TheRPGSite

In your experience, if you allow players to play characters of a different gender is it more common for men to play women, women to play men or its about equal?

I tend to run a fair few historical games, and while I try and keep the historical sexism thing fairly mild, I've still had female players choose to play men quite a bit.

I can only think of one time in games that I've run where a man played a woman, and it was actually done very well (I had misgivings beforehand, but was glad that I let him in the end).

Other, I guess.  I've never required or forbidden it, and I don't think any of my players have ever tried.

I tried playing a woman once and gave up.  Either she came across as Tom Hanks in "Bosom Buddies," or the fact that she was female was totally irrelevant, in which case I'm not sure why I was playing a female character.

It is about equal.

Then again, since most of my games are science fiction, Players get to choose any of the fourteen sexes of a particular alien race to play.

(The only odd thing about this is that I have found that I have had to tell new Players that yes, they could play gay characters if they felt more comfortable doing that - but that sexual orientation tends to not come up during my games.)

I'd say it's about equal (but didn't vote) with one caveat - I've had more male players, so I've seen more men play female characters than vice versa.  But as a percentage, I'd say it's roughly equal.  

Most of my players have generally played their own gender most of the time, with occassional characters of the opposite gender.  In our current campaign, the female player is playing a female character, two males are playing male characters, and one male is playing a female character.

In the last campaign with the same group, the female player played a male character, two males played male characters, and one (different) male played a female character.  

Roughly, 25% of the time we have someone playing a character of opposite gender.

I voted "women to play male characters", but I'm really working from a very small sample set. In the decades I've gamed, across a number of gaming groups, none of the men I've gamed with have played female characters. It's never been a consideration or a desire that's been expressed.

I've gamed with two women over the past 10 years - one of them strictly played female characters; the other played a male character in one of my campaigns - and seemed to enjoy it.

In my experience its more common for men to want to play women.

And about 80% of the time that's normal and fine. About 20% of the time it comes off as weird and creepy.

Practically all games I can remember women were playing women and men are usually but not always playing men. Personally I go about 50/50.

My experience it far more common for men to play women. Although I think more of "cute butt"* thing then anything weird.

*Refers to some players of MMORPGs who say they play female character because if they are going to be staring at an character avatar for umpteen hours they might as well have something good to look at.

For the players I encountered the vast majority seem to be interested in the mind eye's image of the female character kicking butt at whatever they are good at (magic, stealth, fighting, etc). Similar to male fans of tv shows/movies with strong female leads like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, etc.

I was handed a pregen female character in a convention and roleplayed mostly by using stereotypes, although toned down a bit.

As an example, She was a illusion mage from GURPs and relied on Create Warrior and Create Servant for helping out the party. She always made sure that they were dressed stylishly with an illusion by taking a round with simple illusion.

It was a fun challenge but something I am not interested in on a regular basis.

On a related note, sometimes we choose characters (or at least we used to) based on a miniature.  Many of the female figures are more interesting (to me) than male counterparts.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;691502On a related note, sometimes we choose characters (or at least we used to) based on a miniature.  Many of the female figures are more interesting (to me) than male counterparts.

I do the same with artwork. I pretty much changed my current Iron Kingdoms character from this (http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me4i582VWp1qhq8tso1_1280.jpg) to this (https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/778/714/10dcc83b8c84ced50e13b77589074fa4_large.jpg?1374857217) at the last minute when the latter was posted because <3, seriously.

What Kickstarter is that for, and is it over?

I have almost always had significant numbers of women in my groups - occasionally more than half - and I have been running games for many, many years. I would say my experience parallels that of DeadGMWalking.

-clash

Except for our GM I've never seen a guy play a female character in a tabletop RPG. I've heard it happens but it must be a rare creature.
A number of women I've played with have had male PCs though.

EDIT: Gah! Actually... I'm full of crap because I myself played a female character in our games of Icons. I can't remember my thought process... how I decided she should be female. I think it came out of her character background, powers and the general aesthetic feel I wanted.

In tabletop I'm happy playing characters of either sex. The first serious game I played the GM handed me a female pre-gen (specifically Wanda from The Oldenhaller Contract in the 1st edition Warhammer FRP book) and I just I just played it without a second thought. It never occurred to me that in certain circles cross-genre roleplaying could be a gaming faux-pas or something that might make other player feel uncomfortable. That is only something I learned much later from forums such as this.

These days I tend to stick play more male characters especially with strangers as I see no point in potentially making people feel ill as ease. It's not a big deal.

Quote from: Simlasa;691526Except for our GM I've never seen a guy play a female character in a tabletop RPG. I've heard it happens but it must be a rare creature.
A number of women I've played with have had male PCs though.

I've played female characters in tabletop RPGs.

IME it's fractionally more likely for men to play female characters, mostly because women are only about 20-25% of the players and if they play male characters it'll often mean an all-male-PC group, which in many games I think the players prefer to avoid. Here in Britain IME very few GMs or players have a problem with men playing female PCs so in most groups there's no social pressure not to do so, I had no idea that was even a thing until I read people on ENW complaining about cross-gender play.

I know one group which has 4 players:
#1 Male player, male PC, player is the boyfriend of #2
#2 Female player, male PC
#3 Female player, female PC
#4 Male player, female PC

Based on my gaming groups, I've noted a larger percentage of male players with female characters. Its not a big deal, either way. Just playing what they think they'll enjoy.

Until I grew up and matured a bit, I played all male PCs.  Once I settled into adulthood, I play roughly 60/40 male/female in pencil and paper RPGs, and 50/50 in MMOs.  While I personally have no issues playing cross gender PCs, for the sake of immersion I have difficulty talking in character as a woman when in a face-to-face environment.

When I'm playing in our long running 3.0 online game, I've got two PCs:  male Human Cleric and female Elf Wizard.  Because I type out my responses in IM, I've no issues whatsoever playing in character.  It's only when I play at the gaming table does my character feel "off".  I'll still play female characters, its just that it doesn't feel quite right having her actions be coupled to my voice.

As far as my gaming group is concerned, I'm the only one that plays cross gender.  The women play women, and the men play men.

Quote from: Nexus;691488In your experience, if you allow players to play characters of a different gender . . .

"If?"

This is really a question?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;691543"If?"

This is really a question?

It's not that uncommon.  Some people have trouble responding to a male player as a female character and/or vice versa.  Some groups just aren't comfortable with it.  

I'd say it's a minority, and it's largely younger players, and heck, maybe it's different these days.  But I've seen it before.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;691545It's not that uncommon.  Some people have trouble responding to a male player as a female character and/or vice versa.  Some groups just aren't comfortable with it.  

I'd say it's a minority, and it's largely younger players, and heck, maybe it's different these days.  But I've seen it before.

It came up at our Pathfinder game last week. No one was asking to play a female PC but somehow the chatter got onto a previous player who the GM had discouraged from playing a female... I think because he felt that player had disruptive tendencies already... but he did remark that he generally isn't in favor of it unless the player has a compelling backstory that necessitates the cross.

In games I've run it never came up but I wouldn't have had an issue with it.

In my UK group 3 guys would never play women 1 tried it once, very well and two of us do fairly often.

I often take the female pregen at cons becuase for some reason at Con games the GM brings 6 PCs and makes sure they are 3 male 3 female forgetting that 90% of folks at the con who will be playing will be male.
I always create 8 pregens 2 female and 6 male for that reason.

Mostly blokes play females just like they play elves but with a different set of prosthetics.

As a GM I have to play a lot of women all the time so I think that makes it easier. In a lot of non-fantasy games, James Bond, Cyberpunk stuff etc the gender divide is much more marked. But for me its CoC where the line is most clear. If I am given a New York Upper east Side matriarch to play in  CoC game then I will play her like that not like Bruce Willis in a frock. This can annoy GMs who have some railroady Con session in mind and just want everyone to mount up and blow the crap out ofsome ghouls. I woudl argue if that is want you wanted you should have created more appropriate pre-gens....

I have done a few pantomimes though where I usually get given the 'Dame' role and of course come from a culture of Monty Python, the Goodies and little Britain where a bloke in a frock is pretty much not an issue.

Curious as to what the point of the survey is?

Quote from: jibbajibba;691552Curious as to what the point of the survey is?

A thousand times this. What does it matter?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;691545Some people have trouble responding to a male player as a female character and/or vice versa.

So male referees never roleplaying female non-player characters?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;691545Some groups just aren't comfortable with it.

Some gamers are immature fuckwads, yes. I've just been fortunate enough never to run into any so pathetically juvenile that they would feel the need to stop another player from running a character of the opposite gender.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;691545But I've seen it before.

I don't find that surprising at all.

I admit, I sort of feel quizzy about this, especially if I'd see a player constantly try to play different gender characters. I'm not against it as a rule though, I personally never felt the need to play a female character - the only time I did so, was when I was cursed in Munchkin.

It also never came up so far (that is, someone wanted to play a person of opposite gender), at least in games I GMed.

Quote from: vytzka;691509I do the same with artwork. I pretty much changed my current Iron Kingdoms character from this (http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me4i582VWp1qhq8tso1_1280.jpg) to this (https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/778/714/10dcc83b8c84ced50e13b77589074fa4_large.jpg?1374857217) at the last minute when the latter was posted because <3, seriously.

Cool pictures

*braces for comments about boob plate*

Quote from: Black Vulmea;691543"If?"

Yes, IME, its not uncommon for gms to restrict players to playing their own gender. Often because of bad experiences with players playing the opposite gender and warning from others that have had it. Though there are other reasons, charitable and otherwise.

Quote from: jibbajibba;691552Curious as to what the point of the survey is?

Quote from: The Traveller;691553A thousand times this. What does it matter?

The point was to satisfy my curiosity about others gamers' experiences and attitudes and discuss any interesting points that come up, basically to shoot the shit about things that interest me which is pretty much the reason I ask anything on a web forum.

It doesn't matter Nothing here really matters (at least no more than you choose to make matter). Does it have to?

Quote from: Rincewind1;691558I admit, I sort of feel quizzy about this, especially if I'd see a player constantly try to play different gender characters. I'm not against it as a rule though, I personally never felt the need to play a female character - the only time I did so, was when I was cursed in Munchkin.

Funny story, the one time I received many complaints about a character for cross gender play was in one of my earlier online players when a few of the others contacted me out of game to complain about a woman being played "too much like a man".

The character was being played by a woman, more so in that case she was essentially playing herself.

I'm currently running five different characters at the same time in the "World's Largest Dungeon", and one of these characters is an Elven female. Running a female character doesn't really seem like a big deal. :idunno:

I've had women play male PCs, but I don't recall any men playing female PCs in my games.  Typically, though, the women play female PCs and the men play male PCs.  :shrugs:

I've had 100% female groups besides myself.

IME, it's about equal: some guys I know are really good at playing female characters (they are usually straight, with one exception coming to mind), and some gals are really good at playing male characters (straight generally, with again, one exception coming to mind - not the same person as above, obviously).

These players are generally in the minority. Most players I've met are more comfortable playing their gender, and a few have tried to play opposite genders with mixed results, from mediocre, sad and/or comical to downright awful/insulting (the latter in the extreme minority, as in, I could count them on the fingers of one hand among hundreds).

Quote from: deadDMwalking;691517What Kickstarter is that for, and is it over?

Warmachine Tactics computer game (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/409030043/warmachine-tactics) and it is over but they should have that art and different sculpts of those models in the new book.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;691543"If?"

This is really a question?

It is, for at least two people on this very forum!

I'll generally play a female character anytime I'm in a horror game. I just find them more compelling protagonists/victims in that genre. And I mostly GM, where I play female characters all the time. Usually old ladies.

Quote from: Nexus;691563The point was to satisfy my curiosity about others gamers' experiences and attitudes and discuss any interesting points that come up, basically to shoot the shit about things that interest me which is pretty much the reason I ask anything on a web forum.

It doesn't matter Nothing here really matters (at least no more than you choose to make matter). Does it have to?
.

No I was just wondering if you were buildign a game, designing a scenario for a con or if you had a specific reason.

Quote from: vytzka;691608It is, for at least two people on this very forum!

Player: I'm thinking about running a noblewoman trained in the sword by her father.
Referee: No way, man. Dudes play dudes.
Player: All right, I'll just be a well-dressed noble fop, then.
Referee: That's fine. Okay, you're at a ball when you're approached by a beautiful woman in a ball gown with a plunging neckline. 'Greetings, monsieur, my name is Princess Pinkflower.'
Player: Uh . . .

Truly, it beggars the imagination.

Prince Pinkflower, maybe! I don't know, I'd like them to explain their reasoning. Maybe they just meant "only dudes who manage to not be this guy (http://kricketcostumes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sailor_moon_man.jpg) are allowed to play girls".

Quote from: Nexus;691563The point was to satisfy my curiosity about others gamers' experiences and attitudes and discuss any interesting points that come up, basically to shoot the shit about things that interest me which is pretty much the reason I ask anything on a web forum.

These things usually tend to wander off in the direction of "roleplaying as wish fulfillment", "is that guy playing an evil murderer because he wants to really murder people for reals" etc and if that's the thread you want, start that thread. ;)

Quote from: vytzka;691627Prince Pinkflower, maybe! I don't know, I'd like them to explain their reasoning. Maybe they just meant "only dudes who manage to not be this guy (http://kricketcostumes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/sailor_moon_man.jpg) are allowed to play girls".

Yeah, Some GMs (Some are women) do it because after a steady of stream of some disruptive or just plain offensive stereotypes they've become wary of cross gender players. Enough bad experiences can turn you off from anything and it simpler to ban something out right then try to pick and choose (Bob is okay, but Jack can't do this), particularly if you have a large or rotating group of players.

There are some that restrict cross gender play for reasons I'd call dodgy but its not every GM that makes that decision.

Quote from: The Traveller;691631These things usually tend to wander off in the direction of "roleplaying as wish fulfillment", "is that guy playing an evil murderer because he wants to really murder people for reals" etc and if that's the thread you want, start that thread. ;)

Okay...

Quote from: jibbajibba;691616No I was just wondering if you were buildign a game, designing a scenario for a con or if you had a specific reason.

Fair enough. I was looking back over some past games and my current ones and noticed that it was predominately men that choose to play characters of a different gender, some played women exclusively. That's generally what I'd seen in other people's games do and I became curious about roughly had common it was.

Quote from: Nexus;691644Yeah, Some GMs (Some are women) do it because after a steady of stream of some disruptive or just plain offensive stereotypes they've become wary of cross gender players. Enough bad experiences can turn you off from anything and it simpler to ban something out right then try to pick and choose (Bob is okay, but Jack can't do this), particularly if you have a large or rotating group of players.

Also, since you're a priori dealing with badly adjusted gamers in that situation and many bad adjusted gamers are pretty much big children, putting in a blanket rule might be the only way to get them to acquiesce without dissolving the group (which is IMO a better idea in such circumstances but not always a good option for many reasons).

Quote from: vytzka;691648Also, since you're a priori dealing with badly adjusted gamers in that situation and many bad adjusted gamers are pretty much big children, putting in a blanket rule might be the only way to get them to acquiesce without dissolving the group (which is IMO a better idea in such circumstances but not always a good option for many reasons).

Yeah, this is true too. Banning cross gender player generally isn't a choice I agree with but I can see why someone might make it without assuming the worst about them.

This issue has never come up. Ever. We've had male and female players and no one has ever felt the need to explore another gender. No one has ever entertained playing another sexuality either.  They can if they want, but in all my years I have never played a game where gender or sexuality have had an impact on the plot, narrative or dice rolls.

I've been playing RPGs for over 31 years.
Someone playing a character a sex other then theirs has never come up as an issue.
I've regularly played female characters (I'm male). no-one had a problem with it or even looked surprised or shocked or whatever.
I suppose the proportion of male to female characters is roughly 50/50, but the decision is usually as I want to portray a character in a book or something I've read or a movie or whatever.  
sometimes I just roll a dice to determine the sex of a character I create.

I've seen loads of other players play a character a sex other than theirs, both males and females. Noone ever batted an eyelid over it.


Why would someone have a problem with it anyway?
I think it's kind of bizarre someone would have a problem with that.
Is it to do with some people feel their sexuality is threatened by it or something?

If a GM or a group told me I could only play a male character as I'm male, I would take it as a sign it's a pretty crap GM or group and leave.

I'd probably be right.

I've met a couple of male roleplayers who played female characters exclusively. Not a problem at all in itself, but I did get the idea they considered the experience "deeper" than, perhaps even superior to, roleplaying your own sex...:idunno: Which made it seem somewhat erm... pretentious.

I've never felt inclined to play a female character myself, but I don't mind if my players do. I've not had many female players in my group and none of them have ever played a male character.

Quote from: Nexus;691646Fair enough. I was looking back over some past games and my current ones and noticed that it was predominately men that choose to play characters of a different gender, some played women exclusively. That's generally what I'd seen in other people's games do and I became curious about roughly had common it was.

I suspect that is true but there is probably a closer correlation to the number of hours and years played.

Most women that play are casual players and so probably have less hours than the hardcore players who are mostly blokes. If you have roleplayed 100  characters of your gender then trying the other is probably fairly standard I woudl have thought.

Most of us just want to play a cool character and it has to be said Modesty Blaze, Ms Marvel, Sarah Connors and Monza Murcatto are cool characters. So if you have played 12 versions of James Bond, a dozen iterations of Nova or Superman, can't even think of a male equivalent to Sarah Connors...., and your fill of Nicomo Cosca then playing a female seems fair game.

Would be interesting to see the sort of female roles that get picked though. I suspect they are more Sarah Connors than Elizabeth Bennett.

I wonder if any blokes here have ever tried to play the wicked witch archetype. I never have, if I play women they are fiesty tom boy types unless I get given a pregen at a con (I seem to recall playing a female reporter in one of Clash's games at Gen Con once).
Might be interesting to try for a change.
I could certainly never imagine a guy wanting to play a damsel in distress although I suspect that wouldn't be so popular with female players either.

In action type RPGs, female characters are usually tomboys more than played in a purely "Feminine" role.

There are exceptions though such as characters that were created with a certain theme  in mind or are written into the backstory by the GM.

I might run a female feminine type character in a game like CoC, as it's not really an action based RPG.
Also often CoC comes with pregens, so you just run what's available, which might be feminine females.
I don't have a problem running those sorts of characters.
I probs wouldn't do as good a job of it as a female, but it'd be a bit of a laugh and will lighten the mood a bit I suppose.

I don't like the implied mutual exclusion of "femininity" and "action". But then I don't buy male fighters necessarily being ripped hunks of muscle either.

Quote from: vytzka;691852I don't like the implied mutual exclusion of "femininity" and "action". But then I don't buy male fighters necessarily being ripped hunks of muscle either.

That's why I put it in quotes. I meant femininity as in the Prissy sort of sense.
I tried to put it in a non offensive way as possible.

Whatever, there's always someone who'll get offended no matter what you say or how sensitive you try to be.

*walks out of thread*

Quote from: vytzka;691852I don't like the implied mutual exclusion of "femininity" and "action". But then I don't buy male fighters necessarily being ripped hunks of muscle either.

Well Elizabeth Bennett is no slouch but she certainly isn't Sarah Connors.

I've spent more time playing MMORPGs than on tabletop, so I'm used to it. As well, I'm used to picking a gender based on the "aesthetic" I want for a character, which is a practiced I've carried over to crunchy, gamey stuff like 4e.

However, I mostly play males in stuff like Rogue Trader, because it's a lot more fun when immersed into your character. I did have fun playing Only War as a female pregen, however, since it was a one-shot with a very immediate goal.

Quote from: danskmacabre;691853That's why I put it in quotes. I meant femininity as in the Prissy sort of sense.
I tried to put it in a non offensive way as possible.

Whatever, there's always someone who'll get offended no matter what you say or how sensitive you try to be.

*walks out of thread*

Noooooo! Sorry, I didn't mean to accuse you of anything! Don't go! :o *gives a cookie*

Quote from: jibbajibba;691817can't even think of a male equivalent to Sarah Connors....

Ogami Itto if you're willing to bend the comparison as far as possible. ;)

I've seen a lot of crossplay, ranging from stupidly offensive stereotypes in both directions to absolutely wonderful characters that still stick with me today.  For every dumbshit playing a sexist caricature for the lulz I've played alongside at least two more people playing cool characters.

You also learn a lot about someone sometimes when they're handed a pregen of the opposite gender.

Quote from: Evansheer;691857Ogami Itto if you're willing to bend the comparison as far as possible. ;)

Seconded (both ways :D).

...of course though, I always got similar vibes off Lone Wolf & Cub and Lady Snowblood, allthough that might just be the art (& the gore & the fanservice & the general exploitation movie aesthetic &...well y'know...) and the amoral assassin thing.

Quote from: Nexus;691563Yes, IME, its not uncommon for gms to restrict players to playing their own gender. Often because of bad experiences with players playing the opposite gender and warning from others that have had it. Though there are other reasons, charitable and otherwise.

One wonders if there's any other legal, valid character choice they ban because they've allegedly "had bad experiences" with people playing them.  Other races?  No one's allowed to play a priest any more because the last two were played by asshats?  Can't say I'm holding my breath.

That being said, I've got no issue with the poll.  I've opened a couple threads over the years to discuss gender roles and politics in gaming.  

Part of it is that I keep anal records of my campaign, and pretty damn complete after 1981: of my 177 players, just under a third have been women.  Except for a single semester in college out of the all-male tactical society, I've always had at least one woman in every group I've ever had, and my current main group's the first one in 25 years with only one woman in it.  Some interesting facts have come from the demographics there; perhaps another thread.

Of those players, only one guy (oddly enough, from the aforementioned all-male tactical society) has ever played a female character, and I regret to say, something of a LSN type.  Not uncommon 30+ years ago, I suppose.  A woman's played a male character seven times; most by women who'd always played male characters, stating that it cut down on the misogyny.  Two of them abandoned the characters within a few sessions and flipped to the first female PCs they'd ever played, coming to think it was okay and they'd get a fair shake.  One stuck to her guns.  It's only happened once since 1982.

Quote from: Ravenswing;691864I keep anal records of my campaign

:eek:

Quote from: Ravenswing;691864One wonders if there's any other legal, valid character choice they ban because they've allegedly "had bad experiences" with people playing them.  Other races?  No one's allowed to play a priest any more because the last two were played by asshats?  Can't say I'm holding my breath.
.

I think lots of folk ban Kender, Drow, humaoid races.

Personally I ban all the races that don't exist in the settign I am playing. That is usually an exhaustive list by the way.

Quote from: vytzka;691866:eek:

To be fair, I know of a GM that used colonoscopy photos to set the scene once.

Quote from: Evansheer;691878To be fair, I know of a GM that used colonoscopy photos to set the scene once.

Ew ew ewwww!

Quote from: jibbajibba;691817can't even think of a male equivalent to Sarah Connors....

Lone Wolf and Cub?

Quote from: TristramEvans;691887Lone Wolf and Cub?

You're the third person to notice this, so I hereby declare that, what with the Rule of Threes, IT IS SO. So says The Ent! *ba-da-boom*

Quote from: Nexus;691488In your experience, if you allow players to play characters of a different gender -

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/dean-what-gif.gif)

Quote from: vytzka;691852I don't like the implied mutual exclusion of "femininity" and "action". But then I don't buy male fighters necessarily being ripped hunks of muscle either.

One of the complaints about people playing the opposite gender that I ran into constantly (still do in some cases) that did bug me was that men (and it was usually directed at men) couldn't play a woman "right" or "accurately" like there was one type (or at best a very limited set) of personality and behavior that defined all women in the world. Which just made the time a woman in my game was being chastised for not playing herself "correctly" all the more amusing.

Gender is an aspect of the character (or a person) it doesn't totally define them and even then its going to define them in different ways in different cultures.

Quote from: Ravenswing;691864One wonders if there's any other legal, valid character choice they ban because they've allegedly "had bad experiences" with people playing them.  Other races?  No one's allowed to play a priest any more because the last two were played by asshats?  Can't say I'm holding my breath.

I've seen different character types restricted due to previous experiences with players a few times. For example: Kender, Malkavians, Assimites and Drow, Assassin type character classes, specific alignments among others*. In all fairness, most of the times I've seen such restrictions it hasn't been cause it happened a couple of times but been something that happened either continuously or it was players who were a fixture in the group and the Gm didn't want to institute a ruling focused on them to keep the peace ("Ron and Bob can't play women, but everyone else can.") and throwing the offending players out isn't an option.

*I'm not counting restricting character types due to the nature of the campaign (This game will be about a war against the Drow so no Drow PCs, please or in this setting Elves are a legendary race believed to have died out millennia ago) or something like that.

Quote from: jibbajibba;691867Personally I ban all the races that don't exist in the settign I am playing. That is usually an exhaustive list by the way.

Isn't it easier to list all the races that are allowed, rather than listing the ones that don't exist?

Quote from: Black Vulmea;691625Player: I'm thinking about running a noblewoman trained in the sword by her father.
Referee: No way, man. Dudes play dudes.
Player: All right, I'll just be a well-dressed noble fop, then.
Referee: That's fine. Okay, you're at a ball when you're approached by a beautiful woman in a ball gown with a plunging neckline. 'Greetings, monsieur, my name is Princess Pinkflower.'
Player: Uh . . .

Truly, it beggars the imagination.

There are all kinds of things GMs don't let players do that GMs do themselves.  Playing Dragons in a D&D game, for example, or playing Elder vampires in a standard vampire game.  GMs run the NPCs, which necessitates running people of another gender, unless you have a mono-gendered world.  That doesn't violate the rule of "no cross gender play" anymore than having evil orcs or direwolves show up in a D&D game might violate a "Only humans" rule.

Quote from: Mailanka;691928There are all kinds of things GMs don't let players do that GMs do themselves.  Playing Dragons in a D&D game, for example, or playing Elder vampires in a standard vampire game.  GMs run the NPCs, which necessitates running people of another gender, unless you have a mono-gendered world.  That doesn't violate the rule of "no cross gender play" anymore than having evil orcs or direwolves show up in a D&D game might violate a "Only humans" rule.

Last time I ran OD&D, one of my players played a dragon. He began play as a little wing-aling-ding dragon with 1HD, a 1d6 claw attack, limited flight ability, and 1/day small area breath weapon.

I didn't bother asking the player what gender the dragon was.

Quote from: vytzka;691852I don't like the implied mutual exclusion of "femininity" and "action". But then I don't buy male fighters necessarily being ripped hunks of muscle either.

You mean male fighters don't all look like a Frazetta poster?  ;-)

Actually, I'd expect that a good percentage of male fighters/adventurers would have issues staying well fed between jobs/dungeons, especially if they like to go carousing after cleaning out a nest of goblins.  Kind of like you never see pictures of heavyset gold prospectors.

I'd also imagine that male fighters wouldn't necessarily look ripped, either, because fighting for your life isn't the same as muscle training.

But hey, this is driven by the power of imagination, so whatever floats your boat.

As for "femininity" and "action", the first thing that popped into my head are the women I know who do aerobics or running or ballroom dancing.  They aren't tomboys at all --okay, one is a bit of a tomboy-- but they definitely are action oriented.

Why would anyone not allow it?


That's like saying a female dm can't roleplay a male npc.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;691931You mean male fighters don't all look like a Frazetta poster?  ;-)

I mean they often look like teenagers with awesome hair and swords they shouldn't be able to lift! So, kind of yes.

Quote from: vytzka;691947I mean they often look like teenagers with awesome hair and swords they shouldn't be able to lift! So, kind of yes.

I'm old enough that I pretend that Anime doesn't exist. ;-)

Quote from: jibbajibba;691817I wonder if any blokes here have ever tried to play the wicked witch archetype. I never have, if I play women they are fiesty tom boy types unless I get given a pregen at a con (I seem to recall playing a female reporter in one of Clash's games at Gen Con once).
Might be interesting to try for a change.
I could certainly never imagine a guy wanting to play a damsel in distress although I suspect that wouldn't be so popular with female players either.

Yes, you did, and most excellently too! It was a Cold Space game, IIRC, focusing on the treatment of the sub/semi-sapient natives of the planet. It was a role that did not require much in the way of tomboy-isms, and you played the lady straight up, as a reporter who happened to be female. Sneaking, subterfuge, lying, yes; but not much on the fisticuffs and shooting.

-clash

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;691891(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/dean-what-gif.gif)

Exactly.

Quote from: Nexus;691922One of the complaints about people playing the opposite gender that I ran into constantly (still do in some cases) that did bug me was that men (and it was usually directed at men) couldn't play a woman "right" or "accurately" like there was one type (or at best a very limited set) of personality and behavior that defined all women in the world. Which just made the time a woman in my game was being chastised for not playing herself "correctly" all the more amusing.

I've read that style of comment before and I have to a agree I have no idea what these people mean. Then again in my experience of roleplaying games the bar for acting and characterisation is set pretty low, as it should be. We try because its fun but no expects Oscar winning performances. Relax, it's a game.

Quote from: vytzka;691947I mean they often look like teenagers with awesome hair and swords they shouldn't be able to lift! So, kind of yes.

Or awesome swords and hair they shouldn't be able to lift.

Ok, lets see if I play this female character 'right'

Sorashana, Kalshtar Ardent

She has two personalities, each with a separate soul.

Usually Sora is in control and Shana only speaks occasionally.

They are telepathic and able to link the minds of all nearby friends for communication.

She is impulsive, and good natured, and likes to fight but not suicidal in battle.

Vain about her good looks but does not brag.

She wears chain mail and it is not a bikini.


So I have played this character for a few months now, and the Earth has not imploded.

Percentage-wise, it seems to be about even in my experience. The reasons for doing so, however, seem to be different.

When a guy plays a girl, it's most often to balance the two genders' representation in a highly relationship-driven game. When a girl plays a guy, it's most often because she's envisioned a character as a guy for some reason and just wants to play it, dammit. The alternatives happen, and I play games often enough that I get to see plenty of them, but not nearly as often as these.

On a perhaps interesting note, I've never run across the chainmail bikini or lesbian stripper ninja crap I've seen complained about elsewhere. Maybe I'm just lucky. But strange enough, it's the women playing male PCs that tend to be the least believable. Not in a horrible or disrespectful manner, mind you; just they play them in a way that makes thinking of their supposed-to-be male PC as a male rather difficult.

Quote from: flyingmice;691959Yes, you did, and most excellently too! It was a Cold Space game, IIRC, focusing on the treatment of the sub/semi-sapient natives of the planet. It was a role that did not require much in the way of tomboy-isms, and you played the lady straight up, as a reporter who happened to be female. Sneaking, subterfuge, lying, yes; but not much on the fisticuffs and shooting.

-clash

Thanks man:)
If I recall I (well she the PC) even kissed one of he other players at one point as a diversion.


I would dearly love to play a couple of games at a con with more folks on this site I think it would engender a much more enlightened dialogue if we realised that we have 90% in common but spend 95% of our time arguing about the other 10%... Sigh...

Sometimes my gender choice is based on lore. Space Marines can't be girls, and Sisters of Sigmar can't be guys. And if I want to play a Bretonnian Knight Errant who's a girl pretending to be a guy, then I can't really be male without going to Inception levels of depth.

Quote from: vytzka;691852I don't like the implied mutual exclusion of "femininity" and "action".

I don't care for it at all.  Oddly enough, though, there's a grain of truth to the stereotyping.

A couple years back, while in the middle of a discussion on such things, I decided to go over those records and break down the 316 characters in my campaign's history by type and gender. Keeping in mind that I've run point-buy systems from 1982 on (TFT and GURPS) and that the pigeon-holes involve judgment calls, I came upon the startling -- to me, anyway -- revelation that a majority of all wizards have had female players, and a full two-thirds of all priestly characters have been played by women.

By contrast, the number of warrior types played by male players outnumber those played by female players nearly 3:1, and when going over the records an even more surprising stat stood out: almost half of all fighter-types played by women had ranged weapons as their go-to weapon; mostly archers, a sprinkling of knife throwers.  Most of the rest were light fighters -- rapier-swinging swashbucklers, martial artists.  Fighters played by men, by contrast, swung significantly towards sword-and-board heavy fighters.

The last stat is the widest difference: of the characters identified as performers (minstrels, courtesans, dancers, acrobats and the like) 21 were played by women, only 6 by men.

Quote from: TristramEvans;691610I'll generally play a female character anytime I'm in a horror game. I just find them more compelling protagonists/victims in that genre.

I tried that in a zombie horror game, but it felt like the GM basically ignored my character.

Quote from: jibbajibba;691817I could certainly never imagine a guy wanting to play a damsel in distress although I suspect that wouldn't be so popular with female players either.

I think there's a specific reason I've noticed why 'damsel in distress' characters don't work in group RPGs; they basically get ignored and don't get to do anything. Impact of PCs in RPGs tends to be measured by their competency, their ability to do stuff.

You could probably create a solo game based more on women's fiction (Romance novels, Twilight etc) with an essentially passive female lead character - she gets to make choices, eg between suitors, but her competency is never tested - definitely no 'roll to succeed' mechanic. Would be easy enough as a gamebook or CRPG, maybe a Storygame. I'm not sure it could ever work as a group RPG with multiple damsel protagonists though, since that would trend towards competition between them (eg for most desirable mate) and thus undermine the genre, which is a sort of 'passivity fantasy', the opposite of the 'power fantasy' traditional RPGs tend to be built around.

Quote from: vytzka;691852I don't like the implied mutual exclusion of "femininity" and "action". But then I don't buy male fighters necessarily being ripped hunks of muscle either.

I think there's definitely a femininity fantasy that is the opposite of action/power fantasy. Hence all those Romance novels, Fifty Shades of Grey, et al. Of course a lot of gamer girls aren't particularly interested* in that fantasy, but it's a very common one.

*Or indeed are actively hostile to it, especially if growing up they felt forced into a traditionally feminine role that they didn't like. The gamer women I know all hate 'Twilight' - 'fantasy for women who don't like fantasy'.

I meant more the idea above that a woman in an action role is supposed to be butch / a tomboy. Lack of women in action roles is another problem entirely (albeit a decreasing one).

Quote from: S'mon;692137I think there's a specific reason I've noticed why 'damsel in distress' characters don't work in group RPGs; they basically get ignored and don't get to do anything. Impact of PCs in RPGs tends to be measured by their competency, their ability to do stuff.

That really depends on the game.  In a typical D&D session, playing the princess who does nothing but scream at the edges of the room while the rest of the players mop up the place is boring and lame.  But playing the hostage of another noble in a game of Houses of the Blooded or Game of Thrones or something can be quite interesting.  In a game where social ties matter and the character can explore an interesting relationship with her captor, then we can get some play.

I'm running a samurai campaign right now, highly political and social, and one of the PCs is a geisha in the grip of the Tall, Dark and Dangerous prince of a wicked, sinister clan, so naturally she's fallen in love with the brooding, murderous bastard* and finds herself trapped between her father's well-bred and elite clan, and the low-born, dark-tempered clan that she'd rather like to marry into, and she also has to keep the peace between them, because her bond with Tall, Dark and Dangerous is providing a great number of troops to her kin, which they need to defeat the shogunate.  And then there's the forbidden love between her father and her mother and her hatred from the daimyo that rules her father's clan and the relationship between her and the other players and so on and so forth.  Thus for her to be a wilting DiD isn't really boring.  She has more than enough to do.

But I totally agree that this sort of character isn't for everyone.  When I build pregens targeted at female players, I'll usually include one like this... but only one, since I've played with plenty of women who are more interested in being tough, kicking butt and looking cool, or in exploring neat things and horsing around and telling stories, or just hangin' out and bein' one of the guys, or being sexy, manipulative, cold and powerful, or what have you.  Just like the brawny, hulking, brute with a big sword and a bigger libido and an even bigger ego is a classic, masculine archetype, but you'd be mistaken to believe that all guys want to play this character.

Quote from: Mailanka;692143That really depends on the game.  In a typical D&D session, playing the princess who does nothing but scream at the edges of the room while the rest of the players mop up the place is boring and lame.  But playing the hostage of another noble in a game of Houses of the Blooded or Game of Thrones or something can be quite interesting.  In a game where social ties matter and the character can explore an interesting relationship with her captor, then we can get some play.

Hm, while it's not the Damsel ('Romance Novel') fantasy I was thinking of, I like the idea of an RPG where Sansa Stark is at least as viable a PC as Arya Stark. I have the A Song of Ice And Fire RPG but so far I haven't seen much support for this sort of play there - the sample adventure especially seemed very traditional. But I'll have another look through it.

When I tried running a Game of Thrones type game over the summer, the big problem I had was that the PCs shrapnelled, just like in Game of Thrones. The ASoiAF RPG suggests that all PCs be part of one noble house as a way to keep them together, that seems a good idea (although to keep all PCs together, wouldn't a Captive PC have to be from a different house and be held captive by the other PCs' house?).
The AoIAF game seemed a bit over-crunchy for my tastes though in stuff aimed at the players, like House creation.

Quote from: S'mon;692144Hm, while it's not the Damsel ('Romance Novel') fantasy I was thinking of, I like the idea of an RPG where Sansa Stark is at least as viable a PC as Arya Stark. I have the A Song of Ice And Fire RPG but so far I haven't seen much support for this sort of play there - the sample adventure especially seemed very traditional. But I'll have another look through it.

When I tried running a Game of Thrones type game over the summer, the big problem I had was that the PCs shrapnelled, just like in Game of Thrones. The ASoiAF RPG suggests that all PCs be part of one noble house as a way to keep them together, that seems a good idea (although to keep all PCs together, wouldn't a Captive PC have to be from a different house and be held captive by the other PCs' house?).
The AoIAF game seemed a bit over-crunchy for my tastes though in stuff aimed at the players, like House creation.

That is a common problem in Amber as well when PCs can literally disappear into other universes at whim. You really have to play different sessions to be honest. But its a reason why they work so well in internet play especially Wiki games.


I would have thought Stansa Stark woudl interesting if she was more politically aware I think playing Cersi for example would be quite appealing. You get the idea that perhaps Stansa might be heading in that direction, a low level Cersi,  but its certainly not definite there are plenty of middleaged women in GoT who are just as useless as Stansa at the Game after all.

In my current campaign:
Male - playing female Elven Spellsword; originally playing a male, died and was reincarnated as a woman
Male - playing female Warlock; originally playing a male, died and was reincarnated as a woman
Male - playing female Thief; originally playing a male, his main died and he switched to his henchwoman
Male - playing male Paladin
Male - playing male Shaman
Male - playing male Gladiator
Male - playing male Mage
Female - playing female Bard

So it's 4 men and 4 women in the adventuring party, but 75% of the women characters are played by male players.

Quote from: amacris;692301In my current campaign:
Male - playing female Elven Spellsword; originally playing a male, died and was reincarnated as a woman
Male - playing female Warlock; originally playing a male, died and was reincarnated as a woman
Male - playing female Thief; originally playing a male, his main died and he switched to his henchwoman
Male - playing male Paladin
Male - playing male Shaman
Male - playing male Gladiator
Male - playing male Mage
Female - playing female Bard

So it's 4 men and 4 women in the adventuring party, but 75% of the women characters are played by male players.

WOW! 2 reincarnations and only change was a gender swap? They got lucky.

I had a fighter that got reincarnated as a badger. :D

When I started playing RPGs as a teenager, I gamed with a group of DnD dudes and chicks and several of the guys played female characters. As such, they played them as over-sexed bimbos. It's actually one of the reasons I never took to DnD.

Since then, I banned gender crossing in my own games. I've never seen any dude play a female character well or even tastefully. Now that I and my players are in our early thirties, I don't even have to ban it; maturity has caught up to us, and it's a moot issue.

Quote from: everloss;692672When I started playing RPGs as a teenager, I gamed with a group of DnD dudes and chicks and several of the guys played female characters. As such, they played them as over-sexed bimbos. It's actually one of the reasons I never took to DnD.

Since then, I banned gender crossing in my own games. I've never seen any dude play a female character well or even tastefully. Now that I and my players are in our early thirties, I don't even have to ban it; maturity has caught up to us, and it's a moot issue.

Sure you might see a rare player that roleplays that way, but its far from the norm.

I have seen many players play characters of various genders play in a mature fashion.

Is a dm immature when they roleplay npc's of various gender?

Quote from: Bill;692876Sure you might see a rare player that roleplays that way, but its far from the norm.

Except that's been my experience too.  I've had problems with women doing the same when they played male characters.  Given that pretty much any character can be played in either gender, I don't see the point of someone playing cross-gendered except in specific circumstances (like women who want to play a space marine, or a guy who wants to play a Vodacce fate witch).  Given that it potentially offers problems and offers no benefits, I don't see what is to be gained by allowing it, and so I generally don't.

and I don't really understand the drive from those who do allow it in pushing those who do not to change their stance.  You run your way, I'll run mine.  If you don't like the way I run my games, then just don't play.  Simple, right?  Live and let live.

Quote from: everloss;692672Since then, I banned gender crossing in my own games.

So your NPCs are all male?

What is the in-game explanation for this exclusively male world?

Quote from: everlossI've never seen any dude play a female character well or even tastefully.

So you can only play things you can play well? Please tell me how I can portray a cleric of a definitely imaginary god convincingly? How might I play the warrior of a martial art which I know nothing about, and which no-one knows anything about given that people have not been in swordfights for a couple of centuries? Given that magic does not exist, how may I play a wizard "properly"? How about half-orcs?

What level of portrayal is required, do I have to be a Sir Lawrence Olivier, or will a Nicholas Cage level of acting do? Can I just be all Brian Blessed and shout a lot? Is this a fantasy adventure game, or some form of high dramatic art?

Are we only allowed to play ourselves as characters?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;692883So your NPCs are all male?

What is the in-game explanation for this exclusively male world?


So you can only play things you can play well? Please tell me how I can portray a cleric of a definitely imaginary god convincingly? How might I play the warrior of a martial art which I know nothing about, and which no-one knows anything about given that people have not been in swordfights for a couple of centuries? Given that magic does not exist, how may I play a wizard "properly"? How about half-orcs?

What level of portrayal is required, do I have to be a Sir Lawrence Olivier, or will a Nicholas Cage level of acting do? Can I just be all Brian Blessed and shout a lot? Is this a fantasy adventure game, or some form of high dramatic art?

Are we only allowed to play ourselves as characters?

Its strange how some believe that we can portray bug-eyed 4 armed aliens without blinking an eye, but the game falls apart playing a female of your own race. It truly boggles the mind.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;692887Its strange how some believe that we can portray bug-eyed 4 armed aliens without blinking an eye, but the game falls apart playing a female of your own race. It truly boggles the mind.

If I play a known ethnicity in an offensive manner, that might offend real people.  If I played a four-armed bug-monster to the hilt with 1950s alien clichés, I know of very few real four-armed bug-monsters who will be offended.

In fact, I see tons of strawmen in this thread, and all of them are regarding fantasy notions.  I notice, however, very few people claiming that it's totally okay to play greedy, hook-nosed, conspiring jews, or thieving, lying gypsies, or stupid and lecherous black men.  So, obviously, it's absolutely possible to play a particular thing "wrong."

And 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.

Is it possible for a guy to be horribly offensive when playing a woman? Yeah, absolutely.  And I'd rather not see that in my game, and the easiest way to avoid that is a blanket "No." Is it possible for well-meaning guys to play unbelievable female NPCs?  Again, yeah, absolutely, and since most of us KNOW women, it's completely possible that this will destroy suspense of disbelief.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSo your NPCs are all male?

Got me there!  I'm a hypocrite.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's actually look at this honestly.  First, the GM is an entirely different role than a PC.  For one thing, the GM is generally given more trust than most PCs.  For example, when a GM makes a ruling, in most groups, this is accepted, and it's accepted because they know the GM is looking out for the game.  Where this trust is violated, the game rapidly disintegrates.  Thus, most GMs who consistently run tend to be worthy of that trust, and most GMs who are not worthy of that trust don't consistently run.

Part of that trust will involve how he handles NPCs.  This is why he's "allowed to play" high level characters, like the king or the lich in your D&D game, because you're pretty sure he's not going to just lord it over you (and if he does, you'll walk).  By the same token, we can trust the GM to be respectful and realistic with his female NPCs.  And where they are not, I notice, the GM tends to treat them distantly, or treats all NPCs distantly ("Yes, the waitress who takes your order is a female,"  but there's no deep characterization there, anymore than he might deeply characterize the orc represented by a token during one of your many D&D battles).

The real strawman is that you're suggesting that just because we don't allow cross-gender play is that we don't believe men can POSSIBLY play women, or that women can POSSIBLY play men.  I happen to play excellent women. I know several male players who play excellent women, and I've seen women who play excellent male characters.  I've even been romanced by a female PC played by a male character, while I played a male character.  It was very nice.  But it's another thing to say that all people can do this: Many cannot.  They lack the maturity, insight or empathy to do with well and respectfully, because they're not depicting alien creatures that don't exist, but real people with a real history, who are really there, sitting at your table, or that the GM is really married to, or what have you.  And people have opinions about them.

So I say avoid the whole can of worms and just lay down a blanket "You play your own gender," and if we play in a historical setting or in another, real-world culture, I expect it to be treated respectfully and reasonably accurately.

You don't agree?  Fine.  I know plenty of people who don't agree with my policies, or how I give out experience, or which rulesets I think are best, or how I chose to handle that one rule question that one time.  It's alright to disagree with me.  The world is a rainbow of differing opinions.

What I really don't understand is why you feel the need to argue with us about it.  What do you want from us?  An apology? An acknowledgement that your way is the one true way?  You don't seem to want to understand why we do it, as you're very, very dismissive, and you don't seem to want to discuss the particulars.  Mostly, I just see mocking of the other side.  Do you think that will change our minds?  Or is it merely for your own amusement?  That seems small, but if that's the only thing you have to do with your time, well... feel free to laugh at me for allowing human men to play elven men, but not elven women.

You make some good points Mailanka but just out of curiosity, what would you view as an offensively played female character, and do you ban people from playing Jews, black folk and gypsies too?

Quote from: The Traveller;692908You make some good points Mailanka but just out of curiosity, what would you view as an offensively played female character, and do you ban people from playing Jews, black folk and gypsies too?

Other races and cultures are slightly trickier.  First, you're less likely to know someone of another culture than you are to know someone of another gender.  An American man almost certainly knows plenty of American women, but probably knows few Japanese men.  Thus, you're less likely to create a suspension of disbelief issue by playing a Japanese character poorly than you are by playing a woman poorly.  Secondly, certain concepts are deeply tied to a culture.  You cannot play an American samurai.  If you want to play a historical samurai, he needs to be Japanese.  So just like a game of Space Marines involves all male PCs (even if some of the players are female) then all the samurai PCs will be Japanese, even if most of the players are not.

But if I know the culture and you play it badly, you can bet it's going to impact my SoD.  There's an episode of Samurai Champloo where they're talking to a Dutch guy and I actually know dutch, and when he speaks dutch (at the very end) I'm pretty sure that's a German guy hacking his way through dutch dialog, and it absolutely ruins the scene for me.  If you have a choice between playing an American or a Dutch character, and you know you're going to just ruin the Dutch character, then yes, absolutely, please play the American.

As for your question about Jews, blacks and gypsies, if you're going to play bad racial stereotypes, then yeah, I'm not going to let you play as them.  In fact, if I even see questionable concepts, I'm going to ban it.  Now, I haven't actually run into too many people who play these out in a hateful manner, but you can bet that if I ran into it again and again, I would ban it, because there are a million character concepts that you can play, so not much is lost if I throw a few good concepts out with the many bad, unless they were played by someone who was actually from that ethnicity.

But men playing women and women playing men has an even greater cultural and biological weight than race or culture, which are largely constructs (What is an African-American?  Is he "black?" Or is he "american?" Well, that depends on your context, doesn't it? In a game about inner-city vs suburb classism, he's black.  In a game about American soldiers vs Afghani terrorists, he's American) but gender tends to be always vivid in our minds, because a man realizing that someone is a woman, or a woman realizing that someone is a man, is very very useful evolutionarily speaking.  That means everyone has Opinions (with a capital O!) on the subject.  Some people think gender is really, really engrained and that gender-roles are biologically pre-ordained and that people who don't buy into them are just fooling themselves.  Some people believe that gender is almost entirely a social construct, and any notion that, say, men are more aggressive than women is complete hogwash, and that men and women are pretty much exactly the same.  Who's right?  Who's wrong?  Have a guy play a woman one way, the other guy loses his SoD.

Who's right?  Who cares.  It still causes an argument at my table.  And for what?  Why couldn't that particular concept just have been played as a dude, or why not just have a different concept entirely?  Unless you're in a game that necessitates it, I find there's little to gain by walking out in the weeds of potential misogyny/misandry and the various clashing opinions have on gender and what X is really like when we can just as easily say "Bob, I'm pretty sure you can play your pirate queen as a pirate captain instead."

Some 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.

But I do have a few more established groups, one of which are people mainly in their 30s, who are unlikely to get into arguments with one another, would never want to play a sexual-fantasy-stripper-ninjas, or Going-out-of-their-way-to-make-people-uncomfortable-Yaoi-bois, have a solid grasp of the differences between boys and girls and can play them in a respectful manner, and are generally pretty believable.  So I'd have no problem with them cross-gender playing.


But they don't.  You know why?  Because there's nothing to be gained by it.  Because there's nothing you can do with a guy that you can't do with a girl, or vice versa.  So I have the rule and nobody ever challenges it, because it's never an issue.  I might be missing out on some things as a result, but the small, meager things I'm missing out on are compensated for by the small, meager things I gain, so I figure it's worth it.

I understand why some people don't have the rule (they just kick out the people who play creepy LSNs, because if they play creepy LSNs, they'll play creepy dudes too, which is TOTALLY TRUE!) and thus see the rule as largely redundant, but I see no harm in keeping mine.  I don't think this is a case of "right or wrong" just "different paths, different traditions."

Quote from: Mailanka;692907In fact, I see tons of strawmen in this thread, and all of them are regarding fantasy notions.  I notice, however, very few people claiming that it's totally okay to play greedy, hook-nosed, conspiring jews, or thieving, lying gypsies, or stupid and lecherous black men.  So, obviously, it's absolutely possible to play a particular thing "wrong."

Whats wrong with those? Portraying an individual will vary from one to the next, thats kind of the definition of individual. Playing an entire group as if it were an individual is where the problem lies.  

Quote from: Mailanka;692907Now that we've got that out of the way, let's actually look at this honestly.  First, the GM is an entirely different role than a PC.  For one thing, the GM is generally given more trust than most PCs.  For example, when a GM makes a ruling, in most groups, this is accepted, and it's accepted because they know the GM is looking out for the game.  Where this trust is violated, the game rapidly disintegrates.  Thus, most GMs who consistently run tend to be worthy of that trust, and most GMs who are not worthy of that trust don't consistently run.

Part of that trust will involve how he handles NPCs.  This is why he's "allowed to play" high level characters, like the king or the lich in your D&D game, because you're pretty sure he's not going to just lord it over you (and if he does, you'll walk).  By the same token, we can trust the GM to be respectful and realistic with his female NPCs.  And where they are not, I notice, the GM tends to treat them distantly, or treats all NPCs distantly ("Yes, the waitress who takes your order is a female,"  but there's no deep characterization there, anymore than he might deeply characterize the orc represented by a token during one of your many D&D battles).

So the DM is automatically assumed to be the most mature, well adjusted person of every group? Talk about assumptions.

Quote from: Mailanka;692907So I say avoid the whole can of worms and just lay down a blanket "You play your own gender," and if we play in a historical setting or in another, real-world culture, I expect it to be treated respectfully and reasonably accurately.

So if I'm hearing this right, average Joe gamer cannot play a female character properly without offending women so it is forbidden, yet a player playing a character in a historical civil war  setting would have to refer to his friend's character with a racial epithet because his friend (and the character) happen to be black, cause accuracy?

One more question. What are you smoking?

Quote from: everloss;692672When I started playing RPGs as a teenager, I gamed with a group of DnD dudes and chicks and several of the guys played female characters. As such, they played them as over-sexed bimbos. It's actually one of the reasons I never took to DnD.

Since then, I banned gender crossing in my own games. I've never seen any dude play a female character well or even tastefully. Now that I and my players are in our early thirties, I don't even have to ban it; maturity has caught up to us, and it's a moot issue.

So, a mature man is one who realizes he's incapable of role playing a woman as anything but an oversexed bimbo?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;692920So the DM is automatically assumed to be the most mature, well adjusted person of every group? Talk about assumptions.

Let's be honest: When you're talking to me about how I run a game, you're talking about how I am as a GM.  Yes, I think I'm mature enough to handle these sorts of issues.

QuoteSo if I'm hearing this right, average Joe gamer cannot play a female character properly without offending women so it is forbidden, yet a player playing a character in a historical civil war  setting would have to refer to his friend's character with a racial epithet because his friend (and the character) happen to be black, cause accuracy?

First: I don't know what Average Joe Gamer can  handle, because he is, by definition, unknown.  But I do know that problematic portrayals of a female character by a male player will cause a problem at the table.  If he's mature, he can handle a male character with equal aplomb, thus I lose nothing by asking him to restrict himself to male characters.

As for the latter: No, I would not allow that sort of talk at the table, unless (perhaps) everyone at the table was okay with it.  In this particular case, I am not okay with it.

(This sort of thing actually came up in my samurai game, because many samurai practiced pedarasty.  I thought about introducing it for accuracy, and it would fit well into a particular relationship, but decided it was almost certainly a bridge too far and discarded it.  News of this decision came out, and the group said they would have been fine by it, but I feel I still made the right decision)

QuoteOne more question. What are you smoking?

Why does it matter so much to you?  Why the insults, the attacks and the strawmen?  You're not in my game.  I'm not telling you that you can't play female characters.  Is it that someone on the internet has an opinion that's different than yours?  Because there are, like, tons.  People who think you vote like an idiot, or that your faith (or lack thereof) is foolish, or just think you listen to terrible music. Do you question their sanity with equal vigor?  And my opinion isn't even that your opinion is wrong.  I just have a different one.  Does that bother you so much that you have to stamp it out?

I don't really understand this.  My opinion hurts you not one whit.  It doesn't even harm you ego, as I'm not insulting or attacking you.  So why waste calories flicking keys to say things like "You're crazy."  I think I already get that my opinion isn't universal. What else are you hoping to accomplish?

Quote from: Mailanka;692915But they don't.  You know why?  Because there's nothing to be gained by it.  Because there's nothing you can do with a guy that you can't do with a girl, or vice versa.

I don't agree with this opinion. I play some female characters and I do it because the character's background, personality, nature and other aspects worked more for a woman or because I wanted to deal with aspects of the setting that a female would have do deal with, etc. Pretty much the same reasons I decide to make a character male or female when I write a story.

Men and women do experience the world differently, have different expectations and outlooks, etc. Neither is superior but I find it interesting to explore those differences in role playing. It also helps maintain a certain degree of separation that keeps the character from becoming too much of a personal avatar, basically Me but in a different setting. I play different ethnic backgrounds, races and cultures for much the same reason.

I'd say you and your fellow players don't think there's anything to be gained but its a subjective matter.

Quote from: Mailanka;692926I don't really understand this.  My opinion hurts you not one whit.  It doesn't even harm you ego, as I'm not insulting or attacking you.  So why waste calories flicking keys to say things like "You're crazy."  I think I already get that my opinion isn't universal. What else are you hoping to accomplish?

Funny 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...

It 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 otherwise. At best.

Well, in my perspective, the pirate queen, for examples, is going to provide a different experience than the pirate captain especially in a historical or pseudo historical setting. She's going to have different challenges, different issues and more than likely have to take a different approach. She's also going to have different advantages to exploit than a man in some circumstances (for example, some real female pirates escaped the noose due to be being or claiming to be pregnant "pleading their bellies"). So I really can't agree that a character being male or female is no different in most settings. It might not be a difference the players consider worth the potential hassle though.

I agree. If the mental image and concept you have of your own character as a player changes depending on its gender, and that the events and character interactions in game play are likely to vary based on this initial concept and mental image you have of your character, the argument that it doesn't matter whether you play the pirate captain instead of the pirate queen is HUGELY hypocritical, and completely falls apart as a result.

Trust goes both ways. If I trust you to run the game competently, trust me to run my character likewise. Otherwise, I'll just play elsewhere, thank you very much.

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.

I dunno, I think people are being a bit hard on Mailanka. Upon reflection I don't agree with the poster's stance but I do understand it and the thinking behind it, which has been abundantly and politely explained.

Quote from: S'mon;692964And no one ever objects to your ban on cross-gender play? No one finds it creepy or revolting?

Rarely.  And it's not that I lack players or experience here.  And why would one find it creepy?  In my experience, people tend to find cross-gender play creepier than "No cross-gender play." In fact, when I say it, I very rarely have to explain it at all.  I simply say "I don't allow cross-gender play" and people say "Okay" and shift characters/concepts.

I've been argued with only a few times.  A few times, the player turned out to have... issues whatever gender he played.  There was once a transgender argued with me, essentially arguing that she* was neurologically male and thus it wasn't really cross-gender RP.  I had a hard time arguing against that and conceded her*point and allowed the "cross-gender" RP, though whether or not it was really a violation of my rule depends on how you view gender, but alas that campaign never got off the ground.

Quote from: Mailanka;692963I'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.

Some interesting observations in this post. I never thought it like this before you have a point about most gamers tending to see the gm as their character's senses in a way. He or she is the world around them, the narrator not the actor most of the time. I mean, putting aside gender most players have no problem with GM, who might be a pasty 98s pd asthmatic portraying a hulking muscle bound orc bruiser threatening to dismember their character.

Same goes for players. I played in a Star Wars campaign for years, had a great time but it came up randomly at one point that everyone assumed by character was black (I am) and looked a bit like young Lando Calrissian (I'm not even close. :)) when he was a white, everyman looking teen ager (Looked allot like Joel from MST3K).

The whole not playing a woman "right" bugs me to no end. It implies there is one sort of woman or at least a there's only a very limited set of "female" personalities exist and any woman that doesn't fall into them isn't a "real woman".  Which, to me, is more sexist than the LSNs and walking sex fantasies.

Hell, I've played with LSNs, Yaoi pretty boys, "Man with Boobs" and all the other stereotypical "bad cross gender" examples and they've actually been interesting characters with depth and development. Those facets didn't totally define them and they had reasons and motivation for being the way they were. So if they were the players stroke fiction at least they served to entertain the rest of the players too. Maybe the group I'm with is just damn atypical but I really like the we can do stuff like that.

Quote from: Mailanka;692944Because if you play the pirate queen "wrong," then players will call you on it

I have never seen this. I've never seen a player accuse another player of playing their character wrong on account of gender. Neither male nor female players have done this in any group I've ever seen, and I've seen many.

Quote from: S'mon;692964And no one ever objects to your ban on cross-gender play? No one finds it creepy or revolting?

I don't agree with his stance but "creepy and revolting" seems like too strong a reaction.

Quote from: The Traveller;692968I dunno, I think people are being a bit hard on Mailanka. Upon reflection I don't agree with the poster's stance but I do understand it and the thinking behind it, which has been abundantly and politely explained.

To be fair, it's just a couple of people who really, really dislike it, and watching the reactions this thread got, I knew I was going to catch some heat for my stance.  On the whole, I have to say that it was actually more positive than I expected and frankly would have been a worse experience in other places I can think of.

Quote from: S'mon;692971I have never seen this. I've never seen a player accuse another player of playing their character wrong on account of gender. Neither male nor female players have done this in any group I've ever seen, and I've seen many.

Different people have different experiences. That's not hard to believe.

I have to say I'm surprised by some of the vehemence and seeming anger about this topic. Unless I'm completely remembering things wrong I recall when allowing or doing cross gender play marked you as a creepy weirdo and men playing women was the domain of "Cat piss men" types.  I guess the pendulum has swung the other way

Quote from: Mailanka;692969Rarely.  And it's not that I lack players or experience here.  And why would one find it creepy?  In my experience, people tend to find cross-gender play creepier than "No cross-gender play." In fact, when I say it, I very rarely have to explain it at all.  I simply say "I don't allow cross-gender play" and people say "Okay" and shift characters/concepts.

Dunno if it might be a cultural issue. Are you American? All the cross-gender-banners I've ever seen have been American; Americans seem to have particular issues that don't apply in the rest of the world. I'd be absolutely flabbergasted to encounter this here in the UK.

Quote from: Mailanka;692974To be fair, it's just a couple of people who really, really dislike it, and watching the reactions this thread got, I knew I was going to catch some heat for my stance.  On the whole, I have to say that it was actually more positive than I expected and frankly would have been a worse experience in other places I can think of.

Places that being with rpg and end with net with a . inbetween? :)

It actually wasn't that bad over there but then again, no one stuck their neck out because well, that's they way the place is.

Quote from: S'mon;692978Dunno if it might be a cultural issue. Are you American? All the cross-gender-banners I've ever seen have been American; Americans seem to have particular issues that don't apply in the rest of the world. I'd be absolutely flabbergasted to encounter this here in the UK.

I wouldn't got that far. I've met some people that ban cross gender play from Canada, South America, Britain and other locales over the years.

Quote from: S'mon;692971I have never seen this. I've never seen a player accuse another player of playing their character wrong on account of gender. Neither male nor female players have done this in any group I've ever seen, and I've seen many.

I have.  I've also seen people complain about it, or complain about the lack of immersion, or forgetting the gender of the PC, even to the point of making long-term plans for a character whose gender they have mistaken.

Quote from: Nexus;692970Some interesting observations in this post. I never thought it like this before you have a point about most gamers tending to see the gm as their character's senses in a way. He or she is the world around them, the narrator not the actor most of the time. I mean, putting aside gender most players have no problem with GM, who might be a pasty 98s pd asthmatic portraying a hulking muscle bound orc bruiser threatening to dismember their character.

Same goes for players. I played in a Star Wars campaign for years, had a great time but it came up randomly at one point that everyone assumed by character was black (I am) and looked a bit like young Lando Calrissian (I'm not even close. :)) when he was a white, everyman looking teen ager (Looked allot like Joel from MST3K).

The whole not playing a woman "right" bugs me to no end. It implies there is one sort of woman or at least a there's only a very limited set of "female" personalities exist and any woman that doesn't fall into them isn't a "real woman".  Which, to me, is more sexist than the LSNs and walking sex fantasies.

Hell, I've played with LSNs, Yaoi pretty boys, "Man with Boobs" and all the other stereotypical "bad cross gender" examples and they've actually been interesting characters with depth and development. Those facets didn't totally define them and they had reasons and motivation for being the way they were. So if they were the players stroke fiction at least they served to entertain the rest of the players too. Maybe the group I'm with is just damn atypical but I really like the we can do stuff like that.

So, lemme tell you a secret: I've seen chicks play Lesbian Stripper Ninjas.  Well, at least Stripper Ninjas with Bisexual Tendencies.  The thing is, as soon as a woman is playing the female character, you can't really complain about it "because she's a woman, she must know what women are like."

I don't contend that the people who argue that you're not playing X "right" are correct.  Sometimes they might be, but people are really varied, and who's really the ultimate authority on what's "Feminine" or "Masculine?"  Isn't it possible for a man to understand women better than women do?  Or for a woman to understand men better than men do?  I know for a fact that women have made observations about me, my needs, my focus, and my romantic tendencies, that I never noticed before or understood.  In some ways, men and women have a unique perspective on one another precisely because they are on the outside looking in.

I think the problem really boils down to immersion.  When they say "You're playing your character wrong," and the risk of irritating Benoist and suggesting I have empathic powers, I think they're often saying "I can't see your character anymore."

Consider a LARP.  If you argue that you should be allowed to play any character, nothing stops a guy from playing a woman in a LARP.  You can plan an orc, or a vampire, or an elf, why not a woman?  Part of it, I'm sure, comes from how our culture views gender, and we could get into quite a dicussion about THAT, because women do something dress up as and play guys in LARPs, and the reverse seems to be very rare to me (I've never, ever seen a guy play a woman in a LARP).  But a lot of it comes down to the fact that you need to physically portray your character.  I'm a big man, and I would just never try to play a child or a slim, delicate man.  I just don't think I could pull it off.  People looking at me would never know I had an effete build "in reality."  They will treat me as I am, as I appear.  There are limits to imagination.

Tabletop can get around that a bit if you describe your character the way a GM would.  If I say "I approach the prince and compliment him," in my gruff bass, then it's hard to remember that I'm a delicate princess.  If I say "Dierde's slipper whispers against the floor as she shyly approaches the prince.  Ducking her head a bit to hide her face behind her hair as she murmurs 'You look stunning today, my prince.'" You're no longer envisioning me but Dierdre, who happens to be narrated by a dude.  And despite the fact that they're both exactly the same thing, I see more people get complaints of "Playing the character wrong" from the first than from the second, which is what leads me to believe that this boils down to immersion and the breaking of it.

I also note most players don't THINK in the second way.  They don't envision their character from the outside, looking in.  They generally don't depict their character as other characters see them, which is a struggle I have with online RP (Trying to convince people that they need to do this). One of the things I mean when I talk about "Trusting a player" is this sort of knowledge and behavior.  It's not just about whether they play the female/male character accurately (though that can be a concern), it's that they successfully depict their character.

If I play a hulking brute and describe him in the first person, then it's more believable than a child or a woman or a delicate elf.

Quote from: Nexus;692972I don't agree with his stance but "creepy and revolting" seems like too strong a reaction.

That's the reaction I have, probably is irrational in some cases. As irrational as banning cross-gender play. :D But my id-brain tells me that anyone doing this must have something seriously wrong with them.

Quote from: S'mon;692978Dunno if it might be a cultural issue. Are you American? All the cross-gender-banners I've ever seen have been American; Americans seem to have particular issues that don't apply in the rest of the world. I'd be absolutely flabbergasted to encounter this here in the UK.

I am American, yes, but most of my role-playing experience has been in the Netherlands.  Personally, I find the notion that Americans are more conservative about gender or what have you than Europeans to be untrue.  The Dutch can be astonishingly conservative, for example, and Americans can be very liberal about it.

So local culture (as in the culture of your specific group0 certainly has something to do with it, but as I said before, I use the rule the most when I'm running one-shots at a local RPG association, explicitly when I have less control over the "culture" I'm in, and I use it for precisely that reason.  Some groups could totally handle it, some groups can't.  Since I don't know which one I'm in...

Quote from: S'mon;692978Dunno if it might be a cultural issue. Are you American? All the cross-gender-banners I've ever seen have been American; Americans seem to have particular issues that don't apply in the rest of the world. I'd be absolutely flabbergasted to encounter this here in the UK.

Yeah, but we in the UK have a long tradition on men playing women going all the way back from Shakespeare to Monty Python. So basically that's all the classics covered.

Quote from: Mailanka;692983I have.  I've also seen people complain about it, or complain about the lack of immersion, or forgetting the gender of the PC, even to the point of making long-term plans for a character whose gender they have mistaken.

I've certainly seen players and GMs refer to PCs by the gender of the player rather than the gender of the PC - happened to me today, playing my Cha 8 female Cleric. Not a big deal IMO. It would have been a big deal (and really weird) if someone had accused me of playing her wrong, though.

I'm male but I actually find playing some male characters harder. Eg as GM I have no trouble playing female romantic interest NPCs for male PCs, but I've found it a bit tougher recently playing a male romantic interest NPC for a female NPC (female player). I have to refer to eg the male love interests in romantic comedy movies, not a genre I normally pay much attention to. I guess it's because I'm not just playing a man, I'm trying to play an aspect of masculinity designed to appeal to women.

Quote from: Mailanka;692983I also note most players don't THINK in the second way.  They don't envision their character from the outside, looking in.  They generally don't depict their character as other characters see them, which is a struggle I have with online RP (Trying to convince people that they need to do this).

Yeah, I run into that allot in online play. No one describes what their character looks like. Sometimes they don't even exchange names, for Pete's sake.

Are you refusing transgender players at your game table because it might be controversial with the other players?

Quote from: Nexus;692991Yeah, I run into that allot in online play. No one describes what they're character looks like. Sometimes they don't even exchange names, for Pete's sake.

"Always use third person" is a good rule for text-based online play.

Quote from: S'mon;692990I'm male but I actually find playing some male characters harder. Eg as GM I have no trouble playing female romantic interest NPCs for male PCs, but I've found it a bit tougher recently playing a male romantic interest NPC for a female NPC (female player). I have to refer to eg the male love interests in romantic comedy movies, not a genre I normally pay much attention to. I guess it's because I'm not just playing a man, I'm trying to play an aspect of masculinity designed to appeal to women.

I adore playing with women, and it's precisely because I enjoy playing those kinds of male characters, but you're totally right, they're not really men.  Not human men. Well, they can be, and glimpses of that humanity is one of the things that really sells it from "He's hot!" to "I'm in love," just like when the perfectly hot female NPC discusses her belief that her father always wanted a son and not a daughter, or she refuses a male PC's help out of stubborn pride.  She goes from being a magazine cut-out to someone human, and there's something very appealing in that.

But your core concern in such cases is never "Accurately depicting gender X," or even "Accurately depicting a given character," it's  "Accurately depicting a character who appeals to gender X." That's complicated, because it involves understanding two different genders and how they interact (and, specifically, how a given player will interact with that character).  Romance is tough.  You use romantic comedies? Great, what about the girl who loves action movies and sci-fi?  I have one of those at my table, and rom-com is useless for her, while the other girl at the same table is forever hip-deep in trashy bodice-rippers.

So I get where you're coming from.  Romance is a very tricky thing.  I know some people who just foreswear it completely.  I love it too much to let myself be daunted by it, but it took a lot of stumbling and mistakes before I got it right.

Quote from: Mailanka;692881and I don't really understand the drive from those who do allow it in pushing those who do not to change their stance.  You run your way, I'll run mine.  If you don't like the way I run my games, then just don't play.  Simple, right?  Live and let live.

The drive is simple: what you're doing is vetoing a bonafide, legitimate, system-legal choice in character design for no better reason than your amour propre.

Indeed, it is my privilege as a GM to judge people for playing their characters terribly; I stiff them on roleplaying XP.  But it never would possibly occur to me to forbid someone from playing -- since Mailanka brings it up -- a gypsy because someone else played one as a liar or a thief.  Nor would there be the "You're not playing this right!!!!" blowups Mailanka claims to fear ... because arguments like that don't take place at my table; people don't get to debate how other people play their characters.

As to that, surprise!  I'd have no problem with someone playing an offensive stereotype.  I don't fall into the massive fallacy of thinking that it's okay to play a rapist, a murderer, a devil worshiper, or -- say -- a serial killer like 90% of gamers happily portray ... but what's really beyond the pale is an Inscrutable Oriental.

But that being said, there's a limit to the degree I'll argue it.  Every GM has the right to decide for him or herself what goes or not at his or her table.  I just don't feel the need to give anyone props for muddle-headed thinking.

Quote from: Mailanka;692996But your core concern in such cases is never "Accurately depicting gender X," or even "Accurately depicting a given character," it's  "Accurately depicting a character who appeals to gender X." That's complicated, because it involves understanding two different genders and how they interact (and, specifically, how a given player will interact with that character).  

Well, yeah. I think my point is that it's not, or shouldn't be, any different as a player. If playing Colin Firth in some romcom (Brigit Jones' diary?) as an NPC is a legitimate approach for a GM, playing Valeria from Conan the Barbarian as a PC should be legitimate, too. Neither is a real person, but I don't see why that's a problem. They're perfectly decent fictional characters.

Quote from: Mailanka;692996So I get where you're coming from.  Romance is a very tricky thing.  I know some people who just foreswear it completely.  I love it too much to let myself be daunted by it, but it took a lot of stumbling and mistakes before I got it right.

I think it's kinda funny that you adore romance in your games while banning even completely sexless inter-gender play by players! Most of the no-inter-gender GMs I've seen talking about it totally ban all romance, as they are even more squicked out at the idea of playing the elven princess love interest to their manly-man players' manly-man PCs. :D

Folks tend to stick to gender in my experience, though we have had a few males play females at times.

Quote from: Mailanka;692881Except that's been my experience too.  I've had problems with women doing the same when they played male characters.  Given that pretty much any character can be played in either gender, I don't see the point of someone playing cross-gendered except in specific circumstances (like women who want to play a space marine, or a guy who wants to play a Vodacce fate witch).  Given that it potentially offers problems and offers no benefits, I don't see what is to be gained by allowing it, and so I generally don't.

Totes.

Quoteand I don't really understand the drive from those who do allow it in pushing those who do not to change their stance.  You run your way, I'll run mine.  If you don't like the way I run my games, then just don't play.  Simple, right?  Live and let live.

[/QUOTE]

See every other response to what I wrote.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;692883So your NPCs are all male?

Seriously, bro?

QuoteWhat is the in-game explanation for this exclusively male world?

I simply tell them it's based on Kyle Aaron's reality.

QuoteSo you can only play things you can play well? Please tell me how I can portray a cleric of a definitely imaginary god convincingly? How might I play the warrior of a martial art which I know nothing about, and which no-one knows anything about given that people have not been in swordfights for a couple of centuries? Given that magic does not exist, how may I play a wizard "properly"? How about half-orcs?

Oh, you so burned me! Ouch. Here's the problem. You aren't as clever as you think you are.

When fatbeards decide to role play females by portraying their characters as sex-crazed psychopaths who rape and pillage and who are, in every respect, the player's fantasy about themselves only in a female form, and it makes other people at the table uncomfortable or makes them decide not to come back? THAT's called playing it wrong. If I had hand puppets to show you in a more obvious and childish form, I'm sure it would help you understand the difference.

Since all of your examples are completely fictional, and I'm referring to real people attempting to "role play" as real-life species and genders, your argument is, well, fucking irrelevant. You hide behind semantics instead of presenting anything valid.

As for GMing non-male NPCs, you have to be fucking soft in the head to think that was clever at all. There's a HUGE difference between someone who isn't a sex-starved imbecile portraying a female character tastefully as part of an in game plot, and someone who uses female characters in their games as fuel for their own perverted fantasies.

There's a huge range of female personalities a player might bring to the table.  Rather than ban them, I'd suggest asking your player to describe the type of personality they're thinking of for their character.  It's wise to be upfront with problems you've had in the past.

This is the same conversation I'd have if someone wants to be a Kender or a Drow, by the way.  

If I'm not comfortable with a particular character concept, I'll work with the players to find a concept that does work.  But ultimately, I want players to play the characters they want to play.  Banning cross-gender play eliminates too many concepts.  I would not play in a group that banned cross-gender play as a general rule.  That is a 'warning sign' for me - more because people who ban cross-gender play often have a all-male group and they want to avoid female PCs for misogynistic reasons.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;693037because people who ban cross-gender play often have a all-male group and they want to avoid female PCs for misogynistic reasons.

Complete opposite of my experience as both a player and GM for 20 years.

The only reason to ban something at the table is because it causes distraction, makes other players uncomfortable, isn't fun, or all three.

In my experience, the majority of male players who want to play a female character (excluding a class that is female-only, sometimes), use that character as the focus for their own sexual fantasies. And the same goes for many female players who want to play a male character - they end up trying to bone everything in the game world. That shit is funny for... oh... 3 seconds.

If that's the kind of game other people want to run, and the kind of players other GMs want, have at it! I prefer to have a mixed-gender group of people who are playing to have a good time - not attempting some sort of sick wish fulfillment.

Like I said previously, I don't even have to ban it anymore - it hasn't been an issue in a decade. I've come across it in convention play on multiple occasions, and is one of several reasons I don't go to conventions anymore.

I can't really say offhand whether men or women have been more likely to play the opposite sex. I've met far more male players in total (at least 2:1 over the decades, more like 5:1 in recent years), and I remember very few of the instances who played what.

What I can say is that I reckon females tend to do a better job of it. The current female-played-by-a-male character in my regular group is a cartoon caricature of a certain stereotype. Although it's not always so extreme, that seems in my memory pretty typical. No example of such a portrayal of a male character by a female player comes to mind.

Quote from: everloss;693039Complete opposite of my experience as both a player and GM for 20 years.

The only reason to ban something at the table is because it causes distraction, makes other players uncomfortable, isn't fun, or all three.

In my experience, the majority of male players who want to play a female character (excluding a class that is female-only, sometimes), use that character as the focus for their own sexual fantasies. And the same goes for many female players who want to play a male character - they end up trying to bone everything in the game world. That shit is funny for... oh... 3 seconds.

If that's the kind of game other people want to run, and the kind of players other GMs want, have at it! I prefer to have a mixed-gender group of people who are playing to have a good time - not attempting some sort of sick wish fulfillment.

Like I said previously, I don't even have to ban it anymore - it hasn't been an issue in a decade. I've come across it in convention play on multiple occasions, and is one of several reasons I don't go to conventions anymore.

I have never seen any one playing an opposed gender do it as a focus of sexual fantasies, ever.
I have seen people do it because they thought Underworld was a cool film or that Red Sonja was a favourite character, and all the usual reasons people play characters.
The fact that your group chooses to openly explore their sexual fantasies in a shared game space is probably very healthy but as all my mates are repressed Brits its not something we have ever had the urge to investigate.

First off, there really are men who want to have sex with every female they meet.  There are also women who are very interested in frequent sexual encounters with strangers.  

Sex and the City was largely based around that type of relationship dynamic.  The character of Edie in Desperate Housewives is similar.  

In all cases, issues of sex remain only one aspect of the character.  Since not every problem can be solved by sex, players will have to develop their character beyond their initial stereotype, assuming that is why they created the character in the first place.  

I'd rather give someone enough rope to hang themselves, as it were.  If someone is going to offend my sensibilities, I'd rather play with someone I like or could like.  By making options available to them that may 'rub me the wrong way', I can find out about them sooner rather than later.  

But cross-gender play, in general, does not bother me.  It is rare that we have true gender parity in our play groups; I enjoy gender parity in our adventuring parties for the most part.  

When I first started playing computer RPGs (Might & Magic: Secret of the Inner Sanctum) I made a party that consisted of three males and three females.  It just seemed 'right'.  Now that I'm all grown up and I play with other mature adults, cross-gender play hasn't been an issue.  

Also - in 3.x, I've had characters that have taken the Leadership feat.  In one campaign I was playing both my male character and his female cohort.  That was quite a fun campaign and I found it easier to keep their personalities separate versus when I've had a male character/male cohort.

You know what helps me with 40-year old grown men playing 18 year old women? Voice Modulators. You can get an app for free.

That said, I personally don't see what's so "mysterious and different" about women that would cause a person to be incapable of that role, unless they are one of those people who don't know anything about other people beyond what they read in comics or watch in TV shows. And, well, generally that's not the sort of player I'd want to game with (with exceptions, there are some very sweet people who are also largely misanthropic, but you can usually tell if a person is intelligent and congenial despite any other tendencies or they lack even basic etiquette or an ability to view the world from any point of view besides thier own rather swiftly upon meeting someone despite how isolated or geek-centric thier lives may be).

Anyone whose been in a relationship knows women are not some seperate species, they just have a few different approaches to dealing with life. They have the same motivations, fears, anxieties, thoughts, desires as guys, they just compensate often in ways that men typically don't.

And , for me at least, one of the primary rewards of the roleplaying experience is to explore other PoV, other cultures, other species... it's a distorted looking glass on life.
And exploring the world from the PoV of another gender seems one of the primary expressions of that.

As for stereotypes and cliches, everyone has their offense button set to go off at a different number (by which I'm not equating that with actual racism), but I think that stereotypes have gotten a bad rap lately and that in the specific contexts of RPGs, they are highly valuable to the game as tools for player buy-in and common shared"hooks" by which to hang a mental picture on.

Quote from: Mailanka;692907Got me there!  I'm a hypocrite.

[...] the GM is generally given more trust than most PCs.  

[...] we can trust the GM to be respectful and realistic with his female NPCs.

[...] I happen to play excellent women.

Oh okay, it's simply that the typical gamer does not have ur l337 superiour roleplay skillzorz. You are unique and special, we are the clueless unwashed.

Fuck off.

Shouldn't this be moved to Tangency by now?

It may be because of where I live, but I've found an even random distribution in my 30+ years of gaming of character genders as compared to players. I see people play whatever gender based on what mood strikes them, generally, in my local groups. There are some who play only their own gender, some who play the opposite gender, it's a mix. In the groups I've been in over the years, it's been largely a 'meh' thing.

I play both male and female characters at live tables. As a GM, I let players play whatever they want.

Quote from: everloss;693039In my experience, the majority of male players who want to play a female character (excluding a class that is female-only, sometimes), use that character as the focus for their own sexual fantasies. And the same goes for many female players who want to play a male character - they end up trying to bone everything in the game world. That shit is funny for... oh... 3 seconds.

I guess you must be incredibly unlucky. I've seen the occasional 'loose woman' female NPC from a male player, but they're a small minority.

Quote from: S'mon;693295I guess you must be incredibly unlucky. I've seen the occasional 'loose woman' female NPC from a male player, but they're a small minority.

Cannot recall offhand a male player with a slutty female PC.  Certainly had several female players with slutty female PCs.

This thread has certainly been an eye opener. I wonder what "controversial" thing will become a non issue in gaming in the new five or ten years.

The poll answers could have been worded better.

Quote from: Nexus;693447This thread has certainly been an eye opener. I wonder what "controversial" thing will become a non issue in gaming in the new five or ten years.

Next installment: cleavage windows.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;693450The poll answers could have been worded better.

Feel free to make your own poll, a better poll


With Blackjack and Hookers!

Quote from: vytzka;693452Next installment: cleavage windows.

We can only hope.

Quote from: jibbajibba;693048I have never seen any one playing an opposed gender do it as a focus of sexual fantasies, ever.
I have seen people do it because they thought Underworld was a cool film or that Red Sonja was a favourite character, and all the usual reasons people play characters.
The fact that your group chooses to openly explore their sexual fantasies in a shared game space is probably very healthy but as all my mates are repressed Brits its not something we have ever had the urge to investigate.

I think the only 'sexual fantasy' players I have encountered are the rare game store or game convention fellow that seemed to be infatuated with his female character.

But I have not seen that in my regular gamer groups in many years.

Maybe back when the male players were 15. hard to recall.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;692887Its strange how some believe that we can portray bug-eyed 4 armed aliens without blinking an eye, but the game falls apart playing a female of your own race. It truly boggles the mind.

Its homophobia, in some cases.

Quote from: Mailanka;692907If I play a known ethnicity in an offensive manner, that might offend real people.  If I played a four-armed bug-monster to the hilt with 1950s alien clichés, I know of very few real four-armed bug-monsters who will be offended.

In fact, I see tons of strawmen in this thread, and all of them are regarding fantasy notions.  I notice, however, very few people claiming that it's totally okay to play greedy, hook-nosed, conspiring jews, or thieving, lying gypsies, or stupid and lecherous black men.  So, obviously, it's absolutely possible to play a particular thing "wrong."

And 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.

Is it possible for a guy to be horribly offensive when playing a woman? Yeah, absolutely.  And I'd rather not see that in my game, and the easiest way to avoid that is a blanket "No." Is it possible for well-meaning guys to play unbelievable female NPCs?  Again, yeah, absolutely, and since most of us KNOW women, it's completely possible that this will destroy suspense of disbelief.



Got me there!  I'm a hypocrite.

Now that we've got that out of the way, let's actually look at this honestly.  First, the GM is an entirely different role than a PC.  For one thing, the GM is generally given more trust than most PCs.  For example, when a GM makes a ruling, in most groups, this is accepted, and it's accepted because they know the GM is looking out for the game.  Where this trust is violated, the game rapidly disintegrates.  Thus, most GMs who consistently run tend to be worthy of that trust, and most GMs who are not worthy of that trust don't consistently run.

Part of that trust will involve how he handles NPCs.  This is why he's "allowed to play" high level characters, like the king or the lich in your D&D game, because you're pretty sure he's not going to just lord it over you (and if he does, you'll walk).  By the same token, we can trust the GM to be respectful and realistic with his female NPCs.  And where they are not, I notice, the GM tends to treat them distantly, or treats all NPCs distantly ("Yes, the waitress who takes your order is a female,"  but there's no deep characterization there, anymore than he might deeply characterize the orc represented by a token during one of your many D&D battles).

The real strawman is that you're suggesting that just because we don't allow cross-gender play is that we don't believe men can POSSIBLY play women, or that women can POSSIBLY play men.  I happen to play excellent women. I know several male players who play excellent women, and I've seen women who play excellent male characters.  I've even been romanced by a female PC played by a male character, while I played a male character.  It was very nice.  But it's another thing to say that all people can do this: Many cannot.  They lack the maturity, insight or empathy to do with well and respectfully, because they're not depicting alien creatures that don't exist, but real people with a real history, who are really there, sitting at your table, or that the GM is really married to, or what have you.  And people have opinions about them.

So I say avoid the whole can of worms and just lay down a blanket "You play your own gender," and if we play in a historical setting or in another, real-world culture, I expect it to be treated respectfully and reasonably accurately.

You don't agree?  Fine.  I know plenty of people who don't agree with my policies, or how I give out experience, or which rulesets I think are best, or how I chose to handle that one rule question that one time.  It's alright to disagree with me.  The world is a rainbow of differing opinions.

What I really don't understand is why you feel the need to argue with us about it.  What do you want from us?  An apology? An acknowledgement that your way is the one true way?  You don't seem to want to understand why we do it, as you're very, very dismissive, and you don't seem to want to discuss the particulars.  Mostly, I just see mocking of the other side.  Do you think that will change our minds?  Or is it merely for your own amusement?  That seems small, but if that's the only thing you have to do with your time, well... feel free to laugh at me for allowing human men to play elven men, but not elven women.

Ouch. So a man playing a woman is offensive? really?

Quote from: vytzka;693452Next installment: cleavage windows.

Like Power Girl?

Quote from: flyerfan1991;693501Like Power Girl?

I am offended!

Wait...no I am not...I like windows.

Quote from: Bill;693503I am offended!

Wait...no I am not...I like windows.

Power Girl looks silly with the "check this out!" boob window, but I don't find it offensive per se.  Starfire, however, is an entirely new level of eye roll.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;693511Power Girl looks silly with the "check this out!" boob window, but I don't find it offensive per se.  Starfire, however, is an entirely new level of eye roll.

One run of a comic book with starfire in it that I saw on the internet recently, was the poster child for 'male fantasy scenario'

The writer and artist dressed her up in essentially nothing, and retconned her personality to one where she was essentially a sex object. Ignoring years of established characterization.

I don't offend easily at this sort of thing but it was glaring in this case.

Quote from: Bill;693515One run of a comic book with starfire in it that I saw on the internet recently, was the poster child for 'male fantasy scenario'

The writer and artist dressed he rup in essentially nothing, and retconned her personality to one where she was essentially a sex object. Ignoring years of established characterization.

I don't offend easily at this sort of thing but it was glaring in this case.

The character as portrayed by George Perez in his 80s run of Teen Titans was rather sweet, as opposed to the cynical man eater that got on peoples' nerves in New 52.

Quote from: Bill;693515One run of a comic book with starfire in it that I saw on the internet recently, was the poster child for 'male fantasy scenario'

The writer and artist dressed her up in essentially nothing, and retconned her personality to one where she was essentially a sex object. Ignoring years of established characterization.

I don't offend easily at this sort of thing but it was glaring in this case.

While I didn't watch Teen Titans on Cartoon Network, I caught enough of it when flipping channels to realize that the Starfire there was going to cause problems with DC comics down the line.  That Starfire simply didn't fit with the male fantasy Starfire that the comics had.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;693595While I didn't watch Teen Titans on Cartoon Network, I caught enough of it when flipping channels to realize that the Starfire there was going to cause problems with DC comics down the line.  That Starfire simply didn't fit with the male fantasy Starfire that the comics had.

Well, the origional comic book Starfire is an adult woman.

The teen titans cartoon has the characters portrayed younger to appeal to kids.

Essentially very different characters.


Robin and Cyborg were somewhat like the comic book versions.

Quote from: Ravenswing;691864One wonders if there's any other legal, valid character choice they ban because they've allegedly "had bad experiences" with people playing them.

In the '80s it was kender. In the '90s it was drow. I've heard lots of people say that they ban Malkavians from their Vampire campaigns.

I tend to take the opposite approach and avoid/ban the ass-hat players rather than trying to cut them off from their primary methods of being ass-hats. But I can understand why people in other circumstances might choose the opposite approach.

While I've never actually experienced a problem with kender, drow, Malkavians, or creepy guys bringing their erotic fan-fiction to the table, I think the people in this thread pretending that these problems don't exist simply because they've never experienced them are just lying to themselves.

And if I found myself in a situation where I felt like I had to play with some white dude who thought playing black characters who ate fried chicken and watermelon while using minstrel-speak was a really great idea, you can rest assured that I'd very quickly be banning white people playing black characters.

Quote from: Bill;693597Well, the origional comic book Starfire is an adult woman.

The teen titans cartoon has the characters portrayed younger to appeal to kids.

Essentially very different characters.


Robin and Cyborg were somewhat like the comic book versions.

Yes, they're different characters, but the girls who watched Teen Titans and said to themselves "Hey, Starfire is cool!" would pick up the New 52 version of Starfire and go "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!"

In a way, this does feed back into RPGs, because for every group that handles cross gender play well, there's always "that one guy" who feels the need to play an oversexed bimbo as a personal fantasy.  I've personally only encountered that guy once, but I also know of a similar type of guy, the one who thinks roleplaying a rape is cool.

As much as I think people ought to be mature enough to handle relationships in RPGs, I can sympathize with those who perform some bannings at the table.  I myself would have issues with romance in game, unless the people involved are able to handle it in a mature manner, and that's based on personal experience watching game groups implode from the romance induced drama.

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.

If you take this to its logical conclusion, doesnt it ultimately limit people to playing themselves. I mean if you try to take on any roll ouptside your own experience, you might get something wrong. To me the point in making a character is it isn't me. But if we place heavy limits on how far outside yourself and your direct experience of the world you can go with that, it seems like it might make for some dull choices. Can a non-catholic play a catholic character? Can play someone from Ohio, even though I only lived in Boston and California? Can I play a yankee whose family came over on the mayflower even though my family were all immigrants in the last hundred century? Can someone from the middle class play a character born inti poverty or born a silver spoon in his mouth? Can a white guy play a black guym or a black guy play a white guy? Can I ever play anyone fom a foreign country?

At the end of the day, you make the character and do your best to play it. If people want to be overly analytical of other folk's characterization or allow innacuracies in portrayal to ruin their suspension of disbelief, I dont know, i think that is their problem.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;693617I tend to take the opposite approach and avoid/ban the ass-hat players rather than trying to cut them off from their primary methods of being ass-hats. But I can understand why people in other circumstances might choose the opposite approach.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;693617And if I found myself in a situation where I felt like I had to play with some white dude who thought playing black characters who ate fried chicken and watermelon while using minstrel-speak was a really great idea, you can rest assured that I'd very quickly be banning white people playing black characters.

I believe that such ass-hat players exist, but I don't see why the example of a black character would change your approach. Personally, I would still use your first stated approach - not invite that player back, but still allow everyone else to play a character other than their own race.

Quote from: Mailanka;692983I think the problem really boils down to immersion.  When they say "You're playing your character wrong," and the risk of irritating Benoist and suggesting I have empathic powers, I think they're often saying "I can't see your character anymore."

Consider a LARP.  If you argue that you should be allowed to play any character, nothing stops a guy from playing a woman in a LARP.  You can plan an orc, or a vampire, or an elf, why not a woman?  Part of it, I'm sure, comes from how our culture views gender, and we could get into quite a dicussion about THAT, because women do something dress up as and play guys in LARPs, and the reverse seems to be very rare to me (I've never, ever seen a guy play a woman in a LARP). But a lot of it comes down to the fact that you need to physically portray your character.  I'm a big man, and I would just never try to play a child or a slim, delicate man. I just don't think I could pull it off.  People looking at me would never know I had an effete build "in reality."  They will treat me as I am, as I appear.  There are limits to imagination.

I've seen plenty of men play women in larps - along with playing aliens, robots, ghosts, monsters, and more. This might be related to living in the San Francisco Bay area, where men dressing up as women is not as shocking as elsewhere. This is exactly why I view reactions against cross-gender play with suspicion, though, because it tends to come across as related to the homophobia that is common in many other parts of the world.

I believe that some players genuinely are distracted and dragged out of their immersion because they can imagine a short man with a grey vest as the character of a dwarf in armor, but they couldn't possibly imagine a man as the character of a woman. However, I feel that this is mostly related to their own hang-ups, and I don't feel like I have to cater to them.

I've had players of both gender play across gender lines.

There's never been a problem with it.

RPGPundit

Two of the players in my Beyond the Frontier - Traveller (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaigns/traveller-beyond-the-frontier/characters) campaign on obsidian portal are men playing women, no issues so far.

Yeah, there can be various reasons for doing this, but playing it for sophomoric laughs doesn't tend to be one of them if the player is anywhere over the age of 15.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;695052Yeah, there can be various reasons for doing this, but playing it for sophomoric laughs doesn't tend to be one of them if the player is anywhere over the age of 15.

RPGPundit

Agreed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;695052Yeah, there can be various reasons for doing this, but playing it for sophomoric laughs doesn't tend to be one of them if the player is anywhere over the age of 15.

RPGPundit

Yes, more of a player issue than anything else, I mean one can go for the sophomoric laughs without crossing gender lines. Memories of playing at 15 are pretty vague now 30 years later, though I wouldn't have played a female either back then, not for just the usual reasons, but seeing as how my sister had recruited me into their D&D group.

Come to think of it, in a game this year we had a 15 year old player with a cross-gender character and he wasn't sophomoric at all.

RPGPundit

Honestly my observation is that the players of cross gender characters are not the 'problem'. Not that it's all that common to BE a problem.


But when it is,
It's the rare other person at the table that has issues.

I've never had any trouble with this in my gaming group.
In our last Pathfinder campaign of the five players (all male) three of them played a female; well, that was somewhat extraordinary, but it didn't affect gaming in any adverse way. Playing a woman as a guy never has been an issue in our group (or vice versa).

The university where I did my undergrad had a gaming community that was fucking legendary for people working out their sexual hangups via roleplaying games, or else the most outrageously offensive stereotyping imaginable (the tournament where the pregen secretly gay prince trying to hide his attraction to the knight assigned to protect him flinging open the shutters of the tavern and shouting "Say it loud! I'm gay and I'm proud!" comes to mind.)

My experience gaming in other major Canadian cities on internships was that this was not unique to my alma mater.  And the ages ranged from 18-year-old freshmen to late 30's.

Any new player one looking to play a cross-gender character got vetted very carefully by everybody, although given the size of the communities the fruitbats got identified pretty quickly.

Quote from: daniel_ream;696095The university where I did my undergrad had a gaming community that was fucking legendary for people working out their sexual hangups via roleplaying games, or else the most outrageously offensive stereotyping imaginable (the tournament where the pregen secretly gay prince trying to hide his attraction to the knight assigned to protect him flinging open the shutters of the tavern and shouting "Say it loud! I'm gay and I'm proud!" comes to mind.)

My experience gaming in other major Canadian cities on internships was that this was not unique to my alma mater.  And the ages ranged from 18-year-old freshmen to late 30's.

Any new player one looking to play a cross-gender character got vetted very carefully by everybody, although given the size of the communities the fruitbats got identified pretty quickly.

These were people in College?

Quote from: Bill;696097These were people in College?

University.  "University" and "College" mean two very different things in Canada due to the way post-graduate education is structured.  I don't know enough about the US system to give you a sensible analogue, I'm sorry.

Quote from: daniel_ream;696108University.  "University" and "College" mean two very different things in Canada due to the way post-graduate education is structured.  I don't know enough about the US system to give you a sensible analogue, I'm sorry.

In the region of the US where I live, assuming nothing has changed since I was in school, 'High School' was grade 9-12 at aprox age 14(15)-17(18)

From High school you commonly went on to a 4 year college from there.

In the US universities and colleges are comparable.

As I understand it, in most of the world a University is generally more advanced than a college.

Quote from: Bill;696110In the region of the US where I live, assuming nothing has changed since I was in school, 'High School' was grade 9-12 at aprox age 14(15)-17(18)

At the time (it's changed since) the province of Ontario had a "Grade 13" in high school, so freshmen were usually 18 years old.

QuoteAs I understand it, in most of the world a University is generally more advanced than a college.

In Canada a college is a 2- or 3-year diploma-granting institution with programs aimed at specific job training such as computer programming, police & security foundations, or early childhood education[1], while a univeristy is a 3- or 4-year degree-granting institution with programs aimed at theory such as (by analogy) computer science, criminology, or child psychology.

My understanding is that the US has broadly the same kinds of institutions, but here in Canada they're credentialed differently and no one would ever refer to a college as a university or vice versa, even informally.


[1] ..or TV/VCR repair (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DFj23I8hgj28&sa=U&ei=P4VMUofaGMLTiwLH-oCoAg&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGMBbVpqh4D9VxoZsaV5wnnWpDvrw).

Quote from: daniel_ream;696114At the time (it's changed since) the province of Ontario had a "Grade 13" in high school, so freshmen were usually 18 years old.



In Canada a college is a 2- or 3-year diploma-granting institution with programs aimed at specific job training such as computer programming, police & security foundations, or early childhood education[1], while a univeristy is a 3- or 4-year degree-granting institution with programs aimed at theory such as (by analogy) computer science, criminology, or child psychology.

My understanding is that the US has broadly the same kinds of institutions, but here in Canada they're credentialed differently and no one would ever refer to a college as a university or vice versa, even informally.


[1] ..or TV/VCR repair (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DFj23I8hgj28&sa=U&ei=P4VMUofaGMLTiwLH-oCoAg&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGMBbVpqh4D9VxoZsaV5wnnWpDvrw).

My americain brain can't distinguish college from university :)



Everything one needs to know about the US is in the movie "Team America World Police"

As someone whose gone to schools in both the US and Canada, what I basically found in the US was that Colleges tended to be community-funded, cost less for admission, had very little discretion about who can attend, and offered more vocational studies, while universities were privately run, had strict admission guidelines and procedures, focused more on a classic all-around education (everyone needs a certain amount of math, science, lit and history credits to graduate no matter the degree), and tended to focus on the pursuit of masters degrees or doctorates. Universities on the whole are considered more prestigious.

In Canada it seems largely similar.

P.S. this wasn't by chance at Queens university in Kingston was it?

Quote from: TristramEvans;696119P.S. this wasn't by chance at Queens university in Kingston was it?

University of Ottawa, Ryerson Polytechnical (was a college, now an accredited university), University of Toronto, Carleton University, University of Waterloo.

Waterloo and Ottawa were by far the worst at the time, but conversations I had with people from other Ontario universities jibed with my personal experience, for whatever that's worth.

Edit: and this is now horribly off topic.  I can't remember the last time anyone in my current group even expressed interest in playing a different sex of PC, but I wouldn't care because I know all these guys and I can't see it being an issue.  If I were running an open table or a Whatever Society event, I would damn well be vetting anyone who showed up with a mismatched-sex character.

Quote from: daniel_ream;696114At the time (it's changed since) the province of Ontario had a "Grade 13" in high school, so freshmen were usually 18 years old.



In Canada a college is a 2- or 3-year diploma-granting institution with programs aimed at specific job training such as computer programming, police & security foundations, or early childhood education[1], while a univeristy is a 3- or 4-year degree-granting institution with programs aimed at theory such as (by analogy) computer science, criminology, or child psychology.

My understanding is that the US has broadly the same kinds of institutions, but here in Canada they're credentialed differently and no one would ever refer to a college as a university or vice versa, even informally.


[1] ..or TV/VCR repair (https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DFj23I8hgj28&sa=U&ei=P4VMUofaGMLTiwLH-oCoAg&ved=0CAcQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNGMBbVpqh4D9VxoZsaV5wnnWpDvrw).

Ah, the Canadian version of college sounds like what an American would call a "community college", "technical school", or "junior college".  They grant 2-year Associates Degrees.

In the U.S., a University and/or College is a (minimum) 4-year granting institution.  A College tends to be smaller and be collected among a similar type of program, such as a "liberal arts college" or an "engineering college".  Universities, by contrast, will often have different colleges under their umbrella (College of Arts and Sciences, School of Engineering, School of Business, etc).  Universities will often be the location where you go for post-graduate degrees (Masters and Doctoral).

Quote from: flyerfan1991;696146College tends to be smaller and be collected among a similar type of program, such as a "liberal arts college" or an "engineering college".

I think the crux of it is that the US generally uses the terms "college" and "university" pretty generally, while in Canada they have specific and exclusive meanings.

In the US, the difference between a University and a College is the ability to award post-graduate degrees (Masters, PhD) usually in multiple fields.  Some colleges are small private schools (Occidental College in Los Angeles, where I attended, for instance, had 1600 total students) but there is no real restriction based on size.  Universities tend to be larger because they offer more programs.  

But when someone is getting a 4-year undergraduate degree (B.A., B.S) they tend to say "I'm going to college" or "I'm in college" whether they're attending Occidental College as I did, or the University of California Los Angeles as did my oldest brother.