Gender and sexuality diversity in RPG settings

[JNAProductions]

Charts, text, blurbs...
I have seen some reference books without art. It isso much easier because I don't have to read around images. Artwork , barring monster images in their entries, has zero purpose. And the art is always so bad too. Especially modern artists who want to depict "feminine empowerment." The cleric iconic, the rogue iconic and the sorceress iconic in pathfinder for example are all absolutely ugly to me.

I want rules, not art. I can fish for art on many websites. I buy a game for rules. Take your ****ty art and put it somewhere it will be helpful, or at least somewhere I am not forced to buy and look at it as I peruse the rules.

Other people feel differently. Talakeal wants to include art, so let him include art. Especially since art is very much a subjective thing-the PFSRD pictures for the Cleric, Rogue, and Sorcerer all look pretty cool to me!

I also question what you mean by putting feminine empowerment in quotes. The pictures I saw (again off the PFSRD, so it might be different in the hardcopy books) were a man who should probably have sleeves (Cleric), a woman who has flaming hands (Sorcerer), and a woman atop a gargoyle ready to snipe someone (Rogue). I could certainly critique the armor choices (Sorceress's pants look pretty impractical for adventuring!) but it just shows adventurers ready to do adventuring things.

To Talakeal-good on you for working towards making something inclusive and welcoming! There's a place for gritty, bigoted, and all-around nasty settings, but equally, there's a place for good and bright settings, where people are treated fairly by one another, and it's on the outskirts of the world that adventure lies, not working against the system. Even if you include more grim and gritty elements, given my friend group, I really like you making the effort to have equality.

[Talakeal]

To Talakeal-good on you for working towards making something inclusive and welcoming! There's a place for gritty, bigoted, and all-around nasty settings, but equally, there's a place for good and bright settings, where people are treated fairly by one another, and it's on the outskirts of the world that adventure lies, not working against the system. Even if you include more grim and gritty elements, given my friend group, I really like you making the effort to have equality.

Thanks! But, honestly, my setting is pretty dark, so your praise might be misplaced, it just happens to be one which is not patriarchal and has access to alchemical transfigurations.

Charts, text, blurbs...
I have seen some reference books without art. It is so much easier because I don't have to read around images. Artwork , barring monster images in their entries, has zero purpose. And the art is always so bad too. Especially modern artists who want to depict "feminine empowerment." The cleric iconic, the rogue iconic and the sorceress iconic in pathfinder for example are all absolutely ugly to me.

I want rules, not art. I can fish for art on many websites. I buy a game for rules. Take your ****ty art and put it somewhere it will be helpful, or at least somewhere I am not forced to buy and look at it as I peruse the rules.

That's certainly an unusual take.

Quality of RPG art obviously varies, but I can't think of any book where it is consistently crappy or actively detrimental, although I am sure I could find one if I looked.

But I do agree that the appeal of looking at pretty artwork should not be a selling point of an RPG. In my experience it serves to primary purposes, to break up the text and to serve as an illustration.

I also agree that monsters are where illustration is most important (and for my book the bestiary has more art than the rest of the book combined as a result) but I don't see why illustrations aren't also helpful for equipment, landscapes, notable NPCs, player classes and races, etc. Of course, if you are buying a game purely for the rules and don't care about the setting either I could also see how that would be unimportant.

But a lot of time artwork is just there to make the page flow and to avoid having to deal with having blank spaces on pages or, even worse, walls of text with no clear delineation.

It is worth noting that a number of ancient empires were collections of mostly-autonomous city-states who all bowed to and paid regular tribute to the ruler of the capitol city, who was the emperor. Other city-states were ruled by kings who acknowledged the emperor as their superior.

They often had limited Imperial laws (though there were exceptions), and within their city-states, kings were still sovereign, aside from whatever Imperial laws required of them.

If your emperor does not have a personal fief, but rules the land by delegating to the Paladins, it's pretty iconically Feudal. If he has his own dominion and the Paladins are more federated under him while being feudal kings of their territories in their own rights, it sounds like an empire of kingdoms rather than city-states.

The Empress does not have a personal fief (well, aside from a small island at the heart of the Empire which pays no taxes), but in theory the entire continent is her property.

The idea of autonomous city states which send tribute to a central power is much more like how the Warlord's rule the frontier in my setting.

Disclaimer: I am NOT a professional historian.

System of delegation sounds a bit like idealized-feudal which never existed IRL. Usually you'll have both great nobles and small nobles answerable directly to the King/sovereign, down to Knights who had no overlord other than King. Depending on time and place you can have weak and poor Dukes who may had have no Barons or Count under them; Counts and Barons wealthier and more powerful than Dukes; sometimes both. Even if Duke were afforded a higher place in formal ceremonies it did not count for much.

I also recommend to change your nomenclature : Barons governing counties? Seriously? Call those noblemen Counts; or call the land unit baronies; or invent original name for one or both (like you did with Paladins), but do not do that. Is that because sub units of England and the US are called counties despite having no counts? Also: generic Lord may be fine, but unless you want to invoke something at least superficially similar to the post-industrial society you may not have enough towns to have Lords in each "county".

I was trying to give the cliff notes version.

Yes, counts rule counties in my setting; that was an artifact in my post of starting to type out the separate systems for rural and urban areas and then deciding it was irrelevant to the post and deleting half of it.

And yeah, there are probably places where the system breaks down and links in the chain are missing.

I also think that even if you imagine something stricter regulated, like the Roman Empire (at times) you still have too many layers. It's not like 6-layered chain of vassalage cannot exist but it cannot be typical. Neither in Europe nor in the Middle East you'll find such strict organization (I cannot speak about China). So reduce the number of superiors above an average town (unless the Empire is world-spanning AND highly bureaucratic; but in this case why the feudal titles?).

It seems to match what we have in real life; most countries have 3-5 levels of government (town, county, state, federal for us in the US), and then you lock the nations together into an Empire.

The Empire is world spanning and somewhat bureaucratic, the reason they hold on to the trappings of feudalism is that they claim their authority from their descent from King Arthur's court and use their superior breeding and code of honor as justifications for why a hereditary nobility is superior to a democratically elected government.

Now about removal from power: if they have the possibility of "stripped of their position at any time" (going by your previous examples not necessary because of treason or even gross incompetence) is definitely not feudal at all; especially if you say that a direct superior can do it (instead of the matter going straight to the top and decision being made by the sovereign). Also: council of their peers - what exactly that implies - all their colleagues under the same superior or some separate board (whether created for each separate case like a jury or acting like some sort of committee on a semi-permanent basis)? And do you need that council and superior to agree or each one has the power of removal independently?

Finally I'd say that a possibility of being removed from power that easily doesn't leave much place for federalism either. Oh, difference in laws and organization can still exists but if Powers That Be can remove at any time (for example by firing subordinates until they agree to change the laws to what the superior says) then federalism is not enshrined in the law.

Nobles are above the law, but follow a code of honor and a series of oaths, one of which is to obey their superior. Others include not taking bribes and not comfiting what we would consider war crimes.

Nobles who are found to have violated their code can be stripped of their title either by their superior or a vote taken by their fellows. So, for example, if a Duke has 20 barons under him, one of the barons could be stripped of nobility by the Duke or by a vote of the other 19 barons. The Duke can overturn the vote of the barons. Likewise, the Duke's ruling can be overturned by the Paladin above him or a vote of his fellow duke's in the paladin's domain.

Note that being stripped of one's title is not necessarily permanent, they are often given a quest which they can complete to restore their honor; sometimes this is merely a formality similar to modern community service, usually it is an arduous or dangerous mission for the good of the Empire, and in severe cases it is suicide mission giving them the chance to die in combat, and in the most extreme violations they will be required to take their own life to regain their honor posthumously. If they fail their quest or simply abandon it, they are free to live their life normally as a commoner.

All in all: despite the titles and possibility of inheriting them sounds like a strongly centralized state, not a feudal realm. Nor the pyramidal structure sounds like absolutist state retaining the trappings of feudalism; rather it's a monarchy in which everything was organized from the centre.

Is there a typo somewhere in there? I am having trouble parsing this section.

Hm, how much do you know about Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire? Maybe that may work better as a prototype (and you don't need to match eastern aesthetics with that model).

I broadly know their history, but not a whole lot about their politics except that the word Byzantine has come to mean unnecessarily complicated. I could look into it, anything specific?

In my mind the setting is more like Genghis Khan's empire where you had a supremely gifted individual conquer a huge territory in a short time, only to see the whole thing crumble after his death. In this case you have a fantasy version of King Arthur* establishing a continent spanning Empire which has been slowly dying for a thousand years and desperately clinging to the memory of the good old days as a sort of fascist propaganda model.


*As opposed to England's absolutely real and historical King Arthur.

[Calthropstu]

Other people feel differently. Talakeal wants to include art, so let him include art. Especially since art is very much a subjective thing-the PFSRD pictures for the Cleric, Rogue, and Sorcerer all look pretty cool to me!

I also question what you mean by putting feminine empowerment in quotes. The pictures I saw (again off the PFSRD, so it might be different in the hardcopy books) were a man who should probably have sleeves (Cleric), a woman who has flaming hands (Sorcerer), and a woman atop a gargoyle ready to snipe someone (Rogue). I could certainly critique the armor choices (Sorceress's pants look pretty impractical for adventuring!) but it just shows adventurers ready to do adventuring things.

To Talakeal-good on you for working towards making something inclusive and welcoming! There's a place for gritty, bigoted, and all-around nasty settings, but equally, there's a place for good and bright settings, where people are treated fairly by one another, and it's on the outskirts of the world that adventure lies, not working against the system. Even if you include more grim and gritty elements, given my friend group, I really like you making the effort to have equality.

Not pfsrd.
look up seoni, kyra and merisiel. Their faces look like they're all squeezing out turds. The armor for the rogue looks about as useful as that turd. The cleric at least looks functional, but that face combined with the expression just makes me hear "I want to see your manager." And I don't think they could have possibly made a less functional or more slutty outfit for the sorceress.

But to note your statement: Yes, it's the prerogative of the op to put art in the publication. But the op asked for opinions. I gave mine.

[Witty Username]

So what if its standard? Whats your point? Its unjust. If your justification for ignoring it is that its normal, then I'm sorry, normality is overrated and often not the best thing to judge anything by. If we let normality be what determines what should be done about anything, nothing good would be done at all.

Spite? no. your mistake is not expecting the players to smash whatever plans you have as apart of the normal course of play. This includes societies. Its not that anyone sets out to specifically screw over what you have planned, its that you'll never be able to anticipate what they will or won't care about and what they are willing to do to make it happen. you can't excuse your lack of flexibility by guilt tripping players over things they don't like or care about no matter how hard you work on them. You want players to appreciate what you have done and not destroy the societies you made, that something you must work out beforehand, preferably by finding the players who like that sort of thing. your clearly talking about a different genre than I am anyways, so I don't see why your continuing this discussion when I'm talking about something more superheroic than you.

This is why when I make settings I like some amount of pre-smashed, that way it is less about shattering what I created and more about the players building what they envision.

I am a "yes but ..." kind of DM so smashing a corrupt society would require cunning, power and skill, but I don't mind world changing events.

[Saint-Just]

Yes, counts rule counties in my setting; that was an artifact in my post of starting to type out the separate systems for rural and urban areas and then deciding it was irrelevant to the post and deleting half of it.

And yeah, there are probably places where the system breaks down and links in the chain are missing.

...

Is there a typo somewhere in there? I am having trouble parsing this section.

...

In my mind the setting is more like Genghis Khan's empire where you had a supremely gifted individual conquer a huge territory in a short time, only to see the whole thing crumble after his death. In this case you have a fantasy version of King Arthur* establishing a continent spanning Empire which has been slowly dying for a thousand years and desperately clinging to the memory of the good old days as a sort of fascist propaganda model.

The section was intended to say: in my opinion it's not feudal in function (feudal is not strongly centralized), nor would I expect a centralized state which was feudal in the past to look like that. Your mention of Genghis Khan seems to confirm it for me: even if you ignore a reputation for bloodthirstiness Genghis was notable to breaking old institutions and traditions and rebuilding them to suit his purposes. Except if your Empire still maintains the aforementioned rigid structure it probably didn't crumble that much. So not feudal; rather a centralized bureaucracy in service of an absolutist (?) monarch with a large proportion of posts being heritable (de-facto it happened all the time IRL; some times it was even enshrined in law).

And about "there are probably places where the system breaks down" it also says about great centralization - normally you'd find exceptions outnumbering rules (especially if you consider such rules as "Baron is a vassal of a Count who is a vassal of a Duke" - it never was intended to function that way; pretty much like in modern military colonel usually doesn't command lieutenant-colonels and lieutenant-colonel doesn't command only majors).

It seems to match what we have in real life; most countries have 3-5 levels of government (town, county, state, federal for us in the US), and then you lock the nations together into an Empire.

In pre-modern times (especially with feudalism) you'd expect to see less levels. Three for a nation and fourth (Empress) above them would be more probable; though I wouldn't say that six are impossible - just not in a feudal realm.

The Empire is world spanning and somewhat bureaucratic, the reason they hold on to the trappings of feudalism is that they claim their authority from their descent from King Arthur's court and use their superior breeding and code of honor as justifications for why a hereditary nobility is superior to a democratically elected government.

Again, having nobility (aristocracy) does not necessarily implies feudalism.

Nobles are above the law, but follow a code of honor and a series of oaths, one of which is to obey their superior. Others include not taking bribes and not comfiting what we would consider war crimes.

Nobles who are found to have violated their code can be stripped of their title either by their superior or a vote taken by their fellows. So, for example, if a Duke has 20 barons under him, one of the barons could be stripped of nobility by the Duke or by a vote of the other 19 barons. The Duke can overturn the vote of the barons. Likewise, the Duke's ruling can be overturned by the Paladin above him or a vote of his fellow duke's in the paladin's domain.

In effect that means that it's superior's decision that matters and decision of peers is advisory (same goes for appealing to your superior's peers vs appealing to your superiors' superior).

I again will try to convey my impression (hopefully better phrased this time): It seems to me that it is a strongly centralized state, not a feudal one. I see nothing wrong with it on it's own merits, though (attaching the term "feudal" is surely out-of-setting decision). There are a plenty of examples IRL where you had to be a noblemen to take a position of power or trust but where rule of a king was absolute. And there are examples where governors, or deputies theoretically served at pleasure of the sovereign but in practice positions quickly became heritable. I am not sure why such not-feudal state would evolve trappings of feudal one but it doesn't matter all that much for me. Maybe just make sure that players understand that all lords have no real option to disobey because everyone are still big on (at least formal) obedience to superior - so they are powerful as long as state apparatus is satisfied with them but can lose their power otherwise.

[Talakeal]

@Saint-Just

Makes sense, thank you!

The ruling by a council of peers is supposed to occur when the superior is not available to make a judgement, for example if a baron back home goes rogue and needs to be removed from power asap but the duke is off leading a crusade a thousand miles away on the frontier.

[Yanagi]

On a related note, what is the proper ratio of male to female characters in artwork? A common sense answer would obviously be 50/50, I have had several people comment about how there are already too many drawings of women despite them only making up about 40% of the artwork.
To go further down that rabbit hole, do you think male gamers are more or less likely to be interested in a game with lots of female representation in the artwork? And vice versa?

Generally what I want from art in a guidebook is some visual cues about the material culture: what do people wear, how do people adorn themselves, how do these things vary by region, culture, class. A lot of times written descriptions don't really delve into this and it's easier to grok just looking at a picture. As a side effect this generally means I want about 50/50 representation.

Second part--I think for most guys I know female-representation-as-a-rate would be orthogonal to their interest: the larger setting's historical/cultural meta is more important than the art unto itself...but I have definitely been at tables with people who not like it and get very loud about it. But honestly I think the latter just aren't an audience worth trying to anticipate the market needs for, because in thirty years of gaming (1) they've always been upset about something, (2) what they uncritically consume is frequently bad...not morally bad, trite and cliched.

And, a little deeper, does it matter how sexualized the art is? I try and avoid out and out cheesecake (its tough, I have found that a lot of artists want to draw it even if not requested), but most of the illustrations are of conventionally attractive people regardless of gender. Likewise, while I am trying to display a wide array of clothing styles and body types, a large portion of the illustrations do depict people who are scantily clad or with unrealistic physiques.

Thanks!

...context matters?

Like, when you have figural art where the emphasis centers the person and their physicality, the result is poses and perspectives that can read as erotic even if they're not intended to be, and that's normal and fine and kind of unavoidable given the subjective reading of what sexualized is. Photographs of weightlifters are a pretty good example of what I mean: they can convey raw strength but also be read as erotic because of the partialism and the way gaze is applied to the body.

But this become cringey when there's a large scene--a battle, for example--where the poses should be naturalistic, conveying action and motion within the frozen moment, but instead the armatures still have poses.

That said...it seems like you've got players who do think about flirting and romancing NPCs, and if that's the case then absolutely there's a place for presenting those NPCs in a manner that conveys sexiness. Maybe that's unconventional compared to the very square portraiture (much of which utterly fails to convey character) of most splatbooks, but it ain't wrong.

[137beth]

Even though it isn't about TTRPGs, I'd seriously recommend reading the webcomic Never Satisfied by Taylor Robin. The world of the comic has pre-20th century levels of technology and a rigid class structure. But it also has no sexism of any sort. The main character is nonbinary (as are two of the major supporting characters) and that is never made into an issue even by the villains. Many of the cast are male or female, but we never find out their AGABs: for those with access to shapeshifting magic someone's AGAB is totally meaningless, and for everyone else it's a private matter that society doesn't care about.

[Talakeal]

So I have added the following to paragraphs to my setting description:

The first is from the section on family dynamics:

Atlantis was a wholly egalitarian society, and the Imperium and most of the lands that it once controlled are relatively free of enforced gender roles, and as such few people recognize a distinction between gender and biological sex.
Likewise, alchemy and transmutation magic mean that changing one’s sex is an achievable goal for any save those from the poorest or most conservative backgrounds. As a result, intersex or gender nonconforming people are far more likely to be met with confusion or religious awe than hostility or prejudice.

And this one in the section on medicine:

One skilled in the Atlantean sciences can also seamlessly change a character’s cosmetic details, including gender, although the rarity of such practitioners and the associated costs, risks, and social stigma mean it is not often undertaken lightly.

I know its not a lot, but its something. Any suggestions for improvement?

Even though it isn't about TTRPGs, I'd seriously recommend reading the webcomic Never Satisfied by Taylor Robin. The world of the comic has pre-20th century levels of technology and a rigid class structure. But it also has no sexism of any sort. The main character is nonbinary (as are two of the major supporting characters) and that is never made into an issue even by the villains. Many of the cast are male or female, but we never find out their AGABs: for those with access to shapeshifting magic someone's AGAB is totally meaningless, and for everyone else it's a private matter that society doesn't care about.

Thanks for the info!

I started to read through Never Satisfied, but I don't really have time to read the entire comic right now. Any chance you could give me a summary of how it handles gender (or link me to one?)

[Cluedrew]

I started to read through Never Satisfied, but I don't really have time to read the entire comic right now. Any chance you could give me a summary of how it handles gender (or link me to one?)

I haven't read it in a while but as I recall: Homosexual and non-binary people walk across screen and... there is no and it just happens. I think longest exchange about it is roughly: "What's her name?" "Their." "What's their name?" "You have no chance give up." Then it moves onto one friend teasing another friend about being transparent. Also one of the few stories that actually made me wonder if there are too many queer people. I decided no.

Spoiler: You might want to change that wording.

Show

[...]as such few people recognize a distinction between gender and biological sex.

Maybe its just me but this kind of reads as "people don't recognize their can be a difference" which I don't think is what you were going for.

Also can alchemists change hormone balance? I would quite call that cosmetic. Unless cosmetic just means "not represented in a stat line".

[Talakeal]

I haven't read it in a while but as I recall: Homosexual and non-binary people walk across screen and... there is no and it just happens. I think longest exchange about it is roughly: "What's her name?" "Their." "What's their name?" "You have no chance give up." Then it moves onto one friend teasing another friend about being transparent. Also one of the few stories that actually made me wonder if there are too many queer people. I decided no.

That's nice, but not really what I am looking for then. I was more wondering what it would mean to be non-binary would take in a world without strict gender roles and exploring why someone would identify that way in such a setting.

You might want to change that wording."]Maybe its just me but this kind of reads as "people don't recognize their can be a difference" which I don't think is what you were going for.

I think that is what I meant.

The dictionary defines gender as "either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones," but when the society does not have a culture which enforces gender differences, I am not sure how the second half of that definition would apply.

Also can alchemists change hormone balance? I would quite call that cosmetic. Unless cosmetic just means "not represented in a stat line".[/SPOILER]

Yes to both. Alchemists can change hormones and I mean cosmetic as in not affecting the crunch.

[Cluedrew]

That's nice, but not really what I am looking for then. I was more wondering what it would mean to be non-binary would take in a world without strict gender roles and exploring why someone would identify that way in such a setting.

I imagine like a red-head would feel in a world were there are no strict hair colour roles. Just because something is unimportant doesn't mean people will stop noticing it.

[Talakeal]

I imagine like a red-head would feel in a world were there are no strict hair colour roles. Just because something is unimportant doesn't mean people will stop noticing it.

But my question is, what is there to notice?

A better analogy would be a redhead in a world where everyone was bald. How could you even tell?

[Calthropstu]

In the real world, human reproduction tequires a sperm cell and an egg cell. That is an irrefutable, currently unalterable fact.

But in a fantasy game? If you want a world where reproduction consists of touching psuedopods, a kiss or tentacle battles to see who impregnates the other? Go for it.

But I advise against making whatever vision you have for "what society should be" as base game material. It GREATLY limits your ability to sell the actual product. Many will avoid such material because of it, and in some countries it could even cross into illegal territory.

Instead, build a base game that is as vanilla as possible in this regard to appeal to as wide an audience as possible and introduce such material in an optional supplement.

[Segev]

But my question is, what is there to notice?

A better analogy would be a redhead in a world where everyone was bald. How could you even tell?

Er, are you actually saying that all physical sexual characteristics are actively missing? Or at least 100% concealed by clothing at all times, and in such a way as to make it taboo to even hint at their presence?

Because otherwise, I don't think this analogy to "everyone is bald" works.

[Cluedrew]

Joke Answer: Body hair.

Serious Answer: I couldn't tell you. I read this message right after it came out and I'm still working it out. I can project at "without strict gender roles" but this situation you are trying to describe is much harder to figure out. First because it is definitely further away from today and secondly I don't quite know what you are going for. I am unsure of many of the details (like do all trends across gender that exist today not exist or do people just not notice them) and also it is much further from my life experience. Now I can't actually tell you the answer to the nature/nurture thing so maybe most of those are from society... but there are so many ingrained in my brain I don't think I can get rid of all of them.

Also how does any of this survive contact with players or a GM who has no more idea of how this works than I do now?

[Talakeal]

Serious Answer: I couldn't tell you. I read this message right after it came out and I'm still working it out. I can project at "without strict gender roles" but this situation you are trying to describe is much harder to figure out. First because it is definitely further away from today and secondly I don't quite know what you are going for. I am unsure of many of the details (like do all trends across gender that exist today not exist or do people just not notice them) and also it is much further from my life experience. Now I can't actually tell you the answer to the nature/nurture thing so maybe most of those are from society... but there are so many ingrained in my brain I don't think I can get rid of all of them.

Ok, so to reiterate my initial point (both for you and myself as I am getting a better idea of it):

IRL the idea that biological sex and gender as a social construct were two separate things was not recognized until the 1950s, and didn't reach mainstream acceptance for several decades later. My campaign world has a 19th century feel, and thought it is anachronistic in several ways, I don't think this would be one of them as my setting is far more egalitarian than real life in regards to gender roles.

Now, that's not saying that there are no gender roles at all, the mechanics of child rearing and the shape of the body will obviously impact fashion and family dynamics, but a man who acts especially feminine will just be seen as a "soft" man rather than as any sort of gender rebel, and vice versa.

I can't see how someone who is non-binary would present in this world, and I imagine someone claiming they are non-binary would be met with confusion and a suggestion that they simply drop their drawers in front of a mirror.

Then, also, since sex can be changed alchemically, I don't see why a transperson of any means wouldn't simply change their gender and be done with it. If they choose to tell people (or maintain contact with people they new pre-transition) they might face the same stigma that anyone who gets cosmetic surgery would, but other than that I can't see them sharing any of the struggles that transpeople face IRL, as for the most part trans people would just become cis people of a different gender, which may not be the character people want to play.

Likewise, mentioning a trans npc in the setting description would seem to come across as othering or tokenism as it is just a background detail that is not necessarily relevant to their current life.

Also how does any of this survive contact with players or a GM who has no more idea of how this works than I do now?

Good question. But I think I need to figure it out first for myself before worrying about how to present it to other people.

Er, are you actually saying that all physical sexual characteristics are actively missing? Or at least 100% concealed by clothing at all times, and in such a way as to make it taboo to even hint at their presence?

Because otherwise, I don't think this analogy to "everyone is bald" works.

Its not about physical sex characteristics, its about social gender rolls.

In my setting, afaict, a person who has a penis and the potential to grow a beard is going to be seen as a man even if they are gentle, wear makeup, jewelry, and dresses, stay home with the children, and like to talk about their feelings. Or a person with breasts and a vagina is going to be seen as a woman even if they are a macho soldier who wears utilitarian clothes and combat boots, shave their head, and and shows disdain for emotional relationships.

But I advise against making whatever vision you have for "what society should be" as base game material. It GREATLY limits your ability to sell the actual product. Many will avoid such material because of it, and in some countries it could even cross into illegal territory.

Its not about what society should be, my setting is pretty dark and every civilization has what I consider major flaws. The presence of a caste system at all makes a civilization pretty dystopian imo.

What it is about is allowing people to be free to play real life groups that they identify with.

Worrying about whether a game is legal in foreign country might be something WoTC or Paizo has to deal with, but not something I think my small indy game will need to be concerned with.

[Cluedrew]

Now, that's not saying that there are no gender roles at all, the mechanics of child rearing and the shape of the body will obviously impact fashion and family dynamics, but a man who acts especially feminine will just be seen as a "soft" man rather than as any sort of gender rebel, and vice versa.

Oh, I guess it would be exactly the same as our world then. Just someone who doesn't want to be viewed as a feminine man or masculine woman.

[Talakeal]

Oh, I guess it would be exactly the same as our world then. Just someone who doesn't want to be viewed as a feminine man or masculine woman.

Perhaps.

Maybe I am overthinking this, or maybe I just don't understand modern trans-theory well enough, but it seems to me that there are a lot of people who, despite having no intention of medically transitioning, are unhappy with being gender non-conforming and actively reject their AGAB, and I wanted the setting to feel more welcoming to those people.

[Segev]

Perhaps.

Maybe I am overthinking this, or maybe I just don't understand modern trans-theory well enough, but it seems to me that there are a lot of people who, despite having no intention of medically transitioning, are unhappy with being gender non-conforming and actively reject their AGAB, and I wanted the setting to feel more welcoming to those people.

I cannot speak for RL trans-gender people, as I am not one and don't know any very well, but my understanding is that it's based on a dysphoria where "my body is wrong," and that they want to look like their mental images of themselves. I imagine, therefore, that they likely at least TRY to "pass."

Therefore, assuming I'm not way off-base here, I would assume a welcoming fantasy society would accept people as the sex they present as. And people would generally try to present themselves in a way that makes them feel like who they see themselves as. The trans-man who binds his breasts and wears a tailored suit designed to emphasize a masculine set of lines is going to be treated as the man he acts like. The trans-woman who takes pains to wear flattering clothing and do up her makeup appropriately will be treated as the woman she acts like. The cis-man who wears a dress and tries to pass as a woman likely gets the benefit of a doubt and treated like a woman, but may get some private beauty tips on the assumption that (s)he just isn't very good at it, same as a cis-woman who very badly applies her makeup and picks dresses that just aren't flattering to her figure. The cis woman who tries to dress up as a man but winds up with her chest puffing out the blazer will get people either asking what her preferred sex is, or assuming she's a man and treating her like one, but again offering tips on how to better dress the part, same as a cis-man who has no fashion sense and maybe wears a very ill-fitting suit.

Of course, if your society doesn't associate an hourglass figure with "female" and a ripped, vaguely triangular torso with "male," then the way they differentiate based on appearance will affect this analysis.

In short, though, if the society doesn't care about the underlying biology in terms of how it treats people, but does care about how you present, it will treat you - generally - how you present yourself. Some people likely will be more polite about this, others more rude, and if it's a welcoming society the rude people will be looked down upon for their rudeness and social faux pas.

[Anymage]

I'd be tempted to scrub the whole thing where you can alchemically change your sex, since you're just asking for people to ask what other changes they can make to their bodies. Some of them mechanical (if you can give a AMAB person a female reproductive tract, what about grafting on extra muscle mass for increased strength or extra arms for extra attacks), some of them tonal (I don't think you're intentionally trying to introduce cyberpunk level transhumanism into your setting), and as was noted it doesn't really give the options you expected it to.

Instead, and any trans person can tell me if I'm wrong here, but I think you might be better served by looking at neckties. They came into fashion because of Louis XIV, and have become an essential part of male dress. Rulers and a little bit of luck can set fashion precedent that lasts for a long time. All you need is to have had one powerful ruler who happened to be trans, and expressing your gender atypically can become no big deal. People might do a double take if that dainty person in a dress also happens to have a beard, but you're unlikely to see anything more than that. If you ask to be treated or addressed in a certain way, people will go with that unless they intentionally want to cause offense.

Your goal is not to create an ideal gender/sexuality utopia. The ideal is to have people from all across the spectrum presented positively, and to provide a space where people feel safe exploring various concepts. A great king who happened to be AFAB, creating fashion trends that allow people to explore their presentation without too much blowback, gives more than enough room for gender nonconforming characters all on its own.

[Satinavian]

In short, though, if the society doesn't care about the underlying biology in terms of how it treats people, but does care about how you present, it will treat you - generally - how you present yourself. Some people likely will be more polite about this, others more rude, and if it's a welcoming society the rude people will be looked down upon for their rudeness and social faux pas.

I think the idea was that the society does care about the underlying biology but this biology can be changed. Not just the optics, everything.

[Calthropstu]

Ok, so to reiterate my initial point (both for you and myself as I am getting a better idea of it):

IRL the idea that biological sex and gender as a social construct were two separate things was not recognized until the 1950s, and didn't reach mainstream acceptance for several decades later. My campaign world has a 19th century feel, and thought it is anachronistic in several ways, I don't think this would be one of them as my setting is far more egalitarian than real life in regards to gender roles.

Now, that's not saying that there are no gender roles at all, the mechanics of child rearing and the shape of the body will obviously impact fashion and family dynamics, but a man who acts especially feminine will just be seen as a "soft" man rather than as any sort of gender rebel, and vice versa.

I can't see how someone who is non-binary would present in this world, and I imagine someone claiming they are non-binary would be met with confusion and a suggestion that they simply drop their drawers in front of a mirror.

Then, also, since sex can be changed alchemically, I don't see why a transperson of any means wouldn't simply change their gender and be done with it. If they choose to tell people (or maintain contact with people they new pre-transition) they might face the same stigma that anyone who gets cosmetic surgery would, but other than that I can't see them sharing any of the struggles that transpeople face IRL, as for the most part trans people would just become cis people of a different gender, which may not be the character people want to play.

Likewise, mentioning a trans npc in the setting description would seem to come across as othering or tokenism as it is just a background detail that is not necessarily relevant to their current life.



Good question. But I think I need to figure it out first for myself before worrying about how to present it to other people.



Its not about physical sex characteristics, its about social gender rolls.

In my setting, afaict, a person who has a penis and the potential to grow a beard is going to be seen as a man even if they are gentle, wear makeup, jewelry, and dresses, stay home with the children, and like to talk about their feelings. Or a person with breasts and a vagina is going to be seen as a woman even if they are a macho soldier who wears utilitarian clothes and combat boots, shave their head, and and shows disdain for emotional relationships.





Its not about what society should be, my setting is pretty dark and every civilization has what I consider major flaws. The presence of a caste system at all makes a civilization pretty dystopian imo.

What it is about is allowing people to be free to play real life groups that they identify with.

Worrying about whether a game is legal in foreign country might be something WoTC or Paizo has to deal with, but not something I think my small indy game will need to be concerned with.

If all you want to be is a small indy game company that caters to a select few, then be my guest.

[Satinavian]

If all you want to be is a small indy game company that caters to a select few, then be my guest.

Do you actually know any countries where such a product would be illegal ? How many of those would be a proper market anyway without doing translation ?

Afaik as RPG product exports go, the most problems are about illustrations and how much nudity is allowed there while hardly any censor cares about pure fictional societies. (And the US market is one of the more restrictive ones already). You would have to write outright propaganda for forbidden organisations or use forbidden symbols to really run into legal problems. At least as long as you don't want to sell in Saudi Arabia or China or similar countries.

[Talakeal]

If all you want to be is a small indy game company that caters to a select few, then be my guest.

Eh, I am a small indy game designer whether I want to be or not.

If I ever make it to the point where I am trying to break into markets outside the free world, I am sure I can worry about changing such things for foreign translations, its not exactly a huge part of the setting as it.

I think the idea was that the society does care about the underlying biology but this biology can be changed. Not just the optics, everything.

This is correct.

The setting is 19th century while a theory that separates biological sex from social gender is a late 20th century development IRL, and due to the far more egalitarian nature of the world I would think it would be less likely to develop earlier, if at all.

I'd be tempted to scrub the whole thing where you can alchemically change your sex, since you're just asking for people to ask what other changes they can make to their bodies. Some of them mechanical (if you can give a AMAB person a female reproductive tract, what about grafting on extra muscle mass for increased strength or extra arms for extra attacks), some of them tonal (I don't think you're intentionally trying to introduce cyberpunk level transhumanism into your setting), and as was noted it doesn't really give the options you expected it to.

Actually, I kind of am going for cyber-punk levels of transhumanism, just without the cyber.

The setting is the apocalyptic ruins of a world where genetic modification was the norm, and though they are no longer common, flesh-crafters are a supported player archetype in the game.

So yeah, the easily changing gender thing was not added for the sake of representation or political correctness, and imo actually kind of interferes with it.

Instead, and any trans person can tell me if I'm wrong here, but I think you might be better served by looking at neckties. They came into fashion because of Louis XIV, and have become an essential part of male dress. Rulers and a little bit of luck can set fashion precedent that lasts for a long time. All you need is to have had one powerful ruler who happened to be trans, and expressing your gender atypically can become no big deal. People might do a double take if that dainty person in a dress also happens to have a beard, but you're unlikely to see anything more than that. If you ask to be treated or addressed in a certain way, people will go with that unless they intentionally want to cause offense.

Your goal is not to create an ideal gender/sexuality utopia. The ideal is to have people from all across the spectrum presented positively, and to provide a space where people feel safe exploring various concepts. A great king who happened to be AFAB, creating fashion trends that allow people to explore their presentation without too much blowback, gives more than enough room for gender nonconforming characters all on its own.

Good ideas! I will explore them.

I cannot speak for RL trans-gender people, as I am not one and don't know any very well, but my understanding is that it's based on a dysphoria where "my body is wrong," and that they want to look like their mental images of themselves. I imagine, therefore, that they likely at least TRY to "pass."

That is a hotly debated topic. AFAICT some, but not all, transpeople suffer from dysphoria. The idea that the two were one in the same was, iirc, part of a push in the 70s and 80s to grant gender reassignment surgery legitimacy in the eyes of the medical community.

Therefore, assuming I'm not way off-base here, I would assume a welcoming fantasy society would accept people as the sex they present as. And people would generally try to present themselves in a way that makes them feel like who they see themselves as. The trans-man who binds his breasts and wears a tailored suit designed to emphasize a masculine set of lines is going to be treated as the man he acts like. The trans-woman who takes pains to wear flattering clothing and do up her makeup appropriately will be treated as the woman she acts like. The cis-man who wears a dress and tries to pass as a woman likely gets the benefit of a doubt and treated like a woman, but may get some private beauty tips on the assumption that (s)he just isn't very good at it, same as a cis-woman who very badly applies her makeup and picks dresses that just aren't flattering to her figure. The cis woman who tries to dress up as a man but winds up with her chest puffing out the blazer will get people either asking what her preferred sex is, or assuming she's a man and treating her like one, but again offering tips on how to better dress the part, same as a cis-man who has no fashion sense and maybe wears a very ill-fitting suit.

Of course, if your society doesn't associate an hourglass figure with "female" and a ripped, vaguely triangular torso with "male," then the way they differentiate based on appearance will affect this analysis.

In short, though, if the society doesn't care about the underlying biology in terms of how it treats people, but does care about how you present, it will treat you - generally - how you present yourself. Some people likely will be more polite about this, others more rude, and if it's a welcoming society the rude people will be looked down upon for their rudeness and social faux pas.

The male and female form are associated with their genders, but I imagine if people wear clothes that aren't cut for their body, they would just be assumed to have bad fashion sense.

The bigger question would be why someone who was going to that much effort to look like the opposite sex wouldn't just change though.

[Satinavian]

It just occurred to me that this might lead to interesting family relations when someoe can be the father of one person and the mother of someone else.

Also a pair who wants to have a child might decide every time who gets to do the whole pregnancy procedure.

[Calthropstu]

It just occurred to me that this might lead to interesting family relations when someoe can be the father of one person and the mother of someone else.

Also a pair who wants to have a child might decide every time who gets to do the whole pregnancy procedure.

Honestly, I doubt it will get very far into that. Ultra few people actually care about that sort of thing. Most just wanna goof off. The very few times I have seen pregnancy mentioned, it's been a complete disaster. Most tables avoid it.

Hence why I encourage the op to gloss over this as much as possible. The more squicky it gets, the more envelopes it pushes, the narrower his audience gets, the less the focus will be be on the game itself and the worse off he will be.

Even if he later abandons that sort of thing for an entirely new game later on, his first attempt will haunt him and no one will want to touch his second attempt.

This will fail spectacularly if it goes this route.

[JNAProductions]

Honestly, I doubt it will get very far into that. Ultra few people actually care about that sort of thing. Most just wanna goof off. The very few times I have seen pregnancy mentioned, it's been a complete disaster. Most tables avoid it.

Hence why I encourage the op to gloss over this as much as possible. The more squicky it gets, the more envelopes it pushes, the narrower his audience gets, the less the focus will be be on the game itself and the worse off he will be.

Even if he later abandons that sort of thing for an entirely new game later on, his first attempt will haunt him and no one will want to touch his second attempt.

This will fail spectacularly if it goes this route.

Gender and sexuality isn't squicky. I can see avoiding pregnancy, because that involves a very real risk of fictional baby death, but it's about being appropriate to the table. At some tables, you shouldn't even "Fade-to-black" for sex, you just shouldn't have it at all. At many tables, fading to black is perfectly appropriate. Pregnancy is an extension of that-is your table the kind that is both mature enough to handle it, and the type of table where the complications of it would increase the fun, rather than decrease? I believe many tables are mature enough to handle it, it'd just be something that wouldn't actually increase the fun.

[Cluedrew]

The setting is 19th century while a theory that separates biological sex from social gender is a late 20th century development IRL, and due to the far more egalitarian nature of the world I would think it would be less likely to develop earlier, if at all.

I think it could easily develop earlier with a more egalitarian backdrop. Now trying to logic out people's motives is always a bit shaky but here me out. Although equality between the binary genders (female and male) does not necessitate accepting/understanding people outside of that binary I think if you reject equality between the binary genders that does encourage rejecting people who are outside of that. Simply because that blurs the line between them. If you can have people between the two (or to a lesser extent off to the side) then that implies there is this continuum between the two, which implies there is no fundamental difference between the two and if there is no fundamental difference between the two then why are they being treated fundamentally different and before you know it they are asking for the vote and this sentence is long enough. Any also getting kind of silly but still through that chain non-binary people can weaken the case for gender inequality so an egalitarian society has less reason to reject it.

Of course people are complicated and masses of them are even more so and they arrive at weird conclusions sometimes but if you want to push that forward a bit, that might be all you need.

[Calthropstu]

Gender and sexuality isn't squicky. I can see avoiding pregnancy, because that involves a very real risk of fictional baby death, but it's about being appropriate to the table. At some tables, you shouldn't even "Fade-to-black" for sex, you just shouldn't have it at all. At many tables, fading to black is perfectly appropriate. Pregnancy is an extension of that-is your table the kind that is both mature enough to handle it, and the type of table where the complications of it would increase the fun, rather than decrease? I believe many tables are mature enough to handle it, it'd just be something that wouldn't actually increase the fun.

You might believe such.
But try it at a table. It almost universally ends badly. Especially at mixed gender tables where it can end the adventure faster than a tpk. It's not about "maturity." I've seen it cause a table of 40+ year olds to end. The BEST I've seen is 2 characters insta retire and bring in new ones. The worst resulted in a literal fight and an eaten character sheet.