The Hidden Sex Keyword? [split off from NPC demands]

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Excellent example bang, with the pregnant healer. Yep, that's classic. Consider that there's a hidden "Sex" Keyword on each character's sheet - we've been over this on the rules list. So all issues of maleness, or femaleness (including pregnancy) are automatically valid for all characters.

It took me a while to work out what to say to this and where I want to go with it.  My most traumatic experiences of dysfunctional play have happened in this dimension.  

I've never been entirely happy with the "sexless" approach that DnD 3.x (for instance) takes to characters;  but I've found in running games that it was important for female players to have this "protected space" to expand into and start enjoying roleplaying.  This is certainly true for players with past abusive play experience (I'm among them, so I can empathise), but I've also found it true of female players who had never played a roleplaying game before and came into a group of friends that was supportive and non-sexist and already had female players with strong female characters in it.

I'm not sure what this is except that there must be some set of unspoken assumptions, both at the game level and at the Social Contract level.  I can feel it, I can see players act upon it and in some blatant cases I can put a finger on it, but it's difficult to grasp for me.  I guess that what most bothers me about the "hidden Sex keyword" isn't that you say it exists (I agree, it exists even in games played using other systems that refuse to support it mechanically, such as DnD) or that it might be a cool thing to have (I tentatively agree, depending on what sets of abilities are in it), but that it is in fact hidden.  The hidden-ness disempowers the player – usually, but not always, the female player of a female PC.  

We have probably all heard of, or experienced, some typical "abilities" in the Sex keyword.  "Defenceless against Conception" is one.  "Available to be Hit On by Anyone No Matter How Grotesque" is another.  On the male side (more common in grossly immature games) there's "Catches STDs in a Wink".  

The way I've worded them, these are all indications of something dysfunctional and disempowering happening in play.  They are extreme examples (although sadly not invented) of flaws, flaws that are all the worse because they are hidden.  The worst things is that in my experience, female players tend to expect their character to have both the above flaws, and act accordingly, even though they aren't on the character sheet and perhaps not even in the GM's mind (certainly not in mine when I run a game – I've learnt to mention these things to female players at some point and always find they are surprised and relieved that they may not be as limited in their options of acceptable play as they expected).  

Strangely enough, male players often don't see a problem with playing a female character who "Can Get Anything in Return for Sex", and does.  Female players don't do that – not only because this would make for a rather sad caricature of a female, but also (as I see it) because they tend to perceive the female keyword as containing only limitations and flaws, not powers and options.  Again, I've found this true even for new players who hadn't played ever before and who weren't coming into a sexist group.  

So yeah, I suppose these keywords need to come out into the open so everyone can see what is or isn't in them.  And they have to have nifty stuff in them that you'd actually want to play.  

I guess a female keyword could have, say, a "Give Birth to Child" ability in it, as you've written somewhere.  But the higher the likelihood of becoming pregnant, the more it'll limit options for play for female characters.  So should there be a "Contraception" ability in the keyword?  I don't think I'd ever determine pregnancy with die rolls, I'd always let the player decide.  

The general question here is, can we find keywords that make both sexes appealing to play?  That don't limit one sex more than the other?  Or if one is more limiting in certain circumstances, what's the compensation in other situations that are just as likely to come up in play?  This last bit is important.  By making characters of one sex less viable and interesting to play, you limit the players of the same sex:  they are forced to either live with limitations or play a sex that is not their own, regardless of their own preference.  

For instance, "Give Birth to Child" would be less interesting in a game geared towards combat or exploration than in a game centred around, say, day-to-day life in a specific village or location.  

Not sure what a male keyword would even have in it – all the abilities/flaws that have tended to come up in my experience relate to being female, almost never to being male.  

The problem in this situation is that the female player in this case is being forced to make a personal statement about how comfortable she is with this sort of thing. It's quite complex - I don't think it's that women have a problem playing a sexual character, I think that they rightly have a problem when a man forces them to display just how interested they are in these things by forcing them to create a response in-character.

Basically, it's the player using his position in the game to feel someone out, without the normal repercussions for doing so. Very invasive.

Yes it is, and not only if the player specifically intends to invade.  There are players who do intend exactly that, of course;  but (also of course) many players don't.  

As you say, stepping back from the situation and signalling that you aren't comfortable with this isn't considered an acceptable option in most groups.  You don't get a choice about it.  What is sadder is that in most groups you don't even have the option of defining your own character's sexuality until someone decides to hit on you.  Most GMs provide opportunities for male characters, but never the females;  and many groups cringe at female players playing a sexually active female character.  (Weirdly enough, the male player's "Get Anything for Sex" caricature doesn't get the same reaction.)  Even where none of these obstacles exist, female players tend to limit themselves – I have yet to meet a female player happy to find out by trying.  

Except in this case, I knew that this wasn't what Fred was up to. I'm not Fred's bestest friend or anything, but he's a member of this community who participates conscientiously, and from what I knew of him, I was pretty sure that he was just playing out the drama of the scene as he felt best (in fact, he opened up his character in that the scene was based on a misunderstanding on his part that he'd enginnered knowingly - he was just asking to get shot down). I almost stepped in, just because I thought that Adrienne might be uncomfortable anyhow. But she seemed to catch on to what Fred was up to, so I didn't. I hope that I was reading things correctly. Hard via chat.

Instead, the pressure ended up creating a pretty neat situation. Adrienne told me today that she's purchased a "Conflicted about Okhfels" ability for he character (that's Fred's character). And I think he might have something similar. Meaning that it's just rife with all sorts of potential conflict in the future.

Sure, it sounds as if it is leading to cool play.  Do you think she is aware that she could have played her character the same way?  (I mean, with her character hitting on Okhfels?  Assuming that this would be acceptable play in your game.)  

But, generally, all players must feel that they're equal participants in looking at issues, or they're not going to have fun. So no player should be there just to be the subject of other players objectification. Be it sex, religion, age or whatever that's being preyed upon.

Agreed.  And race is another.  But religion, age, also race, appear somewhere in the game stats, so they are easier to handle than the "hidden" one, sex.  At least you know what you're dealing with;  even a highly sexist and limiting keyword would be better than no visible keyword at all, because at least you know what you are getting into and can say no to it before it happens.  

On a related note, I've only recently learnt to be sensitive about racial issues in games, from a player with an Asian background;  these days I look differently at the Elves he likes to play (in a group that is all humans otherwise).  My first reaction when I realised that he was sensitive to issues of race was to try and downplay antagonism between species in Midnight;  but once I was treading more lightly, he embraced the racism/species-ism theme I'd introduced earlier (rather thoughtlesssly) with such gusto that it has ended up adding fun and depth to the game for both of us.  

I'm still not sure what your issue is with sex as a keyword, or why it might make you uncomfortable, but, sure, start a new thread so we can elaborate on it.

Any clearer?  

The "rules list" is: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/HeroQuest-rules/

You may have trouble finding it there, however, as it's pretty high volume. Might just be easier for me to synopsize in the new thread.

If you'd do that, that would be great.

[Doyce]

Except in this case, I knew that this wasn't what Fred was up to. I'm not Fred's bestest friend or anything, but he's a member of this community who participates conscientiously, and from what I knew of him, I was pretty sure that he was just playing out the drama of the scene as he felt best (in fact, he opened up his character in that the scene was based on a misunderstanding on his part that he'd enginnered knowingly - he was just asking to get shot down). I almost stepped in, just because I thought that Adrienne might be uncomfortable anyhow. But she seemed to catch on to what Fred was up to, so I didn't. I hope that I was reading things correctly. Hard via chat.

Instead, the pressure ended up creating a pretty neat situation. Adrienne told me today that she's purchased a "Conflicted about Okhfels" ability for he character (that's Fred's character). And I think he might have something similar. Meaning that it's just rife with all sorts of potential conflict in the future.

Sure, it sounds as if it is leading to cool play.  Do you think she is aware that she could have played her character the same way?  (I mean, with her character hitting on Okhfels?  Assuming that this would be acceptable play in your game.)  

Just a few thoughts from someone else in the game.

Actually, the IC "problem" really grew out of the fact that Fred's character misunderstood what was going on -- the female character is very much 'in charge' in the game, and pretty much walked up to this sweaty, strong guy in the smithy and said "you, come here -- I need to talk to you".  It was "obvious" to the male PC (not the player, but the PC) and those NPCs around him that she was picking up a man for the night... in fact, I think the male player commented that the PC was somewhat used to being used and then moved aside.  The female character was clearly the one initiating the exchange -- the male PC just didn't understand her real reason, in character.

It was several exchanges into their private conversation (taking up about thirty minutes, real-time) before he realized she didn't have anything like that in mind, but decided to go for it anyway.  I was just a fly on the wall in that scene, but I think it was clear what was coming up, what the misconception was, and that something could have been done at any point in there to shut the whole thing down in a much more decisive way -- there was a lot of discussion about it in the OOC channel.  In other words, it was left open as an option because the female player left it open.

Just my two cents, but I didn't ever get the impression that she felt trapped into it in any way.  She took her time with each reply, in fact, to make sure to come up with just exactly the right kind of response that would say no, while still 'leaving the door open'.

Probably, none of this addresses your main point, but I think it bears illustration of the scene.

[Brand_Robins]

I've never been entirely happy with the "sexless" approach that DnD 3.x (for instance) takes to characters;  but I've found in running games that it was important for female players to have this "protected space" to expand into and start enjoying roleplaying.

My first reaction when I realised that he was sensitive to issues of race was to try and downplay antagonism between species in Midnight;  but once I was treading more lightly, he embraced the racism/species-ism theme I'd introduced earlier (rather thoughtlesssly) with such gusto that it has ended up adding fun and depth to the game for both of us.  

I can't help but think that these things are linked at a basic level, and that it has to do with not just issues of sex and race, but that all such sticky issues have a degree to which player control determines the dynamic and acceptability of the game. Let me try to illustrate this with a situation that happened last week in my game that had little to do with sex or race, but just with the sticky issue of player protagonism.

I was playing a 7th Sea game with my wife, in which there was a scene were an NPC (Fortuno) was having a duel with another NPC that Olivia (my wife's PC) had never met before. Fortuno was the cock of the walk in the scene, swinging from bell towers and having the whole crowd chant for him, fighting the huge and armored foe with dash and verve, and being cooler than human. Olivia couldn't do anything in the first part of the duel but defend the NPCs honor from nay-sayers in the crowd, then only became directly involved in the action when one of the enemies squires started cheating by shooting iron pellets at Fortuno. Olivia then went and fought the squires so that Fortuno could win the duel, becoming a hero in the cities eyes while she was overlooked and cheered along with the crowd for his victory.

If your hackles are rising at the very idea of this scene, you're probably not alone. A scene where the NPC has all the glory, attention, and cool fights and all the PC can do is act as a minor supporting role that yields no glory, attention, or honor? If I read something like that in an adventure module I'd probably snort in derision. And yet this scene worked perfectly and my wife was so excited during it that she was bouncing up and down and nearly yelling.

Any guesses on why she loved the scene so much, why a scene that should have been such badness of GM pet-NPC masturbatory action went over with flying colors?

It was because she had created the NPC, and had asked for the scene. Fortuno was her character's mentor, whom she's secretly in lust with, and she wanted him to have a scene where he got to be the coolest thing on earth – to be more properly sexy – and where she got to be part of his business, but in such a way that he wouldn't notice that she'd helped him out. The whole dynamic of the scene was something she wanted, something she instigated, and thus something she enjoyed because it let her tell her story.

I think the "protected space" around sex and race in many games allows this dynamic to appear. Sex is fine when you're the one instigating it (or at least a full partner in instigating it), and dealing with racial prejudice is great if the player is interested in doing so and has a say in starting out how it happens. These players may need a safe zone from which to venture out, finding out if they have the right to instigate such plots and themes, and seeing how they're received and if the GM can run them in a way that won't lead to badness and GM determined/controlled railroading of their sex/race issues.

When players have a voice in determining what challenges they face, what the effect of their race and sexuality is on the game, then it allows them to tell the stories they are interested in, to approach the issues from a position of power that lets them use the situations rather than the situations using them. I think that kind of player directed issue is key to making all sorts of sticky issues workable in game.

[Mike Holmes]

Sorry to take so long getting to this.

It took me a while to work out what to say to this and where I want to go with it.  My most traumatic experiences of dysfunctional play have happened in this dimension.

Well, I'll try to deal with this from your POV, because it's your thread. But I'll also, in the meanwhile, try to give another POV, which is the functional inclusion of sex into the game.

I've never been entirely happy with the "sexless" approach that DnD 3.x (for instance) takes to characters;  but I've found in running games that it was important for female players to have this "protected space" to expand into and start enjoying roleplaying.  This is certainly true for players with past abusive play experience (I'm among them, so I can empathise),

I realize that this is a common experience for female players. It's common because the player has the facade of a character, and see it as a liscence to live out their fantasies. Not realizing that there are very real human interactions that are actually going on through this mask. The same thing happens on the internet, or at masquerade balls - the theoretical (or even practical) annonymity of the medium means that the person performing the act becomes "detached" from the social repercussion. For an RPG, he thinks, ah, she can't shout at me, at best, her character can shout an my character.

A good response to this is the female player slapping the male player in the face. Facetiousness aside, it would bring the male player back to the realization that he's actually the one playing the game, and that behind the character in question is another human being.

The fact that the player feels "detached" is no excuse for this behavior, which is an exceptionally bad form of "my guy" behavior. Simply the fact that a character behavior might be plausible, does not mean that the player has carte blanch to play the character any way they feel. One must still respect the other players at the table.

There are two types of this behavior, I think. The first is the male who's doing it because he knows it will make the female uncomfortable, and this gives him pleasure. I hope that if anyone detects such a creature in their game that they would immediately eject said creature. I would, and further would likely never play with said player again. The second type is the male that is playing their character "honestly," that is, with no intent to harm anyone, but playing in an insensitive fashion. That is, they're simply playing their character without considering at all what the female player might think of the play. This isn't an indication of a problem with the player's intent, but with them not realizing that play isn't just about satisfying your own needs, but that it's a community thing, and everyone needs to worry about the needs of others.

In the past, I've said that one can play "for themselves" with regard to theme, and I'll stick by that. I don't require that players play for the entertainment of others. My minimum requirement is that everyone play in a manner that allows all of the other players to have fun as well, however. This has to be the requirement of the Social Contract, or someone is being abused.

So, yes, in all cases, male players must approach questions of sex cautiously when dealing with females, understanding that it's possible that they might have issues. This all said, there's a general principle that's been exposed, which relates not just to sex, but to race, or to anything potentially. Simply put: always be sensitive to the other players playing the game.

Now, one shouldn't have to say this, it should be part of every group's social contract. But, again, the nature of RPGs is such that I think it has to be explicitly stated that "playing my guy" does not make any action automatically OK. Heck, we could be talking about foul language for some players, portrayal of religion for others, politics, anything. No amount of "don't take it personally" will ameliorate the uncomfortable feelings that some players may have about some topics. When in doubt, take the three seconds to step out of character, and ask the other player.

Now, does this mean that we can't ever approach these topics? Not at all.

but I've also found it true of female players who had never played a roleplaying game before and came into a group of friends that was supportive and non-sexist and already had female players with strong female characters in it.

I'm not sure what this is except that there must be some set of unspoken assumptions, both at the game level and at the Social Contract level.  I can feel it, I can see players act upon it and in some blatant cases I can put a finger on it, but it's difficult to grasp for me.  

This I don't get. But then again, I'm not female, and I'm not particularly easily offended by many things (not having ever been a vicitm of abuse, descrimination, etc). But, my lack of empathy aside, I've seen games in which females were engaged in playing around sex themes. So my thought here is that this has to be a personal thing. I'm not saying that only abused players have a special need here. I'm saying that I don't think that we can really generalize. We have to treat each player as an individual with individual predilections.

So, no, I don't agree that there's an automatic space that's needed regarding sex in every game. I do think that one does have to automatically consider that such a space might be needed. This is not the same. It's precisely the assumption that the person in question will automatically be offended by anything sexual in the game that drops sex out of most RPGs. Even when there are no females around.

Note this last effect - it's interesting. It's often an uncomfortableness with homosexuality that prevents males from playing out sex roles with other males. I felt strongly this way when I was younger - I didn't want to play out the female NPCs getting hit on, because what did that say about me? Once I matured a little, and learned that one's play doesn't neccessarily say anything about themselves, the problem no longer existed. I had cleared that space for myself.

And here's the point. I believe there is a point at which females can and do become comfortable trusting the males in their games to play including sex. Further, I think that there are steps that one can take to clear the way.

I guess that what most bothers me about the "hidden Sex keyword" isn't that you say it exists (I agree, it exists even in games played using other systems that refuse to support it mechanically, such as DnD) or that it might be a cool thing to have (I tentatively agree, depending on what sets of abilities are in it), but that it is in fact hidden.  The hidden-ness disempowers the player – usually, but not always, the female player of a female PC.  

I quite agree that this is the problem. The solution, however, then is plain. Make this explicit. That is, don't fail to talk about it. It may be the case that a particular player doesn't even want to discuss a topic - and if so, one can assume that it's taboo for play, I think. But if they're willing to talk about it in an open fashion, I think that tons of headway can be made. For instance, a particular female player might not mind sex being a general topic, but do mind the idea of rape being portrayed in play (not just to her own character, but in general). So it's completely reasonable for her to request that people refrain from doing this.

To whit, and counter to your experience, I've seen female players come into games already comfortable with sex as a topic. Many times. I've also seen them come in with trepidation as well, but when it's been addressed, the issue generally seems to subside. They may still have limits, but often all a player wants is some assurance that they will be respected in terms of their particular issues with some sorts of play. In fact, in many cases, once a player becomes convinced that the play of these issues isn't intended to cause them pain, but to honestly explore said issue, they often then allow that issue to come into play. Not always, but it happens.

We have probably all heard of, or experienced, some typical "abilities" in the Sex keyword.  "Defenceless against Conception" is one.  "Available to be Hit On by Anyone No Matter How Grotesque" is another.  On the male side (more common in grossly immature games) there's "Catches STDs in a Wink".  

The way I've worded them, these are all indications of something dysfunctional and disempowering happening in play.  They are extreme examples (although sadly not invented) of flaws, flaws that are all the worse because they are hidden.  The worst things is that in my experience, female players tend to expect their character to have both the above flaws, and act accordingly, even though they aren't on the character sheet and perhaps not even in the GM's mind (certainly not in mine when I run a game – I've learnt to mention these things to female players at some point and always find they are surprised and relieved that they may not be as limited in their options of acceptable play as they expected).  

OK, this is alien to me. That is, I don't doubt that there are male players who would try to force this paradigm, or even that there are females who would be forced to accept it. And I can see that this might be the result of some sad traditions of play. But it's not in any way a neccessity of RPGs. That is, while this all might even be common, it doesn't exist at all in the games that I run, or even play in. In fact, I haven't seen any play like this in over a decade.

Now, you might say that I've just been lucky, but it's at least in part because I would never allow these attitudes into play. Basically, one has to take steps to make good play happen. This means the following:
1. Explicitly establish a code of conduct for play.
2. Talk openly about potential issues (don't hide it).
3. Confront any bad bahavior when it occurs.

Note that you don't have to be a GM to make these things happen. Any player can pipe up, and say these things. Worst case scenario, you can always threaten to walk from the game if your rules are violated. And, in fact, you should. The moment the game isn't fun for you , and the players refuse to alter their play to accommodate you as a player, you should leave the group. I cannot understand why anyone would subject themselves to something that made them uncomfortable, especially when the idea is that the activity is supposed to be entertainment. A simple explanation using these terms ought to convince anyone. If they don't see it, then they're not worth playing with.

For me, it's enough that any player I'm playing with is abused, not simply myself, and I'll pipe up. Now, I understand that not all people are as vociferous as I am about these issues, and may not feel comfortable negotiating this into the social contract. Especially when tradition is against them. But then as a participant, you have to figure out some way to communicate it. If you're not good face to face, send an email, or write a note. Perhaps you can send them to this thread, or something like it, to give them the idea. But only the individuals playing can make this happen.

Strangely enough, male players often don't see a problem with playing a female character who "Can Get Anything in Return for Sex", and does.  Female players don't do that – not only because this would make for a rather sad caricature of a female, but also (as I see it) because they tend to perceive the female keyword as containing only limitations and flaws, not powers and options.  Again, I've found this true even for new players who hadn't played ever before and who weren't coming into a sexist group.  

Again, sounds to me like tradition and pre-conceptions. Change them. There's nothing about this that has to be true. I've seen female players play very empowered females. I've even seen females play negative stereotypes of men. In one really humorous case I saw, a husband and wife switched sex roles, and then proceeded to try and outdo each other with their stereotyping of the other sex. I distinctly remember at one point, the woman playing a hulking male barbarian saying something to the effect of, "Well, dinner is finished, time for the womenfolk to do the dishes while we men relax and tell stories about how much ass we kicked in the last fight!" Everyone at the table was just rolling with laughter the entire scenario with these two. And before anyone asks, while there was a competition going on between the two, no, it wasn't mean spirited in any way. It was really just making fun of the stereotypes.

So yeah, I suppose these keywords need to come out into the open so everyone can see what is or isn't in them.  And they have to have nifty stuff in them that you'd actually want to play.  

Well, see, here's where I differ somewhat. Above we're talking about social contract. Here we're talking about system. The system can't fix the social contract. That is, all of the goofy things that you put in the female keyword above are metagame issues. A keyword should be an in-game enumeration.

Further, and to really bring this back on topic for the forum, not ever HQ keyword needs to be enumerated. For example, each character could have a Childhood Background Keyword listing things like all the characters they grew up with, and things learned through play. There are potentially many, many other keywords that one could enumerate a character with. But we choose to enumerate the character with certain ones in order that these become the things that impact play.

Now, can you put the sex keyword on each character's sheet? Sure, if you want. Actually, I'd put them in combined with the "species" keyword, as an overall, i dunno, "Morphological" keyword? "Physiognomy" Keyword? Because these things do vary by species as well.

The other problem with this, however, is that I imagine that most people have these things at "default" level. This is hard to explain, so try to read carefully (and I'll try to explain well). A character with wings can fly, but a character without cannot. The character with wings has a default 6 to fly, just as a character who has legs has a default 6 in running. Women have a default 6 in "Give Birth" because they have the right physiognomy. Again, this is why it's not listed as a keyword, because, sans elevating the ability, they're all at default. Now, a particular species that was good at giving birth, might have it at a higher level. And characters can certainly be good at it (we all know women who are better or worse suited to childbirth). But it's just something that everyone has because of their background. Simply by using a female pronoun in the character's narrative paragraph, or putting it on the sheet, or just making it known, you get these things.

Just like you get things like Breathe Air ability at 6 just for being human. Fish do not get this ability (nor do humans get Breath Water). Get the point here? One does not practice being female and get better at it, generally, these abilities are just intrinsic to the character's form. Hence why they're "hidden." There's no need to mark them. Every time a player rolls his default running (and I make them do this every chance I get), they're rolling something in one of their many hidden keywords.

By the way, credit to Mark Gagleotti (Rory, maybe?), IIRC, who showed me this principle.

I guess a female keyword could have, say, a "Give Birth to Child" ability in it, as you've written somewhere.  But the higher the likelihood of becoming pregnant, the more it'll limit options for play for female characters.  So should there be a "Contraception" ability in the keyword?  I don't think I'd ever determine pregnancy with die rolls, I'd always let the player decide.  

Again, you're trying to encode social contract. And, again, the keyword does at 6 whatever the keyword does. No real need to work it out. But here are ones that I've used. "Attractive to Heterosexual Men." Yep, all women are a 6 at least. I'd say that this is the most often elevated ability from the keyword that I've seen for female characters. One could argue that this is sexism at work, but the female players that I've seen take this, use it with such skill, that they pretty much dominate the male characters with it. For real. Set aside Nathan's character Aysha who did as you say above making a female character potent this way - Aysha was constantly in conflict with Dana's character Regina for the affection of Brand's character, Thomas. It was tons of fun watching Brand go back and forth between his loyalty for the two characters. He knew Aysha was baaaad, and wanted to be with Regina, but Aysha was just so attractive that he couldn't stop her. In the end, however, Aysha died a nasty death, and Regina saved Thomas (using her interpersonal skills).

I sense that Brand really liked having his character in so much demand, just because he was so butch. Brand? And note that it was Dana that first used Regina's wiles against Thomas.

The general question here is, can we find keywords that make both sexes appealing to play?  That don't limit one sex more than the other?  Or if one is more limiting in certain circumstances, what's the compensation in other situations that are just as likely to come up in play?  This last bit is important.  By making characters of one sex less viable and interesting to play, you limit the players of the same sex:  they are forced to either live with limitations or play a sex that is not their own, regardless of their own preference.  

This is simple. Just don't make any flaws for either sex. I don't see any downsides for either that are not cultural.

Now, culture is different. In my FTF game, the players chose to play in a really repressive society in which women are second-class citizens. So, did I just ignore the "fact" from the setting? Would have been easy enough to do. But instead, I decided to make this class issue central to play.

See, Solani, Julie's character, is all about the female issues. In the first phase of play, her character was growing up as a young woman (17) in a household with a dominating patriarch, and the issues were about wheter or not she could maintain her family life, and how, or whether she'd become more involved as an individual in her religion. As it happened, Julie chose to have Solani leave her family, striking out alone after she'd learned that her god wanted to impregnate her via an avatar that she decided she needed to search for. In the second phase of play, she traveled to the repressive society mentioned, and fought for recognition. In the end, she got pregnant by an avatar, became the head of her own little cult, and then gave her child away to empower the avatar to return from the land of the dead.

For instance, "Give Birth to Child" would be less interesting in a game geared towards combat or exploration than in a game centred around, say, day-to-day life in a specific village or location.  

This is a truism. All abilities are only as interesting as the participants of the game contrive to make them.

Not sure what a male keyword would even have in it – all the abilities/flaws that have tended to come up in my experience relate to being female, almost never to being male.  

Well, hopefully "Attractive to Hetero Females" though there are days when I wonder if we have that as a default. :-)

How about "Impregnate Female?" Takes two to tango, you know. Whenever this one comes up, male players are always going to be looking at their character sheets for stuff like "Robust" and "Healthy" to try to outdo the default 6 (which I allow with recklessly applied improv penalties). Heck, since I've started incorporating this sort of thing, male players have been scrambling to take things like "Sensitive lover" and even "Well Endowed." Which has been pretty hilarous, IMO. I love it when they forget to make the character good looking, or even give him a sense of humor or something to make them initially attractive. And then they get shot down so easily in social contests by the pretty women. Talk about empowerment...

What is sadder is that in most groups you don't even have the option of defining your own character's sexuality until someone decides to hit on you.

???

Male PC: "Hey, hot stuff, looking for some action?"
Female PC: "Yeah, I was thinking that the barmaid over there looked pretty good. What do you think?"

Uh, just enforce your own concept. It's your character. All I can say is that it sounds like you're playing with jerks. Tell them to change, or leave.

Most GMs provide opportunities for male characters, but never the females;  and many groups cringe at female players playing a sexually active female character.  (Weirdly enough, the male player's "Get Anything for Sex" caricature doesn't get the same reaction.)  Even where none of these obstacles exist, female players tend to limit themselves – I have yet to meet a female player happy to find out by trying.

Weird. In games I run, I'm careful about putting "romantic target" NPCs in front of female players, because I don't want to assume that women are all romance novel reading saps for this sort of thing. I want to give them as much chance to be, say, the warrior hero, if they want. But given an indication that the player would like to see some romance for her character, I'm right there with suitable NPCs.

In fact, in Solani's case, I had an NPC I worked up "just in case" she wanted some romance in her character's story. Heh, in the end, she allowed his throat to be cut by an opponent, rather than move a muscle to try to save him - just to prove how cold her character had gotten. Message recieved. Very cool.

Sure, it sounds as if it is leading to cool play.  Do you think she is aware that she could have played her character the same way?  (I mean, with her character hitting on Okhfels?  Assuming that this would be acceptable play in your game.)  

Oh yeah, she knows. I think that she's aware that the way she built her character, that she can have any male character do anything she wants at any time. The question becomes more interesting - would she do something like that. It's fascinating so far how she's leading Okhfels along, with the implicit question of whether there'll be a payoff for Okhfels at some point. We all feel that this is an important unanswered question that can only come out in further play. And everyone knows that any answer from Adrienne will be interesting.

But religion, age, also race, appear somewhere in the game stats, so they are easier to handle than the "hidden" one, sex.  At least you know what you're dealing with;  even a highly sexist and limiting keyword would be better than no visible keyword at all, because at least you know what you are getting into and can say no to it before it happens.  

You should always be able to say no. Always.

GM: The dragon is coming down breathing fire at you, roll to resist.
Player: I don't like it. How about the dragon comes down to talk with my character?
GM: OK.

The narrator still has final say, but I strongly recommend to narrators that they consider their player's requests for how contests go. When PvP contests are imminent, I allow either player to call it off. For example, I allow PCs to seduce other PCs, but only if the target says that they're willing to roll for it. In that way, it becomes a gamble, but one that all players are willing to lose.

This is key, if you don't like the potential outcome of losing and aren't willing to take this gamble for the potential positive outcome, then just say no to the contest. Better yet, suggest a different one that has outcome ramifications that you're interested in seeing.

On a related note, I've only recently learnt to be sensitive about racial issues in games, from a player with an Asian background;  these days I look differently at the Elves he likes to play (in a group that is all humans otherwise).  My first reaction when I realised that he was sensitive to issues of race was to try and downplay antagonism between species in Midnight;  but once I was treading more lightly, he embraced the racism/species-ism theme I'd introduced earlier (rather thoughtlesssly) with such gusto that it has ended up adding fun and depth to the game for both of us.  

Perfect example. Given the same sensitive treatment, why should females have any less trepidation about play revolving around sex, than this guy did with issues of race. All he needed was to know that the environment was friendly on the social level.

I'm pretty sure that Brand and Doyce covered a lot of this, so apollogies if I'm just reiterating things they said. But consider that a reinforcement of their ideas, if I did.

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

Set aside Nathan's character Aysha who did as you say above making a female character potent this way - Aysha was constantly in conflict with Dana's character Regina for the affection of Brand's character, Thomas. It was tons of fun watching Brand go back and forth between his loyalty for the two characters. He knew Aysha was baaaad, and wanted to be with Regina, but Aysha was just so attractive that he couldn't stop her. In the end, however, Aysha died a nasty death, and Regina saved Thomas (using her interpersonal skills).

I sense that Brand really liked having his character in so much demand, just because he was so butch. Brand? And note that it was Dana that first used Regina's wiles against Thomas.

The setup was actually even more intricate than that. Thomas, who was a bad ass and a romantic brooding paladin character so generically ripped off from 1001 bad romantic-fantasy novels was in love with an Amazon woman who he could not be with. Exiled from his homeland and hers he washes up against the walls of this far-far away city.

There he meets a lovely winged woman who is interested in him, and in whom he has some interest. Love is grand, but his true love is far away and their love (though he'd never admit it) untested. So the winged woman becomes interested in him, and he in her -- at her player's instigation.

Then another PC tries to get Thomas to marry his daughter, because Thomas is wealthy and powerful enough to take care of her. Thomas is disgusted by the behavior, but impressed by the daughter and gets a protective streak towards her.

Then comes in the evil and sexy sorceress, and she uses her sex to gain power against Thomas -- who is now the dancing dupe in a game played mostly between women. To finish it all off, eventually his amazon love shows back up in town and things get really tense.

I loved playing the character, he was such a confused mess and in such constant demand by women. It really was kick-ass fun.

However, I think it has to be noted that Thomas was never, ever in control of the situation. He may have thought he was, but he wasn't. It was the women who were pushing and pulling things, Thomas just reacted to what they did. And yet very male me had no problems with this, because it was exactly the kind of conflict I'd wanted Thomas to have. And, so far as I could tell, it was the kind of conflict that everyone else wanted too.

[Mike Holmes]

Heh. There's a discussion right now on the rules list about how to handle the character with really kickass combat scores. I've been explaining about making the contests less combat oriented and other tactics. I should have said - let em loose with some female PCs!

In fact, I feel bad now, because I let the womenfolk run roughshod all over poor Thomas, and his moments in the sun kicking ass were possibly to far between, or too unimportant. In fact, the other ass kicker, Fahja, was also on the bad end of the stick with regards to women - the same Amazon, to be precise. Moral of that story, never take a In Love with Foreign Woman 10W2 flaw when I'm GMing, and expect me not to exploit it!

Dana was the only woman playing in that game, and Adrienne the only in the current game. And Julie the only one in my FTF game (though often Josh is the only guy playing, so...). If any of them would like to comment, positively or negatively on any of this, I'd encourage them to do so.

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

In fact, the other ass kicker, Fahja, was also on the bad end of the stick with regards to women - the same Amazon, to be precise.

That, along with furthering Thomas' relationships, was the biggest disapointment to me about having to leave the game when I did. I was so looking forward to the inevitable fight between Thomas and Fahja, with the theme from "The Good, The Band, and The Ugly" playing in the background as they stared each other down....

God, that would have rocked.

[Adrienne]

Yikes, I should read this forum more often.  :)

Just my two cents, but I didn't ever get the impression that she felt trapped into it in any way.  She took her time with each reply, in fact, to make sure to come up with just exactly the right kind of response that would say no, while still 'leaving the door open'.

It was a little more complicated than that, although not much.  I'm a bit self-conscious about playing out romantic/flirtation stuff, I suppose because I'm wary of my character being written off as a "slut."  That's definitely not due to any problem with this group, but from previous online experience where promiscuous behavior from female characters was simultaneously encouraged and mocked.  (I hadn't pegged that as the cause until I started thinking about it to type this.  Huh.)  So, I was taking my time in part because of that self-consciousness, and also to weigh Isadora's responses as suggested above.  

I didn't feel trapped at any time.  It was touchier play for me than sitting around talking about the weather would be, but I didn't think there would be any problems if I flatly turned down the situation, either in or out of character.  I had no sense of either coercion or mockery, which are the two things that will drive me screaming from potentially touchy play.  Overall, it's been a good thing to have in the game, since it makes the characters' relationship more interesting than "I want to hire you to kill goblins."

[Mike Holmes]

Frankly, that's a relief. It's the impression that I got from how things happened, but, again given the medium, it's often hard to be sure.

Anyhow, so there you have it Kerstin. A player who admittedly was abused this way in prior games, handled correctly, who not has no problems in dealing with this sort of thing in play. Even in IRC, which I think is an accomplishment that the entire group can be proud of, given the difficulties in communication, again.

I completely understand the frustration that you're going through, and I'd be frustrated with the groups you're playing with just based on their treatment of you as well. All I can say is that there's light at the end of this particular tunnel. And it's found in creating the appropriate social environment. If you can't with the people you're playing with, then you'll either have to avoid one of the most important (some would say most important) parts of your characters, or find new people to play with. Frankly, I'd suggest the latter. If they can't respect you regarding this, then how can you expect respect overall?

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I usually try not to promote my products too openly in discussions here, but in this case, it's impossible not to: my book Sex & Sorcery is explicitly written to address the concerns raised in this thread, and to my knowledge it is the only existing unified text to do so for role-playing.

A great deal of the ideas presented there were derived, or articulated, during our extensive play of (then-named) Hero Wars. People may also be interested in reading my article Goddess of Rape in Daedalus #1. (The "redeeming" in the article's title was added by the editor)

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

To further legitimize Ron's claim here, I have to say that some of the ideas I have above come, if not directly from Sex & Sorcery, from the same theoretical discussions that I think lead to Ron putting down his ideas on the subject. That is, there have been many discussions of these issues here before that have been very illuminating, and Ron has been the lead on several of them. He knows this stuff cold.

Mike

[Lucy McLaughlin]

I'm slightly jumping in here without a great deal of theoretical knowledge. However I am the female player in Kerstin's groupm, so I thought I would chime in with my experiences.

My most uncomfortable experiences of play since I started playing RPGs about three years ago have been to do with my being a woman (typically the only woman in the group, which has often left me feeling somewhat isolated and helpless). I've dealt with sexism both in-character and out-of-character in almost every game I've played in. Kerstin's is the first game I have played in where these issues have been openly addressed, and I feel that the game and the group are better for it. In other games my enjoyment of my characters and the games themselves has often been hampered by other players' expectations (and even demands at times!) of how my character would behave sexually.

A lot of Kerstin's comments at the beginning of this thread really rang true for me. It has often seemed to me that male players tend to use their character's sex (whatever it is) to their advantage, whereas women tend to interpret their character's sex (whatever it is) as a disadvantage. I don't know where that comes from exactly, but it has certainly been reinforced in the majority of groups I've played in.

in most groups you don't even have the option of defining your own character's sexuality until someone decides to hit on you

This struck me as particularly true - and it's been my experience with most  of the male-dominated groups I've played that sex is either painstakingly avoided or the subject of locker-room style jokes that make me feel very excluded and uncomfortable. In Kerstin's game, I am just starting to explore my character's sexual side, and even in spite of the safe atmosphere in her group, it's a nerve-wracking experience.

This is not to say that non-dysfunctional play around these issues can't exist (clearly it can, as Mike and his players have been explaining), but I'm only just dipping my toes into the water of handling these issues in a way that makes me feel comfortable. I've read Sex & Sorcery - on loan from Kerstin - and found a lot of it very interesting and useful, although I wouldn't necessarily be interested in playing a game solely focused on sexual issues right now.

Then again, I'm used to playing D&D, which so often feels like a male power fantasy gone mad that no wonder it breeds sexism and discomfort for women when played with less-than-mature players...

[Mike Holmes]

Ron, I think that this has definitely defied all attempts to be a Heroquest thread, and is instead a Theory or actual play thread. If you have a moment, maybe it ought to be moved?

Lucy, Kerstin,

I understand that this is a problem in your play. Further, I'm sure that if we tried, we could get many women to come forward with their stories of this sort of problem. Heck, I can give you such stories, having been in games like this myself - not participating in the sexism, but noting it happening, and doing what I could to stop it. Stories like this abound. If you want a real horror story, there was one post on RPG.net that still sticks with me to this day about a particularly blatant GM and some really awful sessions this way (can anyone remember those posts, or hunt up the URLs)?

I don't think that there's any doubt that this happens, nor that it's a common occurance. Nor do I think that there are many out there who would even disagree with the supposition that it's common. I'd say that the behavior you mention is epidemic.

And I understand that, given your experiences that you'd be tentative about playing around sex-related topics. It only makes sense. Even though I can't empathize, I can certainly sympathize, and beyond feeling for you, I hate this sort of thing, because I think it's one of the main reasons so few females play RPGs. Which means that tons of good players aren't playing because of this. That makes me sick on more than one level.

My only question at this point is whether or not what I've pointed out above makes sense given all of this context. Have I missed addressing the issue in some way? Is there anything we can do to help rescue you from this problematic sort of play? Or do you feel that in the new game that you're on the road to recovery yourselves?

Want to make characters for my IRC HQ game?

Mike

[Lucy McLaughlin]

Lucy, Kerstin,

I understand that this is a problem in your play. Further, I'm sure that if we tried, we could get many women to come forward with their stories of this sort of problem. Heck, I can give you such stories, having been in games like this myself - not participating in the sexism, but noting it happening, and doing what I could to stop it. Stories like this abound. If you want a real horror story, there was one post on RPG.net that still sticks with me to this day about a particularly blatant GM and some really awful sessions this way (can anyone remember those posts, or hunt up the URLs)?

I don't think that there's any doubt that this happens, nor that it's a common occurance. Nor do I think that there are many out there who would even disagree with the supposition that it's common. I'd say that the behavior you mention is epidemic.

I'd have to agree with you there, and I apologise if what I posted earlier sounded like a rant. It was a rant I guess (I don't get the chance to sound off about this stuff too often!) but it certainly wasn't aimed at you. I've been reading the other threads that Kerstin posted about her game, and your game sounds fantastic on lots of levels, and I think in lots of ways it's exactly the kind of thing we're aiming for.

And I understand that, given your experiences that you'd be tentative about playing around sex-related topics. It only makes sense. Even though I can't empathize, I can certainly sympathize, and beyond feeling for you, I hate this sort of thing, because I think it's one of the main reasons so few females play RPGs. Which means that tons of good players aren't playing because of this. That makes me sick on more than one level.

Agreed there, too. Every now and then I try to get an all-female game together (mostly because I'm curious to see what it would be like), but it always seems to fall flat because I can't find enough players. And it irritates me because I know a good number of women who used to play...

My only question at this point is whether or not what I've pointed out above makes sense given all of this context. Have I missed addressing the issue in some way? Is there anything we can do to help rescue you from this problematic sort of play? Or do you feel that in the new game that you're on the road to recovery yourselves?

I'm going to head back in a minute and reply to your earlier post in detail, I think. (I'd come in just to share my experiences since I'm a player of Kerstin's, but it turns out I have more to say than I thought - you may have to forgive a lack of theoretical knowledge though, as I'm just starting out at the Forge and just starting out expanding my ideas of what RPGs are about.) I think you did address the issue; and certainly for me, playing in Kerstin's game has been a really positive experience in terms of playing non-sexless characters, something I've been uncomfortable with in the past. (Unfortunately, it's turned out in most groups that playing characters who act like women is even more uncomfortable!)

Want to make characters for my IRC HQ game?

Personally I'd love to. PM is winging its way.

[jrs]

Hi Lucy and welcome to the Forge!

I can understand your need to rant about this topic, and I really do not have anything to add to the excellent points Mike has made.  I do want to say that gaming doesn't have to be fraught with sexual stereotypes.  It can encompass sexuality and gender issues and be fun and very satisfying.  

Over in the Theory forum, Ben Lehman has listed a number of past discussions on these issues: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=147955#147955

If you want to pursue an all women's group, then I suggest reading this topic from over two years ago: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=2445">
Exalted Freeform- Unstated Social Contract in Action.  I find the described social contract for this group very interesting.

Oh, and Mike is right, this discussion has definitely abandoned Heroquest territory.

Julie