What if a game was set in a society where the sexes are segregated (except for a few times each year when they get together for procreation)?  Being around only one's own gender all the time, and still having the normal need for sexual relationships, it is quite likely that homosexual relationships would form.

What about a society where property was passed down through the female side, and women who wanted power and land would take wives (or vice versa, property passed through male side and men take husbands)?

How about just an "anything goes" society, where restricting oneself to only one gender is seen as abnormal?

Not that you would be forced to play a homosexual, but would you be comfortable playing in such settings?

There are a lot of settings I wouldn't play in. This is almost certainly one of them.

Yes, why not...?

I have a hard time picturing a reason for a GM to suggest a setting like this beyond wanting to teach me some sort of lesson, so it's doubtful. If the whole campaign will revolve around it, definitely not. But if it's just a quirk to an otherwise fun sounding campaign I'd give it a try.

If I get the impression the NPC hitting on my character is really the GM hitting on me, I'm outta there.

Sure. There's no reason why the gender, orientation and inclinations of any character would have to correspond with those of the players, after all. It's all just as fictional as any elf or wizard that they might play.

Quote from: James McMurrayIf I get the impression the NPC hitting on my character is really the GM hitting on me, I'm outta there.

Dude, I told you it was just part of the game.  Sure, you have nice hair but you're just not my type.  If you come back, I'll let you have the seat right next to me.

Quote from: James McMurrayI have a hard time picturing a reason for a GM to suggest a setting like this beyond wanting to teach me some sort of lesson, so it's doubtful.

That's my impression of a sales pitch like the above, an agenda rpg. I'm very wary of such things to say the least, considering them at  best unneeded and likely horrifying stupid besides.

Quote from: FritzsYes, why not...?

As I noted before, I dislike agenda driven rpgs in general. I also have religious objections to certain types of PCs and settings.

Quote from: TechnomancerWhat if a game was set in a society where the sexes are segregated (except for a few times each year when they get together for procreation)?  Being around only one's own gender all the time, and still having the normal need for sexual relationships, it is quite likely that homosexual relationships would form.

What about a society where property was passed down through the female side, and women who wanted power and land would take wives (or vice versa, property passed through male side and men take husbands)?

How about just an "anything goes" society, where restricting oneself to only one gender is seen as abnormal?

Not that you would be forced to play a homosexual, but would you be comfortable playing in such settings?

I wouldn't play just based on that premise since, well, it's weak sauce. As part of a setting I am interested in, say, an ancient Egypt or Brotherhood of Thebes, sure. I may make a few obligatory jokes or name my character something like Lance or Armand but not a problem on my side.

Bill

Quote from: James McMurrayI have a hard time picturing a reason for a GM to suggest a setting like this beyond wanting to teach me some sort of lesson, so it's doubtful.

My thoughts as well.  What would the point be of gaming in such a world?  It doesn't lead to any interesting adventuring opportunities, it's just there as a gimmick.

If it's used as a tool to preach at the players, then that would be annoying.  If it's not, then there's really no point for it.  That's true whether you used an alternate world were everyone was gay, Republican, Eskimo, or midgets.  A game world needs to be interesting from a gaming POV - otherwise its just wannabe fiction filler.

Plus, at least for my group, it would lead to so many stereotypical gay jokes that I would want to hang myself after one or two sessions rather than suffer it anymore.  It's one thing to have one character be the "flaming gay comic relief guy".  It's quite another to have the whole group that way.

McMurray and Gleichman (edit: and jgants, too!) pretty much say what I wanted to say.  The setup is pretty contrived and, without any explanation of why things are this way, sets off my former-anthro-student-plausibility-alarm.

Not that such setups don't work in, say, literature.  Samuel R. Delany's books, for example, posit cultures with sexual mores that challenge our notions of normalcy and what is "natural."  But those are books (and often have very plausible explanations for why the cultures evolved the way they did).  I don't want to be subjected to a polemic while I'm playing a game.

It depends a great deal on the rest of the setting. Honestly, that alone wouldn't cause me to balk, neither does it make me want to jump and play it.

Being straight, playing such a game would be a challenge because I really don't "get it", I'm just not wired that way.

In general, the issue orientation of the PC's/NPC's  isn't all that common in game groups I DO play in--we're more action-adventure oriented, than social exploration/romance etc. Oh flirting with NPC's, and love affairs do crop up from time to time--just not a central thing for my group.

Quote from: KenHRMcMurray and Gleichman (edit: and jgants, too!) pretty much say what I wanted to say.  The setup is pretty contrived and, without any explanation of why things are this way, sets off my former-anthro-student-plausibility-alarm.

Not that such setups don't work in, say, literature.  Samuel R. Delany's books, for example, posit cultures with sexual mores that challenge our notions of normalcy and what is "natural."  But those are books (and often have very plausible explanations for why the cultures evolved the way they did).  I don't want to be subjected to a polemic while I'm playing a game.

I actually had Delany in mind, along with some of Ursula K Le Guin and Joe Haldeman's stuff.  So what it sounds like is that something that works in a novel and makes it interesting might be annoying in a game.

For the record, I have no plans to actually run anything like this, it was just something that I wondered about.  And if I did it wouldn't be to "preach", just to play around with something different than the same old pseudo-medieval fantasy setting (I know, it's "different for the sake of being different", but if that doesn't hurt the game, is it really a bad thing?)  The game wouldn't revolve around that, it would just be part of the background and setting.

Quote from: KenHRMcMurray and Gleichman (edit: and jgants, too!) pretty much say what I wanted to say.  The setup is pretty contrived and, without any explanation of why things are this way, sets off my former-anthro-student-plausibility-alarm.

Some sort of asexual reproduction (tube babies in a high tech setting?). Or few breeders, many workers type culture (roughly mimicking ants/bees). I think people are imagining the worst it could be (like that Mary-Sue Wrathru (sp?) game). I think there are potential settings that aren't "preachy", especially in the area of Sci-Fi.

I wouldn't be interested in a campaign which revolves about my character's genitals.

Anything else in your game world?