Im running a semi-historical campaign with low fantasy elements. I gave this some thought, how to reasonably justify stronger female characters in what is pretty much a medieval setting.

I jacked up the requirements for becoming a magic user or cleric (scores of 15 or higher in INT or WIS), in order to make them really exceptional and rare.

Because of the scarcity, it really doesn't matter if its a man or a woman. The only sanctioned order of wizards is going to accept anyone who meets their requirements - they really cannot afford to reject women with high INTs.

Also with only about 20 active clerics on the continent, true miracle workers who can heal are going to be in very, very high demand.

The setting remains very medieval in character, but there is still a plausible reason for (at least some) women to excel.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;568136Well, that's why it's important to do the research. If you just go with broad strokes, you end up perpetuating the worst stereotypes, but when you drill down a bit you find that the exceptions are as important as the rules, particular for a game which is based on exceptional characters.

There are always exceptions, but depending on your period those could be more or less limited. In Rome you might find a female glatiator but you won't find a woman enrolled in the senate. I think how you approach these restrictions are best left up to the group. Some will have no problem just letting female characters become members of the senate, others might find that too much of a stretch. If I am designing a game, I will just to my best to report what I am able to learn about the reality of it (understanding I culd be incorrect or have acquired incomplete information) and make a note about the players and the GM taking whatever approach works best for them.

One thing I have found is you sometimes can be surprise by reader reactions. Especially with history, I have found some people will get more offended if you gloss over the warts or try to downplay discrimination (or overplay exceptions even).

I also think it is important to do these things without getting dragged into some sort of political debate. I want to make games, not use games as a platform for political discussion so I try to leave my politics out of the stuff I design.

As a general expansion of the question then, how does the concept of including a disclaimer at the beginning of the book fit?  (Similar to what Palladium did)

Do you think it would reduce the uproar if you have the disclaimer to point to saying "Look, the concepts are in there, because they're out there in history and the real world.  As a person I don't support them, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve a treatment in the game."?

Quote from: Panzerkraken;568149As a general expansion of the question then, how does the concept of including a disclaimer at the beginning of the book fit?  (Similar to what Palladium did)

Do you think it would reduce the uproar if you have the disclaimer to point to saying "Look, the concepts are in there, because they're out there in history and the real world.  As a person I don't support them, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve a treatment in the game."?

I think disclaimers can be important, especially if the designers are worried that readers may mistake content for a message. It also allows the designers to at least explain his position so people can weigh it in the analysis. It might not disuade the most determined critics but could impact the conclusions of people who are more neutral to start.

Politics is an essential part of a well realised world.
In the setting i am working on there are a range of cultures. In the north men and women fight side by side pretty much as equals. In the warring central region women are supposed to stay at home but thr war is such that most castles are actually run by women because the men are out killing each other. To the west slavery is common and slaves are treated like chattles. To the south there is an Amazonian culture that refuses to allow men to own property or rise to political power.

Each of those cultures is riffed of a historic background be it celtic tribes, the american civil war, an inversion of athens, or a melenge of rome and turkey.

If a pc chooses to play a man in an amazonian campaign he will experience lots of shit. If she chooses to play a slave or if her pc gets captured she will be treated like a slave.

The world is the world.

Neither do i think that its the players job to fight injustice if they want to worship the demons throw babies into the flames as blood sacrifice then fine.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;568149As a general expansion of the question then, how does the concept of including a disclaimer at the beginning of the book fit?  (Similar to what Palladium did)

Do you think it would reduce the uproar if you have the disclaimer to point to saying "Look, the concepts are in there, because they're out there in history and the real world.  As a person I don't support them, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve a treatment in the game."?

I've done that time and time again but it relies on people actually reading the book which is more than most of the trollish PC types are capable of.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;568149As a general expansion of the question then, how does the concept of including a disclaimer at the beginning of the book fit?  (Similar to what Palladium did)

Do you think it would reduce the uproar if you have the disclaimer to point to saying "Look, the concepts are in there, because they're out there in history and the real world.  As a person I don't support them, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve a treatment in the game."?

Short and sweet! I put this right after the Introduction:

A word of caution - the themes presented in this book are mature, but perfectly suitable for teens age 18 and up. And although we may make mention of other authors in this book, it is not meant to present a challenge towards others’ intellectual property, copyright or trademarks.

I personally dislike the trope of the fantasy society in which women fight alongside men as equals, because it seems implausible on so many levels. At the societal level the idea is a bit daft. But on the individual level it can work fine and be good for the game: isn't the notion of a woman who wants to defy social convention and go adventuring inherently interesting?

Also, the woman who "passes" as a man is a fairly common trope of fantasy and myth. She wears her hair short, wears male clothes, and people just assume she's a boy. That seems like an easy workaround to me, if you have somebody in your group who is wedded to playing as a woman in a historical setting but you want to keep a veneer of historical accuracy.

Eh its conceivable, skill has always been more important in battle than brute strength. A spear can bring down a mighty boar or tiger, an arrow can drop an elk. Martial arts as developed by Eastern nations allow a much smaller, lighter individual to hold their own against a more physically powerful opponent. Once you get into the gun/rapier technological levels there's no reason at all that women couldn't fight alongside men. Some of the most dangerous pirates were women, in fact.

Socially it might be a different story, but thats up to each society really.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;568187And although we may make mention of other authors in this book, it is not meant to present a challenge towards others’ intellectual property, copyright or trademarks.[/I]

More unwanted advice you didn't ask for - I'd avoid that stuff entirely, its the hallmark of the heartbreaker.

Quote from: noisms;568192I personally dislike the trope of the fantasy society in which women fight alongside men as equals, because it seems implausible on so many levels. At the societal level the idea is a bit daft. But on the individual level it can work fine and be good for the game: isn't the notion of a woman who wants to defy social convention and go adventuring inherently interesting?

It would normally be at about this point of the internet conversation that some iddiot would say "Wut?  You have a problem with a society in which women are the equal of men, but you're ok with Dragons and flying castles."

Which is part of the problem.  Because while I think Black Vulmea here is right...

Quote

Quote from: Black Vulmea;568136Well, that's why it's important to do the research. If you just go with broad strokes, you end up perpetuating the worst stereotypes, but when you drill down a bit you find that the exceptions are as important as the rules, particular for a game which is based on exceptional characters.

...it's not fashionable in gaming now to actually do any research of this kind.  It seems the fashion nowadays is to produce games based largely on pop culture tropes and media stereotypes.

Quote from: The Traveller;568193Eh its conceivable, skill has always been more important in battle than brute strength. A spear can bring down a mighty boar or tiger, an arrow can drop an elk. Martial arts as developed by Eastern nations allow a much smaller, lighter individual to hold their own against a more physically powerful opponent. Once you get into the gun/rapier technological levels there's no reason at all that women couldn't fight alongside men. Some of the most dangerous pirates were women, in fact.

Socially it might be a different story, but thats up to each society really.

That's sort of the point - skill is important, and that means lots and lots of practice. Something that was unavailable to most women because, despite the many many other social prohibitions, before the invention of reliable birth control young women were either pregnant or weaning a child for much of their lives. You don't get to practice with a spear or bow if you are doing either of those things.

Of course, you can handwave that problem away with magical birth control. Or something, if you care absolutely nothing about the distinction between magic and science.

In any event, I find the notion that, in order to make female characters as interesting as male ones, they have to be, effectively, men: skilled in combat, aggressive, etc. I think that message is in its own way pretty anti-feminist and regressive: in order for women to be worth anything as individuals they have to be the same as men.

A hypothetical society with a feared female warrior caste could do it, or trained assassins, women warriors in place of eunuchs, killer nuns, there are a few outs. If you're doing a fantasy world anyway I don't see much of an issue with some unusual societies, given that a well trained woman can beat an averagely or even well trained man (Rachel Luttrell, I'm looking at you). Some of those MMA ladies could probably bend me into a pretzel.

Basically what I'm saying is if the only problem is societal, and you're creating societies in a fantasy world, there's no reason to avoid female warriors. Samurai, after all, were taught the unmanly skill of poetry.

My main setting, the one I deal with most of this crap with, is very fantasy based.  And in one of the main descriptive pages, I get into some of the issues the adult game wrestles with and how it is dealt with.

Magic exists in the seting, so much of the reasons for the inequality of genders is removed as well.  Magic actually slightly more common in women than men in the setting, so women are not so much the weaker sex, though they are still the ones mainly in charge of childrearing.  In a ddition, one must also make sure the types of magics that would really be created do exist; merely handwaving and saying they exist creates a disconnect in the setting vs the way the players experience the setting.  Like 'Disrupt Moon Cycle', for example.
So, gender is one we turn over on its head with the idea that the effects of magic forced an earlier equalization.

As you mention the orcs, acculturization vs tribalism, as well as racism is dealt with in this area.  The tribal races, the Oggrilite variants created as soldiers in the elders days, are thousands of years past thet, and the time of the gameplay in celtricia they are slowly being acculterated and accepted, but there is still a lot of racism in the setting.  Some cults still view the Ogrillite peoples as 'born from sin', while others, since there are still tribes of them out in the trackless areas of ther Cradle and other ares, look at the existence of these tribes as evidence of the 'inferiority' of these people.  
I think it is not for every game, but it enriches mine.
More here, if you'd like.

Quote from: noisms;568198That's sort of the point - skill is important, and that means lots and lots of practice. Something that was unavailable to most women because, despite the many many other social prohibitions, before the invention of reliable birth control young women were either pregnant or weaning a child for much of their lives. You don't get to practice with a spear or bow if you are doing either of those things.

Some of this might also depend on money. Particularly rich women* would have had someone else take care of their children, and would have wanted to have fewer than peasant families in order to avoid splitting the inheritance (or having many children competing for it). Additionally, birth control was historically available now and again. Ancient Rome seems to have had it.

*A similar dichotomy sometimes exists with men. Poor men worked the fields, and when fielded were conscripts. It was men of a higher station than that if they wanted to train heavily in combat.