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

[Mike Holmes]

I'd have to agree with you there, and I apologise if what I posted earlier sounded like a rant.

Not at all, just more good annecdotal evidence of the problem.

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...

Well, perhaps you can bring this up with them? Or, basically discuss play in general, and why they stopped. You can then assure them that whatever the bad things were, that they won't be in your game.

Truth is that they may not consciously think about what they disliked, and have placed RPGs in the "Not something I do" bin in their minds.

IOW, check out the stuff Julie cites. All good for what ails ya.

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.

That's the second time you've said that. I speak plain English, too, and so does everyone else. Participation here is not predicated on a certain level of knowledge of theory.

Mike

[Lucy McLaughlin]

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.

Yup, I actually think that that's been at the heart of the matter in a lot of my uncomfortable play experiences - a lack of respect for the fact that the characters and the players interact, and that the game-world and reality interact. I've felt in the past like I was expected to divorce my own feelings on these issues from my characters' feelings and/or behaviour. Of course that's impossible, and it's often led to me feeling uncomfortable or even angry.

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.

Yep, of course! And as a player, that's always been an "of course" for me, but it seems that on this one topic, it's very rarely been a consideration for other players in regard to me. In large part I've also been at fault by not speaking up when I did feel uncomfortable, but I've also had experiences of being laughed at or ignored when I did bring up my concerns, not to mention in one case being told "yes, we'll be more sensitive" and having nothing change.

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.

I absolutely agree, and there have been times when I would have loved to play with these issues except that I felt so totally uncomfortable doing it in the groups I was playing in. For example, one character I played (in what was actually a rather Gamist D&D game, so my mistake) was a single mother, and it would have been interesting to explore some of those issues if it had been a more comfortable environment in which to do it. In the same game I also tried to play a lesbian diplomat struggling against a sexist system and a deeply passionate young noblewoman. Neither of them really worked very well, either - but then this was a game where the combat was the main focus, and I was trying to play interesting characters with involved stories. It just wasn't the right game or group to do it in.

(In fact, I can't think offhand of a character I've created whose personal story wasn't dealing with some aspect of sexuality or womanhood. I also can't think of a group, until I played in Kerstin's game, where I had even the beginnings of a supportive atmosphere to do it in. So I'm starting to think that you're right in saying it's all about the group.)

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).

I've played with very few women, and my own early experiences of RPGs were quite abusive, but I have to agree with Kerstin here: in all the groups I've played in, there have been these unspoken assumptions, somehow. Partly it's been about the group dynamic, partly about assumptions about the campaign setting, and partly, I think about women in general. It is difficult to put a finger on exactly what's wrong, but I've felt it in almost every group I've been in.

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.

Okay. Personally, for now anyway, it's something that I need, mostly because I need to relearn how comfortable sex can be around the gaming table! (That sounds utterly wrong, but you know what I mean.) And I think it's certainly better to have it than not: after all, it's something that can be eased out much easier than it can be introduced once play has started.

Obviously I can't speak for Kerstin, but personally I'm not advocating removing sex from the game entirely - I'm constantly creating characters who have something to say about these issues, so a game that didn't exist on that dimension at all would probably have little interest for me. What I need is to know that there's a reasonably sensitive and friendly atmosphere for me to explore these issues in at my own pace (rather than have them forced on me or snatched away when I've got something to say, I guess).

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.

Oh, sure, I've observed that for myself among male players, even when I'm there. (A lot of the guys I've gamed with have been deeply immature, which has been another part of the problem, I think.)

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'm sure you're right about that - I'm just scarred by past experience, I guess, so that's the part that's taking time.

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.

I can picture that being possible in Kerstin's group, but in other groups talking about these issues would have been even more uncomfortable and juvenile than playing the games with their horrible misshapen ideas of including sex. (Which really is an indication that I was playing with the wrong people.)

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.

I guess all I can say to that is that I'm getting there, but it'll take some time.

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.

I'm glad it's not a necessity - that would cause me to throw up my hands in disgust and never game again, I think! - but it's certainly my overwhelming experience of RPGs. Granted, my overwhelming experience of RPGs involves young men playing D&D, and I honestly think it's partly informed by the game, but it's still there. I'm starting to learn how different it can be, but it does scare me how many women must be put off RPGs for life by this kind of immature play.

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.

My instinctive reaction to that was "oh God, that would be horribly uncomfortable", but on reflection it would be a good and useful thing to do in Kerstin's group (not that we're having these kinds of problems in that game right now).

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.

To be honest, looking back I can't quite figure out why I stayed with these dysfunctional groups for as long as I did. I can only assume that I must have been getting something out of it that kept me there - although in comparison to the game I'm involved in now, it seems rather pathetic. I do enjoy gaming a huge amount, though, and apparently it's sometimes enough to ignore some fairly major issues in the group.

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.

Sure thing. (I wish I'd read this thread or something like it two years ago when I was having trouble asserting any kind of authority at all as a female GM.)

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.

That sounds like a really fun scenario!

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.

Hm, I actually think that quite often (in my experience anyway) the social contract and the game rules have quite powerful interactions. The rules of the game can have quite an impact on what is expected of characters and players in a social contract sense, because it has an effect on what is or isn't available in play. Maybe that's just me, with a history of groups who don't have separate social contract discussions, but it does seem to me like the two things are mixed up with each other, partly because if we're involving these issues in play, do we not also want to enumerate them in the rules?

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.

That makes lots of sense - but weren't we talking about the fact that these issues, for whatever reason more than Childhood Background, seem to have an impact on play whether we discuss and enumerate them or not? (In fact, apparently they impact on play even more noticeably when we don't discuss them than when we do.) I think that a Sex keyword, certainly for me in an ideal world, wouldn't be hidden because that is the only way I can control what's in there. If it's enumerated on my character sheet, there's less opportunity for other players to decide for me what is or isn't part of the Female keyword. In terms of empowerment and comfort in play, my ability to make those choices is really important.

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.

Okay, again I may be careering away from Kerstin's point here, but I'm not necessarily talking about basic physiological processes like birth here. Sex - or maybe it's better to start using the word "gender" here - isn't just about biology, but also about a set of assumptions that is made about you on the basis of that biology (which will also vary with the Species and Homeland keywords, no doubt; I agree that a Sex keyword would probably be best subsumed into one or both of those). Arguably, it could also include personality traits, relationships or other abilities, again probably related to race and culture. It could include stuff like Give Birth, but doesn't have to; it could also include stuff like Can Get Anything for Sex or Defenceless Against Conception, to use Kerstin's examples. (I'd rather it didn't include either of those keywords, but that's personal preference.)

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.

Again, sounds like a fun scenario in the right environment, but I still think that the social contract and game rules are tied up together somehow.

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.

True, but I also think that a Sex keyword that didn't deal with culture somehow wouldn't be of much use in helping to deal with the issues that we're talking about.

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.

Interesting journey, sure. But surely her upbringing as a woman in that culture was enumerated somewhere on her character sheet? It sounds like it was something that would have been important to the story (at least the first part).

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. :-)

Heh! :)

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...

That's just funny.

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.

That can actually be kind of difficult. Personally I often have a hard time speaking up because I'm worried about making things even more uncomfortable, and leaving has at times seemed like shooting myself in the foot (I end up without a game). Again, that's just me, and I know my tendency to shut up and endure hurts me...

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.

I've actually had the experience of having romantic target style NPCs thrown in front of me (even coming on to my character) when I adamantly didn't want that, and found that very uncomfortable, so I do tend to want romance-oriented plotlines to happen only in negotiation with the GM. I was playing a very chaste character who had devoted herself to a goddess of love (who unexpectedly turned out to be a goddess of wanton and promiscuous sex - sigh). She seemed to be constantly being hit on by male afficionados of her deity, and always turned them down gracefully, but it disturbed me a little (OK, a lot) because it seemed to me like the GM wanted me to completely U-turn on my character so she would fit in with his very sexually active idea of a devotee of this goddess.

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.

Niiiiice. I like this character.

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.

Ah, I wish I'd started out in a play environment like that. In many groups we had a strange situation where there was hardly any in-character play at all, but it was a cardinal sin to drop out of the game world and talk for a minute as players about what was happening. When I've done that in recent times, as both player and GM, it's led to really, really cool play.

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.

Sounds so very good to me....

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.

And I think that, on a basic level, that is all we need. It's just taking time and work, because for some reason these assumptions and dysfunctional situations are ingrained in my head as "normal play".

Lots of this advice is really useful, though - thank you.

[Mike Holmes]

I've felt in the past like I was expected to divorce my own feelings on these issues from my characters' feelings and/or behaviour. Of course that's impossible, and it's often led to me feeling uncomfortable or even angry.

What's often interesting about these games is that they claim to be about allowing the player to immerse in character. So you're intended to feel these things. But then you're also intended to somehow not react to these feelings as a player. That is, you're supposed to somehow cordon them off from the feelings that you're allowed to react to. Which, is, you're correct, just not a reasonable notion. Especially when the other players do get to observe your actual reactions.

In large part I've also been at fault by not speaking up when I did feel uncomfortable,

Not your fault. It's not unreasonable to expect to be respected when you sit down to play. You may not have taken steps to correct this, but you shouldn't have had to. Taking steps is just the only solution available in this case.

but I've also had experiences of being laughed at or ignored when I did bring up my concerns, not to mention in one case being told "yes, we'll be more sensitive" and having nothing change.

Again, this shows disrespect at a basic level. Or a complete lack of understanding of the issue. It may be that they simply don't "get" what they're doing wrong.

For example, one character I played (in what was actually a rather Gamist D&D game, so my mistake) was a single mother, and it would have been interesting to explore some of those issues if it had been a more comfortable environment in which to do it. In the same game I also tried to play a lesbian diplomat struggling against a sexist system and a deeply passionate young noblewoman. Neither of them really worked very well, either - but then this was a game where the combat was the main focus, and I was trying to play interesting characters with involved stories. It just wasn't the right game or group to do it in.

Sounds like two problems here. A GNS clash, and sexism. They need to be dealt with separately, and in different ways. The sexism is a social problem that system can't handle. I think you've taken the best step available with regards to GNS, and adopted a system that will handle such play - HQ.

(In fact, I can't think offhand of a character I've created whose personal story wasn't dealing with some aspect of sexuality or womanhood. I also can't think of a group, until I played in Kerstin's game, where I had even the beginnings of a supportive atmosphere to do it in. So I'm starting to think that you're right in saying it's all about the group.)

From my POV, and I think Ron covers this in his book, you can't even put "male" or "female," or even use gendered pronouns with a PC, and not have some effect. People can bury their heads in the sand, but these rather elemental facts about the character remain. So they are something that, on some level, everyone is interested in to some extent. There's nothing about these issues that make them impossible to deal with in a respectful, thoughtful, and interesting manner. So the only reading here is that groups that don't deal with this stuff, have a problematic contract regarding it. In fact, I think these come about traditionally, because, not having any idea how to deal with it, it  regularly gets dealt with badly. So ignoring it, becomes the "best" choice.

Ever read old copies of the Dragon magazine? There was a Phil Phoglio comic at the end called "What's New?" (IIRC) with Phil and Dixie. One of the running gags with the comic strip is that they kept trying to introduce "Sex in D&D!" but it somehow always backfired on them. No matter what they tried, somehow that comic would get messed up, and, once again, there would be no sex in D&D.

This was iconic for the problem in it's infancy. At that time, lots of us playing were kids (I would have been in my early teens), and didn't know how to deal with sex in real life. Much less in games. And with the anti-D&D-as-Satanist movement going on, sure as shooting, TSR wasn't going to do anything to tackle this - not that they'd have known how. I think the thought at the time was that some rules were probably needed to cover this area, but rules seemed to make it all so tawdry (nothing as icky as powergaming sex). So it never, ever got addressed. There was never any commentary in such games about having a stable social contract about such things before play - sex least of all. ]

So, really, it's no surprise that the subject has been handled badly all these years. And it's just another thing to add to the "geek" appearance of RPGs - the players obviously are using the game as a mask for not knowing how to deal with sex in RL, right? Well, that's sure how it appears at times.

Want to shame your players into doing better? Tell them how geeky this behavior seems. Tell em you'll tell the world how they behave here if they don't stop. Should put an end to it right quick. :-)

I've played with very few women, and my own early experiences of RPGs were quite abusive, but I have to agree with Kerstin here: in all the groups I've played in, there have been these unspoken assumptions, somehow. Partly it's been about the group dynamic, partly about assumptions about the campaign setting, and partly, I think about women in general. It is difficult to put a finger on exactly what's wrong, but I've felt it in almost every group I've been in.

And I don't doubt that this is true. You're missing my point. It's not this way in every group. Your experience is sad, but fortunately not definitive of all RPG groups. Some of us have grown out of the geeky kid method of dealing with sex in our games.

Okay. Personally, for now anyway, it's something that I need, mostly because I need to relearn how comfortable sex can be around the gaming table! (That sounds utterly wrong, but you know what I mean.) And I think it's certainly better to have it than not: after all, it's something that can be eased out much easier than it can be introduced once play has started.

That might be the requirement for you personally, and that's fine. But, there may come a day when you don't need that special space anymore (I certainly hope so for your sake). And even if you don't, again, this doesn't change the fact that what's true for you isn't true for all women. That was my point, we have to look at women as individuals here, not as people who have all been abused in the past. Because some few have not.

Obviously I can't speak for Kerstin, but personally I'm not advocating removing sex from the game entirely - I'm constantly creating characters who have something to say about these issues, so a game that didn't exist on that dimension at all would probably have little interest for me. What I need is to know that there's a reasonably sensitive and friendly atmosphere for me to explore these issues in at my own pace (rather than have them forced on me or snatched away when I've got something to say, I guess).

My point is that this should be the default. All gaming where this respect does not exist is dysfunctional (wrong, incorrect, potentially suitable for punishment/lawsuits, whatever). That is, I think that all players should have this for all other players about everything. I don't think sex needs a special space here. I think this is where you should always begin. I see "Special Space" as ignoring the issues, because they're a source of anxiety for a fearful player. Which is fine, again, I'll give that when neccessary. But I won't assume that it's needed, I'll find out. Other than that, I'll just have everyone playing understanding that there are other humans at the table who need to be respected.

Oh, sure, I've observed that for myself among male players, even when I'm there. (A lot of the guys I've gamed with have been deeply immature, which has been another part of the problem, I think.)

I often say that maturity is not the issue with RPGs, though it's often cited. Here, however, I think you're absolutely correct. I think that the problem largely goes away with males who know how to deal with women and their own sexuality without being a geek about it.

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'm sure you're right about that - I'm just scarred by past experience, I guess, so that's the part that's taking time.

Which is more than understandable from your explanations. I just wouldn't make this assumption if you were coming into my game. That is, I know this happens, and I'd feel you out regarding how you felt about such issues. Actually, I'd hope that I'd present myself in such a way that you'd feel that you could come to me in such an instance with your concerns, especially as GM. In point of fact, this happened in a game that I ran, and if the player in question wants to come forth and talk about how we handled certain issues, that would be cool (though it's just as cool if they don't want to talk about it for whatever reason).

I can picture that being possible in Kerstin's group, but in other groups talking about these issues would have been even more uncomfortable and juvenile than playing the games with their horrible misshapen ideas of including sex. (Which really is an indication that I was playing with the wrong people.)

I agree with that latter assessment. You're a valuable individual who's trying to have a fun time with the other players. They're not respecting you as part of the group. Walk. Make your own group with people who will respect you.

I'm glad it's not a necessity - that would cause me to throw up my hands in disgust and never game again, I think! - but it's certainly my overwhelming experience of RPGs. Granted, my overwhelming experience of RPGs involves young men playing D&D, and I honestly think it's partly informed by the game, but it's still there.

That might be an interesting thread all itself. Again, I'm not seeing how D&D does this overtly (again, I see how it does it accidentally by avoiding the issue), but, then again, I wouldn't being male.

I'm starting to learn how different it can be, but it does scare me how many women must be put off RPGs for life by this kind of immature play.

Yep. The worst is that strong women who might be really great players, are probably the first to ditch the game. That is, knowing that they're really good at it, the lack of respect must be all the more telling. Players like you and Kerstin who have held on despite. Weak, disinterested players might continue longer, just not really being invested in play, and not taking the stupidity personally. These aren't the women we're looking for. But they're the ones that are being selected for.

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.

My instinctive reaction to that was "oh God, that would be horribly uncomfortable", but on reflection it would be a good and useful thing to do in Kerstin's group (not that we're having these kinds of problems in that game right now).

Well, I'd be careful with the presentation. That is, do it in a positive light. Not a "Don't do this, and that" because that'll tell the non-problematic players that you think that they're doing something incorrectly. Be proactive instead. Say, we're doing great so far, and here are some new vistas that we'd like to open, using these rules to keep everyone comfortable. Encode the possibility of 2 and 3 above in this. "If anyone wants to talk about somthing, they can call a time-out. If somebody feels that somebody else is doing something that's disrespectful, they should call a timeout, and be allowed to confront the person in question."

Anyhow, tailor this to your group, and it'll be cool. Just making the contract for how play goes, without even explaining why, says volumes to the people who agree to it.

To be honest, looking back I can't quite figure out why I stayed with these dysfunctional groups for as long as I did. I can only assume that I must have been getting something out of it that kept me there - although in comparison to the game I'm involved in now, it seems rather pathetic. I do enjoy gaming a huge amount, though, and apparently it's sometimes enough to ignore some fairly major issues in the group.

This is common. Play through habit. Sure it's still social, and still has it's moments. There are reasons why it's something to do. It's just that you don't have to put up with the downside. You can have all that old good stuff, without the problems.

Sure thing. (I wish I'd read this thread or something like it two years ago when I was having trouble asserting any kind of authority at all as a female GM.)

As GM, you can always get a players attention by taking them aside at some point and saying, "This behavior X is not working. If you don't change it, you're going to have to leave my game."

Fortunately for me it's easy - I'm a big huge person with a big huge ego, and I just patronizingly say, "Now, now" to players doing something wrong. To some extent, being in control as GM involves developing some leadership skills. That, or have a hencman who's the "Bosun's Mate" in charge of the lash, and who's willing to defer to you. "Shut up! The lady is speaking!" :-)

That sounds like a really fun scenario!

A game of Skyrealms of Jorune, of all things... <shrug>

Hm, I actually think that quite often (in my experience anyway) the social contract and the game rules have quite powerful interactions. The rules of the game can have quite an impact on what is expected of characters and players in a social contract sense, because it has an effect on what is or isn't available in play. Maybe that's just me, with a history of groups who don't have separate social contract discussions, but it does seem to me like the two things are mixed up with each other, partly because if we're involving these issues in play, do we not also want to enumerate them in the rules?

Well, it's true that certain ideas can be encoded into the rules. See the game FATAL where there are some really disgusting rules for sex, for instance. But the primary act of the social contract is to agree to play the game in question. Get a sense of the game first. If it's sexist by nature, then simply avoid it. That said, issues of sexism are actually suitable for play. That is, one can explore sexism in play without being sexist themselves. So, for example, don't automatically dismiss a game because it has a realistic portrayal of the position of women in a historical context, for instance. I'm not saying it's not a consideration, but it's a totally different thing that FATAL which has an actual attitude that informs players that disrespect of women is OK (thinly veiled by their "hey, rape happens" rhetoric).

So, make sure that the game you want to play doesn't encourage sexism from the get go. But I think that most are neutral in this (but, again, maybe I'm missing it). I think it's precisely traditions of play brought to these games that are the problem. Put another way, I've played D&D that was completely devoid of sexism, and in which issues of sex were not ignored. That is, I haven't seen D&D to promote sexism in play. I think it's very much a group thing in this case. At best a bad tradition of play of the game. Nothing encoded in the system or setting themselves.

I think that a Sex keyword, certainly for me in an ideal world, wouldn't be hidden because that is the only way I can control what's in there. If it's enumerated on my character sheet, there's less opportunity for other players to decide for me what is or isn't part of the Female keyword. In terms of empowerment and comfort in play, my ability to make those choices is really important.

I can see why you are saying that, but before I even brought it up, you had no problem with the concept, because you didn't know there was such a keyword (it was always there, you were just unaware of it). Put another way, there is no such keyword in other games, and you don't get to see it there. So if you think that my "respect" method can work, then why would you need additional mechanical control? More to the point, I think that if the social contract is broken, an unhidden keyword will not do anything. If the contract is good, then you won't need it. If I'm respecting you, then how will something "bad" get on your keyword?

Okay, again I may be careering away from Kerstin's point here, but I'm not necessarily talking about basic physiological processes like birth here. Sex - or maybe it's better to start using the word "gender" here - isn't just about biology, but also about a set of assumptions that is made about you on the basis of that biology (which will also vary with the Species and Homeland keywords, no doubt; I agree that a Sex keyword would probably be best subsumed into one or both of those).

Well, see, I never intended any of that. That is, Kerstin was the one who took my thought about it, and went off on this tangent. To me it is just a morphological thing. Anything outside of that, is actually in the cultural keyword. In fact, you'll notice that several of the homeland keywords do already take "gender" into account, often splitting up sex roles for men and women, for instance. One isn't born sexist, one learns it.

For answers to the basic questions of whether sexuality is "hard coded" into us, and so whether or not the attractiveness thing is part of the keyword, I refer you to Ron Edwards, Professor of Biology at DePaul University, Chicago Il. But it's irrellevant. The question is whether or not such should start at 17 or at 6. I don't think our culture teaches us all to be naturally more attractive to each other at 17. I think we all get the 6.

Put another way, since it doesn't put anything in there like "Subservient to Men" or "Sees Women as Property" (exept for the Pelorians who do feel this way), generally Glorantha is a pretty egalitarian place. Explicitly, these things do not exist. The only way they can get into play is for someone to assume that all women, regardless of culture, have these things, and assign them to the "hidden" morphological keyword.

Defenceless Against Conception

I'm not even sure what this one means.

Again, sounds like a fun scenario in the right environment, but I still think that the social contract and game rules are tied up together somehow.

With the wrong social contract, I'm sure it could happen in HQ, too. Like I point out above.

We here often say that the rules can't stop other problems with social contract as well. Take cheating, for instance. There's no rule you can put in the game that will fix cheating. People have tried. For example, there could be a rule that says, that if you're caught cheating, you lose 100EXP. Well, what happens, is that the player cheats anyway, and denies it when caught. And now you have a real problem. If the player doesn't accept the penalty, what will you do? Play as though he had been penalized, while he continues to play as if he had not been? He claims to have leveled up, and you claim no?

No, this is a social contract level problem. If the player doesn't agree to play as everyone else is playing, the system is irellevant. You have to fix these issues on this level - no kind of rule can fix it.

Interesting journey, sure. But surely her upbringing as a woman in that culture was enumerated somewhere on her character sheet? It sounds like it was something that would have been important to the story (at least the first part).

Of course. In fact, the interesting thing is that she has the relatively egalitarian "Sel-Kai" homeland keyword, whereas she ended up in the Lankan Empire where women are second class. This was precisely the source of that conflict. Again, already encoded in the homeland keyword.

She seemed to be constantly being hit on by male afficionados of her deity, and always turned them down gracefully, but it disturbed me a little (OK, a lot) because it seemed to me like the GM wanted me to completely U-turn on my character so she would fit in with his very sexually active idea of a devotee of this goddess.

I see. Think about this...what if the GM had thrown the same characters out there, but you knew it was OK to blow them off? Would that have been acceptable? That is, it seems to me to be very much a case of control. The GM isn't respecting the direction that you're taking the character. The conflict he's presenting is a fine one it seems to me - it shows her dedication that she rejects these characters. The "uncomfortableness" comes from the GM expecting certain results without cause. That is, your responses are entirely plausible. So he's clearly in the wrong here. He's trying to force a certain theme, without considering the player behind the character, again.

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.

Niiiiice. I like this character.

Oh, I don't know...she's really pretty villainous (she's killed...lots of people some of whom were, if not innocent, not any more "guilty" than she is). I think we like her because we don't like her. That is, she's become a good villain. The question in the long run, however, is whether or not she can be redeemed. That is, can she be the independent female, and still be the good guy, too? Given her situation (priestess of a dark male god of fertility).

Ah, I wish I'd started out in a play environment like that. In many groups we had a strange situation where there was hardly any in-character play at all, but it was a cardinal sin to drop out of the game world and talk for a minute as players about what was happening. When I've done that in recent times, as both player and GM, it's led to really, really cool play.

There is a valid form of play that is characterized by this. I'd bet, however, that this isn't it, and is, instead indicative of a retreat from metagame with the intent to avoid "powergamer abuse." Which is probably completely unneccessary, but remains a rule because of tradition.

In other styles of play, metagame talk isn't just allowed, but encouraged. I think our play is probably 65% Metagame.

And I think that, on a basic level, that is all we need. It's just taking time and work, because for some reason these assumptions and dysfunctional situations are ingrained in my head as "normal play".

Yeah, you're caught in what I jokingly refer to as the Gaming Matrix. The "standard" methods of play have become so ingrained in places, that people have a hard time even envisioning that functional play outside their style exists.

That said, these are CA issues. The "traditions" of Social Contracts are not nearly so tightly bound into people's ways of thinking. That is, each game establishes a slightly different social contract, so people are used to those shifting from game to game. So there's no "excuse." The lack of D&D pointing to how to set a social contract regarding sex issues doesn't mean that people can't negotiate these things themselves. They can and do, in fact, without much problem. The blame lays squarely on the players who refuse to acknowledge the feelings of their fellow players.

Mike

[Kerstin Schmidt]

First, my apologies for deserting the boards after starting a thread here - the start of the new year has been rather turbulent for me and is continuing the same way for now, but I'll try to come back and reply to posts, bit by bit (hopefully starting later tonight).  Lots to cover!

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Ron - Just to say, I agree with Mike that this thread has drifted away from a HQ discussion to a more general one, so if you wish to move the thread to wherever is more appropriate, that's fine with me.

I'll get to your actual posts somewhere below. :)

[Kerstin Schmidt]

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...

As long as everyone is clear on this being an IC "problem" and everyone including the female PC's player is comfortable with this kind of IC situation cropping up, I'm fine with that, in fact it looks like a wonderfully entertaining scene.  Sadly I've seen again and again how certain male players would insist to perceive anything and everything a female PC did as sexually charged, which can be just as invasive as hitting on them directly.  

Please note the qualifier "certain" - and please understand that I'm in no way meaning to suggest that you or Mike or anyone in your group is playing in an abusive fashion, in fact I'm convinced of the contrary (especially now Adrienne has commented, further below).  If I keep harping on any examples people are kind to put forward here, and stressing all the problems that I've had in the past, it's because I'm still in the process of identifying just where my play experience "went wrong" for me and what I want to do in my games to improve that.  

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.

Again, that's cool with me - as long as the female player knows the options are available both IC and OOC, this kind of thing can be great.  

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

Thanks for illustrating, and yes it does address one important point, and in any case the main point of what the thread has grown into since I deserted it.  

I'd like to provide a more secure platform in my games for people to play scenes like yours, that's part of why I split off this thread.  I was thinking in terms of HQ keywords at the time, but well, that's only one aspect.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

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 agree, that's why I brought the race example up.  

Although on a side note, race and sex are two cups of tea.  As my Asian player put it when we were talking about it a little while ago:  when you play an Elf in racist game, you may be quite a bit of an outsider but you have compensations because you can do cool stuff no one else can.  When you play a female character in a sexist game, there are only drawbacks and no compensations.

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.

Ah, yes of course, that's integral here.  I can see how that would work brilliantly for the player. Cool.  

Hm, in fact in my game randomling has created the two NPCs her character is/has been involved with romantically.  Randomling? Would you say that was important?

I think the "protected space" around sex and race in many games allows this dynamic to appear.

That would confirm the results of my limited sample of two...  

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.

I think what the player is interested in is the key here.  If my Asian player hadn't got into the racial issues in my game world the way he did, I'd have downplayed them and let them gradually fade out of the way once I realised we had a sensitive issue there.  Conversely, randomling isn't keen on having her character struggle with things merely because she's female, so if I made that kind of thing part of my game, it would deprotagonise her.  (Not that I would be keen on running a game in any kind of sexist game environment, I don't think I'd be comfortable with that at this point even if players were to ask for it.)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Rather than me splitting off or moving any thread stuff, I'd appreciate it if people were to begin new threads in whatever forum's appropriate, when they want to emphasize a new aspect of this (very large) topic.

On the other hand, this particular thread seems to have a nice vibe among the participants that might get diluted otherwise ... tell you what, let's keep things here for a while. Maybe onto page 4 or so.

Regarding race in RPGs, I think it's best to consider them forms of social cliques in combination with class - usually corresponding to high school stereotypes. "Clan" in later games served the same purpose. I really don't think race (in the D&D sense) has anything to do with ethnicity at all.

If it did, then we'd be seeing a lot of stress and hassle about race during play which would parallel the stress and hassle most role-players constantly experience about sex/gender (even if they deny or sugar-coat it).

Best,
Ron

[Kerstin Schmidt]

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.

Hey yes, that's why I wanted to start this discussion!  Sorry for even talking about my own play experience at such length, I tried a couple of times to start this thread without all that because I don't want to focus on what's wrong, I want to understand better how to make sure things go right;  but I realised I had to explain a bit where I'm coming from. (Also I was kinda worried I might get touchy without any reason apparent to other people once we started to discuss this, so I thought I'd better make clear where I'm currently at.)  

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.

Sounds uncomfortably familiar. (Sigh.) I'd want to add: "She can't know it's my fantasy, she'll think it's just my character/NPC/game world, right?  Nothing to do with me, right?"  I've seen people deny this when called on it, even in cases where it was blatantly obvious to the rest of the table.  

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.

Ah yes, plausibility. That's another thing I've become sick and tired of: character plausibility, game world plausibility.  

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.

Your categories look very sharply defined and I'd agree that those are the extremes, but in practice I haven't found it that easy.  I've never seen anyone who fell into the first category entirely, but yes, they should be comparatively easy to deal with, at least by any group that isn't entirely comprised of them.  (By her accounts, randomling has been in one such group in the past.  Even trying to imagine that makes me shudder.)

People in the second category are the hopeful cases - once you bring the problem to their attention they might be more than happy to compromise, or might put up a bit of a fight for certain things they find important in their turn.  All that is fine, I can handle negotiation.  If we can't agree, we might decide to part ways, whether for good or just for a specific game that can't cater to both our preferences.  That's easy.  

Unfortunately, one intermediate type I've seen is those who take a thrill from the discomfort and frustration they cause (because it gives them a feeling of control) without being necesssarily aware of what their thrill comes from. My workaround to these kinds of people has been to drop games I found them in once I realised what was going on.  My experience has been that there's no point in fighting against another person being in denial.  

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.

Agreed.  Although moments happen in roleplaying games that are less fun for some than others; and that is generally accepted and considered appropriate and nothing to complain about when it's determined by game mechanics.  That's one reason why I'm so uncomfortable with a hidden sex keyword:  it gives abusive players (whether intentionally abusive or in-denial-abusive) the power to be more so, by pretending they are merely exploiting aspects that are "inherent in the other character" anyway.  

But, my lack of empathy aside, I've seen games in which females were engaged in playing around sex themes.

Well, that's not my drift here even - you see, I don't see why playing a female character has to be revolving around the sexuality theme at all.  She could be sexually active, or not, whether or not she is could be a defining element of the character, or not, she might pick up affairs on the side like the traditional DnD Barbarian picks up barmaids between dungeon crawls, or not.  Just like for a male character, I'd say this facet should be available if the player is interested and the group is comfortable with it, but defining sexuality isn't all that playing a female character is necessarily about.  

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.

Hm, Social Contract level - yes in fact, that's it. By having a "hidden" sex keyword, you cement something unspoken in the Social Contract and pretend that it is a part of the rules (hence not to be argued with when some exploit it to the detriment of others in the group).  

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.

I wish I could say that.  I left a game only last autumn after finally being told by the GM (after about a year's play) that "of course" female PCs had a harder time succeeding at things because "of course" it was a sexist world, because that was one thing that made his game world "plausible" and thereby "superior in flavour" to commercially published ones.  

Although the group I'm currently playing in (Ian's Red Cow game) is great in this respect.  I feel I'm in a good environment there, definitely OOC.  Looking from the IC angle, the game's set in a patriarchal Heortling clan where married female PCs have to ask NPC husbands' permission for things a lot - but it doesn't come across as a GM's lone domination fantasy in any way.  Part of that is the way Ian plays both the male and the female NPCs equally well and strong in their different ways, another part is that all the PC wives in this game happen to be played by male players, who are having great fun with this apparently.  

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.

No, I'd say I've been unlucky - strangely enough, almost always lucky with players who came into my games, but almost always unlucky with groups I was a player in.  Then of course I'm able to control the basics of play at my own table in ways I could never do in other people's games.  

Note that you don't have to be a GM to make these things happen. Any player can pipe up, and say these things.

I have.

Worst case scenario, you can always threaten to walk from the game if your rules are violated.

I have.

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 have.  

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.

Because you might not even be aware that there are other ways to do it?  Because leaving some of the people and a half-woven story behind is painful?  Because you may have invested a lot of creativity into creating and playing and developing a character before you realise how bad things are in the game?

Don't get me wrong, I've done it.  But it isn't always an easy decision, and it's not always apparent at first just how bad things are.  I'm currently in a place where I'm ready to get up and walk out at the first sign that something may be wrong.  (In fact I came close to walking out on Ian when I arrived at his table my first session, he'd made me a female NPC to play, and he smiled and said, "So well, this clan is a patriarchal clan.." :)  I'm glad now I didn't walk, but at the time it was courtesy more than an expectation that things would turn out all right.)

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.

You see, when I started this thread I wasn't clear about the dividing lines - the one between social contract and game mechanics for one, the one between "plausibility" and "game fun" for another.  When I know what I'm doing, I can communicate it in no uncertain terms, so this discussion is helping me a lot in deciding where the divide between acceptable and unacceptable runs for me, and what to do when I hit problems with it in a given group.  

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.

Cool stuff.  

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.

Well yes, and when I first posted I didn't see where the two were getting mixed up - but I'm still convinced that the concept of a "hidden sex keyword" opens the door to abusive metagame assumptions.

But we choose to enumerate the character with certain ones in order that these become the things that impact play.

But what happens in practice (perhaps only in the dysfunctional groups that I've experienced) is that a female character's "hidden sex keyword", or more specifically goofy things that other players (including GMs) decide should be in the keyword at a given moment, impacts play.  

Perhaps that is because people tend to assume there are certain things in the keyword that should properly speaking be in the social contract.  But I'm not sure how far discussing these topics can get you with any group that doesn't already agree on them anyway.  It feels to me a bit like trying to discuss GNS theory with non-Forge readers.

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.

Or in story terms, as long as the player doesn't want an ability to be important to the story, it doesn't have to be on the character sheet.  So conversely, a female character's player might increase Give Birth to, say, 5w2, if she or he wants this to become a focus in the character's story?

I don't mean that these things have to be on the character sheet, no more than I'd force a player to write all the abilities in their other keywords down. I probably first of all need clarity in my own mind on what I think is in the keywords, both to run and to play in HQ games, and also to be able to discuss these things in a more meaningful way a thte social contract level.  I think that even any discussion at the social contract level will have to refer to what is, and isn't, in sex keywords.  

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.

That's exactly the kind of thing I'd like to foster in my games;  and to be able to feel free to do in other games.

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.

Perfectly fine by me as long as all the players are happy. (I wouldn't be keen to play a female character in such a game, nor to run such a setting, but that's personal taste, not a judgement.)

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

Well, default is 6, right? So it's like swimming. If I understand the rules, Swimming 6 means you can't actually swim yet, but you could always practice ...  and one day you'll be swimming just swimmingly.  ;-)  

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."

LOL

All I can say is that it sounds like you're playing with jerks. Tell them to change, or leave.

I have. :)  

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.

Yes, very cool - I like both the setup and the outcome.

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.

Ah, so she originally made that choice, in designing her character around it? That's wonderful.

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.

Yes, this is sounding absolutely great to me now. (Of course meanwhile I've also seen Adrienne's post, which was good.)

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.

Erm?!

Um...

AHA!!

Ok.  Of course you should always be allowed to object. That's just another part of giving up the traditional GM-player-player divide in which each player owns his or her character and the GM owns the rest of the world.  

Cool.  I can work with that.

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.

I don't think I'd ever have players roll against one another without asking them whether they wanted to resolve the situation that way, not only in potentially sensitive situations like seduction (or even for ego-heavy warrior types, a fight or such).  
In fact the one time I can remember this happening recently was when one player called for a roll. This was in the final stages of a fight against a high-HP foe; once the hang-by-single-hair phase of the combat was over, I suggested that we just skip the "rolling to the death" bit and the players were fine with that (even though that was still DnD...), but one suggested that they roll for who got the killing blow in, and the other one agreed.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Rather than me splitting off or moving any thread stuff, I'd appreciate it if people were to begin new threads in whatever forum's appropriate, when they want to emphasize a new aspect of this (very large) topic.

On the other hand, this particular thread seems to have a nice vibe among the participants that might get diluted otherwise ... tell you what, let's keep things here for a while. Maybe onto page 4 or so.

Thank you Ron.  (Although I suspect that I may be on page 4 by the time I've gone through the thread replying...)  

I really don't think race (in the D&D sense) has anything to do with ethnicity at all.

Hm, that certainly would explain the absence of stress and hassle.  Also, the Asian player I was talking about earlier was really using DnD race as a vehicle to play racial-outsider stories and that didn't work too well in a standard DnD setting I saw him play in, but worked brilliantly in Midnight (where races actually have ethnic backgrounds, complete with different cultures, skin colours, racial prejudice against others and all).

[Brand_Robins]

Although on a side note, race and sex are two cups of tea.  As my Asian player put it when we were talking about it a little while ago:  when you play an Elf in racist game, you may be quite a bit of an outsider but you have compensations because you can do cool stuff no one else can.  When you play a female character in a sexist game, there are only drawbacks and no compensations.

There is a very real degree to which Ron nails this on the head -- it's because race in RPGs is rarely about race, whereas sexual bias really is about just that. My experience is that if you played a game where real races were really problematic then you'd start to get into some of the same squicsome issues.

To give a brief example, I was running playtest on a historical India game that I was working on for a while, and two of the players were Indian/Pakistani – one Tamil Hindu and one a Pathan Muslim. They ended up playing, respectively, a DOAB area Ksatriya (high caste Northern Indian) and a Kushan Buddhist immigrant (outlander and perceived savage). Even with a strong social contract and lots of mediation from all sides there were moments where both players simply had to ignore the "reality" of the simmy in game situation in order to be able to keep playing. At one point I had a Singhalese friend who wanted to join – but we ended up deciding to wait until the next game to have him join because none of us were quite ready to deal with the potential explosiveness of the situation.

The funny thing is that we're capable of making race not about race, but can't make sex not about sex – which I suppose says something about how intrinsic they are to our nature. Or at least how important they are to our psyche.

I think what the player is interested in is the key here.

Yes.  

Conversely, randomling isn't keen on having her character struggle with things merely because she's female, so if I made that kind of thing part of my game, it would deprotagonise her.

Agreed.

(Not that I would be keen on running a game in any kind of sexist game environment, I don't think I'd be comfortable with that at this point even if players were to ask for it.)

Considering your history, you may be wise to trust yourself.

However (did you hear it coming?), there is a point at which you may eventually want to step past this. I'm firmly of the opinion that RPGs can address any subject that can be addressed in film or literature, if you have the right players and right maturity, and there are a lot of very good, very powerful works that deal with just these issues.

Really, without some degree of sexism Dangerous Beauty wouldn't have worked as a movie. And if you want a really gut-punching example of what confronting sexism and gender expectations can let a story do, check out Iron Jawed Angels (a movie I highly recommend).

The thing about all of these though is to not do them until you're comfortable. I'm not saying you should try now, just that you may not want to close and seal off the door with the Elder Sign quite yet.

[Mike Holmes]

Sounds uncomfortably familiar. (Sigh.) I'd want to add: "She can't know it's my fantasy, she'll think it's just my character/NPC/game world, right?  Nothing to do with me, right?"  I've seen people deny this when called on it, even in cases where it was blatantly obvious to the rest of the table.

This, again, is generally called "my guy" syndrome here. As in "I was just having my guy do what he would do in that situation." Again, using plausibility to try to hide the fact that the action decided upon comes from a real person. The thing is that this has nothing to do with plausibility, it's a red herring. We want all play to be plausible to some extent. It's just that there are probably few, if any, actual cases where there's only one plausible thing for a character to do.

Even if this starts with setting up the character. For instance, a player can make it very plausible for his character to be a rapist, and thus his rapes very plausible, by stating this somehow during character generation. But no system that I'm aware of requires that you make your character a rapist. IOW, there is a choice at some point in the chain where the player is complicit in what actions the character takes. Even if it's agreeing to play a loathesome pre-generated character.

Now, all of that said, the problem here is not that a player wants to play a rapist - please bear with me, I'm using the extreme example to make a point. It's that the player is doing so for specific purient reasons that are uncomfortable to at least one other player. If, those reasons don't exist- for example, the player is playing an "adversary" character specifically to provide a more challenging villain (I'm imagining Jack the Ripper for some reason) - then likely the other players won't object. They know that the player isn't getting his jollies from the portrayal of rape, just that he's helping make the character loathesome so that we can rejoice when he's dead. We'll call this the "Jack Nicholson" effect. We like Jack Nicholson because he often plays characters we love to hate.

I'll go even further - if no player is uncomfortable with the player getting to play out a rape fantasy, then no foul either. I'd say that this would be exceeding rare, and that almost everyone would be squicked by something like this. But I understand that it's not an uncommonly played out role-playing scenario in bed. So I'll leave the door open to the possibility.

What all of this requires, however, is the proper social contract. This is always the problem when it's missing. Basically, the player decides that the openness of the character generation system and RPG play in general means that they are free to play out whatever fantasy they feel like playing out, and that they don't have to consider whether or not doing so will make play uncomfortable (to use a likely insufficient word for many cases) for other players.

Ah yes, plausibility. That's another thing I've become sick and tired of: character plausibility, game world plausibility.  

Plausibility is a neccessary component of play again. "I destroy the universe" is probably an implausible and problematic statement to make in most games. So we all want plausibility. The key is to remember that the player has a lot of control over what is plausible in play. One can argue that there's never a situation where there's only one plusible thing to do (I think Ralph has said that, IIRC). But even if you stipulate that there is only one plausible thing that can happen in a certain situation, some player is always complicit in setting up the situation. And not always the player with the character. It could be that the GM uses his authority to set up the situation where the uncomfortable thing must happen. Or maybe it is the player who says that his character is "coming along" for the scene in question. But at some point, the "inevitability" of the act could have been circumvented. Again, even if you have to start at chargen with a character who would never do something that would make anyone uncomfortable.

Again, I'm not saying that people shouldn't take characters who might explore potentially uncomfortable issues, but just that there should be agreement up front that this is OK.

The other half of the social contract has to be that the other players respect your right to drive your character as you'd like to. That is, they have to agree that if you play your character as a strong female, one that's comfortable for you to play, that they'll accept this as plausible, and hopefully even interesting (so you don't end up essentially playing alone).

So, you can see that social contract on such issues has to be established at least as early as chargen, and probably before that. In fact, it's best if you trust the players with regards these sorts of things even before you select which game you're going to play. The best case scenario is to be playing with friends you trust. You'll note that the social contract in question already exists with these people. A social contract is not a game construct, but just what is says, a pre-existing social construct.

Unfortunately, one intermediate type I've seen is those who take a thrill from the discomfort and frustration they cause (because it gives them a feeling of control) without being necesssarily aware of what their thrill comes from. My workaround to these kinds of people has been to drop games I found them in once I realised what was going on.  My experience has been that there's no point in fighting against another person being in denial.  

My point here would be that these are people who got past the social contract point somehow without understanding that they have to respect the other people in play. The question of whether or not they know that they're doing it, is irrellevant. If they don't know, then they haven't established a proper social contract.

Again, would a friend do this to you? Or, having the contract with you, would they realize what was going on? Part of the contract is that each individual feels comfortable in telling the other players what's comfortable for them and what's not. If you don't feel that exists, then the contract isn't there.

This isn't to say that you have to be good friends with everyone you play with. It does mean (and I believe this is a Ronism) that the people you play with have to be people that you wouldn't mind hanging out with if the game weren't being played. That is, the game itself does not constitute alone enough reason to play with somebody. Roleplaying must be appropriately social before it can be fun.

Agreed.  Although moments happen in roleplaying games that are less fun for some than others; and that is generally accepted and considered appropriate and nothing to complain about when it's determined by game mechanics.  

Well, as we say, System Does Matter. Your system should do a good job of making things fun. But, yes, this is irrellevant to the discussion of social contract. That is, if the system fails, nobody should blame the players in any way.

That's one reason why I'm so uncomfortable with a hidden sex keyword:  it gives abusive players (whether intentionally abusive or in-denial-abusive) the power to be more so, by pretending they are merely exploiting aspects that are "inherent in the other character" anyway.

See, I don't like your phraseology, here. By "Hidden Sex Keyword" you mean "a player agenda for sexism." Which is a social contract level thing that can't be resolved by system. It should be "fixed" in fact before you even know that you're playing a game with keywords.

Well, that's not my drift here even - you see, I don't see why playing a female character has to be revolving around the sexuality theme at all.

Read again, I never said that play had to revolve around sexuality. Just that, when it did, these players were comfortable.

To be really precise, these players know that they have the authority in play to decide what sort of stories that the character will be involved in, or at the very least, how they'll be involved. That is, the players understand that it's just as OK for them to have their character kill a proffered lover as to go to bed with him. That we all respect that the player's decisions are plausible, and that they can stand as stated.

Again, what happens is that female players in this case, sometimes choose then to play out romantic or sexual themes. They don't feel compelled to do so, but they don't feel any problems with doing so if they decide that's what's going to be fun to play. They'll remain in control of their character, and the other players, including the GM, will respond along the lines that the player is indicating they'd like to see by their character's actions.

Hm, Social Contract level - yes in fact, that's it. By having a "hidden" sex keyword, you cement something unspoken in the Social Contract and pretend that it is a part of the rules (hence not to be argued with when some exploit it to the detriment of others in the group).  

Again, you're creating a construct that I'm not at all comfortable with. Yes, there can be hidden agendas. But this is never encoded in the rules. If it does become encoded in the rules, then you know that the social contract problem existed first.

Put another way, you never see a GM say, "Roll against your Easily Seduced 10W2 to see if you fall into bed." Because it's not in the rules. So, instead, they have to use social pressure to make this happen. "C'mon, Kristen, you know she'd go to bed with him!" This is not system, this is social. This is agenda.

I wish I could say that.  I left a game only last autumn after finally being told by the GM (after about a year's play) that "of course" female PCs had a harder time succeeding at things because "of course" it was a sexist world, because that was one thing that made his game world "plausible" and thereby "superior in flavour" to commercially published ones.

So you're saying that he'd encoded sexism into his system? Yes, that happens explicitly, and regularly, often for the reasons you claim (there was a long and acrimonious design thread on this subject a while back). But, again, this speaks to the GM's agenda. It says nothing about "hidden Sex Keywords." In fact, quite the opposite, the GM in this case is making himself an open example of sexism.

Some people don't understand that the decision to explore something, no matter how "factual" they find it to be, is a choice, and might be sexist, or racist, or in other ways offensive to people. (This is, of course, followed up by the "Politically Correct" and "Overly Sensitive" defenses which are irellevant to entertainment).

Although the group I'm currently playing in (Ian's Red Cow game) is great in this respect.  I feel I'm in a good environment there, definitely OOC.

I'd find it hard to believe that Ian's game would be anything but sensitive. So that just confirms what I know about him. It's always good to play with world renowned GMs - they have a higher level of scrutiny leveled at them, and probably wouldn't be world renowned if they were jerks. :-)

(You were aware that everybody knows Ian, no? I think it's sorta ironic that we're discussing this very game over on the HQ rules list, too. :-)  )

Looking from the IC angle, the game's set in a patriarchal Heortling clan where married female PCs have to ask NPC husbands' permission for things a lot - but it doesn't come across as a GM's lone domination fantasy in any way.  Part of that is the way Ian plays both the male and the female NPCs equally well and strong in their different ways, another part is that all the PC wives in this game happen to be played by male players, who are having great fun with this apparently.  

Precisely. See, again, a potentially uncomfortable issue made playable by the fact that we know that the person behind the issue isn't getting off by forcing it on the female players.

This principle in law is called "Absence of Malice."

No, I'd say I've been unlucky - strangely enough, almost always lucky with players who came into my games, but almost always unlucky with groups I was a player in.  Then of course I'm able to control the basics of play at my own table in ways I could never do in other people's games.

Not at all strange. Consider: when you came in as a player to these other games, did you have any hand in constructing the social contract? Or did it exist around the game as something that the other players had established in earlier games? Ones in which females may not have been present?

And when you're running the game, you have the Lion's share of control over the social contract for various reasons. So you've merely imposed your will there. Made all the easier by being in the eminent position to do so. No surprise at all.

Note that you don't have to be a GM to make these things happen. Any player can pipe up, and say these things.

I have.

Worst case scenario, you can always threaten to walk from the game if your rules are violated.

I have.

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 have.  

Excellent. And? What were the results?

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.

Because you might not even be aware that there are other ways to do it?  Because leaving some of the people and a half-woven story behind is painful?  Because you may have invested a lot of creativity into creating and playing and developing a character before you realise how bad things are in the game?

Don't get me wrong, I've done it.  But it isn't always an easy decision, and it's not always apparent at first just how bad things are.

Yes, but, again this is the thing about timing. Don't let it get to that point. This is why you have to address all of this up front at chargen. You can't wait for the problem to crop up in play, and then address it - you'll be seen as having been complicit up until that point, and then trying to change things to your own way for your own reasons. It might work, but more often you'll have to walk. Why let an investment get to that point?

I know, because you didn't know. Well, that's all in the past. What's the first thing you're going to do now, going forward?

I'm currently in a place where I'm ready to get up and walk out at the first sign that something may be wrong.  (In fact I came close to walking out on Ian when I arrived at his table my first session, he'd made me a female NPC to play, and he smiled and said, "So well, this clan is a patriarchal clan.." :)  I'm glad now I didn't walk, but at the time it was courtesy more than an expectation that things would turn out all right.)

This is all reactionary. Ian could have been a jerk for all you knew, and you almost lost out on getting to play with him. Don't simply penalize the game and yourself when it all goes wrong, take the proactive step. (Yeah, I'm getting to it)

You see, when I started this thread I wasn't clear about the dividing lines - the one between social contract and game mechanics for one, the one between "plausibility" and "game fun" for another.  When I know what I'm doing, I can communicate it in no uncertain terms, so this discussion is helping me a lot in deciding where the divide between acceptable and unacceptable runs for me, and what to do when I hit problems with it in a given group.  

Being able to communicate the issue is key. But doing so after it's become problematic, is too late. The "unfun" play has already happened. You don't need to go through that, and you don't have to ever play even part of a game that might go bad.

The key is to communicate about this before play begins.

Now, that sounds very stilted. I don't suggest that you have a conversation with anyone that sounds anything like this thread (unless you really want to look kinda militant about it). The way a social contract that addresses these issues is established, again, is to get aquainted with the other players and get to the point where you know that you're comfortable with them.

Put another way, never join a game, and just arrive to play without meeting the people involved first. Get to know them. Let them get to know you. And then, only if and when you're sure that these are people you can play with, then play with them.

It sounds to me like you showed up on Ian's doorstep ready to play, never really having talked to him. I mean, I'm guessing that if you'd spent ten minutes with him in the pub before the game, that you'd have seen that he's the sort of guy that just isn't going to make anyone uncomfortable in play.

People talk about formalized methods of creating a social contract, but these don't really seem to be effective to me. The best way to do so is the same way all of us do every day with everyone else outside of gaming that we associate with. You simply get to know them first.

If they don't have the social skills to meet you and make you feel comfortable in a typical social setting, why would they be able to make you feel comfortable in the social setting of a game?

Perhaps that is because people tend to assume there are certain things in the keyword that should properly speaking be in the social contract.  But I'm not sure how far discussing these topics can get you with any group that doesn't already agree on them anyway.  It feels to me a bit like trying to discuss GNS theory with non-Forge readers.

Yes, quite correct, never talk like this with players, unless they've done the reading, and are comfortable with it. Again, communication like this is quite unneccessary. Instead, just be social with the person for a while. A skill we all have and use, day to day.

Have you ever considered that the people who play sexist must not worry too much about you leaving the game? I mean, subconsciously they have to be thinking, "What do I care if she gets hurt? She's not a friend of mine." Again, would a friend do any of this to you?

Or in story terms, as long as the player doesn't want an ability to be important to the story, it doesn't have to be on the character sheet.  So conversely, a female character's player might increase Give Birth to, say, 5w2, if she or he wants this to become a focus in the character's story?

Correct.

I don't mean that these things have to be on the character sheet, no more than I'd force a player to write all the abilities in their other keywords down. I probably first of all need clarity in my own mind on what I think is in the keywords, both to run and to play in HQ games, and also to be able to discuss these things in a more meaningful way a thte social contract level.  I think that even any discussion at the social contract level will have to refer to what is, and isn't, in sex keywords.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You'll get people looking at you like you're a freak. I can envision it, "Before we play, I want everyone to know that there's an implicit Female Keyword for my character, and it includes, X Y Z." Gah!

Instead, "Hi, I'm Kirsten. Nice to meet you. Yes, traffic was a mess getting over here. Hey, I see you like to read Stephen King - I'm a fan of his work. What else do you read?" etc. Continue socialization process until complete.

Now, if you get to the point where you're ready to play, and you're still not sure where the player stands on sexism - and this could well happen - and you're feeling some trepidation at this point...then you should at least feel you know the person well enough to state your fears. "Hey, I like to play strong female characters, not silly stereotypes. You're all OK with that, right?"

Again, no goofy language. Nothing stilted. Just a conversation amongst people who trust each other.

Don't feel that you can trust the person to know that they're not sexist, or to at least be able to say what you're fears are up front? Then don't play yet. The contract doesn't yet exist. Take the time to build the contract more first. Again, if they can't accomodate this, then they don't have the social skills to make you comfortable.

Perfectly fine by me as long as all the players are happy. (I wouldn't be keen to play a female character in such a game, nor to run such a setting, but that's personal taste, not a judgement.)

You're already playing in Ian's "patriarchical" game. I think you might find it interesting. Julie wasn't forced to take a character who was all about female issues. I mean, she certainly didn't have to make her a priestess of a dark fertility cult. That certainly wasn't my idea, or anyone's but Julie's. Her character, or yours in the setting might have been, I dunno, a martial arts badass, or something.

Again, it's about the player having the comfortable choice to make thier character about whatever interests them. The only reason the game traveled from the cosmopolitan big city, to the represive backwards society was to follow her character's issues. Heck, Josh and Ryan made up whole new characters to accommodate the move centered on her character.

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

Well, default is 6, right? So it's like swimming. If I understand the rules, Swimming 6 means you can't actually swim yet, but you could always practice ...  and one day you'll be swimming just swimmingly.  ;-)  

No, it's like walking. We're not born knowing how to swim (though see the whole Aquatic Ape theory). So default for swimming is a non-swimmer, but not one who can't cope entirely in the water. One could take a flaw, "Sinks like a Stone" to make the character worse than the average here. Default is "average." Default Strong 6 doesn't mean you can't carry anything, it means you can't carry any more than Joe Schmoe. But you can carry more than the guy with "Weak 15". Thus, a character with default attractiveness is "average" attractive to females. Whatever that means to you. He's certainly more attractive than the guy with "Unattractive 15".

These things are relative. A Helen of Troy, with a "heroic" level of beauty, will be about a 20W3, IMO. Legendary, and still human, but bordering on the supernatural. So that gives you your range for "normal humans," from Uuuugly 20W3, to default, to Good Looking 20W3. And beyond for fantasy, of course, including demigods, gods, etc.

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.

Ah, so she originally made that choice, in designing her character around it? That's wonderful.

Actually, I think it was a sorta subltle and subconscious thing in two ways. First, Adrienne took no stats that would lead to this, consciously, I'm convinced. She has "Good Looking" but only as an accident of her chosen "species" keyword, which is has it at 11. That's right, she has Good Looking 11. Which is barely above average in a system where one HP gets you a 13. So she spent no points on this. Also from the keyword she gets Tall 14, FWIW. Most importantly, neither of these has come up in play in a contest even once that I can remember.

Put another way, Adrienne has never made her character's ability to manipulate anyone based on her character's appearance or anything else directly related to her sex. In fact, what she uses most often is her Exert Authority 1W ability. That said, check out the picture she chose for the character: http://random.average-bear.com/ShadowWorld/Isadora

Personally, simmy guy that I am, I'd have selected to raise up her Good Looking to match the picture. But I think that Adrienne has a very specific view of how she wants Isadora to be effective. And it's not simply by using her feminine wiles. If you look elsewhere on the sheet, she's not just a budding leader, but a not too terrible warrior as well.

So what makes her character attractive to the male characters? Well, first, she's cool. In fact check out the Sang Froid ability on the sheet. One gets an vibe that she's just a neat character. Even her "Jaded" flaw makes her interesting. She's simply a strong woman who would be worth having as a mate.

Uh, but what makes her more suitable as a mate to the hetero males than the other male characters in the game? You guessed it, it's that hidden female keyword. Imean if Isadora had been Isador, and the picture had been a rakish rogue, the enumeration of the character would be precisely the same. The character is attractive to the male characters because of their assumption that their character's are hetero (possibly bi in the case of Sebastian - just kidding, Thomas!), and that she is a female.

Also consider that she's one of very few females in the colony. I've mostly ignored that fact, myself, but I think it's only plausible that she'd be the target of the affections of some characters, no? And, since we have the social contract that allows this to happen without the uncomfortableness, it has happened. Quite reasonably.

Even though Isadora is not about being some Barbie Doll. Quite the contrary. She's the leader that everyone looks to.

Yes, this is sounding absolutely great to me now. (Of course meanwhile I've also seen Adrienne's post, which was good.)

Well, I think that it's actually quite cliche, but I've often said that cliche is the best friend of the roleplayer. But it sure is fun to anticipate the outcome. Tune into the game this Thursday - I don't think it'll be resolved so soon, but if it is, it would be cool to be there for it. Lurkers are welcome in my game.

Ok.  Of course you should always be allowed to object. That's just another part of giving up the traditional GM-player-player divide in which each player owns his or her character and the GM owns the rest of the world.  

Cool.  I can work with that.

Well, I think that the "traditional" divide is not so clear-cut as we all think it is. I mean...haven't you ever seen anyone say, "Wait, no, before he has a chance to come across the street to attack me, I'm climbing up to the balcony out of reach, and berating him!" No system really being used here, but if it's plausible that the character would have had time to climb before facing the opponent, then why wouldn't he have?

My point isn't that you have to take away the power of the GM to have final say about what happens. From one POV, all I'm suggesting is that the player suggest a better contest, and that GMs should consider them. I mean, why not? If plausibility isn't broken, then what's the harm? For players who do not want to have this level of control, even this can be done with a little bit of rationalization. In my Dragon example, it becomes, "Before it closes with me, I shout up at it, trying to convinve it to talk before incinterating me." Plausible, and within the character's abilities. Nobody controls anything that's at all outside the "traditional" divide, but the effect is the same. the player ends up with the conflict that they wanted to see.

Not that I have anything against giving players power, of course. Just that for a game that says that the buck stops with the GM, you don't have to alter anything in order to get this sort of play in if you don't want to.

The GM can even facilitate this for the hesitant player: "Do you want to let him come at you and roll to see if you're incinerated, or is your character going to try to talk the dragon down first?"

I don't think I'd ever have players roll against one another without asking them whether they wanted to resolve the situation that way, not only in potentially sensitive situations like seduction (or even for ego-heavy warrior types, a fight or such).  

I've found that once everyone gets in the mood for it, and realizes that in a game like HQ, that Failure is good because they trust the other participants to only create outcomes that make their character's look cool, they actually take to it rather well.

In fact, I see players often rolling their character's own personality traits against themselves to see what happens in certain circumstances. Brand did that a lot with Thomas (I'd see him make to dice rolls in IRC without saying something, and then he'd announce an action), actually. This doesn't mean that they abandoned all control of their characters to the system. Just that sometimes it's fun to see what the system says. Especially when you really aren't certain which way the character "would" go (basically, you as player have an equal desire to see each option play out).

Now, this makes sense, because one trusts oneself with the outcome of the roll. If you trust the other players, then...

Mike

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Brand, thanks for recounting this in more detail. I've said elsewhere that I often learn most easily from examples, and this one was great fun to read.

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

It makes me wish I could have been there.  :)

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Oh cool. You're saying something. :)  

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.)  

Heh yes.  I've had that both, too:  both the play experience with encouraging/mocking going on (and other double-message thingies, too, now I think about it), and not identifying causes until I started posting about a related topics.

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."

This sounds fantastic to me - personally my best roleplaying experiences have been moments when people were pushing some sort of limit or other (with sensitivity), and "touchier play than talking about the weather" sounds exactly like that to me.

EDIT:  
Heck, clicked the wrong button here, was meaning to reread, not post yet.  

One more question: Mike said that the way you designed the character, she could get pretty much whatever she wants from men.  Can you describe that in more detail? What were you aiming for here? Seeing that you say you'v had bad play experiences in the past, what made you decide to go this way with this character anyway?

[Kerstin Schmidt]

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?

Agreed on all counts.  I'm no longer playing in any "problem groups" currently, yet starting this thread I find that I'm still pretty raw with past experiences, and to my greater surprise also that I'm still unsure (unless I bend my mind to it) how much respect I can expect or demand from a roleplaying group.  I generally have no big problems addressing concerns when I know what I'm about and what I want to achieve, but strangely enough I was simply locking this entire topic away somewhere - until you started talking about hidden sex keywords and someone started shouting and hopping up and down and waving excitedly in my brain.  If that image makes any sense.  :-)