Gender in RPG

[fable]

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly

Given your example, a half-orc should expect difficulties dealing with humans, yes. Would a merchant treat a stinky half-orc grunt (Int 4, Wis 3, Cha 2) and a noble human paladin (Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 18) the same way? No. But the initial reaction would change after our half-orc earned a few reputation points. Or if he looks intimidating enough to get a discount. Perhaps he will not be accepted in fashionable salons even after that but hey, that is a role you play (and there is always a back alley to settle a score). By the same token a noble paladin will not get quests from the thieves and vampires.

I would take it further than that. A half-orc wouldn't be accepted by either orcs or humans. He/she wouldn't be given an opportunity to earn reputation, or if s/he did, that reputation would fade quickly, based on the suspicion and prejudice of the community. S/he might get in with some of the lowlives of the world, but even they would likely hate the half-orc. Fellowship among thieves only goes so far. Being an half-orc, now: that's something basic, isn't it? So this particular PC might find the only available options being death or running away into the wilderness, living by itself, possibly setting up ambushes for the occasional very small "civilized" party as an easy source for supplies, and just for plain revenge and anger.

We could sanitize this. We could reduce it to stats, and make reputation a constant unaffected by bigotry. We could reduce the scope of time necessary to remove ideas held for a lifetime to a few quests in a few weeks. But that wouldn't really reproduce the problems associated with realworld prejudice in an RPG. Just as giving a female character slightly different stats and expecting her to enter a riverfront dive filled with drunken sailors (great example) without getting anything from propositioned to handled to raped is hardly realistic, either.

So I would opt for choice #4 from your list:

4. Gameworld reaction is a sum of statistics that should include race, gender, stats/attributes modifiers, social status, reputation/fame, guild affiliation etc. and result not only in scowls/smiles and higher/lower prices but in different dialogue options, quests and NPC attitude.

If we were honest, though, we should expect some biases to be impossible to overcome, and severely limiting to the PC's progress. Not that any of this would be fun to play, but it would be accurate, and reproducing at least some of it in context might give the player a more grimly authentic experience than the cookie-cutter action RPGs that everybody is turning out nowadays.

[GawainBS]

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly

I think the main reason why such cultures are not being built, storylines generally suck, dialogue trees are shamelessly primitive and NPC have no personality is that nobody wants (or can afford) to spend time and money on crafting a finely tweaked gameworld full of meaningful interaction.



I think gender differences in RPG can be approached from different angles:

1. Stat/attribute difference is similar to racial differences. If I am not mistaken, in Wizardry females could not carry heavy weight even if you set STR high.
2. Profession difference - yes, a female can be a fighter but she cannot wear heavy armor (and no, chain bikini should not be considered a viable alternative). It is similar to the 2-handed weapon restriction for Halflings/gnomes.
3. Some gender-specific quests and/or gender-specific solutions, along with class-specific quests.
4. Gameworld reaction is a sum of statistics that should include race, gender, stats/attributes modifiers, social status, reputation/fame, guild affiliation etc. and result not only in scowls/smiles and higher/lower prices but in different dialogue options, quests and NPC attitude.

I don't see why such cultures, if represented in an RPG, would be dull and badly implemented. Not saying that it is impossible, but I don't see why it's a given. The main reason why they aren't implemented is because it would create a small row.

Your first point is quite mistaken: in Wizardry (at least in VIII) women can wear all the armour their class allows.
The second point... Well, why?? If she's a warrior, she's trained to be one, hence she can wear and use all the gear. That's part of being a warrior. Maybe she's more of a Swashbuckler-like warrior, but that's a different focus. Maybe induced because she is less strong due to her gender, but the limit to gear would be derived from "class" or "profession". Once again: "Heavy Armour", like Plate Mail is easier to wear than Chain Mail, so why would she be barred from using Plate Mail in the first place?
I don't think female infantery Marines get lighter armour and guns, just because they're females. If they can't wield their gear, they won't get to join the infantery, but instead do something else. (Pilot, Technician,...)
The third and fourth points are very good ideas, but certainly the third is already being used. Not much, but sometimes. I have seen the fourth being used in some NWN mods.

[Domi_Ash]

I don't see it as a dilemma at all. I want the game to be non-genderless, ie I want to definetly play as a female, which corresponds to my gender in RL.

However, I do not want the gender differences to be accounted for by the mechanical means, ie I don't think the game should bully you into having parrticular statst and, consequently bullying every female into playing a wizard or a healer, and every male - into a fighter.

What I want to is dialogue differences, ie both romantic and non-romantic choices and situations targeting different genders. For example, I just came accross a hilareous dialogue in the MotB with a mad bard that tried to persuade me that I am a male. That was good. More of this kind of things will be even better.

But if they don't have money/resources to do it, I will take a completely gender-neutral game (ie BG1) over a one-gender game any day. And of course, I will not touch a male-only game with a 10 foot pole.

My problem with the 'realistic' and 'historically accurate' is that it always will be a female protagonist that will be discriminated against, and I am not interested in RP'ing the Outstanding Heroine that flies in the face of the conventions but can't cook every time. Most times I don't want to deal with 'proving that women are humans' at all. Instead I want to enjoy being one in a fantasy setting.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Domi_Ash

My problem with the 'realistic' and 'historically accurate' is that it always will be a female protagonist that will be discriminated against, and I am not interested in RP'ing the Outstanding Heroine that flies in the face of the conventions but can't cook every time. Most times I don't want to deal with 'proving that women are humans' at all.

It probably would be designed in that fashion, but it needn't be. There's no reason a good developer couldn't turn the gender equation on its head, and make a culture in which females are more aggressive and take leadership rules, while men struggle against discrimination. Or again, a culture where rough parity is reached, either with heavily circumscribed sexual roles, or without. The possibilities for fine-tuning are nearly endless. But this would admittedly require thinking outside the box by game developers.

[Domi_Ash]

One look at FR's drow will show you how to do it a wrong way. A successful reverse that is not seen as gimmick and cross-dressing is tough to pull, and I think will be even tougher to sell. I think that discrimination against females is already an understandably tough sell, but discrimination against males will probably be recieved with even less enthusiasm.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by GawainBS

Your first point is quite mistaken: in Wizardry (at least in VIII) women can wear all the armour their class allows.

I did not say they could not wear heavy armor. I said they could not lift heavy weight, e.g. no more than 98 kg (or so). That means males and females with STR 15 would be able to carry 150 and 98 kg of inventory respectively. Btw, I thought that was weird.
Anyway, initial stat/attribute difference for male/female was used in quite a few games. Not as extensively as racial stat/attribute difference though.

The second point... Well, why?? If she's a warrior, she's trained to be one, hence she can wear and use all the gear. That's part of being a warrior. Maybe she's more of a Swashbuckler-like warrior, but that's a different focus. Maybe induced because she is less strong due to her gender, but the limit to gear would be derived from "class" or "profession". Once again: "Heavy Armour", like Plate Mail is easier to wear than Chain Mail, so why would she be barred from using Plate Mail in the first place?

That was just an example. However, let's take a closer look. Chain shirt’s weight is about 45 pounds, not such a big deal. On the other hand, the weight of a full suit of plate armor is 75 pounds. Add a claymore (7 pounds) and other medieval paraphernalia, and it will be closer to 100 pounds. Full plate armor is more cumbersome. It's hard to imagine a female wearing all these pans and pots and wielding a hefty two-hander unless she is a half-troll on steroids.
Jeanne d'Arc was wearing plate armor but she was not actually fighting.

Nevertheless, I myself played armed to the teeth female tanks and had fun with them.

Originally Posted by fable

I would take it further than that. A half-orc wouldn't be accepted by either orcs or humans. He/she wouldn't be given an opportunity to earn reputation, or if s/he did, that reputation would fade quickly, based on the suspicion and prejudice of the community. S/he might get in with some of the lowlives of the world, but even they would likely hate the half-orc. Fellowship among thieves only goes so far. Being an half-orc, now: that's something basic, isn't it? So this particular PC might find the only available options being death or running away into the wilderness, living by itself, possibly setting up ambushes for the occasional very small "civilized" party as an easy source for supplies, and just for plain revenge and anger.

We could sanitize this. We could reduce it to stats, and make reputation a constant unaffected by bigotry. We could reduce the scope of time necessary to remove ideas held for a lifetime to a few quests in a few weeks. But that wouldn't really reproduce the problems associated with realworld prejudice in an RPG.

I think this scenario is extreme. In a gameworld where half-orcs are a common sight (even if they are basically outcasts), there should be more options than death or exile. Otherwise, why give players an option to create a totally unplayable character in the first place? I think the controversial concept of the "lesser races" has a great potential. The Witcher explored racism, and Dragon Age is going to present a similar version of racial tensions.

Let's play a female half-orc who aspires to be something more than just a green stinker with attitude. She carries a tattered photo of her 100% Homo Sapience Mom in her inventory (grants +3 to Rep., cannot be unequipped).
She knows that half-orcs are regarded as a lesser race. She believes that to be true. Fire is hot, water is wet, and half-orcs are a lesser race. That is the nature of things. Nothing can be done about it. Compliance is the saddest aspect of the “lesser races” business.

Heroine makes living exterminating vermin while dreaming of an opportunity to prove herself worthy of highest honors in the human society. Like saving the world and being allowed to attend Sunday school. Stuff like that.
So far, she is merely tolerated by guards and merchants who still remember "poor Betsy kidnapped by that awful beast. Gods bless her soul, the poor lass was so ugly it was most likely her only chance to find a mate".

After certain events take place, our Heroine is viewed in more favorable light. She is cheap, stupid and expendable and doesn't ask smartass questions (“You know your place, lass. That’s good.”), and citizens decide that they can entrust her with more important tasks, the ones the guards refuse to perform.

From there, she can follow different paths: she can become a bloated in self-righteousness Ranger and meet King Richard in the forest or she can double-cross her employers and end up with Men in Tights and meet King Richard in the forest. But that’s of course a lame cliche.
Alternatively, she can be duped into scam by a disingenuous NPC pretending to be her boyfriend who "venerates her modesty and chastity and respects her so much that he can't even think of premarital sex with his beloved angel - that would've been sacrilege." Eventually, she is arrested and put on trial. The boyfriend is a witness for the prosecution. She is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced to death. However, according to the Sacred Tradition, only citizens in good standing are eligible for execution on the Town Square. While the lawyers debate the best methods of disposal of lesser races, she manages to escape and meet King Richard in the forest.

King Richard can’t afford to be choosy at the moment; every supporter, even a stinky half-orc, is a valuable asset. Sometimes, alliances are forged out of necessity, and who can inspire cannon fodder better than King Richard? Things will be very different after the victory, but today Heroine enthusiastically joins the Royal Ragtag Army etc. etc.

Apparently, if PC is a human male, the Chapter One scenario should be different.

If we were honest, though, we should expect some biases to be impossible to overcome, and severely limiting to the PC's progress.

Yes, but why go to this extreme?

[DesR85]

Originally Posted by Domi_Ash

But if they don't have money/resources to do it, I will take a completely gender-neutral game (ie BG1) over a one-gender game any day. And of course, I will not touch a male-only game with a 10 foot pole.

Not to be rude but what do you have against games with a set protagonist? It's not like they're all bad.

[GawainBS]

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly

I did not say they could not wear heavy armor. I said they could not lift heavy weight, e.g. no more than 98 kg (or so). That means males and females with STR 15 would be able to carry 150 and 98 kg of inventory respectively. Btw, I thought that was weird.
Anyway, initial stat/attribute difference for male/female was used in quite a few games. Not as extensively as racial stat/attribute difference though.



That was just an example. However, let's take a closer look. Chain shirt’s weight is about 45 pounds, not such a big deal. On the other hand, the weight of a full suit of plate armor is 75 pounds. Add a claymore (7 pounds) and other medieval paraphernalia, and it will be closer to 100 pounds. Full plate armor is more cumbersome. It's hard to imagine a female wearing all these pans and pots and wielding a hefty two-hander unless she is a half-troll on steroids.
Jeanne d'Arc was wearing plate armor but she was not actually fighting.

Nevertheless, I myself played armed to the teeth female tanks and had fun with them.

In Wizardry VIII, there was no difference between the carry capacities of males & females. Sorry about misreading it earlier.
About the armour: it's not about the weight, it's about distribution of the weight. Platemail is more comfortable to wear than chainmail: the weight isn't such a factor, because platemail distributes it over the whole of the body and doesn't let it drag on the shoulders alone.
I won't nitpick about the claymore: it might just as well be a sword weighing about 2 pounds, depending on specific type.
Anyway, I find this limit artificial: if you're a warrior, you can do every thing a warrior can, or else you aren't one. I think the Marine-example made it quite clear.

I like the Half-Orc heroine story you've written out, but I don't think that developers would ever go to that extent. It's about the depth of the Body/Thievesguild choice in BGII, or ever more profound.

Domi, I have to join DesR in his question? Why do you hate male-protagonist-only games so? I mean, refusing to play PS:T solely on the fact that the protagonist is a male, is like shooting yourself in the leftfoot before the 100m sprint because you wanted to punish that lefty-sucker for being left and not right. (Like in "Left" used to be always bad; always shake hands with the right hand, etc. No political context whatsoever.)
I can understand that you can identify less with a male protagonist, but it could still be a great game. I've played several games with female protagonists and enjoyed them. Same with books.

[fable]

Originally Posted by Lady Dragonfly

I think this scenario is extreme. In a gameworld where half-orcs are a common sight (even if they are basically outcasts), there should be more options than death or exile. Otherwise, why give players an option to create a totally unplayable character in the first place? I think the controversial concept of the "lesser races" has a great potential. The Witcher explored racism, and Dragon Age is going to present a similar version of racial tensions.

My example was deliberately pushed to the limit, to see how far you (and others) would consider the possibilities of realistic relations based on typically discriminatory elements in a roleplaying world. I was hoping to see some discussion of how severe discrimination could be seriously depicted in an RPG, yet remain entertaining enough to play. Of course, I didn't make it any easier by suggesting the half-orc would have to become a hermit or lone ambusher. But then, I didn't want to make it easy. I wanted to show the realistic boundary, so we could decide what portion of the territory we would map out for our own.

I don't think we have to provide the same easy answers such as CRPGs currently furnish, in order to sell a title. We could still do better than simply returning to the usual RPG status quo after an hour of gaming. To use our half-orc, its rep progression could be modified to lead not to local idolization, but ultimately to a moderate degree of local respect. Fear would gradually diminish. Some holdovers of open bigotry would of course remain; I wouldn't think that every merchant would open their doors to our heroic half-orc, even after they recovered the Vicious Doomslaying Mace of Intense Blunt Trauma and Unholy Pain +9. But we might see a merchant down the street from one who continued to shun the half-orc offer to sell him/her items that would normally only be found in the closed shop, out of irritation towards the merchant who continued to spit in the face of the best thing that had happened to their business. By maknig the experience of discrimination as varied and multilayered as it is in the realworld, we would offer the player something strikingly different. And with the prospect of achievable goals in sight, it could be very playable.

In short, I think we're looking at a series of slider values affecting considerably more than attributes. And more than anything PCish. The values would need to be configured for the culture, at all levels.

One look at FR's drow will show you how to do it a wrong way. A successful reverse that is not seen as gimmick and cross-dressing is tough to pull, and I think will be even tougher to sell. I think that discrimination against females is already an understandably tough sell, but discrimination against males will probably be recieved with even less enthusiasm.

Certainly, it would challenge the norm. That's the idea in our discussion about how to depict gender discrimination in RPGs. How to do this in a way that transcends bland stat changes, and offers the reader a genuinely distinctive experience. The problem wouldn't be in doing something different. It would lie, as always, in doing it well. And I think we can all agree that it will not be done, because games are an industry today, and cloning rather than creativity rules.

Doesn't mean we can't dream, does it?

[Domi_Ash]

I can understand that you can identify less with a male protagonist, but it could still be a great game. I've played several games with female protagonists and enjoyed them. Same with books.

Books are different. My interpretation of a CRPG (and I don't play any other genre), is that I co-create the game while playing it. And I co-create it by supplying the protagonist and her relationship to the world and the characters in it. And as a protagonist I always want a heroine. Very definetly a heroine, as in SHE.

It was PS:T in particular that convinced me that I should not waste my toime on male-only game. The only time I had some sort of a success playing PS:T (as in not grinding my teeth in frustration anticipating the alleged greatness to seep in and overwhelm...) was when I said screw you, Interplay, took the dialogues, re-wrote them for the female lead and repalced the main character avatar with a female. Then, Monty's jokes were not a reason to want to go and hung myself wuite so much (though only Shandra managed to take over from him as the most hated character of all times), and Deionar (instead of Deionarra) did not cause me to want to scream in agony at the horrifying cheesyness of the game (hells, I even called him Kivan at first to make it bearable!).

Yes, I played as a male - but only when I needed to test the games. My life is so busy that I don't see myself wasting precious few minutes I can steal here and there on playing something that does not interest me. And PS:T, and it's newest reincarnation - the Witcher- are in that category, no matter what th legions of fans say about them.

In short, and I know, I should have just put that but I already wrote this whole rant... in short, I do not enjoy the games with a male lead. I just don't. I know I won't be able to convince you who can do it that I absolutely do not shoot myself in the foot or steal pleasure from myself, but I do not. And I also have at least two games I haven't played yet (one in progress, MotB) waiting for me to have time for it (not to mention modding and ME coming far too soon, not to mention DA), so running out of games is not an issue as well.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by GawainBS

In Wizardry VIII, there was no difference between the carry capacities of males & females. Sorry about misreading it earlier.

Grrrrr!!!! I don't remember which game it was. Could be Ruins of Myth Drannor.

About the armour: it's not about the weight, it's about distribution of the weight. Platemail is more comfortable to wear than chainmail: the weight isn't such a factor, because platemail distributes it over the whole of the body and doesn't let it drag on the shoulders alone.
I won't nitpick about the claymore: it might just as well be a sword weighing about 2 pounds, depending on specific type.

Weight distribution or not, it is still over 75 pounds to carry around. And not just carry, you have to fight. Oh, and add a heavy shield to the equation. Must be very fatiguing.
Full plate offers a better protection and looks cool but it is bulky and cumbersome compare to chain or leather.
Btw, medieval knights often wore chainmail (hauberk and coif) under their padded plate armor for better protection.

Anyway, I find this limit artificial: if you're a warrior, you can do every thing a warrior can, or else you aren't one. I think the Marine-example made it quite clear.

The Marine example did not make it clear at all. Check this out.

I don't mind female warriors in fantasy RPG (and most of the time it is a purely esthetical choice anyway) but if I want to play fighter/knight I’d rather play a male character. It seems more realistic to me.

Originally Posted by fable

By maknig the experience of discrimination as varied and multilayered as it is in the realworld, we would offer the player something strikingly different. And with the prospect of achievable goals in sight, it could be very playable.

In short, I think we're looking at a series of slider values affecting considerably more than attributes. And more than anything PCish. The values would need to be configured for the culture, at all levels.

I agree. For example, PC comes to a remote benighted village. The only accepted outsider is peddler Jones who brings goods and rumors every summer, when the surrounding swamps get drier. Any newcomer is looked upon with suspicion and an adventurer will have a hard time asking for directions ("Huh? Cave o'goblins? Never heared 'bout no cave. Elder Moss might know but if I was in yer shoes, I'd not bother Elder Moss."). A female will have an even harder time ("Huh? Cave o'goblins? Ain't ye have no husband, lass? Off with ye afore Elder Moss sees ye gallivantin' 'round in yer leathers.").
A half-orc adventurer will have to dodge a pitchfork before having a chance to ask a question ("Huh? Cave o'gob... Are ye talkin' to me? ARE YE TALKIN' TO ME?!").

@Domi Ash

Of course you don’t have to play games you dislike so intensely. But does it mean those games are bad?
Heretic Kingdoms: The Inquisition is female-only game. Have you played it?

It was PS:T in particular that convinced me that I should not waste my toime on male-only game. The only time I had some sort of a success playing PS:T (as in not grinding my teeth in frustration anticipating the alleged greatness to seep in and overwhelm...) was when I said screw you, Interplay, took the dialogues, re-wrote them for the female lead and repalced the main character avatar with a female. Then, Monty's jokes were not a reason to want to go and hung myself wuite so much (though only Shandra managed to take over from him as the most hated character of all times), and Deionar (instead of Deionarra) did not cause me to want to scream in agony at the horrifying cheesyness of the game (hells, I even called him Kivan at first to make it bearable!).

Out of curiosity, can you tell us what made you hate this “male-only” game so much? What was cheesy? Dialogues? Story? Deaders?

[GawainBS]

Ladey Dragonfly, that's my whole point: Platemail does weigh more, but it is easier to move around in than Chainmail. Chainmail hangs down from the shoulders and drags your arms with it. This is a common similar: Take a heavy sweater, and soak it in water and wear that. Now use a belt to buckle it around you waist and under your armpits. That gives a nice impression.
Not to say that you or I could jump in a suit of platemail and start prancing about. It still requires training.
I don't really get it, with that article. It's intresting, but how does it show that women can't wear as much armour as men? It just said that those new plates where optional in most regions, and probably get mandatory sometime in the future.
To Domi... Nobody should be forced to play a game (it would be silly), but rating the game based on the gender of the protagonist seems to a little overreactive at least. Would BG have been a bad game if it has a male-only protagonist?

[Wajal]

Hi there, going to add some points here,

The first is that males tend to be stronger then females irl, but one thing I find intresting is that a female can carry more weight in comparison on muscelmass and body-weight then male. If you take in calculation that a female's gear would have lesser weight then the gear of a male, in most cases the female should be abel to carry more while having armor and weapons.

British military had some tests in these areas and I think the US army had some tests here too, dont find a link, sorry. So you have to trust me on the word...


The second is that a game of rpg where males and females are treated the same is for me boring and I find it unrealistic. I dont care mutch about stats and things but the world should react diffrent if I play a female or if I play a male.. mostly because the irl world meet boys and girls in diffrent ways.
Some may see this as sexistiskt (dont know if this is the right word in english) and unnecessary but this is the world today and if you dont consider this in a rpg you lose much of the roleplaying.

[Domi_Ash]

Out of curiosity, can you tell us what made you hate this “male-only” game so much? What was cheesy? Dialogues? Story? Deaders?

Main charater and having to play this particular green umber hulk. Dialogue and dialogue style (lots of writing describing stuff particulary things like "the most beautiful girl you have ever seen" - I really dislike it when I am told what I am supposed to feel. Joinable NPC (haven't seen others, but Morte was enough), the white flying woman animation calling me 'my love' (ye gods!), the plot that turned me in an amnesiac that searches for his past; total absence of hot male joinables (sure, there was Annah and FFG for males, but females had no eye-candy to play with). In short, everything but the setting (which wasn't of the developer's creation), was bad about PS:T.

Is the Heretic Kingdoms: Inquisition somehow connected to the Kult: Heretic Kingdoms? If yes, I tried to find Kult in Canada, and they didn't have it (and US companies want to charge 25$ for shipping on a $20 game, lol!). I am not burning to play it though anyway, since it is not party-based, and from what I gathered, the dialogues were 50:50 - some where excellent, but most were boring and utilitarian.

I am actively targeting one particular type of the games: Single-player, custom protagonist, party-based (preferably with 4+ joinables at a time), dialogue-rich, romance-enabled, some sort of non-modernistic setting. And, as far as I am aware, I have Drakensang and Dragon Age coming out soon-ish in that category. (Yes, I know about Hourglass, but I've moved on to the 3D quite firmly now, plus I am not a big fan of their setting).

[GawainBS]

While I (and I'm prett sure I'm not alone) can't understand your problem with PS:T, I guess it's a matter of taste. You like chocolat, I like vanilla.

Both Kults are the same game. One is the US title, the other the European. If you really want to get it, I got mine from Amazon.co.uk for +/- 7£, including shipping.