigns. Not just as inspiration for personal characters but also NPC's, locations, the like - I have literary talent, but my artistic skill amounts to eating crayons and then licking paper.

What I've discovered is that there's really no limits to females in fantasy settings... of course there's the usual caveat of boob-ant-butt poses, impractical armor, and antigravity endowments... but once you pare away the obvious cheesecake, there's a lot of excellent and varied stuff, images that you can look at and draw a variety of stories from. While there's a general trend towards women as spellcasters over combat-sorts, the split is something like 60/40.

Depictions of males however, really only have two varieties.

The first is Power Fantasy Guy; he comes in two varieties, Muscledude and the Gekko. The first is usually depicted in either nothing but a belt or armor that makes Warhammer look practical. he's lugging around a bigass weapon and, roughly half the time, there's a severed head somewhere in the image. The Gekko is rarer in fantasy art (though is the dominant one of male modeling IRL) decked out in five-digit suits, with a face desperately in need of punching. Fantasy versions tend towards the "dark and edgy and tragic and dark and gritty" types. Whatever the strain, Power Fantasy Guy never smiles. He's always glowering at something, either something off-camera, or more often his own crotch (which I'm sure has implications with the power fantasy thing.)

The second is the Bishounen. This does not need further elaboration.

For an extreme example of this principle, I invite you all to go through dwarf images on DeviantArt. You have two dwarves, and ONLY two.
- Hairy the Hulk, clad in animal skin and / or iron bricks, lugging around a weapon that weighs at least 300 pounds.
- Thorin Oakenshield, as drawn by a girl using one hand and half her attention span. or sometimes Kili. Often making out with Bilbo.

In addition the combat-to-caster rario is HEAVILY tilted in favor of combat, something like 80/5, with hte remaining 15% being a slurry of the two (Wizard! With giant axe! And two swords! Riding a dragon! PLAYING ELECTRIC GUITAR!")

This isn't to say there's no way to make male characters around this problem - I've done so plenty. But it's much easier to have a picture and say "they look something like this" rather than read a description aloud. And if every man is Kromgor the Kick-Asser, sitting atop his pile of skulls and bitches, it gets really dull, really fast. It's easier to draw inspiration from a broad variety of representations, than the trio of Muscle Jerk, Rich Jerk, Generic Anime Guy.

[Alroy_Kamenwati]

@scootaloo: I've noticed that too. It's kinda weird, but I do tend to find better art if I search for girls with rarely a decent male. Why are fantasy guys so dark and moody I'd rather them be cheerful:smallannoyed:

Oh hi it's the OP again xD I occasionally drop by my forum :smalltongue:

[PersonMan]

Well explain a role for a female in Operation Market Garden and I'll agree.

A cartographer of the region, who spent years in the areas around the Ruhrgebiet and in the Netherlands, blessed with a photographic memory (you want a true-to-life painting of bridge X, which is thousands of miles away? No problem, give me a few hours) and an expert at finding their way around the area. They know which roads to take, when, and how to cut off German forces and avoid unnecessary fighting. They've already proven their expertise in earlier fighting, when they found a small group of Americans and led them around German fortifications to get their wounded back to safety.

Meet Amalia van der Meer, cartographer, painter, cool under fire, and definitely a woman.

---

This is assuming you don't want to go for something like 'apart from its official objective, the operation had a goal to find and eliminate a hidden German special weapons depot in the region. Other such depots were rigged to explode, however, so an expert on that kind of explosives is required. Someone with a knack for breaking into these kinds of places. The only one on hand, though, is Amalia van der Meer' or similar.

I mean, it may just be my recent watching of Captain America, but it's not like "there was a whole other level to WWII that was hidden from the general public" is a new thing. Small, elite troops who need experts on topics X, Y and Z are the perfect place to put a woman because they can't afford to just say no because of her gender.

[Alroy_Kamenwati]

I wanna like your post so many times it'd explode the internet. :biggrin:

[AMFV]

A cartographer of the region, who spent years in the areas around the Ruhrgebiet and in the Netherlands, blessed with a photographic memory (you want a true-to-life painting of bridge X, which is thousands of miles away? No problem, give me a few hours) and an expert at finding their way around the area. They know which roads to take, when, and how to cut off German forces and avoid unnecessary fighting. They've already proven their expertise in earlier fighting, when they found a small group of Americans and led them around German fortifications to get their wounded back to safety.

Meet Amalia van der Meer, cartographer, painter, cool under fire, and definitely a woman.

I'm not sure if this is a real person or not, but I can no record of her if so. The problem is that she wouldn't be able to accompany the team on more than a few periphery missions and it's damn unlikely that they'd be comfortable with her in combat, if you're trying for realism, something that military history buffs tend to be obsessed with it's just not workable.



---

This is assuming you don't want to go for something like 'apart from its official objective, the operation had a goal to find and eliminate a hidden German special weapons depot in the region. Other such depots were rigged to explode, however, so an expert on that kind of explosives is required. Someone with a knack for breaking into these kinds of places. The only one on hand, though, is Amalia van der Meer' or similar.

I mean, it may just be my recent watching of Captain America, but it's not like "there was a whole other level to WWII that was hidden from the general public" is a new thing. Small, elite troops who need experts on topics X, Y and Z are the perfect place to put a woman because they can't afford to just say no because of her gender.

Well they would say no though, there's not many scenarios where that sort of expertise would be required, and then few where that expertise would be required would not require it in the long term. Furthermore you'd be defying military genre conventions, it'd be like putting a female lead in Saving Private Ryan, which would have caused massive outrage.

The problem is that we are attributing same genre conventions to genres that don't necessarily have them. Now I have no problem with somebody that doesn't want to play a game that's not involving their preferred gender of play, but then the World War 2 simulation game may not be for them. Which is okay, but it's also okay if people want to run a World War 2 simulation game, or a game that would involve all female characters (I'm sure that those could exist, there is a High School Girls game I believe, which was mentioned, maybe). But that's not really an indictment of sexism, rather of adherence to genre conventions, which may or may not be sexist or necessary depending on your genre.

Playing the tough Victorian lady who defies all of her normal restrictions is absolutely amazing for something that occurs in an adventure genre, or an a heroic fantasy genre. But it's less appropriate for supernatural horror, or for a strict period piece, if you're playing Jane Austin D20, then you are going to follow the genre conventions of that time (which actually makes me wonder if there is a Jane Austin Roleplaying game, that could be pretty fun!)

[Alroy_Kamenwati]

Why would a tough Victorian debutant not be awesome or allowed in horror? They work great in Call of Cthulhu games. I understand the WW2 implications, but you could have a Russian spy a la Black Widow working with American forces. I know the British had female communication officers you could play her, plus mission to mission games are hardly role-playing games and more like WW2 40k :smallannoyed:

Rather a 'getting out behind enemy lines' WW2 seems like more fun which could allow for civilians or otherwise mixed forces.

[AMFV]

Why would a tough Victorian debutant not be awesome or allowed in horror? They work great in Call of Cthulhu games. I understand the WW2 implications, but you could have a Russian spy a la Black Widow working with American forces. I know the British had female communication officers you could play her, plus mission to mission games are hardly role-playing games and more like WW2 40k :smallannoyed:

You could completely have mission to mission games. I'm sure that it's been done. The tough Victorian debutant works well in horror where the players are supposed to win, but not so well in horror where the players are supposed to be typical people placed into terrible situations, which honestly is most horror.

Female auxiliaries were not on the front lines or really even close to them, and Black Widow being a marvel character means that if you're going for a military style roleplaying game, she's not acceptable, if you're going for a marvel type take on WW2 I'm sure you could work that in, but that isn't our hypothetical.



Rather a 'getting out behind enemy lines' WW2 seems like more fun which could allow for civilians or otherwise mixed forces.

Possibly, although again not our hypothetical. I'm arguing that "The DM needs to change the setting to accommodate female characters or he's a terrible DM and a sexist" isn't true in all scenarios or even in all genres. If I'm playing a "Girls High School" game and somebody wants to play a male character I don't need to accommodate that one person, the game just might not be right for them.

[Alroy_Kamenwati]

You never win in Call of Cthulhu. Plus you don't have to win to be a girl. And women are ordinary people, she could be someone's sister, wife, aunt, next door neighbor, etc. Not saying there wouldn't be prejudice, but if a character doesn't face challenges then what's the fun?

Concerning the Russian spy business I only used black widow because she's easily recognisable rather than me googling some Russian spy nobody has heard of and using her as a reference. It's recorded that there were highly skilled women in their military service on the ground. So yes it does count. She could be a double agent or something.

And that's what other people were saying, I was merely arguing their potential existence in certain types of rps. The original meaning of the thread was to gain some confidence in asking if I could be a woman in a Star Wars role-playing game, not to call dms who don't like it sexist. If it made my group uncomfortable I wouldn't play a girl. I don't know where the sexism came in :smallconfused:

[Alroy_Kamenwati]

Also here: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/spies/a/women_spies_ww_3.htm

Just a list a female spies in the world wars. Just in case you want a list of references.

Also this again is to prove the point of existence not saying I should be to demand a gender in a time period because I find their existence. If my DM doesn't like it then that's okay.

[AMFV]

You never win in Call of Cthulhu. Plus you don't have to win to be a girl. And women are ordinary people, she could be someone's sister, wife, aunt, next door neighbor, etc. Not saying there wouldn't be prejudice, but if a character doesn't face challenges then what's the fun?

Well that's true, I'm not saying that women couldn't be included in a CoC game set in Victorian times, I'm saying that an exceptional woman in those circumstances could violate the expectations of the game and genre.



Concerning the Russian spy business I only used black widow because she's easily recognisable rather than me googling some Russian spy nobody has heard of and using her as a reference. It's recorded that there were highly skilled women in their military service on the ground. So yes it does count. She could be a double agent or something.

Well you could have a Russian present, in a Russian game, which is why I didn't provide that as an example. But in an American Airborne Ranger game it might be different. I'm saying that there are circumstances that might not allow for it. They certainly would be reticent to let a Russian deploy with them, and there is zero chance they'd let a Russian woman. So there are scenarios where that could be setting restrictive without being problematic.



And that's what other people were saying, I was merely arguing their potential existence in certain types of rps. The original meaning of the thread was to gain some confidence in asking if I could be a woman in a Star Wars role-playing game, not to call dms who don't like it sexist. If it made my group uncomfortable I wouldn't play a girl. I don't know where the sexism came in :smallconfused:

There were sveral people that stated that a DM that would not allow any character of any gender to be sexist. I was just positing that this was not the case, and suggesting that the DM should accommodate any gender isn't necessarily appropriate for all games.


Also here: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/spies/a/women_spies_ww_3.htm

Just a list a female spies in the world wars. Just in case you want a list of references.

Also this again is to prove the point of existence not saying I should be to demand a gender in a time period because I find their existence. If my DM doesn't like it then that's okay.

Well few of them were likely involved in the missions that I'm discussing, relaying information and being a spy is a different type of game than fighting across Europe, now neither are bad games, but I'm saying that those are different.

[Alroy_Kamenwati]

Well exceptional personality wise is different from exceptional ability wise. Most players, at least that I play with, have exceptional personalities which is what makes their characters interesting.

In that scenario yes, but how I interpreted what you were saying was over arcing ww2 settings which is what I based my response on. This is also related to the next response you made. Sorry quoting is hard on a tablet.

Also the GM is the last say if (s)he doesn't like it then adapt or find another group. My GM and group all agreed unanimously that I could. If they didn't agree then I would ask why and if it's because they are uncomfortable then why should I push it?

[AMFV]

Well exceptional personality wise is different from exceptional ability wise. Most players, at least that I play with, have exceptional personalities which is what makes their characters interesting.


Well that's one thing, and I think not a problem, but having a woman who actively defies conventions of the time could be a problem in the setting. For example in our aforementioned Jane Austin Roleplay.



In that scenario yes, but how I interpreted what you were saying was over arcing ww2 settings which is what I based my response on. This is also related to the next response you made. Sorry quoting is hard on a tablet.


It's no problem, I was just presenting a setting that was less open to people of both genders. The High School Girls game is another example of the same sort of game.



Also the GM is the last say if (s)he doesn't like it then adapt or find another group. My GM and group all agreed unanimously that I could. If they didn't agree then I would ask why and if it's because they are uncomfortable then why should I push it?

I don't think that it's a problem to want to play as a character of a different gender in games where it fits. But you should also understand that somebody may have a problem with it, and while they may not have good reasons, not all prejudices are that simple.

[Scow2]

Well you could have a Russian present, in a Russian game, which is why I didn't provide that as an example. But in an American Airborne Ranger game it might be different. I'm saying that there are circumstances that might not allow for it. They certainly would be reticent to let a Russian deploy with them, and there is zero chance they'd let a Russian woman. So there are scenarios where that could be setting restrictive without being problematic.
What if her name is Tanya Adams?

[AMFV]

What if her name is Tanya Adams?

Still not a real world scenario, which is what you'd want in a real world based military game. I'm not running one, I'm merely pointing out that it wouldn't be an unreasonable restriction. Also, having it isn't necessarily a sign of bad DMing.

[Frozen_Feet]

Were you at least underage female Finnish mutant ninja pop idols?

Much to Coidzor's lament, no. There is no combat in Tähti. Well, save for the possibility of kicking your sleazy middle-age manager in the crotch if he tries to cop a feel.

[AMFV]

Much to Coidzor's lament, no. There is no combat in Tähti. Well, save for the possibility of kicking your sleazy middle-age manager in the crotch if he tries to cop a feel.

And nobody's created a homebrew combat mod? It seems like killing each other is really the end state of that sort of game, since you'll all have that pop drama stuff. Although an alternative combat system could be just as good as we'll say the "social combat" system in a theoretical Jane Austin game would be. I really really wish that game was a thing now.

[Red Fel]

I think one assumption I see in your posts, AM, is that - to use the example of Operation Market Garden (which I'll abbreviate as OMG for both convenience and humor) - a campaign based around OMG would be primarily, if not exclusively, combat-based. I will acknowledge that OMG, like many operations, had a substantial combat component, and that it would have been entirely implausible to have women in the standard combat unit.

Where I disagree with your assumption, however, is this: a campaign based around OMG need not focus on, or deal exclusively with, the combat. There were other parts to it - intelligence-gathering, scouting, landings, logistics and communications. OMG was not a series of combat engagements in a vacuum. Women may have been absent from the battlefield, but this does not mean that they were entirely absent, or had to be.

Suppose your PCs airlifted in near a village or town, such as Horst or Nijmegen. Depending on the level of military activity and anticipation of the landing, the town might be full of soldiers, or it might be evacuated or under curfew. Or there might be civilians freely roaming the streets, including, potentially, some dissidents. As the PCs sweep into town, clearing it and fortifying against attack, perhaps they encounter a local girl assaulting a lone SS. By some fortune, she speaks English - and perhaps the PCs, trained for combat, don't speak German (or Dutch, if your force is in the Netherlands). She might insist on coming with them, as someone who knows the area and speaks the language. And how can our boys refuse the request of such a pretty gal, who can clearly hold her own in a scuffle - assuming, of course, she gets out of sight once guns go off.

Not all of the campaign will be fought on battlefields. There will be time for recon, for recovery, for scouting and for getting support from local dissidents. A woman is just as capable of this as a man is.

I never said that a female character would have to occupy the same roles as male ones. In fact, I explicitly pointed out that circumstances could render this impossible. However, the fact that women were not airlifted in as troops, and did not fight on the fields, does not preclude female characters from seeing any screen time. There were women there, in varying capacities. The fact that they would be relegated to a support role does not mean that they could not be played at all.

[AMFV]

I think one assumption I see in your posts, AM, is that - to use the example of Operation Market Garden (which I'll abbreviate as OMG for both convenience and humor) - a campaign based around OMG would be primarily, if not exclusively, combat-based. I will acknowledge that OMG, like many operations, had a substantial combat component, and that it would have been entirely implausible to have women in the standard combat unit.

Where I disagree with your assumption, however, is this: a campaign based around OMG need not focus on, or deal exclusively with, the combat. There were other parts to it - intelligence-gathering, scouting, landings, logistics and communications. OMG was not a series of combat engagements in a vacuum. Women may have been absent from the battlefield, but this does not mean that they were entirely absent, or had to be.

Suppose your PCs airlifted in near a village or town, such as Horst or Nijmegen. Depending on the level of military activity and anticipation of the landing, the town might be full of soldiers, or it might be evacuated or under curfew. Or there might be civilians freely roaming the streets, including, potentially, some dissidents. As the PCs sweep into town, clearing it and fortifying against attack, perhaps they encounter a local girl assaulting a lone SS. By some fortune, she speaks English - and perhaps the PCs, trained for combat, don't speak German (or Dutch, if your force is in the Netherlands). She might insist on coming with them, as someone who knows the area and speaks the language. And how can our boys refuse the request of such a pretty gal, who can clearly hold her own in a scuffle - assuming, of course, she gets out of sight once guns go off.

Not all of the campaign will be fought on battlefields. There will be time for recon, for recovery, for scouting and for getting support from local dissidents. A woman is just as capable of this as a man is.

I never said that a female character would have to occupy the same roles as male ones. In fact, I explicitly pointed out that circumstances could render this impossible. However, the fact that women were not airlifted in as troops, and did not fight on the fields, does not preclude female characters from seeing any screen time. There were women there, in varying capacities. The fact that they would be relegated to a support role does not mean that they could not be played at all.

True although this could be a serious issue for the DM in that it would require the splitting of the group and have certain people in the spotlight at different times. Which may work for some groups better than others. I think that was one of the pointed out problems, if the DM doesn't mind doing an intelligence thing for a bit, and the other players don't mind twiddling their thumbs and roleplaying amongst themselves while they do this, this could work. But I could see that being a significant set back for the DM in creating a game.

Mostly because the inequal screen time, would be a problem in most groups. I'd imagine more people would play an opposite gendered person than be okay with that. Unless of course it's a developed mechanic in the system, which could be the case.

[Red Fel]

True although this could be a serious issue for the DM in that it would require the splitting of the group and have certain people in the spotlight at different times. Which may work for some groups better than others. I think that was one of the pointed out problems, if the DM doesn't mind doing an intelligence thing for a bit, and the other players don't mind twiddling their thumbs and roleplaying amongst themselves while they do this, this could work. But I could see that being a significant set back for the DM in creating a game.

Mostly because the inequal screen time, would be a problem in most groups. I'd imagine more people would play an opposite gendered person than be okay with that. Unless of course it's a developed mechanic in the system, which could be the case.

And I agree - it's a challenge for the DM and for the players. It forces division of screen time, an expansion of the story and mechanics, and perhaps works better when you have a co-DM set-up. Certainly it would require more understanding players. Nonetheless, it is possible, if not ideal, to work a female character into a military campaign, even a more modern one, if the DM (and, I concede, the players) can be willing to put in the extra legwork.

[AMFV]

And I agree - it's a challenge for the DM and for the players. It forces division of screen time, an expansion of the story and mechanics, and perhaps works better when you have a co-DM set-up. Certainly it would require more understanding players. Nonetheless, it is possible, if not ideal, to work a female character into a military campaign, even a more modern one, if the DM (and, I concede, the players) can be willing to put in the extra legwork.

Well if we concede that asking for the extra screentime and work on the part of the DM may or may not be an unreasonable request I'm definitely with you on this. The original World War 2 example was actually brought up because people had suggested that there was no setting where a DM would be non-sexist for not agreeing to include female players way back in the depths of time when this thread was young. As long as this is not an expectation, but rather something that could be done, I see no problem with it.

Now to the next mission, finding a Jane Austin Roleplaying game, which I, as a heterosexual male will never be able to ever have anybody see me playing.

[Alroy_Kamenwati]

I don't know what Jane Austen is, but you should make a d20 game for the series with great social combat rules. I would help if you turn it into a project.

[AMFV]

I don't know what Jane Austen is, but you should make a d20 game for the series with great social combat rules. I would help if you turn it into a project.

She wrote Persuasion, Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, and Emma.

[Alroy_Kamenwati]

As an English major I feel really...REALLY dumb. Brain fart x10000000000. Alright, yeah, let's make this system

[Eldest]

Now to the next mission, finding a Jane Austin Roleplaying game, which I, as a heterosexual male will never be able to ever have anybody see me playing.

...what does your sexuality have to do with liking or disliking Jane Austin? Or gender, for that matter?

[AMFV]

...what does your sexuality have to do with liking or disliking Jane Austin? Or gender, for that matter?

It was a joke, probably in poor taste, playing off expected gender roles. I would completely play a Jane Austin game and wouldn't care who saw me. But I still felt like making the joke.

[Eldest]

It was a joke, probably in poor taste, playing off expected gender roles. I would completely play a Jane Austin game and wouldn't care who saw me. But I still felt like making the joke.

Ah. ok. Her work was not to my taste, so I would not be playing that game, but eh. That's just me and my dislike of the layers of sarcasm in her literature.

[Avilan the Grey]

"Dude can play an elf who's going to live several thousand years, and cast spells that let him fly and shoot lightning, and he's fine, but the moment you make him a girl, he starts talking about historical reality."

Really, in historical games, the nonexistence or inappropriateness of women is way overstated.

Not sure if I understand you correctly, but no sane GM would allow Elves in an historical setting. So I don't get your point.

[LibraryOgre]

Not sure if I understand you correctly, but no sane GM would allow Elves in an historical setting. So I don't get your point.

Ars Magica. That elf might not live several thousand years, but he could easily fly and throw lightning.

[Avilan the Grey]

Ars Magica.

Keywords:
Historical setting.

Not Quasi-historical, Alternative-historical or Alternate-reality-based.

[LibraryOgre]

Keywords:
Historical setting.

Not Quasi-historical, Alternative-historical or Alternate-reality-based.

There are precious few RPGs based on such a setting, however, and even fewer that adhere to it for long. Heck, I don't think I can name any truly historical RPGs off the top of my head.

[AMFV]

Ars Magica. That elf might not live several thousand years, but he could easily fly and throw lightning.

Well medieval settings actually are quite weird as far as gender tropes go, since there wasn't quite as much sexism, mostly because you didn't have the agricultural revolution to permit it, well insofar as sexism involves work related discrimination at least in the lower classes. Which is interesting, there were certainly women who defied tropes and became warriors.

The reason why I was providing the World War 2 example, is because it is one of the only examples I could develop where a sexist setting would clearly not be sexist on the part of the DM, but rather a fundamental characteristic of the game. Although there really aren't many settings like that they do exist.

[Avilan the Grey]

There are precious few RPGs based on such a setting, however, and even fewer that adhere to it for long. Heck, I don't think I can name any truly historical RPGs off the top of my head.

I know; I would accept most setting that only has non-humans as part of the masquerade.

Call Of Chthulu for example, is what I consider historically correct enough for me to get irritated if people go too far out of the setting.

[Leon]

As a Tall Male human I'm more likely to want to play a Short Female non human for a Character since its nothing related to what every day life is like.

Last campaign i played in started with 4 Male players and 3 of them chose to play Male Human PCs, I chose Female Halfling and got looked at funny by everyone else and responded with least its not boring like your 3 choices.

Sometimes of course there is no option but to play a particular race or gender but where possible i like to play as the opposite. In the realms of Roleplay there is nothing that is commonly encountered that one gender would be able to do more than the other could.
Some Character concepts just fit one gender better or are inspired by Art (a lot of mine are)

Maybe its that people that i play with regularly are a cut above the general population in maturity but i cant ever recall anything sexual related hampering (or even occurring) the assorted adventures. Just realized that not true ~ there was one bit in one campaign where i was playing the only Male Human in the party and a pair of Female Human NPCs were being aggressively advanced on him with a bit of spell aid. In the end adamant refusal and a good Willpower roll won out. Sexy ladies to him were not as interesting as rare and exotic books.

[Axiomatic]

I came across this mere seconds ago, and I immediately thought of this thread.

http://i.imgur.com/kL9Hm6N.jpg

[paddyfool]

The first time I tried a female character (3.5 rogue, intended to be both the party face and a supporting combatant, in a party with two fighty melee types) went badly for a whole number of reasons (a fellow player really disconcerted me by having his character try to hit on mine repeatedly, the character was really poorly optimised as, for instance, I was pretty new to the game and hadn't twigged that with no casters in the party, skills like UMD might be a particularly good idea, etc.). Cue lots of being ineffective with a rapier and a really odd group dynamic. I'm wondering now if on some level this whole experience put me off building female characters, even though only part of it was even related to the character being female.

Aside from that, I've only ever played one in a pregen, and built another (a wise old cleric) for a game that never happened, but that's been about it. Generally I've stuck to male characters.

Maybe I should look to get out of this rut soonish.

[Angel Bob]

My group has four guys and three girls, which is one of the reasons I'm always surprised to hear that apparently girls playing D&D is so rare. :smalltongue: However, this doesn't mean there aren't a lot of sexist jokes and remarks. One of the guys, and a very good friend to all of us, really loves to make such jokes; I think it started off as a way to get everyone's goat and has since become a fully ingrained habit. His character also tries to flirt with all the elven girls he can find, and recently interrupted my exposition-via-female-NPC with "Is she attractive?" :smallannoyed: Don't worry, I'll fix this yet.

Anyway, we've had two instances of (male) character death followed by rolling up a new, female PC for a change; each time, that guy tried to crack jokes, but ignoring him for the first session with that PC was enough to shut him up. Besides that, there's no real difference when a guy plays a female character in our group. I played the first one: admittedly, she was a bit of a ditz, but that was because my previous character had been a brilliant genius, and I wanted some variety in roleplaying. Also, it led to a lot of ridiculous hijinks. The second instance was absolutely no change whatsoever, because that player RPs all of his PCs exactly the same way: self-assured, brilliant masters of arcane might, and usually the only sane person in the party. His latest character is just that, to the point where I sometimes forget the character is anything different to his previous PC and thus use male pronouns. Whoops.

Incidentally, one of the girls in our group is playing a male character, but since this character is also a psychopathic druid trapped in grizzly bear form, his gender is one of the least interesting things about him.

[paddyfool]

Incidentally, one of the girls in our group is playing a male character, but since this character is also a psychopathic druid trapped in grizzly bear form, his gender is one of the least interesting things about him.

Now, as curses/consequences go, I rather like this one... all of the power of a druid wildshaped into a bear (aside from the ability to wildshape out), but some interesting social / lack of opposable thumbs and other consequences to manage.

It's a little less interesting if it's simply an awakened bear, mind you.

[Frozen_Feet]

And nobody's created a homebrew combat mod? It seems like killing each other is really the end state of that sort of game, since you'll all have that pop drama stuff. Although an alternative combat system could be just as good as we'll say the "social combat" system in a theoretical Jane Austin game would be. I really really wish that game was a thing now.

The game works via cracking open fortune cookies and using interpretations of them to direct its course. (Alternatively you use I-ching, or dice.) Though I suppose if you made your own cookies... But that's less brewing, and more baking.

Though now I'm considering a variant using some drinking game, like "I've never...".

[Coidzor]

Now, as curses/consequences go, I rather like this one... all of the power of a druid wildshaped into a bear (aside from the ability to wildshape out), but some interesting social / lack of opposable thumbs and other consequences to manage.

It's a little less interesting if it's simply an awakened bear, mind you.

That's partially just because it's been done (http://i.imgur.com/wkZhp.png).


And nobody's created a homebrew combat mod? It seems like killing each other is really the end state of that sort of game, since you'll all have that pop drama stuff. Although an alternative combat system could be just as good as we'll say the "social combat" system in a theoretical Jane Austin game would be. I really really wish that game was a thing now.

Obviously it'd make use of the Celebrity Deathmatch combat rules. XD