Should females be represented differently than males in RPGs?

[Fargus]

Nothing stops a woman from creating a male fighter.

This is how it starts. First she plays a male fighter and then next thing you know she's cutting off her tits, writing emulators, and sacrificing her children to moloch

Nah its starts with woman creating one male fighter, then another one. Then she starts to make yaoi fan art and fan fiction with them.

[rusty_shackleford]

Nothing stops a woman from creating a male fighter.

This is how it starts. First she plays a male fighter and then next thing you know she's cutting off her tits, writing emulators, and sacrificing her children to moloch

You ok bro?

[GhostCow]

Nothing stops a woman from creating a male fighter.

This is how it starts. First she plays a male fighter and then next thing you know she's cutting off her tits, writing emulators, and sacrificing her children to moloch

You ok bro?

Just been in a joking mood lately

[JarlFrank]

It's hard to understand for people with a poor imagination, but RPGs aren't about playing yourself. They're about playing a character in a fantasy or science fiction world.

Even when you're playing an RPG in a contemporary setting like Vampire the Masquerade, simply playing a self-insert character is bad form. No, I don't wanna play as "myself, but as a vampire", I wanna play as a vampire lord with an interesting backstory and backstabbing personality that's fun to play and enriches the gameplay and narrative experience for all players.

[Dead]

JarlFrank is right. That's why I like to play a female character with a nice big personality that's fun to play with.

[rusty_shackleford]

RPGs let me pretend to be someone who isn't maxed out in every stat & skill.

[Ranselknulf]

RPGs let me pretend to be someone who isn't maxed out in every stat & skill.

So, like a C-cup then?

[GothGirlSupremacy]

C-cup is the ideal.

[The_Mask]

The only thing that I would want to add to this otherwise great conversation is that it has been proven that men *can* actually be more empathetic than women, but only in the case of monetary incentive being involved.

But I doubt I'll ever see an RPG take advantage of that fact during my lifetime.

[WhiteShark]

This sounds kind of elitist to me. Why should I care if people play games on casual mode? I've recently been reading a bit of /v/ even though I hate 4chan, because I've been enjoying Fire Emblem Engage and I want to read what other people are saying about it. I see a lot of anons saying stuff like "Oh, you used the dlc Emblems? You didn't actually beat the game" or things like "If you aren't playing on maddening/classic then you aren't a real gamer". To me, those anons just seem like huge losers that have nothing going on in their lives other than being able to brag about how good they are at vidya. It's actually kind of sickening.

I am an elitist. Video games are meant to be challenging. If you don't want a challenge, read a book or watch a movie. Pandering to people who want to """play games""" without really playing them is a direct cause of the popamolization of video games.

But perhaps more importantly than that, playing a game on journo mode is literally a different experience than playing on the intended or higher difficulties. It's like reading the spark notes of a book instead of the actual book, or The Message instead of a real translation of the Bible. Their whole perception of the game is going to be different. They won't be able to relate to those who played on the intended+ difficulties. The game will mean more to someone who had to struggle than to someone who just breezed through.

You are literally the first person I've seen complain about this in relation to JRPGs.

Strong wahmen is not a reason I see being used by people who don't play JRPGs to hate on them. Usually I see them complaining about how they hate teenagers and children, especially lolis, or maybe they hate bishonen and giant swords. Not liking the anime art style is another common complaint.

I know people who make this complaint, but I digress. Disliking inexplicably strong women and disliking inexplicably intelligent/competent children are both for the same reason: implausibility. Human women are not physically able to compete with men. Human children are not mentally able to outsmart adults. Humans in general are not able to effectively wield giant swords. Thus, when the setting presents us with "humans" that diverge wildly from what we know humans to be like in real life, it feels absurd. There must be some explanation or the world loses verisimilitude.

You're not wrong that it can add to the setting, but I don't think it's necessary. At least not with JRPGs. JRPGs are heavily rooted in anime, and anime has always been about absurdity and the rule of cool above all else. Obviously there are exceptions, but this is what that particular type of media was founded on, and that's probably why I have different standards for JRPGs and western RPGs. I think this is also why people who play a lot of JRPGs don't complain about this stuff. They just want to see cute girls and cool absurd shit.

Anime is not always total style over substance, rule of cool-driven slop. But in point of fact, the anime that does rule of cool the very best is the one that makes it a fundamental rule of the setting: Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann. Spiral power makes rule of cool into a natural law and the whole show is built around that.

So there it is. You can have the flashy cool stuff and still give it a plausible explanation that makes sense of things. Not doing so makes the work objectively worse. There is no special exception for anime or any other medium. I don't give light novels a pass for their trash plots either even if egregious power fantasies are typical of them and their audience doesn't mind. The whims of the masses are totally irrelevant to the standards of quality. If one wishes to write the best possible story, it is absolutely necessary that the setting back it up.

[rusty_shackleford]

It would be nice if there was at least a small percent of RPGs that attempted to represent sexual dimorphism. Currently, the number of new RPGs that would even consider doing it tends to hover at 0.
Design that favors aesthetics & wish fulfillment over all else is how we end up with gnomes that are just as good at being barbarians as orcs. It's harmful to the genre.

[WhiteShark]

I don't think that women need lower stats across the board, there's such a thing as a reasonable suspension of disbelief, and plenty of games allow for ability scores/attributes/etc. that can be construed as playing to things that the female gender excel at (consciously or subconsciously), such as social manipulation and seduction (Charisma, Beauty), empathy (Charisma, Wisdom, as ridiculous as the latter may sound), physical flexibility/stretch tolerance/viscoelesticity (Agility, Dexterity), and when it comes to pure intelligence/IQ, the difference is largely negligible and debatable in some part (such as how men occupy both the peaks and valleys, so if we impose this on a very generalized ruleset, I think it becomes hard to argue that men absolutely should have higher scores).

I think you would have to break down the ability scores into finer-grained categories to give women the bonuses you describe. Woman are excellent manipulators but terrible leaders, so a blanket bonus to Charisma is out of place; likewise you give a reason for a bonus to Wisdom but immediately contradict yourself because women are worse in the other aspects of Wisdom (willpower, enlightenment). That's fine with me, I prefer GURPS anyway. I don't think the difference in IQ between men and women is particularly debatable, but you could argue that it's not large enough to amount to an ability score adjustment at the granularity of D&D.

Other than that I agree completely, and I'm all for gender discrepancies in basic stats for player characters. Men and women are not equal or the same, and presenting it as such is ridiculous. But similarly, I'd be fine with this differing heavily depending on race - I could see elven men and women being virtually identical to eachother, or lizardfolk having the buff women and sleek men, or some race such as thri-kreen straight-up having female queens unplayable for player characters.

Agreed, and I think this is a very simple solution for this problem. If a writer really wants the "default" race to have equal abilities between the sexes, just make it something not-quite-human. For some reason the example that keeps popping into my head is the Legend of Zelda series. There the default race is not humans but instead 'Hylians', who essentially appear as northern Europeans with pointy ears and are considered distinct from regular humans who appear in some games.

But more than that, more than the question of statistics and player characters, I think the difference in representation overall is even more important when it comes to what you describe. Even if men and women are presented as equal in terms of ability scores and attributes for player characters or the ruleset in general, that doesn't necessitate that they are or should be presented as equal in general sense within the game's universe. When push comes to shove, I do not care overly much that men and women are given the same statlines. What is worse is what you describe, where impossibly exceptional women just crop up in ridiculous roles that would never have been considered reasonable in the real world, and without any genuine explanation or logic. That is far worse than anything that has to do with pure mechanics.

Here I disagree. As I said earlier, in an RPG, the mechanics of the game are the natural laws of the setting. If the sexes are mechanically equal, then it follows that their roles in society and society itself would look very different from our own.

The problem is that all too often it is humans who are presented in this way with no explanation given, except it's worse than that because the writers don't even think through all the societal differences there would be. Take Pathfinder: Kingmaker: in a setting seemingly overflowing with strong women who can compete with men, they're somehow still fighting the patriarchy. Why is there even a patriarchy to begin with? Why does Amiri's tribe have Earth-traditional views on women if Golarion women are, in fact, just as capable and have always been just as capable? It makes no sense.

If humans are to be in a setting then they should be human. Part of that is sexual dimorphism. If you remove something as fundamental to human nature as that, you get something that isn't human, and the societies produced thereby would be radically different.

[WhiteShark]

It's hard to understand for people with a poor imagination, but RPGs aren't about playing yourself. They're about playing a character in a fantasy or science fiction world.

Even when you're playing an RPG in a contemporary setting like Vampire the Masquerade, simply playing a self-insert character is bad form. No, I don't wanna play as "myself, but as a vampire", I wanna play as a vampire lord with an interesting backstory and backstabbing personality that's fun to play and enriches the gameplay and narrative experience for all players.

I don't think this view is universal. I get the impression that a lot of old-school roleplaying was more about problem-solving in a fictional world than playing a character very different from oneself. In the end it's still the player's mental abilities that are tested, and no character can be fully removed from its creator in the way it thinks. I'm not saying that you shouldn't play characters very different from yourself, but I think that's just one style of play.

[MadPreacher]

It's hard to understand for people with a poor imagination, but RPGs aren't about playing yourself. They're about playing a character in a fantasy or science fiction world.

Even when you're playing an RPG in a contemporary setting like Vampire the Masquerade, simply playing a self-insert character is bad form. No, I don't wanna play as "myself, but as a vampire", I wanna play as a vampire lord with an interesting backstory and backstabbing personality that's fun to play and enriches the gameplay and narrative experience for all players.

I don't think this view is universal. I get the impression that a lot of old-school roleplaying was more about problem-solving in a fictional world than playing a character very different from oneself. In the end it's still the player's mental abilities that are tested, and no character can be fully removed from its creator in the way it thinks. I'm not saying that you shouldn't play characters very different from yourself, but I think that's just one style of play.

In all the tables I played at it was encouraged to play someone other than yourself. That was about 10-15 tables and at my table it's encouraged to do the same.

[agentorange]

As a related bit of trivia I learned only the other day, the oldest remaining physical copy of a DND character sheet for a wizard is a wizard named Gaylord, named after the creator of the character, Pete Gaylord. Could have chosen any other name for his character but he decided to go with Gaylord.

[MadPreacher]

As a related bit of trivia I learned only the other day, the oldest remaining physical copy of a DND character sheet for a wizard is a wizard named Gaylord, named after the creator of the character, Pete Gaylord. Could have chosen any other name for his character but he decided to go with Gaylord.

Gaylord never was an D&D character. He was written up for Dave Arneson's Braunstein game 2 years before D&D was ever published.

[WhiteShark]

In all the tables I played at it was encouraged to play someone other than yourself. That was about 10-15 tables and at my table it's encouraged to do the same.

Well, it's a matter of degree. There are some things that necessarily must be different between your character and you or the game wouldn't start, most notably the willingness to go risk life and limb traipsing around in a dungeon looking for treasure. Beyond that, though, it depends on style of play.

In one style everybody plays their characters very rationally in order to overcome the dungeon like a well-oiled machine. In another style, Bob the Barbarian might make (from the player's point of view) intentionally stupid decisions because by golly he's an impatient barbarian and he's going to do things his way. In either case the characters are different from the players, but in one the game aspect of the RPG is emphasized while in the other the roleplaying aspect is.

[MadPreacher]

In all the tables I played at it was encouraged to play someone other than yourself. That was about 10-15 tables and at my table it's encouraged to do the same.

Well, it's a matter of degree. There are some things that necessarily must be different between your character and you or the game wouldn't start, most notably the willingness to go risk life and limb traipsing around in a dungeon looking for treasure. Beyond that, though, it depends on style of play.

In one style everybody plays their characters very rationally in order to overcome the dungeon like a well-oiled machine. In another style, Bob the Barbarian might make (from the player's point of view) intentionally stupid decisions because by golly he's an impatient barbarian and he's going to do things his way. In either case the characters are different from the players, but in one the game aspect of the RPG is emphasized while in the other the roleplaying aspect is.

LOL You just confirmed and agreed with me. I didn't say how they played. I just said that we played the characters as someone other than yourself.

[SharkClub]

It's hard to understand for people with a poor imagination, but RPGs aren't about playing yourself. They're about playing a character in a fantasy or science fiction world.

Even when you're playing an RPG in a contemporary setting like Vampire the Masquerade, simply playing a self-insert character is bad form. No, I don't wanna play as "myself, but as a vampire", I wanna play as a vampire lord with an interesting backstory and backstabbing personality that's fun to play and enriches the gameplay and narrative experience for all players.

Yep. Self-insertfags are probably some of the most knuckledragging of all the troglodytes playing "RPGs" these day, so many flavors and they choose vanilla, then for playthrough number 2 they also choose vanilla, and playthrough 3 and so on... if I'm playing a hot chick in a video game it doesn't mean I'm a self-inserting tranny, just like if I commit mass murder or enslave somebody in a game it doesn't mean I'm a psychopath.

Self-inserting is why D&D has wheelchair combat and accessibility ramps in dungeons now, because apparently people in wheelchairs find it offensive to roleplay in a universe where they can use healing magic to fix their frail noodle limbs.

[Galdred]

It would be nice if there was at least a small percent of RPGs that attempted to represent sexual dimorphism. Currently, the number of new RPGs that would even consider doing it tends to hover at 0.
Design that favors aesthetics & wish fulfillment over all else is how we end up with gnomes that are just as good at being barbarians as orcs. It's harmful to the genre.

Even before, it would have been very tricky to do without triggering people. Even doing academic research on the subject today must be really tough.
Regarding representation of women in game, I would prefer letting the PC do whatever he wishes, because there are a lot of ways it could happen for a particular character in a fantasy setting (chosen one, drank a potion of permanent +1 STR or whatever), but avoiding casually having them as NPC in male roles without some good reason.

[aeternalis]

It's hard to understand for people with a poor imagination, but RPGs aren't about playing yourself. They're about playing a character in a fantasy or science fiction world.

Even when you're playing an RPG in a contemporary setting like Vampire the Masquerade, simply playing a self-insert character is bad form. No, I don't wanna play as "myself, but as a vampire", I wanna play as a vampire lord with an interesting backstory and backstabbing personality that's fun to play and enriches the gameplay and narrative experience for all players.

I find this hilarious, because looking back on my RPG history:

1. I had (and still have) a great imagination
2. I constantly made characters who were... quite similar to myself

I always felt far more comfortable as a GM because of the self-inserting tendency.

[Vic]

I self-insert in games all the time, that's why I'm always a handsome stud waving a massive 2handed sword around and romance the most emotionally broken companion to try and "fix her".

[WhiteShark]

I always felt far more comfortable as a GM because of the self-inserting tendency.

So instead, the whole population becomes aeternalis clones?

[Dead]

I self-insert in games all the time, that's why I'm always a handsome stud waving a massive 2handed sword around and romance the most emotionally broken companion to try and "fix her".

I'd rather self-insert into attractive female characters if you catch my drift

[Konjad]

I self-insert in games all the time, that's why I'm always a handsome stud waving a massive 2handed sword around and romance the most emotionally broken companion to try and "fix her".

I'd rather self-insert into attractive female characters if you catch my drift

If it's TPP I'm definitely going to prefer to look at female butt than male.

[Vic]

If it's TPP I'm definitely going to prefer to look at female butt than male.

why do you look at your character's ass?

[Dead]

If it's TPP I'm definitely going to prefer to look at female butt than male.

why do you look at your character's ass?

In third-person perspective, the character's ass is usually placed near the center of the screen. So, it would be unusual if you didn't look at your character's ass. Why don't you look at your character's ass?

[Vic]

Why don't you look at your character's ass?

the ass makes up less than 5% of the screen why do you focus on that

Tell me where your eyes land first and I'll tell you if you're gay:

[Dead]

You've argued in another thread that it's gay to prefer looking at attractive women to looking at men when you play video games. I simply prefer looking at representations of women over those of men. This is a self-evidently straight predisposition.

In the screenshot you posted, the ass is still near the center of the screen. Many other third-person games have the ass placed even closer to the center of the screen. But the main point was that it's preferable to look at a woman's figure than a man's figure, regardless of whether you're looking at the ass or other areas of the body.

[NEG]

I can see the merits of both sides in this argument, but I think dimorphism is important to have for verisimilitude.

I haven't delved into the ruleset for @MadPreacher's Myths much, but IMO, my first thought is that a hard cap isn't necessary, since an 18/00 strength man is a freak. You just don't get there irl without steroids and serious diet and training. So, the possibility that a female freak *could* be created should exist, even if they are far rarer than the male, BUT I think that females should receive a penalty to their strength at the start, since such freaks should remain freaks. The game itself should tell the player what's unnatural.

That or keep the cap, but have in-game ways to overcome it, and with a loss. For example, a costly potion that can increase your strength past the cap, but at a penalty of a full point or two to your charm and with a 20% chance to make your character infertile. There are obvious real-life parallels there, but basically, if you want a man's strength, you're going to have to give up femininity. And it's going to be extremely difficult, to the point that you should question whether or not it's worth it.