What to Watch Out for in Your Players

[Floret]

yes, good job ignoring the very next paragraph where I said that despite that, I can deal with it. nice one.

I didn't ignore it, no. It was a joke, chill... I find the argument of unfitting voice to be a bit ridiculous for reasons lined out by all sorts of people, but you are reading way more malice into this than I put there.

"Scathing" sarcasm is a bit much, considering in that same post I pointed out the benefits of voice training for GMing unironically.

dunno, seems like it could be fun. Maybe it gets old after a few sessions, but still. depends on how seriously you take your campaign, and especially on how often you go out of your way to display that behavior.

Eh... It wasn't.

I mean, as I said, the class isn't the problem. The class can be done well, and I myself am planning one of them. Even got that same spell.

Good looking characters, likewise. My current group has one character that isn't. The socialite, funnily enough... Its mainly just be a bit of flavor.

Seduction as a game element, sure. Have done that. How characters deal with their sexuality can be a great tool for roleplaying, and while I can understand the restrictions people place on it sometimes, I like it being an option.

It was the way she did it, with the social graces, experience, knowlege and humor of a 14 year old. The way she combined it. The feelig for appropriate situations (...or lack thereof). "How often you go out of your way" seems to be the core issue

[ijon]

Im sorry, but youre the one who suggested that you could plausibly be leaving a gaming table over this (or worse, trying to prompt somebody to leave your group). If you want to talk about petty and pathetic, maybe start looking there first.

I know I don't want to game with somebody who will throw a fit over their right to game with professional voice actors.

... sigh.

my stance on the crossplay/voices issue has been clear from post 1, and it has been "it'd ruin my immersion if I had any, but I didn't anyway so I can deal with it". that is a different conversation (one where I'd end up talking about STALKER a lot), and more importantly, that is not the problem.

the problem is shutting down any discussion of it at the table because you find it disrespectful, and in the process stifling any other such disagreements. that's the problem. that's what I'd leave the table over. that's why I led with "seriously, you can't even ask?".

the goal is that everyone has fun. your fun at the table is no more valuable than mine. so if you have a problem with the way I'm playing, whatever it is, which way do you think is the better way to handle it?

1. bring it up with me ("hey, I don't like this thing you're doing, could you do something about it"), wait for me to respond ("sure, what's bothering you specifically"/"no, I'm not compromising on this"), and then going from there to reach some sort of agreement ("it's just that... "/"oh, ok then" and then consider whether it's really a big deal to you)
2. shut up and let the issue fester, making the game even less fun for you
3. just immediately leave

hint: it's never 2, and it's hardly ever 3. but by saying I'm not allowed to ask, you've shut out 1. you see why I got a problem with that?

edit: and what's this "(or worse, trying to prompt somebody to leave your group)" garbage? when did I ever come anywhere near saying that?

I didn't ignore it, no. It was a joke, chill... I find the argument of unfitting voice to be a bit ridiculous for reasons lined out by all sorts of people, but you are reading way more malice into this than I put there.

"Scathing" sarcasm is a bit much, considering in that same post I pointed out the benefits of voice training for GMing unironically.

well, the way you said it, I thought you assumed I actually had a real problem with the unfitting voices. since you didn't, I apologize.

[Keltest]

... sigh.

my stance on the crossplay/voices issue has been clear from post 1, and it has been "it'd ruin my immersion if I had any, but I didn't anyway so I can deal with it". that is a different conversation (one where I'd end up talking about STALKER a lot), and more importantly, that is not the problem.

the problem is shutting down any discussion of it at the table because you find it disrespectful, and in the process stifling any other such disagreements. that's the problem. that's what I'd leave the table over. that's why I led with "seriously, you can't even ask?".

the goal is that everyone has fun. your fun at the table is no more valuable than mine. so if you have a problem with the way I'm playing, whatever it is, which way do you think is the better way to handle it?

1. bring it up with me ("hey, I don't like this thing you're doing, could you do something about it"), wait for me to respond ("sure, what's bothering you specifically"/"no, I'm not compromising on this"), and then going from there to reach some sort of agreement ("it's just that... "/"oh, ok then" and then consider whether it's really a big deal to you)
2. shut up and let the issue fester, making the game even less fun for you
3. just immediately leave

hint: it's never 2, and it's hardly ever 3. but by saying I'm not allowed to ask, you've shut out 1. you see why I got a problem with that?

edit: and what's this "(or worse, trying to prompt somebody to leave your group)" garbage? when did I ever come anywhere near saying that?

Lets be clear here. I don't care how you play. If you enjoy making voices, or listening to voices, or setting dramatic background music when your actions come up, that's your prerogative. Its when you try and change how other people play that it becomes a problem. Your individual ability to affect how the other members of your group play is limited to putting ideas in their heads for them to form opinions on. If you need players to behave in a specific manner for you to enjoy the game, well, that sucks for you if you cant find a group that conforms to that, but the fact of the matter is your personal enjoyment is not important enough that you get to go around trying to change how people game.

edit: and what's this "(or worse, trying to prompt somebody to leave your group)" garbage? when did I ever come anywhere near saying that?

I apologize, I misread your post, you did indeed limit it to yourself leaving the group, and not the other player.

[Delta]

dunno, seems like it could be fun. Maybe it gets old after a few sessions, but still. depends on how seriously you take your campaign, and especially on how often you go out of your way to display that behavior.

That's kind of the problem most groups (including mine) have with the character class described. It's a pretty ridiculous class based on practical jokes and not taking anything seriously in a fantasy world that takes itself very seriously. Doesn't really work out well in most cases.

[ijon]

Lets be clear here. I don't care how you play. If you enjoy making voices, or listening to voices, or setting dramatic background music when your actions come up, that's your prerogative. Its when you try and change how other people play that it becomes a problem. Your individual ability to affect how the other members of your group play is limited to putting ideas in their heads for them to form opinions on. If you need players to behave in a specific manner for you to enjoy the game, well, that sucks for you if you cant find a group that conforms to that, but the fact of the matter is your personal enjoyment is not important enough that you get to go around trying to change how people game.

the corollary to that is that your fun is not so important that you can just shut other people's opinions up because they get in the way of your fun. and by getting rid of the option to even ask about an issue, which you have explicitly advocated for, you have shut them up. therefore, you are saying that your fun is more important than theirs, and therefore, you are a problem.

I have literally never advocated forcing them to do as you say. never. not once. the entire time, I have used terms like "asking" and "working things out" and "compromise". I have been okay with the idea of someone being adamant with their decisions from the beginning, and when I play games with other people, I'm the one encouraging them to do whatever the hell they want. my entire problem has been with shutting the other person up and poisoning the atmosphere.

your choices are never so sacred that someone else can't question them. plain and simple.

[Keltest]

the corollary to that is that your fun is not so important that you can just shut other people's opinions up because they get in the way of your fun. and by getting rid of the option to even ask about an issue, which you have explicitly advocated for, you have shut them up. therefore, you are saying that your fun is more important than theirs, and therefore, you are a problem.

I have literally never advocated forcing them to do as you say. never. not once. the entire time, I have used terms like "asking" and "working things out" and "compromise". I have been okay with the idea of someone being adamant with their decisions from the beginning, and when I play games with other people, I'm the one encouraging them to do whatever the hell they want. my entire problem has been with shutting the other person up and poisoning the atmosphere.

your choices are never so sacred that someone else can't question them. plain and simple.

That's a huge leap. Ultimately, youre the only person responsible for making sure youre entertained at a group. If the other members want to help out and are volunteering to change for you, good on them, but without that, youre the only person you have the right to try and change at the table. "Hey guys, have you ever considered doing X?" is as far as it should go.

And yeah, if youre somebody who is so petty about the voices that they cant have fun without them, youre probably going to have a rough time finding a table to enjoy. Youll have to forgive me if I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that picky about their gaming.

[ijon]

That's a huge leap. Ultimately, youre the only person responsible for making sure youre entertained at a group. If the other members want to help out and are volunteering to change for you, good on them, but without that, youre the only person you have the right to try and change at the table. "Hey guys, have you ever considered doing X?" is as far as it should go.

And yeah, if youre somebody who is so petty about the voices that they cant have fun without them, youre probably going to have a rough time finding a table to enjoy. Youll have to forgive me if I don't have a lot of sympathy for people that picky about their gaming.

how many times do I have to say it's not about the voices? do I need a glowing neon sign? should I paint it on a blimp? good lord.

as for the other stuff, no I'm pretty sure you have the right to bring up grievances and work them out with the other people you're playing with. if someone brings a ludicrously overpowered build to the table, I have every right to go "dude, that's ludicrously overpowered, don't ruin the game". if someone walks into a gritty post-apocalyptic game and brings the USS enterprise with him, I have every right to go "dude, that completely ruins the atmosphere, don't do that". if someone's intruding on your niche, you have every right to go "hey our roles are overlapping and I'm not a fan of that, let's work something out". and so on and so forth.

you are presumably reasonable people. you can presumably work out disagreements amicably. and the end result of working it out is that the total amount of fun is increased (or at least that the total amount of not-fun is decreased). where is the downside?

and if you can't work out differences - if you really can't compromise on anything - then I don't want to play a game with you anyway, because we're gonna constantly be butting heads, and that's what arguing on the internet is for.

[Keltest]

how many times do I have to say it's not about the voices? do I need a glowing neon sign? should I paint it on a blimp? good lord.

as for the other stuff, no I'm pretty sure you have the right to bring up grievances and work them out with the other people you're playing with. if someone brings a ludicrously overpowered build to the table, I have every right to go "dude, that's ludicrously overpowered, don't ruin the game". if someone walks into a gritty post-apocalyptic game and brings the USS enterprise with him, I have every right to go "dude, that completely ruins the atmosphere, don't do that". if someone's intruding on your niche, you have every right to go "hey our roles are overlapping and I'm not a fan of that, let's work something out". and so on and so forth.

you are presumably reasonable people. you can presumably work out disagreements amicably. and the end result of working it out is that the total amount of fun is increased (or at least that the total amount of not-fun is decreased). where is the downside?

and if you can't work out differences - if you really can't compromise on anything - then I don't want to play a game with you anyway, because we're gonna constantly be butting heads, and that's what arguing on the internet is for.

One, if you don't want to be associated with a position, don't defend it. Two, im aware its not specifically about the voices, theyre just a convenient example that's already been established in the conversation.

Anyway, if you would describe a sub-optimal gaming environment as a "grievance" that needs "working out", you really need to adjust your expectations. Your given examples actually support my point, because theyre all people, intentionally or not, affecting your ability to play the game how you want to play it. Something petty and cosmetic that doesn't affect your ability to play the game at all? No, leave that alone. Your chair is uncomfortable? Sure, say something. You don't like the color of the paint on the walls? Get over it or go somewhere else.

[Gravitron5000]

So you're wading deep into battle at the foot of Mount Doom.. casually eating a slice of pizza in your offhand... yeah... suspension of disbelief, bologna.

Bologna on pizza is a giant red flag.

[MrSandman]

One, if you don't want to be associated with a position, don't defend it. Two, im aware its not specifically about the voices, theyre just a convenient example that's already been established in the conversation.

Anyway, if you would describe a sub-optimal gaming environment as a "grievance" that needs "working out", you really need to adjust your expectations. Your given examples actually support my point, because theyre all people, intentionally or not, affecting your ability to play the game how you want to play it. Something petty and cosmetic that doesn't affect your ability to play the game at all? No, leave that alone. Your chair is uncomfortable? Sure, say something. You don't like the color of the paint on the walls? Get over it or go somewhere else.

What I don't quite get is why bringing up an issue, any issue, is a problem. Somethings may be a problem for some people but not for others. In university, we had a common laundry room for the people in my dorm, and one year I was in charge of it. Some people came to me because other people were taking their clothes out of the washing machine when the cycle was done, and they really did not like to have their clothes touched by other people. I personally, and many others, couldn't care less about other people touching my clothes, as long as they put them nicely in the basket, I have no problem with it. Does that mean that I should shut them up because their issue is a non-issue for me? No, it means that we need to respectfully find a way to compromise and live in harmony. At least, I'd rather do that than adjudicating to myself the job of deciding what is a valid issue and what isn't.

So, if someone has an issue with voices or the colour of the walls, what's wrong with saying it? Whatever the answer may be, I find no reason to tell people not to talk about it.

[Keltest]

What I don't quite get is why bringing up an issue, any issue, is a problem. Somethings may be a problem for some people but not for others. In university, we had a common laundry room for the people in my dorm, and one year I was in charge of it. Some people came to me because other people were taking their clothes out of the washing machine when the cycle was done, and they really did not like to have their clothes touched by other people. I personally, and many others, couldn't care less about other people touching my clothes, as long as they put them nicely in the basket, I have no problem with it. Does that mean that I should shut them up because their issue is a non-issue for me? No, it means that we need to respectfully find a way to compromise and live in harmony. At least, I'd rather do that than adjudicating to myself the job of deciding what is a valid issue and what isn't.

Bringing up that you have an opinion isn't quite the same thing as trying to get people to change for your sake. To use your analogy, you can make it known that you don't like people touching your clothes, but if they decide they don't care, that's as far as you can take it unless theres an actual consequence to their touching your stuff.

[AceOfFools]

yes, good job ignoring the very next paragraph where I said that despite that, I can deal with it. nice one.

again, am I not allowed to at least ask? why are all of you jumping to "demand"? who said demand?
I'm not holding a gun to people's head or anything, jesus christ. it's a small request, and I'm not particularly bothered one way or the other if you respond "yes" or "no".

but responding with scathing sarcasm? no, screw off. I'm not dealing with that.

Let me share with you a non-hypothetical story of a friend of mine.

Due to her genetics, she cannot present as female without it being really obvious she is trans. At gaming conventions, where some attendees are poorly socially adjusted and/or have problems with women, to avoid harassment and unwelcome attention--in order to feel safe--she's been known to go back into the closet and attend presenting as male.

If this friend sat down at your table with a female character, you would (either implicitly or explicitly) say "I could never picture you as a woman, can't you just be a man?"

This in an incredibly hateful, hurtful thing to say to a trans woman. It's also something she hears from transphobic bigots on a regular basis.

So yes, just asking that particular question can absolutely ruin someone's day.

And now you know.

[kyoryu]

I don't mind people playing cross-gender.

I do consider it a warning flag for new players, and will generally ask new players not to. Because while it can be utterly fine, it's one of the things that when it goes sideways tends to go really, really sideways. Built up some trust? Sure! New guy off the street! Hell no!

In that way, it's basically the same thing as someone playing an Assamite in Vampire or CN in D&D. Can be fun, can be utterly the worst thing ever. Someone asking for it puts me on heightened alert - I'm not judging yet, but I will be slightly more aware of their behavior.

Telling someone "hey, I'd prefer you not this time 'round til we've built some history" also secondarily ends up being a good test for "can you compromise and empathize?" So, double win!

[Segev]

I'm not sure how well it generalises, but it is certainly an example of how it can look. Keep in mind this was maybe 8 or so years ago (...as I said, for a given value of growing up), and the group lasted only 2 sessions (back then we couldn't really stick with things). This was also Dark Eye 4th edition, there are gonna be some rules comments.

Spoiler: The story

Show

Point 1. The character was, of course, good looking. (There is a rules advantage to that effect, good for a socialite... so far, alright) Also, well endowed (Decidedly not for that... until a joke supplement for 5th edition but I digress). He also had clothes tight enough to show that off. ...as a jester (see below), somewhat fitting?
Point 2. The character had a "Constantly horny" disadvantage. (Dark Eye... has its moments...)
Point 3. The character was a child taken from his parents by Kobolds (myth kind, not reptile kind), kicked out when growing too big, equipped with magic only usable when doing so in a "funny" manner, and an "lack of knowlege: Human humor" disadvantage. That's a... debated... class in the game. Has been mightily improved for 5th ed... But that is often an auto-ban in Dark Eye games. I was young. ...now I'm gonna play one myself soon... how the tables turn...

So far, we have... The game system having options that can work in and of themselves, but combine poorly.

Point 4. The class also has a spell that can strip people. To make the overzealous Inquisitor or the tyrant noble look silly while standing around naked. They usually keep their hat on, as well.
Point 5. She only ever used that spell. And I think a grease spell, once.
Point 6. She hit on everyone. Especially the character of her best friend (Woman, playing a woman). While we're on the topic of hormonal teenage girls, the friend found that funny and the two were at it five minutes after "you meet in an inn", decidedly uncaring about facts as "noone has rented a room". Fade to black worked, though.

So, bad impulses, enabled by the system having a few elements in them that maybe should only be handed to players who use them responsibly. I should have pulled the breaks way earlier than I did, but I only have two years on my sis and it was like the third time GMing, with no prior RPG experience outside of watching the Gamers one New years morning slightly drunk and sleepdeprived.

Huh, interesting. The similarities (attractive, well endowed, tight clothes, always horny) to the teen-boy-playing-a-girl-stereotype are obvious in some respects. All things the hormone-addled player would like to see in a potential piece of eye-candy (or theoretical paramour).

I find the "spell that strips people" interesting. There are a couple of layers, here, to where the standards are different. Let's start with "male character stripping female characters." Overtly, this is as creepy as it sounds. Even "played for laughs," it's got sexual harassment/predation dripping from it. But then we turn it around and have a female player controlling the male character. Still skeevy behavior from the character, but if a girl is directing it, that confuses the gut reaction.

Reversing it, a female character doing it to males will almost always be accompanied by a literal - or at least implied - laugh track. Men being pursued by women in an aggressive fashion is rarely depicted as sexual harassment/predation. The weird thing is that when we step it back and have it be the hormonal teen boy playing the girl... he'd be looked at weirdly for having her trying to seduce men by stripping the men.

But perhaps we're looking at this wrong. The "expected" use of the stripping spell on an overly-endowed and oversexed female character controlled by a teen male would be to rapidly strip HERSELF for what he considers seduction purposes. Perhaps that is what the oversexed male character controlled by the teen girl is also doing. However, again, a woman stripping herself to seduce a man is inappropriate, but will be viewed as the man being the one who's in the awkward position and implicate the man in any social wrongdoing. It makes him, STILL, the assumed predator/harasser. A male character doing it is a flasher, with all the negative connotations that entails.

The male player of the female ecdysiast will be looked askance at by most of society. Eye-rolling at his immaturity is perhaps the BEST he can hope for. The female player of the male flasher, however, might well get away with "it's FUNNY!" as the default reaction.

Oh, and I suppose there's one trope that applies equally to male and female players of oversexed characters of the opposite sex: the character being gay or bi in order to strip and seduce other members of the same sex the player finds attractive. That doesn't seem to have arisen, here, as the "Getting it on" was between opposite-sexed characters.

If I look at my dating history... Larps. Or maybe renfairs. Make friends on the internet and meet up. Ask out friends?

Actually meeting new people at such things is hard. :( I'm not very good at casual party talk. Also, all my friends are male or married. (Or both, but at that point the 'male' part is the first no-go on a romantic relationship. :P)

This in an incredibly hateful, hurtful thing to say to a trans woman. It's also something she hears from transphobic bigots on a regular basis.

I will agree that it would be hurtful. But it probably isn't hateful, especially if the person saying it didn't know the trans- status of your friend.

It is bad, bad practice to ascribe hate to people just because they hurt your feelings. If they're doing it on purpose, it's mean, but assuming they're intentionally hurting your feelings is a recipe for misery.

[AceOfFools]

I will agree that it would be hurtful. But it probably isn't hateful, especially if the person saying it didn't know the trans- status of your friend.

It is bad, bad practice to ascribe hate to people just because they hurt your feelings. If they're doing it on purpose, it's mean, but assuming they're intentionally hurting your feelings is a recipe for misery.

FWIW: I was describing the statement as intrinsically hateful regardless of any intent of the speaker, because it is verbatim a statement used by bigots to deliberately inflict pain.

Someone meeting you under circumstances where they feel compelled to hide their gender to avoid harassment has no reason to believe a very hurtful comment could be benign.

My whole point is that it is possible to unwittingly and unintentionally really hurt someone specifically by asking that exact question.

It's not a thing I expect most people to realize until it's pointed out to them--I certainly needed it pointed out to me.

[Delta]

Actually meeting new people at such things is hard. :( I'm not very good at casual party talk. Also, all my friends are male or married. (Or both, but at that point the 'male' part is the first no-go on a romantic relationship. :P)

I agree on LARPs or pen & paper conventions. Met my own gf of 15 years there, my best friend met his wive there, and among my larp-ing friends, it's gettting hard to count the couples who met on larps.

Or to make it simple: If you want to meet people who are interesting in something, go to where people with that interest go and meet up. Sounds trivial, but there's really not much more to it than that. P&P cons and larps have the added advantage that you are in a setting you're comfortable with and don't just have to chat up people you don't know with random small talk (which is something I'm truly horrible at as well, don't think I could ever just meet someone at a bar or something like that)

[Calthropstu]

Yeah, the one RL group I thought about joining where the GM immediately said "Absolutely no cross-gender characters!" I ended up passing on. Never even planned on playing a female in that, but it was indeed a good first warning sign that me and the GM most likely wouldn't see eye to eye on some things.

See, I have no problem with a gm doing this. I have seen gender bending done horribly on several occasions, especially by gay men trying to secretly hit on other players who aren't gay. And, since replacing players is so difficult, it's easier to ban the practice than deal with it after it gets abused.

Personally, I have a table rule of "zero inter-pc attempts at romance unless you are a couple in rl." That puts a stop to a lot of creepy bs.

But that's not the only bad effect of gender bending. It's a widely known fact that men and women think differently. It's very difficult for men to play women effectively without being insultingly bad at it. At a mixed gender table, it can undoubtedly lead to problems. Saw a woman tear into a guy at a table because she thought he was being insulting for the way he portrayed his female character.

So a gm banning cross gender play isn't really a red flag to me. I myself avoid playing female characters at a tabletop game, only 2 of my last 12 characters were female. It is definitely a challenge playing them believably.

[Segev]

FWIW: I was describing the statement as intrinsically hateful regardless of any intent of the speaker, because it is verbatim a statement used by bigots to deliberately inflict pain.

Someone meeting you under circumstances where they feel compelled to hide their gender to avoid harassment has no reason to believe a very hurtful comment could be benign.

My whole point is that it is possible to unwittingly and unintentionally really hurt someone specifically by asking that exact question.

Hurtful is not necessarily hateful.

No statement, other than one that overtly expresses hatred, is "inherently hateful." Declaring things "hateful" just because they sometimes happen to be said by people who mean them that way is a bad practice, because it discourages discussion of issues. It instead attempts to create a dogmatic catechism of acceptable speech and topics, and positions one must take on topics. Even ignorance is "hateful" under such circumstances.

It is toxic.

Informing somebody that they hurt another's feelings, or that they could if they behave a certain way around them, is one thing. Telling them that they're hateful for having said it, even (especially) when they didn't mean it to be hurtful, is needlessly antagonistic. Rather than seeking reconciliation, it seeks to reprimand, which, when somebody didn't mean any harm, is more likely to cause fights than prevent them.

It's very difficult for men to play women effectively without being insultingly bad at it. At a mixed gender table, it can undoubtedly lead to problems. Saw a woman tear into a guy at a table because she thought he was being insulting for the way he portrayed his female character.

Generally speaking, when playing a character, I assume they're a character first. If I had a reason for her to be female, that reason might color the character, but I have never - in my admittedly rare instances of playing a female character - had anybody tell me I was insulting women by playing one.

[Delta]

It's very difficult for men to play women effectively without being insultingly bad at it.

In my experience, that statement is objectively false in every possible way.

[Lord Raziere]

In my experience, that statement is objectively false in every possible way.

Agreed, Calthropstu is kind of triggering a red flag to me by even by even making the argument, personally.

[Delta]

Agreed, Calthropstu is kind of triggering a red flag to me by even by even making the argument, personally.

That whole post triggered more red flags than a soviet military parade for me. I'm just not going into more of it because I don't think that discussion would be heading to a good place for anyone, so I just limited myself to the one statement that I simply know to be wrong.

[Floret]

I find the "spell that strips people" interesting.

Well, she did mostly use it to make fun of NPCs. Actually used it on authority figures most, irrespective of attractiveness.

Spoiler: Dating advice

Show

Actually meeting new people at such things is hard. :( I'm not very good at casual party talk. Also, all my friends are male or married. (Or both, but at that point the 'male' part is the first no-go on a romantic relationship. :P)

Is it? I always come back with at least a handful of new acquaintances. Take the time to chat with people, or just nerd out at them about a shared topic of interest. Scratch casual party talk. If it's not who you are, chances are you're not gonna click with the people whom you'd attract with it anyways. Try and recall how you started your current friendships. Repeat that.

Most importantly, treat people as people and friends first, potential partners a distant second (and genuinely be interested in their friendship, not just as a stepping stone to romance).

Also you may find that personal connection can make people be attractive that while glancing at them you would never have given the time of day.

And, since replacing players is so difficult, it's easier to ban the practice than deal with it after it gets abused.

Replacing players, ime, is quite easy. Continuing to play with a creep that can't take no for an answer, or that used IC flirting as an excuse/figleaf for OC flirting, especially after being told no, is a bad idea.

Personally, I have a table rule of "zero inter-pc attempts at romance unless you are a couple in rl." That puts a stop to a lot of creepy bs.

If you need to put in place several rules to rule in the creeps, I'm gonna assume you play with too many creeps. Stop doing that.

It's a widely known fact that men and women think differently. It's very difficult for men to play women effectively without being insultingly bad at it.

It is a widely known truism, and also utter horse****. Seriously. People think differently from each other - those differences do not break down (least of all neatly) along gender lines.

The only issue men have with playing women is assuming there is some fundamental difference in thinking, or assuming there is a way to play "a woman", the same sentiment behind an "inability to understand women". The problem is easily solved by the approach of George R.R. Martin: Always consider women to be people, first, fundamentally the same as men. Everything else comes naturally from that.

[War_lord]

Well, I've never had any issues with anyone crossplaying, even though all the people in question were very much not trans. Although I must say none of my players are "horny teenage boys", although I question how frequently adult players are gaming with with teenagers in settings where they can't just be told to just knock it off. By contrast I'd consider a DM throwing around a no crossplay rule a problem sign to watch out for, because it's so often a clear indicator of sheltered thinking. People (usually male and nerdy) who might not be intentionally intolerant about sexuality and gender, but whose overly categorical thought processes and inability to move beyond a simplistic worldview leads to the same kind of rhetoric and an unpleasant table.

[WindStruck]

Finally, if someone told me “I want to crossplay because I just feel more comfortable playing as the other gender,” I’d probably direct them to talk to some of the lovely trans people here on the playground, or a gender therapist or someone, since that sounds a lot like they might be trans themselves, and lacking direct experience with that, I’d be ill-equipped to give them proper advice. (Oh, and let them crossplay. If they literally feel more comfortable crossplaying, then that means they are uncomfortable not doing that, and D&D is about having fun. Can’t have fun if you’re not comfortable.)

Wait.... so if someone wants to crossplay, or to be fair, 'feels more comfortable playing as the other gender' you think they should see a therapist?

Have you considered that role-playing games can simply be an outlet, such that one who feels like maybe they were better off as the other gender can just play out a fantasy, but otherwise be content with their body?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Saying "Hey do you mind not playing a PC of another gender?" is exactly as inappropriate as saying "Hey do you mind not playing a gay character?" It doesn't matter if it's only a request. It's inappropriate. Don't do it.

[Delta]

Although I must say none of my players are "horny teenage boys", although I question how frequently adult players are gaming with with teenagers in settings where they can't just be told to just knock it off.

On a recent convention, I played in a Shadowrun group together with two teenagers whose characters were both female, who are basically the cyberpunk equivalent of murderhobos, who even insisted on their characters basically pimping themselves out to get the gang boss we were after into a situation where we could grab him, even though my character had a completely viable alternative to offer where no one would have had to do anything like that.

Fun fact for the people thinking "See! That's why crossgender is bad!": None of the characters was CG, both players were female. Had they been male, I'm sure those two characters, played completely identically, would've been used as a perfect example for why "Men just can't play women 'well'!"

The reality is: There is a LOT that was problematic with those characters. The fact that they were female was not one of them, regardless of the players gender.

[King of Nowhere]

Let me share with you a non-hypothetical story of a friend of mine.

Due to her genetics, she cannot present as female without it being really obvious she is trans. At gaming conventions, where some attendees are poorly socially adjusted and/or have problems with women, to avoid harassment and unwelcome attention--in order to feel safe--she's been known to go back into the closet and attend presenting as male.

If this friend sat down at your table with a female character, you would (either implicitly or explicitly) say "I could never picture you as a woman, can't you just be a man?"

This in an incredibly hateful, hurtful thing to say to a trans woman. It's also something she hears from transphobic bigots on a regular basis.

So yes, just asking that particular question can absolutely ruin someone's day.

And now you know.

shouldn't be either when done in ignorance, which is the default. if nothing else, it means she's doing well at passing for a men, which is exactly what she wants in that case (I don't know how much surgery she had, she could be obviously masculine or not).
Anyway, I've known a few trans people, and they all understand that people can involuntarily say things that look bad because they ignore their trans status. And they all understand that there is no reason to be hurt or offended. You can't go around taking offence at every innocent comment made by people in ignorance.
Plus, I'd suggest to avoid the issue your friend may as well go publicly as a trans woman. that way, if someone insults her, it will be intentional, and if someone intentionally insults her just because she's trans then he's a dumbass and can be easily dismissed.

More in general, I find the concept of not asking questions or making comments because it may hurt somebody to be terribly misguided at best. There are so many potentially hurtful things to say, one should not say anything at all. adult people should be able to handle hurt feelings and talk things out anyway. And, when done by sensible adults, it leads to greater understanding. If people never talk about sensitive topics because they are afraid of accidentally be politically uncorrect, they will always remain ignorant in such matters.

I believe in the power of talking. very few problems cannot be solved by talking them out. Anything that discourages talking, I vocally oppose.

[Nifft]

On a recent convention, I played in a Shadowrun group together with two teenagers whose characters were both female, who are basically the cyberpunk equivalent of murderhobos, who even insisted on their characters basically pimping themselves out to get the gang boss we were after into a situation where we could grab him, even though my character had a completely viable alternative to offer where no one would have had to do anything like that.

Fun fact for the people thinking "See! That's why crossgender is bad!": None of the characters was CG, both players were female. Had they been male, I'm sure those two characters, played completely identically, would've been used as a perfect example for why "Men just can't play women 'well'!"

The reality is: There is a LOT that was problematic with those characters. The fact that they were female was not one of them, regardless of the players gender.

Given privacy and a lack of consequences, I think that teens can make bad choices.

I think that immaturity is a much larger and more common issue than hatefulness.

Being a murder-hobo is another instance of immaturity, but a widely accepted one.

[Delta]

Given privacy and a lack of consequences, I think that teens can make bad choices.

I think that immaturity is a much larger and more common issue than hatefulness.

Being a murder-hobo is another instance of immaturity, but a widely accepted one.

Yeah, that wasn't my point. My point was, had those characters been played the same way, simply by men, quite a few people would've argued that those characters would've been "badly played women" or something similar, while in reality, they really weren't. Women are like that. There are three to four billion women in the world, give or take, I'm sure for any set of character traits, you could find many, many women somewhere in the world who are pretty much exactly like that.

What that phrase really means it "That character isn't how I expect a woman to be like", which says really more about the person making the statement than about the player of the character.

[War_lord]

Women are like that. There are three to four billion women in the world, give or take, I'm sure for any set of character traits, you could find many, many women somewhere in the world who are pretty much exactly like that.

Particularly when we consider that the majority of those women aren't going to be of the cultural and social background of the person whose stereotype of female behavior they're being judged by.