I think it's a compatibility thing. I have a couple regular groups the roleplaying of whose members have given me hours of enjoyment. That makes sense: over time, they've become my friends, and we tend to enjoy the jokes and ideas of our friends - that's why they're our friends. But when I sit down with a group of people at a convention or a Game Day or the like, people I've never met before, odds are that I'll be gritting my teeth and clenching my fists at their roleplaying, especially if there are sections of the game that involve very free-form, player-driven roleplaying.
I've left groups due, in part, to their roleplaying. One was at a convention. My PC had just died and I said thanks for the game and departed. In that case it was partly about horrible rules and partly about the horrible roleplaying. Another time, I met with a group that was trying to get a game going and I could tell that we did not have compatible styles of play or roleplaying. I politely declined to join them and I don't think they ever understood why.
I have much less of an issue when I'm the DM, maybe because I have more control of where the spotlight goes, and how much "free-form" roleplaying is encouraged.
And none of this is to say that my roleplaying is any great shakes. In fact, I often limit and subdue my roleplaying around strangers, because I assume that how I roleplay might not be to their tastes. If I get positive feedback, I open up more.
So, what's a player to do when he or she is in a game with people whose roleplaying makes them want to scream? A departure seems best, rather than actually causing a disruption or hurting anyone's feelings, but are there alternatives?
This is the main reason why I tend to dump Cha every chance I get. It gives me excuse to play the strong silent type. Even when I play leaders, I tend to play them as the more quiet and contemplative type.
I do find that people who try to push Cha about half the time are terrible roleplayers who just want the spotlight, while the other half are actually pretty decent at it.
I have a lot of problems with the way a lot of strangers roleplay, though. I DM for LFR, and I've already lost count of the number of male players who have brought a female character to the table. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Why can't you just play a character of the same gender as you? What's to be gained playing against your gender? What background hook could possibly exist that requires your D&D character to be one gender or another?
...also it tends to fall along the same lines as those high-Cha, bad RP types. Fat dude rolling up to the table with a 20 Cha female character. Yeah, no, that's not weird or anything.
for me it's entirely about the social interaction: do i mesh well with these people? since i will be hanging out with them at least one evening a night, can i stand doing that? if the game gets cancelled, can we still hang out? etc...
i can RP generally fine, regardless of how cheezy or lacking it is. if these guys want cheezy roleplay, i'll be the big ham to balance them out by the power of LARGE HAM
either way, as long as i'm cool with the group, i'll stay (barring real life issue). if the group doesn't mesh, i walk.
I have a lot of problems with the way a lot of strangers roleplay, though. I DM for LFR, and I've already lost count of the number of male players who have brought a female character to the table. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Why can't you just play a character of the same gender as you? What's to be gained playing against your gender? What background hook could possibly exist that requires your D&D character to be one gender or another?
I've done that myself. My first 4E character was a female dragonborn paladin. Could have been male, but for some reason female made sense to me. I've since become aware of how often paladins tend to be female. I wonder what that's about.
I generally find it tolerable for people to cross-play, and I felt it was tolerable with that character, right up until the character becomes an object of affection, flirtation, or advances from another player or an NPC. Then it's awkwardville.
The details don't matter. If you ain't havin' fun, don't play.
Well, they matter a little. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sometimes it's just one player, and of generally roleplaying is only part of what's going on at the table. I just wonder if people have coping mechanisms for at least staying engaged through the less engaging parts of the session.
the amount of RP of any given group doesn't bother me.
Not the amount. The TYPE.
either way, as long as i'm cool with the group, i'll stay (barring real life issue). if the group doesn't mesh, i walk.
Sad, especially if it's just one person and there are people in the group you DO get along with, but probably for the best, I'm afraid.
It rubs me wrong when "role play" is used as an excuse for ignoring boundaries and being a jerk (which is, I think, the case of most of the examples of Evil characters I've ever seen played, and one or two examples of Lawful Good characters as well.) I can usually shurg off just about any other role-play style.
Character design can rub me the wrong way pretty badly - I have so many character pet-peeves, I don't even know where to start. I guess my objections to the "Evil Character" excuses for acting like an antisocial creep are an extnsion of this. Also...
- Clones of popular published characters in books, TV shows, movies, and video games.
- "I don't know... I guess I'm just playing me, only a more timid and indecisive version of me...."
- Optimized or munchkin combat monsters without personality.
- Lone Wolf strong, silent bad-ass types.
- Narrow, cliche'd stereotypes (Dwarf with Scottish accent, Tree-Hugging Elf, Shao-lin Monk, etc.)
- "I'm an ____ and that's all anyone needs to know" characters ("I'm a thief. I just steal stuff. What else does anyone need to know?" "I'm an assassin. I just kill people. Isn't that enough character?")
- The Kitchen Sink characters: if it sounds cool, just throw it in. "I'm a Lawful Good but troubled and antisocial half-Drow, half-vampire, half-Tiefling, were-Griffon warlock/ninja/samurai cyborg from the future with a motorcycle, and a talking, flying, Psionic, demonic, shape-shifting Dire-wolf companion, and a giant cursed evil blessed holy vorpal life-stealing katana, and a +5 evil black trenchcoat of intimidation, and...."
I guess years ago I wouldn't have noticed, but these days it just gets under my skin too easily. Maybe being in this hobby too long has a negative impact on our flexibility and patience for different ways of doing things. Or maybe it's just a side effect of getting too old
- The Kitchen Sink characters: if it sounds cool, just throw it in. "I'm a Lawful Good but troubled and antisocial half-Drow, half-vampire, half-Tiefling, were-Griffon warlock/ninja/samurai cyborg from the future with a motorcycle, and a talking, flying, Psionic, demonic, shape-shifting Dire-wolf companion, and a giant cursed evil blessed holy vorpal life-stealing katana, and a +5 evil black trenchcoat of intimidation, and...."
Hey! How'd you get my character sheet?
I hate the Loser Larry player. You know, the guy who thinks its the height of role playing to play a useless, not at all heroic and extremely annoying character. The Loser Larry player is just an attention **** and luvs and craves negative attention. I hate that guy.
On another note, I'm a loud bosterious person, I like to tell stories, I like to tell jokes, I like to speak in character on the game table and I garner a lot of attention at the game (Probably why I usually Dm). I can overwhelm a Dm, drawing attention away from the Dms game and towards my Pc's personal glory. So I spend a lot of time, cooling my jets when I play. I also spend a lot of attention on biting Dm hooks and doing what I can to follow the Dms lead. I also put a lot of concentration on being silent when it is someone elses turn. I have yet to play with a group, I was never welcomed back as a player. But I am guessing thier are a lot of players out thier I will rub the wrong way.
As far as cross gender role playing, I do often. I have a visual imagination, so I sometimes visualize female Pcs. I've never had a problem with anyone who felt uncomfortable about cross gender role playing, but I know it's out there and can easily respect that if it were ever to come up.
as the saying goes: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it pretend it's a fairy princess. you can't force RP since, like most good improv, it really requires players who can work off each other and are comfortable with one another.
the best RP i've seen is between a close group of friends who are more able to simply get into character and go at 'er, if you will. they know each other's limits and can usually play off each other quite well, regardless of genre or level of seriousness.
this is why with new groups i generally tend to see little in the form of RP. people are slowly reaching and trying to feel it out to find where everyone is comfortable, what their style and specifically what buttons to not press.
my wednesday group has been together for the better part of the past 4-5 years, and my monday group consists of a few wednesday group players (some current, some who had to leave for IRL reasons, mainly work) and people i've never met. we're comfortable together and will often simply hang out if the game is cancelled.
if i can't hang out with the group, if i'm not comfortable with them, it won't foster good RP from me, period.
if i can't build a rapport with the group, i leave. i would rather leave on good terms with players i do like (which i might be able to game with later), rather then bring down the whole group and leave on a sour note... call it social networking, geek style.
just because i didn't work that particular group dynamic, doesn't mean me and the players i did mesh well with can't grab a few other people to game together on another evening.
Basically, if your "roleplay" is irritating more players than not, more often than not, your "roleplay" sucks.
Makes me glad the group I DM for is roleplay-lite and mostly monster-smashing. I've had enough roleplay that was more trouble than it's worth, IMO, and what some people consider roleplay I just consider being a dork or trying to con the DM or trying to game the system.
But RP is such a sacred cow that those who belong to the "Cult of Indiscriminateness" insist that you don't dare tell anyone else that they're doing it wrong, even when it's creating problems. And that's a philosophical contradiction, of course. I can see their point to some extent but equally so, they should see mine in the same measure.
So yeah, the only solution is to just work to find a group of players that you can get along with most of the time. Kind of like life.
Any one of these wildly different definitions might as easily be dismissed by other role-players, using such terms as "acting like a dork", "ROLL-playing", "meta-gaming", "attention-hogging", "missing the point", "being a Loser-Larry", "roll-playing", "being a jerk", and so on.
Who is right, and which definition is really "doing it right"? I don't know. I do know that some approaches get on my nerves more than others, and some annoy me more when used by some people than when used by others.
.., Who is right, and which definition is really "doing it right"? I don't know...,
I do, and Loser Larry is doing it wrong. Anybody playing without consideration for other players is doing it wrong. Unlike computer rpgs table top rpgs are group activities. If your Pc is designed to annoy others and disrupt the group, then your doing it wrong. If your designing a Pc to annoy others then your not roleplaying your being an ass.
That said there is a difference from having annoying roleplaying habits and being an ass. Annoying habits can be overlooked, i.e. meta-gaming, the charismatic PC played by the wall flower, etc. But nobody likes an ass.
On the other hand, there are elements of Dungeons & Dragons and other RPGs that encourage this sort of personality, such as the vast amount of mechanical options available, or in the premise of "you can pretend to be someone else and safely escape from the limits or 'Real Life' in a game of 'Let's Pretend' for a little while". So, I'm coming around to thinking that perhaps other healthy and constructive outlets for more common personality types have been developed over the years, but most groups have trouble providing such healthy and constructive outlets for boundary-pushers.
Loser-larry is, perhaps, in a similar boat: in a game that has been evolved beautifully to suit dice-rollers, armchair-generals, story-tellers, explorers, social-gamers, and the occasional method-actors, there hasn't been as much progress made for loser-larrys, boundary-pushers, and a few other types of "problem players".
Perhaps creative DMs can provide a constructive outlet for the type of gaming these player types enjoy (for example, using reverse-psychology to get stubborn players to "rebel" by doing something constructive, or by providing safe in-game "rubber rooms" for these types of characters to go a little crazy in), or unless these player types can learn to "multi-class" into a different style of gamer (for example, some boundary-pushers might make awesome armchair-generals or story-tellers, and perhaps with the right encouragement some loser-larrys can find their niche as story-tellers or explorers.)
Most groups just get sick of "problem player types" and kick them out, and, in the end, maybe that's the only way to handle them.
And maybe that's not such a good thing, as I kind of hate to imagine packs of these folks running loose and unsupervised in the world, or, heaven-forbid, joining together to form their own role-playing groups of outcast misfits where unguided sociopathy and self-destruction inbreed and fester into their own distorted form of apparent normality, with no healthy voice to speak up and say: "what you are proposing is kind of creepy, guys."
cross gender roleplay? dont care, i never had a problem with it.
it depends on the group, i usually try to tailer it to them, somtimes its a hack n slash fest, im cool with that other times one guy has the spotlight and im in his supporting cast, other times im in the spotlight and somtimes people do things that you just cant do in character,
the only time i think other peoples roleplay becomes an issue is when its a module that requires you to do somthing that your character, would probably rather die then do.
for example: i have a lawful good dragonborn paladin in LFR named AJ once i had to gather information at the marketplace, the LFR writer decided that the guy who has all of the information is a slave trader at auction, you cannot attack him because he dosent have statistics, you cannot reason with him because he dosent care what you think all you can do is follow the railroad and deal with the slaver and that is it.
another module had the party doing a blood sacrifice to shar to raise a ship (yeah it makes no sense), in LFR where we have alignment restrictions that prohibit us from worshiping shar (core 2-2) and all my paladin can do is sit in the back and shut up.
i can see what you are getting at but you kind of have to just go with the table on it, if your upset maybe removing yourself from it is a smart idea.
the ones i cant stand the most though, the only people i cant game with are kids, they are kids, tweens and early teenagers so they dont know any better but it is really annoying to sit at a table with people below 18, im only 20 but man do these guys annoy me.
If you are playing with a group that you are thinking of joining on a long term basis, and the role-playing really bothers you, then definitely the best thing is to walk away. If you can phrase it politely, you may try to explain, "Your group seems to prefer X, while I prefer Y, I don't think this is a good fit." But don't keep going back to a group that is going to be more annoying than fun.
The trickier question is when something like this occurs at a con, where you get a random group of people together to play a game. In that case, unless it is a very serious problem, there is a sort of social contract that you gathered a group of people together to play through an adventure and you should try to finish it. Try to move things along, if you are eager to get away from this group, but I can't think of too many behaviors that are so horrible that I couldn't play nice for long enough to finish one game.
This brings up another interesting question - how many people, if you go to a con, try to get in games with all of your friends from back home? If you find that other people's role-playing annoys you, maybe there is strong motivation to do this. On the other hand, it seems like one of the attractions of a con is that you get to meet some new, interesting role-players that you don't game with every other weekend. I'm not sure there's a right answer to this question, I'm just curious what other people think.
I have a lot of problems with the way a lot of strangers roleplay, though. I DM for LFR, and I've already lost count of the number of male players who have brought a female character to the table. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Why can't you just play a character of the same gender as you? What's to be gained playing against your gender? What background hook could possibly exist that requires your D&D character to be one gender or another?
You have NEVER, in real life, dealt with an Elf, or a Gnome, or a Dragonborn. You have precisely zero experience with them. You don't know how they act. You don't know how their varying anatomy affects their movement, their lifestyle, their worldview. You don't know just how uncomfortable it is for a Goliath to cook in a Kobold's kitchen.
You HAVE dealt with people of the other gender. I'll lay money on that.
Why would it be perfectly okay to roleplay the one, but not the other?
For that matter, creative people in any field that involves creating characters, should be able to create realistic characters of - at least - any gender. In some portions of fantasy and science fiction, they need to do multiple species and not necessarily humanoid.
As for the background hook... you see, there was this prince who was kidnapped as a baby, because of the magic in his hair. The witch who kidnapped him kept him in a tower in the forest. When he was 18 years old, and his hair was about 70 feet long... sorry, but no. Rapunzel is female. (I'm playing a riff on Rapunzel in a D&D game. I'm male.)
A fair number of concepts really are gender-specific - not necessarily in regard to reproductive organs, but in regard to how the character is expected to fit into society. Of course you can imagine a gender-reversed society... but how is playing a male warrior in an expansionist oppressive patriarchal society where males are expected to be warriors and females are expected to be submissive ornaments, different from playing a female warrior in an expansionist oppressive matriarchal society where females are expected to be warriors and males are expected to be submissive ornaments?
You have NEVER, in real life, dealt with an Elf, or a Gnome, or a Dragonborn. You have precisely zero experience with them. You don't know how they act. You don't know how their varying anatomy affects their movement, their lifestyle, their worldview. You don't know just how uncomfortable it is for a Goliath to cook in a Kobold's kitchen.
Well, you do have generalizations for how most of them probably act, based on the splat entries for each race.
You HAVE dealt with people of the other gender. I'll lay money on that.
Why would it be perfectly okay to roleplay the one, but not the other?
Because, unlike race, gender imposes no mechanical difference, and is therefore ultimately irrelevant. Again, I posed the question, "why can't people just play their own gender?" I didn't say, "People must always play their own gender." Also this applies explicitly to in-person games. It doesn't bother me at all when people play across gender in online games. It's just too jarring for me in person.
For that matter, creative people in any field that involves creating characters, should be able to create realistic characters of - at least - any gender. In some portions of fantasy and science fiction, they need to do multiple species and not necessarily humanoid.
Yes and writing a story in which there are characters of both genders is fundamentally different from taking on one specific character for an extended period of time and choosing for that character to be of the opposing gender.
As for the background hook... you see, there was this prince who was kidnapped as a baby, because of the magic in his hair. The witch who kidnapped him kept him in a tower in the forest. When he was 18 years old, and his hair was about 70 feet long... sorry, but no. Rapunzel is female. (I'm playing a riff on Rapunzel in a D&D game. I'm male.)
Yeah, supernormal person with power tied to their hair. You mean like Sampson from the book of Judges in the Hebrew Bible, right? So you can totally take that same background and play it as either gender, and therefore there's no reason you have to play it as either specific gender, yes? Good, glad we agree on that point. (Rapunzel's hair length was central to that story, and no character of either gender would succeed in a D&D game with hair that long. Samspon actually represents a more practical approach to the character archetype.)
A fair number of concepts really are gender-specific
Citation needed.
- not necessarily in regard to reproductive organs, but in regard to how the character is expected to fit into society. Of course you can imagine a gender-reversed society... but how is playing a male warrior in an expansionist oppressive patriarchal society where males are expected to be warriors and females are expected to be submissive ornaments, different from playing a female warrior in an expansionist oppressive matriarchal society where females are expected to be warriors and males are expected to be submissive ornaments?
Those two things are functionally the same with respect to background. You see, when you reverse the genders, nothing changes, which just further demonstrates my point, which is that there is no real reason to play across gender.
Those two things are functionally the same with respect to background. You see, when you reverse the genders, nothing changes, which just further demonstrates my point, which is that there is no real reason to play across gender.
Except that, as sexual beings, we are hardwired to have different feelings regarding male and female, and by choosing an opposite gender, you are opting to have a different experience than you would if you played your regular gender.
And yes, I play both male and female characters as a player.
The simple gold rule is to be honest and polite. "I'm just not 'feeling it' with this group, and this is why."
There are groups out there for all kinds. From the detailed roleplayers who enjoy character development far more than combat, to the pure 'combat-board' gamers who want nothing more than dice rolls and moving miniatures/tokens on a battle map. There's even a place for those chubby guys who want to heavily roleplay lesbian bikini-mail wearing Slayers. Somewhere.
Those two things are functionally the same with respect to background. You see, when you reverse the genders, nothing changes, which just further demonstrates my point, which is that there is no real reason to play across gender.
Except that, as sexual beings, we are hardwired to have different feelings regarding male and female, and by choosing an opposite gender, you are opting to have a different experience than you would if you played your regular gender.
And yes, I play both male and female characters as a player.
First, and as an aside, it's not so much that I have a problem with the concept of playing against your gender, it's more that every experience I've had with it during an in-person game has been a character that was just really, really bad (guys playing tramps, basically). I'm really not trying to offend anybody here, but I just don't see any reason why you "have" to play against gender, and I know of no real reason why you "should" either.
To that end, your post doesn't really make any sense to me. I mean, are you planning to subject your female characters to needless sexism in your game of Dungeons & Dragons?
I mean, I guess that's cool if you want to. I wouldn't play at that table, though.
For me D&D isn't about sex stuff. There are other RPGs that handle the mature topics quite well. D&D is heroic fantasy, and I don't really see a need for sex to play a very big part of it. Humanity may be sexual beings, but there's no reason why D&D characters need to be. "...we are hardwired..." but a character is software, and while there's no need for gender of characters to be locked into the gender of their players, there's also no reason why you can't just play your own gender.
It's purely flavor, and changes nothing, and it weirds me out when people do it. Again, probably the reason it weirds me out is because I think it's a bit odd for guys to be roleplaying high charisma women with loose morals.
Either way, we all have our gaming preferences, even when it comes to roleplaying. This thread appears to be about people venting their frustrations at the way other people roleplay their characters. This is one of mine.
What's to be gained playing against your gender? What background hook could possibly exist that requires your D&D character to be one gender or another?
What's to be gained by playing against my gender? It makes me a better actor, and allows me to explore psychological/social/sociological/emotional issues from a viewpoint different than my own. I'm a trained actor with interests in psychology and sociology... What do I gain by only ever playing a character of my own gender? If I'm playing an elf or half-orc for the roleplaying challenge as well as the mechanical crunch, isn't it even more challenging and interesting to play a female half-orc?
I play characters because they're interesting characters from a narrative perspective, and I approach each character from the perspective of an actor approaching a role - I create and play the character as the character should be played, with as little reference or dependence on my personal gender/beliefs/preferences as possible. If the character concept offers more or better roleplaying opportunities when played as one gender or the other, I go with whatever's going to be most interesting.
Lumping me in with the losers bringing some underaged hentai lolita sorceress to the table and wanting to go to the tavern to seduce npcs in order to act out their personal fantasies would be seriously offensive to me if I was the sort of person who actually gave enough of a damn to be offended by other peoples' opinions.
As far as a plot hook requiring a specific gender?
- I have a tempest fighter|ranger based on the real-life Irish female pirate Gracie O'Malley, who was also of somewhat noble birth and drifted between the two worlds at will. She's an interesting character because so many of her accomplishments were rare or unheard of for a woman of her time. Now, sure, I could play this character as a male, but playing it as a male greatly changes the tone of the character (since neither a physically strong male character, a male expert swordsman, a male noble taking up adventuring because their family lost their fortune or a male pirate taking up the family trade of privateering/piracy are particularly uncommon conceits in a fantasy roleplaying game, whereas a female being/doing those things provides much more interesting RP opportunities), irrespective of the fact that mechanically the gender of the character is meaningless in game terms.
- My warlock Malachaiah Hartsworn, despite being in her early 20's, is one of the elders of an isolated village of hereditary warlocks who worship their pact patron as a god. Because of her level of magical power, she was chosen by the elders to bear that being's cambion child. When her husband objected to someone/something else siring a child on his wife, Malachaiah blew him out a second-story window. She considers the personal warlock pact she made with the being as part of the ceremony in which she was impregnated to be a wedding vow, and wears a wedding ring as a symbol of her pact. She also has no idea what became of the child after she gave birth to it, as it was taken away from her by the other elders of the village and never seen again. She dresses and acts as though from an era several centuries earlier, and occasionally finds herself somewhat at a loss when dealing with modern society - particularly when dealing with people (read: older men) in positions of power - which infuriates and unsettles her given her own position of power back in her own little village. In a male character, this behavior would come across as being wishy-washy and ineffectual under pressure, but is much more interesting in a female character struggling to retain her personal empowerment.
(And yes, being a warlock she has a fairly high charisma - however, her charisma has much more to do with her force of personality and iron will than the fact that physically she's vaguely pretty.)
...also it tends to fall along the same lines as those high-Cha, bad RP types. Fat dude rolling up to the table with a 20 Cha female character. Yeah, no, that's not weird or anything.
That's not roleplaying. That's indulging in immature fantasy-fulfillment. Entirely different thing. They may as well stay at home and make pretend their action figures are having sex with each other...
As for roleplaying; I can take a lot. I only take offense at the Loser Larry (and I played with one; though I usually tried to push him into being vaguely useful, generally unsuccesfully). Making sure everyone is enjoying themselves should be a primary concern and he wasn't doing that (since everybody mentioned they were annoyed with his choice of character).
Deep roleplaying, shallow roleplaying, serious roleplaying, humurous roleplaying, no roleplaying I can deal with all of those. But please realise you're here for everyone's entertainment, not just for your own.
There are a lot of people who roleplay that annoy me. Here is a list.
- Telling me about your PC in a game I am not in when it is not directly relavent to the conversation.
- Speaking in a voice. (99% of the time this is on the list, I know two guys who do it well. One sounds just like I have always imagined Friend Computer to sound like, and one has a slight renn fest accent he throws on)
- Complaining when others don't roleplay.
- non-serious roleplayers. An occasional joke is ok. We don't need your commentary after everything the DM says.
- Wanting to roleplay anything in the bedroom.
- Refusing to read the rules, because thats not important.
- Using roleplayiong as an excuse to be a jerk. Your edgy, loner, sociopath might make an interesting story. They are not acceptable in a team based game.
- You should be able to sum up your backstory in a single breath. I am interested in that 8 page essay you wrote, but please have a quick outline highlight reel of what is actually important and that you hope to see in game.
Things people do while roleplaying that apparently annoy others, but I am totally fine with.
- Speaking in third or second person
- Not participating outside of combat
- not using a voice
- Not have/put no effort into a name
To be frank, when I sign up for a new game, I would much rather hear "We are pretty into the mechanics" than "We are serious roleplayers". I've never heard of a mechanics group saying "Hey you cut out that roleplay" but I hear the opposite often.
Two notes to put this in context - 1- I use the name Krusk offline with a majority of the people I am friends with (when making accounts I typically use my name. At that time, Krusk was so ontop of my head as my name, I didn't even think twice). 2- One of my best roleplayers typically is playing starcraft on a laptop most of most sessions.
..,
Deep roleplaying, shallow roleplaying, serious roleplaying, humurous roleplaying, no roleplaying I can deal with all of those. But please realise you're here for everyone's entertainment, not just for your own.
Amen brother. I have some habits that would rub some gamers wrong on the game table. But I work to help everyone have fun. Sometimes that means down shifting my enthusiasm, keeping my mouth shut and letting the Dm, Dm. But that also means enjoying the game with all kinds of players with vastly different ideas of what is fun in role playing. Yet there is always that guy who shows up and enjoys sewing discord, and will destroy the enjoyment of others for his own sadistic enjoyment.
You have NEVER, in real life, dealt with an Elf, or a Gnome, or a Dragonborn. You have precisely zero experience with them. You don't know how they act. You don't know how their varying anatomy affects their movement, their lifestyle, their worldview. You don't know just how uncomfortable it is for a Goliath to cook in a Kobold's kitchen.
You HAVE dealt with people of the other gender. I'll lay money on that.
Why would it be perfectly okay to roleplay the one, but not the other?
I'm not saying it's not okay to play either, but how a race's anatomy, lifestyle and worldview affect it or come out in roleplaying is entirely up to the player, or maybe the table as a whole. It might not affect it at all, and it might affect it a great deal, but even then it's pretty arbitrary. Because those races don't exist, there's no way to say that one's interpretation of it is off-base. If my goliath is cooking in a kobold's kitchen, I get some say as to what that means.
When males play female (and sometimes when females play male) they're treading on an area that, as you say, everyone has dealt with. Mostly it doesn't matter, any more than it matters that a tiefling has a tail, or that dragonborn only have 3 fingers. There's a lot more potential, though, for a cross-playing character to portray the gender of their character in an unflattering light, or at best an unrealistic light. There's an "uncanny valley" effect in play, I think.
Fortunately, most people are decent enough not disrespect the other gender when they player it. The real problem with a female character, whether played by a male or a female, is when the "attractiveness," for lack of a forum and worksafe term, of the character is brought into play. Scenes like that make me personally uncomfortable, and when it happened to a female character I was playing, I had to ask that it stop. Frankly scenes of flirtation, or innuendo or the like are things I'd like to draw the veil over, just as much as I would a scene of physical torture. I've never seen them done well or tastefully.
For that matter, creative people in any field that involves creating characters, should be able to create realistic characters of - at least - any gender. In some portions of fantasy and science fiction, they need to do multiple species and not necessarily humanoid.
Yes and writing a story in which there are characters of both genders is fundamentally different from taking on one specific character for an extended period of time and choosing for that character to be of the opposing gender.
Have you done both? I have. I find an amazing level of similarity.
As for the background hook... you see, there was this prince who was kidnapped as a baby, because of the magic in his hair. The witch who kidnapped him kept him in a tower in the forest. When he was 18 years old, and his hair was about 70 feet long... sorry, but no. Rapunzel is female. (I'm playing a riff on Rapunzel in a D&D game. I'm male.)
Yeah, supernormal person with power tied to their hair. You mean like Sampson from the book of Judges in the Hebrew Bible, right?
Yep, exactly like Sampson except for, um, pretty much everything. Different gender-based social role. Different class-based social role. Different psychology. Different hair-based powers. Different... well let's see, they ARE the same species...
So you can totally take that same background and play it as either gender, and therefore there's no reason you have to play it as either specific gender, yes?
Yes, you can play absolutely any archetype in either gender if you are prepared to change the archetype completely in order to match the gender.
A fair number of concepts really are gender-specific- not necessarily in regard to reproductive organs, but in regard to how the character is expected to fit into society. Of course you can imagine a gender-reversed society... but how is playing a male warrior in an expansionist oppressive patriarchal society where males are expected to be warriors and females are expected to be submissive ornaments, different from playing a female warrior in an expansionist oppressive matriarchal society where females are expected to be warriors and males are expected to be submissive ornaments?
Those two things are functionally the same with respect to background. You see, when you reverse the genders, nothing changes, which just further demonstrates my point, which is that there is no real reason to play across gender.
And, if you were correct that nothing changes, there would be no real reason NOT to play across gender.
But apparently you think something changes, or you wouldn't mind people playing across gender.
(Assuming they do it well, of course - but bad role playing is a separate issue.)
But the fact is, things DO change. Switch a nation from firmly patriarchal to firmly matriarchal, and you will probably have to rewrite its relations and interactions - at the national level and at the individual level - with its neighbors. You may have to rewrite significant chunks of its history.
Women traders and warriors don't make short trips to other lands and leave bastard children behind.
Since maternity is much easier to verify than paternity, they might not even have a concept of "bastard children". Which significantly impacts the number of unacknowledged bastards demanding - and fighting for - the recognition they feel they deserve.
A female monarch very rarely dies six months before her child is born, because the child dies with her.
Oh, and by the way... what if another male player was going to play the female character's brother - that is, a male from the same male-dominated society. Now, to keep the same relationship and social dynamic, he has to play the male character's sister. Guess what: in order to allow one player to play his concept without playing cross-gender, we force another player to either abandon his concept or play cross-gender.
But apparently you think something changes, or you wouldn't mind people playing across gender.
(Assuming they do it well, of course - but bad role playing is a separate issue.)
My issue is with scenes of romance or flirtation. Maybe I've just never seen these done well, but they always make me uncomfortable to watch or perform. Certainly there's a whole host of personal psychological issues in play here, but I'd still prefer to avoid such scenes.
But the fact is, things DO change. Switch a nation from firmly patriarchal to firmly matriarchal, and you will probably have to rewrite its relations and interactions - at the national level and at the individual level - with its neighbors. You may have to rewrite significant chunks of its history.
Only if you want to explore those changes. Anyway, that's to do with nations, not individual characters.
Women traders and warriors don't make short trips to other lands and leave bastard children behind.
They might. Women of another fantasy race certainly might
Since maternity is much easier to verify than paternity, they might not even have a concept of "bastard children". Which significantly impacts the number of unacknowledged bastards demanding - and fighting for - the recognition they feel they deserve.
I don't see why this is likely to matter. If you want such a storyline, you only need one such character.
A female monarch very rarely dies six months before her child is born, because the child dies with her.
Unless, say, that child was laid in an egg seven months earlier. But these are world issues, not character issues. And, again, if you want such a storyline, it only has to happen once, and there's magic to consider. It would be neat to have a spell or ritual swap fetuses in utero. The prince(ss) is then born to a chambermaid, making it all the more difficult to prove that (s)he is the rightful heir(ess).
Oh, and by the way... what if another male player was going to play the female character's brother - that is, a male from the same male-dominated society. Now, to keep the same relationship and social dynamic, he has to play the male character's sister. Guess what: in order to allow one player to play his concept without playing cross-gender, we force another player to either abandon his concept or play cross-gender.
I don't understand this. Individuals can behave however they want, regardless of the society from which they come. Maybe it's behavior counter to their larger culture, but that only has to matter to the game if the players want it to.
My issue is with scenes of romance or flirtation. Maybe I've just never seen these done well, but they always make me uncomfortable to watch or perform. Certainly there's a whole host of personal psychological issues in play here, but I'd still prefer to avoid such scenes.
I'm with you on that. I especially hate seeing couples RP that sort of stuff between their characters. (get a room, please) There have been times in games where flirtation/romance is appropriate to the story, but I prefer it to be 3rd person and "off camera" as much as possible. Sometimes people get the wrong idea otherwise, and that is never good.
My issue is with scenes of romance or flirtation. Maybe I've just never seen these done well, but they always make me uncomfortable to watch or perform. Certainly there's a whole host of personal psychological issues in play here, but I'd still prefer to avoid such scenes.
I'm with you on that. I especially hate seeing couples RP that sort of stuff between their characters. (get a room, please) There have been times in games where flirtation/romance is appropriate to the story, but I prefer it to be 3rd person and "off camera" as much as possible. Sometimes people get the wrong idea otherwise, and that is never good.
Right.
I have a married couple in my main group, and their characters are also married (not cross-played, though that would be interesting). However, even though the real life couple gets along, their characters are always zinging each other. No real risk of "get a room" type awkwardness, let alone much sweetness.
Incidentally, one of my players is cross-playing a female bard. Given the high Charisma of such a character, one might think that her appearance and mannerisms would play a major role in her interactions. However, I have never made an issue of it, and neither has he. I think the goliath fighter is more protective of her than of other characters, but not sweet on her, at least not as comes up in play.
There are a lot of people who roleplay that annoy me. Here is a list.
- Speaking in a voice. (99% of the time this is on the list, I know two guys who do it well. One sounds just like I have always imagined Friend Computer to sound like, and one has a slight renn fest accent he throws on)
I basically see two different types of roleplayers at games.
"Funny voice" RPers. These are just annoying, I cannot stand some of the fake voices. Takes me right out of the game. They also tend to not bother with how I RP, bringing me to #2......
"Story" RPers. Character background, having motivations and goals. They may not use a funny voice, but they are paying attention to the game and reacting as the character would. I would prefer a table full of this type of player, or even better, a DM that uses that style to bring the game to life without getting silly.
Either way, RPers are a small fraction of players I see. Most tend to focus on the combats and are uninterested in whatever comes between. Kill, loot, roll a skill check. 'Why are we here? Who cares.'
Incidentally, one of my players is cross-playing a female bard. Given the high Charisma of such a character, one might think that her appearance and mannerisms would play a major role in her interactions. However, I have never made an issue of it, and neither has he. I think the goliath fighter is more protective of her than of other characters, but not sweet on her, at least not as comes up in play.
Boy did I do a double-take on that one.
You see, I'm in a game where I'm playing a female bard. (Not "cross-playing", I don't see the fact that I'm male and the character is female as any more "cross" than the fact that I'm human and the character is a gnome or the fact that my charisma is probably about 6 and the character's is 21.)
And Centauri is also in that game, playing a male goliath fighter.
Boy did I do a double-take on that one.
You see, I'm in a game where I'm playing a female bard. (Not "cross-playing", I don't see the fact that I'm male and the character is female as any more "cross" than the fact that I'm human and the character is a gnome or the fact that my charisma is probably about 6 and the character's is 21.)
And Centauri is also in that game, playing a male goliath fighter.
Yes, I didn't realize those coincidences until I was composing that post.
Cross-playing is a useful shorthand that I'm fond of because I (may have) coined it. Anyway, as discussed above, some people do feel there's a difference between playing a different gender and playing a different race, even a genderless one. Usually it won't matter, but there are issues in which gender matter significantly when it comes to the comfort level of the players at the table. There are far fewer of these with different races or player-to-character ability levels.
Thanks for releasing the new Satyr race preview. Next time, could you introduce a new race/class/etc with a specific restriction on something BEFORE I go on a rant about that exact thing that makes me look like an idiot?
Thanks,
-Cohen
My issue is with scenes of romance or flirtation. Maybe I've just never seen these done well, but they always make me uncomfortable to watch or perform. Certainly there's a whole host of personal psychological issues in play here, but I'd still prefer to avoid such scenes.
In certain game systems the romance, flirt andseduction is important, such as Vampire the Masquerade, so gender roles would have a huge and profound impact on the game, and a female character could have an obvious mechanical benifit.
As far as D&D, the only thing I imagine that a male character wishes to explore is the coolness of a female playing an archtypical male role. In these cases the simple switch of gender can easily change a cookie cutter character into an interesting and provokative character. Husk the Barbarian, otherwise indistinguishable from any 1000s of barbarians saying "Husk smash!" becomes instantly alluring and interesting as a large bussomed and scantily dressed barbarian princess.
It is an easy route that requires little effort to make a character interesting, it unfortunately also requires little imagination so can often devolve into "look I have big knockers, gimmie candy!" if done by some who have limited imagination.
Women traders and warriors don't make short trips to other lands and leave bastard children behind.
They might. Women of another fantasy race certainly might
No, they would bring the bastard children home with them and have to deal with the whole process of child bearing and rearing.
It would be, btw difficult to adventure while 6 months preggers, and would likely be a carear finisher for most women, or at least a 2 year break from adventuring. Longer for races like elves.
Since maternity is much easier to verify than paternity, they might not even have a concept of "bastard children". Which significantly impacts the number of unacknowledged bastards demanding - and fighting for - the recognition they feel they deserve.
This makes it worse for the female, not better. A Male could easily just skip town and deny the child. Heck other then a first name it could be virtually impossible to know who he actually is, since he is from a different land (and most PC adventurers are decidedly vague about where they actually come from)
Even if identified, simply sending some money that way will ussually settle the matter, it's called paying child support.
The female character on the other hand has to actually bear the child and is stuck with it, along with the possible social stigma of having a bastard child.
And while having an illegitimate child suddenly appear making demands can be a good storyline or adventure hook, getting preggers with child and hagving to take a year or 2 off while the rest of the party goes on it's merry way, makes much less of a story snce it is more about retiring a character.
I had a group once, that pretty much summed up all of the things i do NOT want to have in a game:
A GM that handled the game very freely, we needed to "get together" ourselves, find something meaningful to do for our characters ourselves, failed horribly at it, and the heroic venture quickly desolved into utter chaos as we stumbled from one failed "quest" to another. Really, it isn't fun to always lose.
The Group consistet of:
A thief that was a real ****, stole from other PCs, did pranks against everyone, and even tried to kill my character a few times (all hidden actions, so i couldn't really do anything while staying in-char)
A druid that was natures avenger himself. Turned animals on "innocent" people or poisoned them or whatever. (For example because they were eating meat, or once because some merchant had chickens in cages to sell)
(all hidden actions, so i couldn't really do anything while staying in-char)
The dumb as hell fighter that did NOTHING if you didn't tell him to, and even then he did it in the most idiotic way possible.
And well, me, a chaotic wizard-chick fresh from the academy.
I had designed her as a free-thinker, interested in experiment more than in study, one that seeks
new knowledge and isn't much concerned about anything else.
But the GM had set it into his mind that a wizard had to be snobbish and pampered, and every time some inconvenience came up he went on about how my character would react, like
No bed? The wizardess is complaining for hours.
That kind of thing. When i explained to him that i didn't want my character to be like that, he just said that wizards are like that. Always. Basta. Disregarding all of my background-story i had given him in written form ahead of time..
I just had the mind to tell them all goodbye when the one where we were playing at couldn't be reached anymore. Guess he was of the same mind as me and the group just didn't come together anymore.
The first was because of a bad ass wizard figurine I painted. I softened my voice and ended up with three figures so she could change robes, but otherwise didn't play up the feminine aspect much.
The other was an Encounters pregen I played because of the resemblance of the character's name to my own. My gender only came up when I reminded other characters I was in fact a miss and not a mister. By the time the campaign finished though I was the only pregen left and there was only 1 male character amongst the the all male players. I thought that was pretty weird.
I've noticed that some male players repeatedly play females. The one girl in my regular group plays females, but always ugly ones so she doesn't have to role play getting hit on.
... The one girl in my regular group plays females, but always ugly ones so she doesn't have to role play getting hit on.
I had a friend play up her charismatic sorceress Pc's sexuality. The sorceress would bat her eyelashes and smile (actually she would highlight her lumbs and bumbs..,) to distract guards, get better deals with merchants, butter up nobles, etc. As Dm, I wanted to recognize the role playing, some of my npcs would say some mildly sexist remarks, I'm your man toots, yeah that's sweet sugar, I keep things PG-13. But I never went beyond that one remark and simply moved the game forward. I never roleplayed an NPC trying to romance my friends Pc sorceress. To be honest I never thought about going there, I think because romance was never the focus of our game, fighting evil monsters was our focus.
The one girl in my regular group plays females, but always ugly ones so she doesn't have to role play getting hit on.
Just curious how that works for her?
The gamers I know who would harass her by hitting on her would not factor her PCs appearance into the equation and pretty much just hit on her regardless (It might stop in game, if she played a dude). Unwanted advances on any player is also grounds for being asked to leave in any groups I play with.
Being called on it may help for one session or even two, but then it's back to the old shtick. And when her tragic background comes back to screw her, the character dramatically books it offscreen.
The more public play I do, the more things I find start to irritate me. It's very unfortunate, as we have some players in our Encounters group who have social challenges and really benefit from the social interaction, even if they're not all that good at it.
...The one girl in my regular group plays females, but always ugly ones so she doesn't have to role play getting hit on.
I just realized I've done that before. Almost always public play though, with people I'm unfamiliar with.
Half-orc (changeling in disguise) druid in Eberron.
Shifter Warden DMPC (Neverwinter).
Whereas my last character with a home game was the half-nymph druid who had just found her grandfather, who was long-lost to planar adventuring and scarcely-aged. This mid-twenties swordsman would threaten anyone who even looked at his early-twenties grandaughter, to everyone else's utter confusion
