Quote from: Benoist;692938It does not make sense to claim that, on one hand, genders are immediately noticed and ingrained in our identities and perceptions at a biological level, which makes it much more important than race and therefore that much more important to control at a game table, to then, on the other hand, turn around and say to a player that he can't play his pirate queen and it'll have to be a pirate captain instead because there is no difference at all between men and women and whatever the pirate queen could do, so would the pirate captain.

Does not compute. If these things are so ingrained into our biological builds and processes, then certainly it can matter tremendously to a particular player to designate his or her own character as male or female, depending on what particular character concept and/or mental image s/he has in mind.

It's hypocritical to pretend the contrary. At best.

I mean to say that we noticed, not that define us.  We can get into that debate, but it's not the claim I'm making.  And certainly, you are correct that a pirate queen, because of that perception, will be quite a different character than a pirate captain.  I totally agree with that.  Frankly, even with the cultural norms of the time, they'll probably be different characters.

But are you so absolutely attached to the concept of the pirate queen that you cannot possibly enjoy a pirate captain?  What inherent element of play can you get from the pirate queen that you cannot get from the pirate captain?  And if so, are there no other swashbuckling character concepts that could interest you?  No long-lost princes, or recently rescued outcasts with a burning need for vendetta, or a highwayman, or a musketeer, or a clockwork-punk madcap inventor?  Why does it HAVE to be a pirate queen?

Because if you play the pirate queen "wrong," then players will call you on it (even if they are incorrect in their opinion), but if you play your pirate captain "wrong," they're far less likely to notice and/or complain.  And I prefer the latter's lack of argument to the former situation.

And I generally find that if players are unwilling to bend on those details, to make compromises to their character in one way, they'll be unwilling to make compromises on others.  Social contract is important, and players need to be willing to make some sacrifices.  Of course, some sacrifices are too much, and I would never want a player to step outside their comfort zone, but "I can't play non-cross-gendered characters!" is rarely the sort of thing that comes up, and I suppose if someone really felt that way, then they and I would just be a bad fit... that's something good to know about up front.

Quote from: Nexus;692937Funny thing to me is I can remember when it was people that played characters of a different gender were mocked pretty badly or at least assumed to be acting some sexual fantasies and not "really" role playing.

Its fine to disagree with someone and to try and discuss that disagreement but still...

That's a pretty fair point, and in that light, some of the vigor to my stance makes a little more sense.  In the same way that some people will over-react to the suggestion that linear narratives are perfectly okay, because they've experienced a terrible railroad experience (I used to have a similar knee-jerk against sandbox after some horrid "lazy DM" experiences)

So now you are going to tell me something's wrong about what's going on in my mind because perceiving my character as a pirate queen instead of a captain would actually affect my enjoyment of my character?

Who's accusing the other of badwrongfun here, exactly? And if you have the arrogance to pretend like you can read my mind and prevent me from doing badwrong at your game table, why should I somehow refrain to tell you this comes off as a load of pretentious, double standard bullshit that entitles you to judge what's going on in my head because you'd somehow be that übermensch of gaming whereas I would be the untermensch who could not be trusted to run a character as competently as you do?

Because that's what it is: pure pretentious double standard bullshit.

Quote from: Benoist;692948So now you are going to tell me something's wrong about what's going on in my mind because perceiving my character as a pirate queen instead of a captain would actually affect my enjoyment of my character?

I'm saying if you're unable to fathom having fun with any other character, or any other interpretation of your character, that I don't want you at my table.

I wouldn't presume to know why you felt that way.  I'm sure you have good reasons for it.

It's not to prevent YOU from doing what I consider "badwrongfun," it's to forestall pointless quibbling over whether you're depicting a female character accurately.  You commented that I should "trust" you, but what about the other players?  Can we trust that they won't get weird about it either?  A game is not just between you and I, but between you, the rest of the players, and I.  And one of the things I want to do to ease that interaction between strangers.  That's why we have good manners and rulesets and social contracts and various things.  And for the same reason "you don't talk about politics or religion at the dinner table," (If you've ever heard that saying), I prefer people don't cross-gender at my gaming table.

It's true that I personally find many people do it badly, but this presumes I wouldn't find that you play your female character badly.  You can't make that guarantee about the other players, and furthermore, convince me that you have that guarantee.  Easier to just play a male character.

QuoteBecause that's what it is: pure pretentious double standard bullshit.

You were doing so well.

Quote from: Mailanka;692944I mean to say that we noticed, not that define us.  We can get into that debate, but it's not the claim I'm making.  And certainly, you are correct that a pirate queen, because of that perception, will be quite a different character than a pirate captain.  I totally agree with that.  Frankly, even with the cultural norms of the time, they'll probably be different characters.

But are you so absolutely attached to the concept of the pirate queen that you cannot possibly enjoy a pirate captain?  What inherent element of play can you get from the pirate queen that you cannot get from the pirate captain?  And if so, are there no other swashbuckling character concepts that could interest you?  No long-lost princes, or recently rescued outcasts with a burning need for vendetta, or a highwayman, or a musketeer, or a clockwork-punk madcap inventor?  Why does it HAVE to be a pirate queen?

Because if you play the pirate queen "wrong," then players will call you on it (even if they are incorrect in their opinion), but if you play your pirate captain "wrong," they're far less likely to notice and/or complain.  And I prefer the latter's lack of argument to the former situation.

And I generally find that if players are unwilling to bend on those details, to make compromises to their character in one way, they'll be unwilling to make compromises on others.  Social contract is important, and players need to be willing to make some sacrifices.  Of course, some sacrifices are too much, and I would never want a player to step outside their comfort zone, but "I can't play non-cross-gendered characters!" is rarely the sort of thing that comes up, and I suppose if someone really felt that way, then they and I would just be a bad fit... that's something good to know about up front.

I see it this way. Yes, I could play a pirate captain or something else. If I was into swashbuckling I could probably have fun with it. But it wouldn't be the thing that hooked me, that first "popped" when I was trying to come up with character and made me want to play. It would be disappointed and, though its not a good atttitude to have it would color my impression of the game particularly if it was something that seemed a little arbitrary or because the GM didn't consider me "good enough" in a way to play the character and assumed I'd do something wrong with even giving me a chance.

It's like if I were going to be in a classic fantasy campaign and I wanted play a lithe, agile but male Elven archer but the GM told I could only play a human or a dwarf because he assumed I would play the elf as some kind of effeminate foppish parody with overtones of homophobia because several other guys had done the same. I might understand why but it would be little insulting and my dwarf might be fun it wouldn't be what I wanted (God, that sounds spoiled and entitled but I can't think of another way to put it).

I guess one thing I'd want is for the GM to make any restriction like that one of the first things he tells up about so I don't get attached to an off limits (for whatever reason) type of character.

Quote from: Mailanka;692949I'm saying if you're unable to fathom having fun with any other character, or any other interpretation of your character, that I don't want you at my table.

And I'm saying that goes both ways: if you base your decisions about my worth at your game table based on such assumptions, and that you can't fathom I actually might want to play a particular character concept and would prefer it at the exclusion of other alternatives for my own personal reasons, then I don't want to sit at your game table.

Quote from: Mailanka;692949I wouldn't presume to know why you felt that way.  I'm sure you have good reasons for it.

See, that's hugely hypocritical. Now it's not just that I don't want to sit at your game table: I don't want you in my social circles at all, because that is a load of condescending bullshit.

Quote from: Mailanka;692949It's not to prevent YOU from doing what I consider "badwrongfun," it's to forestall pointless quibbling over whether you're depicting a female character accurately.  You commented that I should "trust" you, but what about the other players?

We should trust them too, and they should trust us in return. These are the basics of healthy social interactions.

Quote from: Mailanka;692949Can we trust that they won't get weird about it either?  A game is not just between you and I, but between you, the rest of the players, and I.  And one of the things I want to do to ease that interaction between strangers.  That's why we have good manners and rulesets and social contracts and various things.  And for the same reason "you don't talk about politics or religion at the dinner table," (If you've ever heard that saying), I prefer people don't cross-gender at my gaming table.

Sorry, no, that doesn't work that way. It is not polite or good manners to start interacting with each other by assuming I or the other people sitting next to us cannot be trusted, or that you have a genetic advantage in knowing what is best and that you can do something whereas others shouldn't, otherwise you show them the door. That makes you a pretentious douchebag. And I mean it not as "fuck you" here, I mean it in general terms: it does make you a pretentious douchebag, with what you call "politeness and good manners" just being an hypocritical mask covering your distrust and condescension vis-a-vis other people than yourself.

Quote from: Mailanka;692949It's true that I personally find many people do it badly, but this presumes I wouldn't find that you play your female character badly.  You can't make that guarantee about the other players, and furthermore, convince me that you have that guarantee.  Easier to just play a male character.

I can't guarantee you are going to run the game well either. Why should I grant you that trust, and believe you are going to do this well by default, whereas we wouldn't be able to trust other players to run their characters well by default?

This is a huge double standard you're operating under, and really, just talking about "the other players" instead of "me as a player" is just moving the goalpost assuming I'm offended simply because my ego is involved: this is wrong. I'm not offended because I personally am involved. I am just as much offended when we are talking about the other players sitting next to us. What you're trying to do here is to include me in the "us" while talking about "them" as people who can't be trusted: this doesn't change anything, and on the contrary, just adds to the hypocrisy of your position. You are a pretentious douchebag, and when called out on it you are trying to sneak around the problem by including me into your group of select übermensch of gaming.

I don't want to be part of your clique. NOW I'm saying it: Fuck you, and fuck the horse you rode on.

Quote from: Mailanka;692949You were doing so well.

I call it as I see it. You are welcome.

Quote from: Nexus;692952I see it this way. Yes, I could play a pirate captain or something else. If I was into swashbuckling I could probably have fun with it. But it wouldn't be the thing that hooked me, that first "popped" when I was trying to come up with character and made me want to play. It would be disappointed and, though its not a good atttitude to have it would color my impression of the game particularly if it was something that seemed a little arbitrary or because the GM didn't consider me "good enough" in a way to play the character and assumed I'd do something wrong with even giving me a chance.

It's like if I were going to be in a classic fantasy campaign and I wanted play a lithe, agile but male Elven archer but the GM told I could only play a human or a dwarf because he assumed I would play the elf as some kind of effeminate foppish parody with overtones of homophobia because several other guys had done the same. I might understand why but it would be little insulting and my dwarf might be fun it wouldn't be what I wanted (God, that sounds spoiled and entitled but I can't think of another way to put it).

I guess one thing I'd want is for the GM to make any restriction like that one of the first things he tells up about so I don't get attached to an off limits (for whatever reason) type of character.

It's funny you mention Elves because they're another one that might very well get a dour expression from me, after lots of bad experiences with people who refuse to play anything but elves and treat them like some sort of "better than you" super-humans.

But yeah. I know what you mean.  You might have this rush of inspiration, because a pirate queen is a cool concept, right?  She totally fits genre, she's even realistic historically (with a little bit of stretching), so even in a "realistic" game she could fit... and would generate additional drama by her choice of gender.  I'd certainly a woman play it.  And then to be told "no" id disheartening.  A GM has to be careful with any "No" he gives (and gender isn't the only place people will be told 'No." There are lots of seemingly reasonable concepts that might not fit for whatever reason).  I'm a big believer in "No but..." and negotiation.  I'd want to dig into why you wanted to play her, get an idea of what appealed to you about her, and how we could get closer to that without cross-gender, and even if you gave up the concept and did something completely different, then I'd still want to get to know why you wanted that, so I could understand you better.

But if you play that concept, and the other players react poorly to it, or I find it doesn't work, then that's just as much a "No." Especially if grinds the game to a halt, which can be even more disappointing than being told no.  By forestalling that with a "No but..." I can ensure that, while you may not have 100% enjoyment, you'll have 90% enjoyment, which is better than, say, a 25% chance of 0% enjoyment.

I can't guarantee that a game will work, but over time I've found that certain rules tend to foster a greater likelihood for success.  Almost certainly some of them are false positives and/or superstitions, but so far they've served me well.

EDIT: And I do tend to be fairly upfront about limitations on campaign, premise and my approach to things. I totally agree, you want to forestall that attachment to a character someone isn't going to play.  The last thing I want to happen is for you to present me with a finished character and a rich backstory, only to have to disappoint you with a no.  That applies as much to cross-gender play as to, say, someone who mistakes the themes of your Vampire game.

Quote from: Benoist;692953And I'm saying that goes both ways: if you base your decisions about my worth at your game table based on such assumptions, and that you can fathom that I actually might want to play a particular character concept and do it well, at that, then I don't want to sit at your game table.

Then don't.

QuoteSee, that's hugely hypocritical. Now I just don't want to sit at your game table anymore: I don't want you in my social circles at all, because that is a load of condescending bullshit.

And yet you continue to have this conversation with me.

QuoteWe should trust them too, and they should trust us in return. These are the basics of healthy social interactions.

Really?  Why do we have laws then?  Or rules for our ruleset?  Or social contracts?  Or referees or GMs?  Why do you lock your door at night?

Even if everyone has perfectly good intentions, things can still go awry.  Tempers can flare, reasonable people can disagree about topics, and "How believable your roleplaying is' is certainly a topic people will disagree on.  It's my experience that how people roleplay a cross-gender character is more controversial and prone to disagreement and argument than how one roleplays a bug-eyed, four-armed monster.  So I disallow it to forestall arguments.

QuoteI can't guarantee you are going to run the game well either. Why should I grant you that trust, and believe you are going to do this well by default, whereas we wouldn't be able to trust other players to run their characters well by default?

That's absolutely true, and no doubt you have learned to pick up some signals, warning signs that tell you when someone is bad news or won't run a good game.  Perhaps someone who doesn't allow cross-gender play might be a warning sign for you, just like someone who, when told they cannot cross-gender role-play, says "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on," that they might be a problematic player.

QuoteSorry, no, that doesn't work that way. It is not polite or good manners to start interacting with each other by assuming I or the other people sitting next to us cannot be trusted, or that you have a genetic advantage in knowing what is best and that you can do something whereas others shouldn't, otherwise you show them the door. That makes you a pretentious douchebag. And I mean it not as "fuck you" here, I mean it in general terms: it does make you a pretentious douchebag, with what you call "politeness and good manners" just being an hypocritical mask covering your distrust and condescension vis-a-vis other people than yourself.

This is a huge double standard you're operating under, and really, just talking about "the other players" instead of "me as a player" is just moving the goalpost assuming I'm offended simply because my ego is involved: this is wrong. I'm not offended because I personally am involved. I am just as much offended when we are talking about the other players sitting next to us. What you're trying to do here is to include me in the "us" while talking about "them" as people who can't be trusted: this doesn't change anything, and on the contrary, just adds to the hypocrisy of your position. You are a pretentious douchebag, and when called out on it you are trying to sneak around the problem by including me into your group of select übermensch of gaming.

I don't want to be part of your clique. Fuck you, and fuck the horse you rode on.

I call it as I see it. You are welcome.

How does this help the conversation?  What was this supposed to accomplish?  Do you think it'll make me change my ways?  Do you think not having you in my "social clique" will somehow hurt me?  For that matter, do you think your choice of social clique one way or another affects me in the slightest, as we live on opposite parts of the world?  Do you think this is at all a good way to represent yourself to me, or your opinion to me?  Why even post it at all?  It doesn't contribute to the discussion, it doesn't add to anything.  Show me why it's a bad behavior, show me what I'm missing, show me the flaws in my logic, explain to me how the world is diminished by these actions and how your approach would give me a better game.  Please!

But this?  It's just alienating and without substance.  It doesn't teach me anything except "Gosh, that Benoist is foul mouthed."

The rest of this is based on assumptions that aren't true. I don't know why you're projecting them onto me, and I'm not going to analyze why.

Quote from: Mailanka;692949I'm saying if you're unable to fathom having fun with any other character, or any other interpretation of your character, that I don't want you at my table.

I wouldn't presume to know why you felt that way.  I'm sure you have good reasons for it.

It's not to prevent YOU from doing what I consider "badwrongfun," it's to forestall pointless quibbling over whether you're depicting a female character accurately.  You commented that I should "trust" you, but what about the other players?  Can we trust that they won't get weird about it either?  A game is not just between you and I, but between you, the rest of the players, and I.  And one of the things I want to do to ease that interaction between strangers.  That's why we have good manners and rulesets and social contracts and various things.  And for the same reason "you don't talk about politics or religion at the dinner table," (If you've ever heard that saying), I prefer people don't cross-gender at my gaming table.

It's true that I personally find many people do it badly, but this presumes I wouldn't find that you play your female character badly.  You can't make that guarantee about the other players, and furthermore, convince me that you have that guarantee.  Easier to just play a male character.

The part about other players complaining is a fair point. In online play I've had people complain that female players weren't playing women "right".

Quote from: Mailanka;692907gypsies,

If avoiding offense is important to you, than you might want to say Roma.  

Quote from: Mailanka;692907And even if you're not trying to be offensive, people might fail to understand, say, the culture and language/accent of the Frenchman they're playing, or the Russian, or the Chinese fellow, or the Japanese fellow.  This is especially true if you know these cultures.  The flaws stand starkly out and ruin your suspension of disbelief.

Reminds me of the time I was wanting to run a pseudo-historical Japan game.  My best friend is half-Japanese.  He refused to game it, saying that we would be following stereotypes and would not get it right.  

To which I said that of course we wouldn't get it right, none of us are studied in Nipponese culture, you didn't have any problems with our Musketeers game, Egyptian game, or any of the other highly stereotypical portrayals of various cultures, and that we routinely lampoon my own southern redneck culture.  

He didn't care.  Stereotypical portrayal of Japanese culture was beyond the pale.  We did not play the game.

Got to know your players.  I see not overarching principles that can be gleaned beyond that.  Sometimes anything goes, sometimes offense is caused.

Quote from: Nexus;692958The part about other players complaining is a fair point. In online play I've had people complain that female players weren't playing women "right".

I've seen that too, but online bothers me less and I see less complaints.  I think much of these complaints basically boil down to ruined immersion.  If one of the PCs is a beautiful, willowy princess with a breathy voice, a mounting curse/illness and dreams of fixing her dying kingdom is played by a 300-hundred pound bearded dude with a throbbing bass for a voice, it can distract/disrupt the immersion of the players.  People have pointed to male GMs playing female characters, and while this seems less of a problem for immersion (people seem to just expect the GM to "play the world" and trust his/her descriptions more), it absolutely can and has caused problems. I've had players burst out laughing at me, because they can both see the scene and see me performing it.  The most classic example of this is when two NPCs get into an argument, one of my players burst into giggles every time and says "Mailanka is arguing with himself again."

Online this happens less.  I have no idea who's playing the gothy princess, I can't see him, nor can the other players.  It's just words on a screen and it's easier to hear her breathy voice, to see her harrowed face and her long, dripping black hair.  Who is behind that vision, that concept, matters less.  The gender dissonance isn't thrust into the players' faces, nor into mine, so there's much less to object to, UNLESS they're obviously doing something stupid and inappropriate (The lesbian stripper ninja, being the classic example).

So I find it much less of an issue in online play.  Online play among people that I don't think will go all LSN on me, and among well-established players are two places were I would consider relaxing the rule.

Quote from: Mailanka;692915Some others here have talked about maturity, and one thing that you need to understand about my table is that it's very, very varied.  I often run one-shots for a large RPG association (over 100 people), and I can easily have completely different people sitting at my table from one-shot to one-shot.  In such circumstances, when I don't know the politics or the beliefs of the people involved, I find it best to just avoid controversy, and cross-gender play can create controversy.

And no one ever objects to your ban on cross-gender play? No one finds it creepy or revolting?

Quote from: Old One Eye;692960If avoiding offense is important to you, than you might want to say Roma.  

Fair point.

QuoteReminds me of the time I was wanting to run a pseudo-historical Japan game.  My best friend is half-Japanese.  He refused to game it, saying that we would be following stereotypes and would not get it right.  

To which I said that of course we wouldn't get it right, none of us are studied in Nipponese culture, you didn't have any problems with our Musketeers game, Egyptian game, or any of the other highly stereotypical portrayals of various cultures, and that we routinely lampoon my own southern redneck culture.  

He didn't care.  Stereotypical portrayal of Japanese culture was beyond the pale.  We did not play the game.

Got to know your players.  I see not overarching principles that can be gleaned beyond that.  Sometimes anything goes, sometimes offense is caused.

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean.  Because he has a closer tie to that element, it's hard for him to separate myth and reality, and SoD is more easily broken.  It's like a doctor watching House.  Every time someone screws up a medical procedure, you're popped out of that imagination space and back into the real world and your enjoyment is ruined.  And everyone deals with gender difference every day, so it's easy to pop someone out of that SoD.

As for getting to know my players: This rule is mainly in place for when I don't know my players, or when my players don't know each other.  When things are better established, then social contracts can be renegotiated.

Quote from: Mailanka;692957How does this help the conversation?

It doesn't. It's my way to tell you I find your logic extremely offensive and that this conversation is over, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Mailanka;692926Why does it matter so much to you?  Why the insults, the attacks and the strawmen?  You're not in my game.  

I have a similar feeling of revulsion to you as I do to the guys on RPGnet talking about playing Bronnie/My Little Pony characters. It's not as strong a feeling of disgust as for eg pedophiles, but it's definitely there. I expect a fair number of people have similar feelings. I can be disgusted by what you do in your game (in this case, banning cross gender PCs) even though it has no impact on my game.