Gender Parity in Birthright [Archive]

arpig2

09-19-2014, 09:46 PM

Not meaning to sound dismissive, but that is a very male interpretation of it, while there are indeed a scattering of token women in each role they are a definite minority and an oddity that requires some sort of special back story to explain, but that is to be expected as the setting is heavily imitative of historical androcentric medieval and renaissance earth cultures.

Now to transform the Anuirean culture to something more egalitarian would be a major undertaking as it has the most existing detail already worked out, but the other cultures, being less well defined, can be more easily modified. For example, the Vos can easily be modified to a matrilineal society without having to alter the outward seemingly male dominated warrior society. The Mohawks had what appeared to be a very male dominated warrior culture and yet were matriarchal in government, so it is entirely plausible that the Vos could be the same way, using the very ancient truism that a woman always knew which child was hers, but a man could never be entirely sure as justification.

Duck Call Lass

09-20-2014, 12:02 AM

My point isn't that there are no female rulers, villains, or heroes, it's that there's a greater imbalance than I'd like.

I mean, ideally I'd like to see 50%. I don't know if anyone's run the stats but I am pretty sure the dozen or two listed here aren't half of the population.

Anyway, if you don't like the premise of my thread and you think the gender balance in Cerilia is just fine for your gaming, that's cool. But in such a case I'd appreciate it if you just moved on to the next thread instead of trying to tell me that there's no need?

Duck Call Lass

09-20-2014, 12:03 AM

Arpig, that's a great thought. I like the division of women as the leaders/thinkers/generals and men as the somewhat expendable grunts. Thanks for sharing!

arpig2

09-20-2014, 01:43 AM

Hey, you're more than welcome. Making up weird stuff and adapting things is one of the main joys of DMing.

Just play around with any sort of idea, and see if you can make it into something cool.

For example, going with our Vos example, the seeming contradiction of a matrilineal and matriarchal society dominated by a predominantly male warrior class can be resolved by making the female rulers elective rather than hereditary, or only partially hereditary (meaning they have to come from a certain clan or tribe), and restricting the vote to those men who have made it to full warrior status (maybe something analogous to knighthood or the "brave" status among the plains Indians).

That way, you have women actually running the place, but the male warriors, as the electors, are the most important segment of the population and have to be pandered to by the prospective rulers (let's divide the law holdings up between these hopefuls), which opens up the possibility of some really fun political in-fighting normally absent in most Birthright campaigns.

It also allows for some social stresses, maybe a group of the warrior types thinking that they should actually rule, maybe with a temple of a male god inciting the trouble from the shadows, or maybe an elite all woman warrior group demanding the vote as well.

Like I said, take an idea and play around with it, see where it leads you.

arpig2

09-20-2014, 01:46 AM

I don't know just where, but that basic model (men elect women leaders) is going into some setting or other of mine at some point. :)

Sorontar

09-20-2014, 03:21 AM

A perspective often used in fantasy is for the women to control the churches and the men to be the military leaders. One holds the hands and the other holds the hearts. Of course, what we are talking in this thread is about making each gender be universally represented, not giving them dominance in a particular area.

However, it is important to remember that Birthright (wisely) doesn't consider all domains to be the same. I am not just saying that Anuireans are different from the Brecht. I am talking about Boeruine being different to Talinie which is different to Diemed. The role of males, females and other subgroups is up to the culture. Some may be matriachies, others patriachies, some may choose the nature (or lack) of control by other means. Guilds may be different to provinces which may be different to temples. You should not expect all of Cerilia to see equal distribution of power.

Sorontar

ps. Many female awnsheghlien are regents

arpig2

09-20-2014, 12:52 PM

A perspective often used in fantasy is for the women to control the churches and the men to be the military leaders. One holds the hands and the other holds the hearts.
That is a classic one, one I have fallen back on more than a few occasions, but it doesn't really solve the problem because it relegates women to a supporting role, and the least popular supporting role at that**. Just look at any PBEM campaign, all the landed regents are snapped up quickly, but there are almost always a bunch of Guild and Temple domains available for late comers. I think that the goal is to provide for more women in the fun positions everybody wants to play without them being an exception.

Of course, what we are talking in this thread is about making each gender be universally represented, not giving them dominance in a particular area.
I can't speak for the OP, but that isn't how I read her intent at all. what I got out of it was to achieve over all gender parity, not universal gender parity, an interpretation which I think is confirmed by the OP's enthusiastic response to my post giving an idea of a way to make women the dominant gender in one of the 5 major cultures.

I am talking about Boeruine being different to Talinie which is different to Diemed. Not really, the differences between one domain and another are for the most part entirely cosmetic, even the differences between the cultures are not all that profound, being mostly a flavour thing rather than any major fundamental differences, especially when it comes to issues of gender parity.

ps. Many female awnsheghlien are regents
That is exactly the sort of thing that I meant when I said thatthey needed some special back story to account for their gender. It is a perfect illustration of the issue the OP is raising.

** And reinforces patriarchal gender stereotypes as well.

arpig2

09-20-2014, 02:04 PM

I want to thank Duck Call Lass for bringing this up, because her doing so has made me realize that I have been pretty remiss in this myself. It just never became apparent that it was an issue because all my table top Birthright players have been guys, except for my daughter, and trust me, even if she was playing in an entirely female dominated setting, she'd still be an exception (she's likes playing really oddball characters -- she takes after her old man that way. Ask me about Calynid the Slayer some time).

But, now that I think about it, thanks to the OP, the very heavy male emphasis in my Zaidan setting (sort of a natural offshoot of it being a blatant Medieval Japanese setting) cost me a few players that I know of, and likely a few more who never even bothered to contact me because of it.

I think that this also fits in with Rowan's Wider Audience thread in a big way. By perpetuating the phallocentric models so common in fantasy role playing settings, we are cutting out a large segment of our potential audience, a segment which can bring a refreshingly new perspective to this game we love, and who can also be seriously good players.

A short anecdotal aside to illustrate that last point
In one of my more recent non-Birthright campaigns, the players consisted of a handful of old timers, a couple experienced newer players, and the wife of one of the old hands, a complete newbie to D&D. Well after a few low level adventures to let everybody establish their personas a bit, we held the vote for party leader, and everybody but the newbie immediately nominated her. Not as a sop to the newbie to make her feel important or as a practical joke, but because she was the obvious choice to everybody but herself. She played her character superbly. She didn't have all the stats and procedures down pat, so not really understanding them that well, she mostly ignored them and just played the character itself as a persona, and did it really well. She also demonstrated some excellent leadership skills and was good at managing the other characters' egos and foibles (being the Mom of two young boys probably helped her in this regard), and because she didn't know the standard "play book" so to speak, and therefore didn't know what the expected course of action was, she consistently thought up original solutions to problems, and she also turned out to have a really sharp tactical sense and so achieved some crushing victories where they weren't expected. Once she accepted our word that she really was deserving of the role, she stepped right into it and got even better at it, which improved the whole game for all of us in all sorts of ways.

I think it would do the game as a whole, and our campaigns individually, a ton of good if we made a serious effort to redress the gender imbalance.

Now, that being said, I want to also say that I am kind of disappointed in the responses disputing or marginalizing the problem. I guess we haven't come quite as far as I had thought when it comes to the question of empathy with regards to gender issues.

Sorontar

09-20-2014, 02:47 PM

That is a classic one, one I have fallen back on more than a few occasions, but it doesn't really solve the problem because it relegates women to a supporting role, and the least popular supporting role at that**.
Being in a temple is not a supporting role. Look at the present Middle Eastern issues. Also, those who control the ideology can control the direction of a domain. The military/law holdings are just a way on enforcing the wishes of the dominant church.

I can't speak for the OP, but that isn't how I read her intent at all. what I got out of it was to achieve over all gender parity, not universal gender parity
You have misunderstood me. I am not saying universal gender parity. I am just saying that you can make cultures where male or female or otherwise can share the roles or be dominant. This is what I understood to be the discussion point of this thread. What I am saying is that there is many ways this exists and there is no need to treat each culture alike (hence, not universal).

Not really, the differences between one domain and another are for the most part entirely cosmetic, even the differences between the cultures are not all that profound, being mostly a flavour thing rather than any major fundamental differences, especially when it comes to issues of gender parity.

Given that the temples etc show that there is (rightfully) no one way to indeterprete the wishes of a god, just like there are various strains of Chritisianity/Islam/Buddhism etc, there should not be any expectation that all Anuireans have the same culture. Otherwise, Haelyn's word would always be the same and utlised the same way.

That is exactly the sort of thing that I meant when I said thatthey needed some special back story to account for their gender. It is a perfect illustration of the issue the OP is raising.

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying the Lamia is only in the position she is because she is a woman? Her biography in the wiki could easily be rewritten for a man.

Sorontar

AndrewTall

09-20-2014, 02:58 PM

Being in a temple is not a supporting role. Look at the present Middle Eastern issues. Also, those who control the ideology can control the direction of a domain. The military/law holdings are just a way on enforcing the wishes of the dominant church.

True, but currently the basic setting has ruler/law combo domains routinely, but very few law/other combo's in Anuire - and in raw mechanics the priest domain is at a major disadvantage compared to the landed regent, as are guild and source.

While men = soldiers and soldiers = leaders is an obvious medieval way of thinking, add in magic and character classes and the gender issue makes less sense - a L8 female fighter will pulverise a L1 male fighter even if playing with differentiated stats (which I haven't seen in a long time). So I'd like to see more female rulers too. I might leave, say, Boeruine as heavily preferring male rulers, while Avan was more egalitarian or some such rule, but I'd definitely skew towards equality.

I note that bloodline inheritance is the only quasi-reliable way of maintaining bloodline strength - if a daughter inherits she may be the only child able to effectively rule a large domain, which would in turn indicate a need for a more equal society than a medieval game might otherwise expect.

Given that the temples etc show that there is (rightfully) no one way to indeterprete the wishes of a god, just like there are various strains of Chritisianity/Islam/Buddhism etc, there should not be any expectation that all Anuireans have the same culture. Otherwise, Haelyn's word would always be the same and utlised the same way.

Female gods will clearly undermine the male dominated faith approach common to the Abrahamic religions, its harder to say that women are inferior when some of them are gods. :rolleyes:

arpig2

09-20-2014, 03:24 PM

Being in a temple is not a supporting role. Look at the present Middle Eastern issues. Also, those who control the ideology can control the direction of a domain. The military/law holdings are just a way on enforcing the wishes of the dominant church.
To the first point, no, sorry. The temple and guild domains are definitely supporting roles, the game is very much focused on the landed lord with his armies and fleets, which is why those positions are snapped up quickly in a new PBEM. That doesn't mean that there aren't fun and interesting ways to play those types of domains or that they can't rise to positions of great influence and power, it's just that they are the less popular domains, they don't have the sex appeal of the landed realms. You know how it is: It's good to be the king.

It also limits the options of a female player wanting to play a female character.

You have misunderstood me. I am not saying universal gender parity. I am just saying that you can make cultures where male or female or otherwise can share the roles or be dominant. This is what I understood to be the discussion point of this thread. What I am saying is that there is many ways this exists and there is no need to treat each culture alike (hence, not universal).
If I misunderstood you, then it was probably because you said that you were talking about universal gender parity.

Of course, what we are talking in this thread is about making each gender be universally represented, not giving them dominance in a particular area.

Given that the temples etc show that there is (rightfully) no one way to indeterprete the wishes of a god, just like there are various strains of Chritisianity/Islam/Buddhism etc, there should not be any expectation that all Anuireans have the same culture. Otherwise, Haelyn's word would always be the same and utlised the same way.
I'm sorry, but this just doesn't follow, there is a logical breakdown here. The fact of the matter is that as published there is very little variation between domains of the same culture, and only a little more between the different cultures.

I don't understand your point here. Are you saying the Lamia is only in the position she is because she is a woman? Her biography in the wiki could easily be rewritten for a man.
No, just the opposite in fact, she is only a woman because she is in the position she is. In order to justify a man being a realm ruler, they just have to state that he is, but in order to justify a woman in that position, she has to be the Lamia, or have some other special back story to explain how a woman came to be in power.

Now, there is nothing wrong with having special back stories, in fact the more the merrier, the problem is that they are only needed for female characters. This is a result of the very male dominated milieu that has been created.

Further, I will grant you that the Birthright audience, like the wider D&D audience, is predominantly male, even overwhelmingly so, and that is the reason for the preponderance of male characters and NPCs, to appeal to the main target audience, but times have changed, and with the popularity of WoW and other similar online games, more and more women are gravitating towards the more classical forms of role playing (i.e. pen and paper games), and I think our particular little niche of that hobby could do with a few more recruits, especially ones that will bring new and interesting perspectives to the game.

Also, as the father of a very bright and talented daughter, I very much dislike supporting or promoting patriarchal stereotypes and gender-biased thinking.

arpig2

09-20-2014, 03:57 PM

its harder to say that women are inferior when some of them are gods.
Well you can say it easily enough, I just wouldn't advise doing so too loudly. ;)

Raesene Andu

09-21-2014, 12:09 PM

One thing I've noticed when reading the Birthright materials is that, taking its cues from historical Europe, it's a very male-dominated place. Most of the heroes, villains, and NPC regents are male, for example.

I would disagree that Cerilia has the same male-dominated society as Earth. There are a significant number of female leaders in all aspects of society, including guilds, temples, source holdings, and land regents.

Take the Southern Coast for example, 3 of 7 land regents are female and of the 4 male regents one is the Spider, and at least two of the remaining 3 have female heirs (Lasica Diem and Alliene Aglondier). While that isn't necessarily the same across all the regions (e.g. the Heartlands) there are a large number of female regents, and important figures like the heir to Avanil, the largest of Anuire's kingdoms are female (Aubrae Avan).

It's also important to note that female regents have taken power even though they have male siblings (e.g. Marlae Roseone who has a younger brother). That would mean there is no hereditary right for the eldest male to rule, but rather the eldest child.

That said there is nothing wrong with changing a few of the NPC genders around if you want to fit your view of the setting.

I did go and look through the setting to see who could possible be changed, but really there are a lot of female leaders out there.

The south coast has 3 male, 3 female + the spider.
The west cost has 2 male, 2 female + Rhoubhe
The Heartlands has 7 male, 1 female
The Northern Marches has 4 males, 2 female + The Gorgon + 1 uncontrolled. One the male rulers is also controlled by a female guilder (Cariele)
The Eastern Marches has 2 male, 2 female + the Chimaera

So really the only major imbalance is in the Heartlands.

(Oh, and also I'm going to assume greater presence of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender NPCs in the world, something which wasn't addressed much if at all back in the TSR days.)

Agreed. A few possibilities that have come up in my campaigns over the years (and I've had a number of gay and lesbian players so had to modify NPCs to suit them) are;
Eriene Mirelelen (bisexual)
Guilder Kalien (bisexual)
Marlae Roesone (lesbian)
The Sword Mage (transgender... possibly, we never did clarify for certain)
Danita Kusor (lesbian, but not her alter-ego the Chimaera... so it's a bit complicated with her).

AndrewTall

09-21-2014, 04:51 PM

The south coast has 3 male, 3 female + the spider.
The west cost has 2 male, 2 female + Rhoubhe
The Heartlands has 7 male, 1 female
The Northern Marches has 4 males, 2 female + The Gorgon + 1 uncontrolled. One the male rulers is also controlled by a female guilder (Cariele)
The Eastern Marches has 2 male, 2 female + the Chimaera

So really the only major imbalance is in the Heartlands.

Hmm, that's better than I expected - but the heartlands does stick out as you say. I'm now wondering how the other nations do:

Rjurik:
Taelshore: 1 (the siren) of 5 is female
Northlands: 2 of 4 are female (including the white witch and scarlet baron)
Wild Lands: 2 of 6 are female including Lluabriaght (f) Urga-Zai and Khurin Azur (m).
Counting Anneke of the Giantdowns is possibly a strech.

Khinasi:
Plains states: 1 of 7 is female, although the Red Kings are unclear and 1 male is the Sphinx.
Zhainge Valley: 0 of 4 (excluding Basilisk) are female, one male is undead(?), 1 is sidhe
The Drocandragh: 2 of 6 (including the lamia) are female, if you count Mour el-sirad then there is another male realm, 1 male realm is Orog, 1 sidhe.
island States: 1 of 7 is female, males include the serpent, magian, and minotaur.

The Brecht:
Western Reaches 0 of 4 are female.
Western Basin 2 of 5 are female, 1 female is Sidhe, the other is arguably an ehrshegh, 2 males are awnies.
Eastern Basin 2 of 5 are female including the Banshegh, the other isn;t human either being a halfling. 1 could make a case for Muden being 2 realms, 1 ruled by a woman.
Overlook 2 of 8 are female including the Hag, 1 male is Karamhul, 1 is a half-sidhe, 1 is an Awnie.

The Vos
Playable:0 of 4 are female, although 1 of the 3 rulers of Yeninskiy is female.
NPC: 1 of 5 is female.
Non-human and feral: 0 of 4 is female.

hopefully not too many errors in a quick count, but to my amazement, Anuire emerges as a bastion of equality, I had assumed Brechtur and possibly the Khinasi would do better, but the guilds don't officially rule and despite a focus on wizardry and wit the Khinasi seem very male-dominated. The Vos don't surprise me, but the Rjurik do as I'd assumed they wouldn't be much better than the Vos.

Making monsters and other foes male is pretty normal (if often very well subverted) which would always skew the results of a crude count like the one above but we definitely need some more "normal" rulers to be female.

rugor

09-21-2014, 05:17 PM

I would disagree that Cerilia has the same male-dominated society as Earth. There are a significant number of female leaders in all aspects of society, including guilds, temples, source holdings, and land regents.

Take the Southern Coast for example, 3 of 7 land regents are female and of the 4 male regents one is the Spider, and at least two of the remaining 3 have female heirs (Lasica Diem and Alliene Aglondier). While that isn't necessarily the same across all the regions (e.g. the Heartlands) there are a large number of female regents, and important figures like the heir to Avanil, the largest of Anuire's kingdoms are female (Aubrae Avan).

It's also important to note that female regents have taken power even though they have male siblings (e.g. Marlae Roseone who has a younger brother). That would mean there is no hereditary right for the eldest male to rule, but rather the eldest child.

That said there is nothing wrong with changing a few of the NPC genders around if you want to fit your view of the setting.

After considering the sum total of this thread, I must agree with the above more than any other poster/perspective.

Consider that the White Witch is female, and there is no apology made for it in the descriptions/history of her (that I recall). Equally Lluabraight is an elven realm run by a powerful Queen, and I don't recall any 'apologetic' explanation for her rulership. And there is the worship of Kriesha totally female dominated religion...

It is a fantasy setting, it can be whatever you make of it, based on your own biases and wants. It exists the way you interpret it to be... therefore if you project a male dominated society, and minimalize the female personalities, the only one you have to blame for this setting is yourself.

If you want to compare the Birthright setting to reality... either a historical one in Earth's past, or the current one. Then the Birthright setting is overwhelmingly more gender neutral than our world, IMO.

Lets consider the current reality. All the powerful world nations (Russia, China, America, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) are heavily slanted to favor Male authority, and at best, women are treated equally, at worst women are treated as possessions or second class citizens.

Consider religions, the same can be said there as well. When was the last time there was a woman Pope, a woman Prophet?

So lets not bash the Birthright setting out of hand, it is as progressive as the DM running it and the players playing it. As a setting (which was created a GENERATION ago, no less) it is far more progressive than our world, past or present.

Lee

09-22-2014, 12:58 AM

Something noted elsewhere: elven lands have Queens or Princes, but not Kings. I could be wrong, but I thought a majority of elven lands had female rulers, I haven't checked. I've usually played them as more matrilinear societies.

I am surprised by the numbers above, I would have suspected more women rulers among the Brecht, but the Anuirean numbers are a pleasant surprise.

arpig2

09-22-2014, 03:28 AM

What I find most interesting is that the OP asked for ideas on how to change the gender balance, and almost everybody responded by saying there was no imbalance.

I find that very depressing.

Rowan

09-22-2014, 04:58 AM

True, but currently the basic setting has ruler/law combo domains routinely, but very few law/other combo's in Anuire - and in raw mechanics the priest domain is at a major disadvantage compared to the landed regent, as are guild and source.
This is a flaw of the mechanics, not necessarily the story/setting. And even, with regards to the mechanics, only a minor flaw if played creatively, rather than accepting the hand the rules seem to have dealt. Also, if the game assumed a position where the lesser nobles in a realm were more like historical nobility--as in, fractious, opportunitistic, and far from undyingly-loyal--you'd find that the landed regents actually are usually in a tight spot, without nearly the freedom of maneuvering that the other domains afford.

Female gods will clearly undermine the male dominated faith approach common to the Abrahamic religions, its harder to say that women are inferior when some of them are gods. :rolleyes:
Historically, I don't see how this is true. Godesses abounded in pagan cultures throughout our world throughout history. Yet only rarely (if ever) did women truly, culturally, and regularly reign over men; most often, those cultures were just as male-dominated as any other. It's really only in the Western culture (of Christian-descent) that women have achieved the levels of equality and respect that we take for granted today.

Mostly, though, with regards to this thread, I must question to some degree the premises.

1. Why must a woman's worth be defined by how much she can be like man? This is the false premise and the hidden misogyny that I find common today. It hides an even worse "patriarchal" assumption--that a woman isn't really of equal dignity to a man unless she can essentially be a man. It's sick. The sexes are different, with different gifts, different strengths, but equal dignity. Why can't a woman be respected for being a woman rather than for being like a man? Whatever happened to the "feminine mystique?"

Rather than really get us deep into that hornets nest, though, of considering this whole social problem, I'd just like to lend my support to any ideas that make up any disparity in interest/focus of the setting by emphasizing women as women, not merely making a superficial (and ultimately at least equally sexist) change of just equalizing statistics (and ignoring the uniqueness and difference of women).

Thus, the idea of making Vos matriarchal, as respecting Kriesha and winter, can have more depth and recognition of a difference than just evening the numbers throughout the setting. I always, likewise, assumed that the Sidhe were at least as female-dominated as male (with their Queens and race as a whole seemingly taking more after Galadriel and Lothlorien than most RPG elves).

Likewise, sorcery, particularly in Birthright, has great potential in this area, and truly can begin to embrace that "feminine mystique" in many ways. That women would be more prevalent, powerful, and talented in this area could fit in well and explain a lot--why Anuire (which did always seem quite egalitarian to me, nonetheless, historically more like Elizabethan England than prior ages) might marginalize sorcerers, but would also create a major opening for Khinasi to even be dominated by women. Even if they weren't direct rulers in Khinasi, the culture could easily allow for powerful sorceresses to be the powers behind the thrones, pulling strings. Some long-needed changes to Source holders (to bring them up to par with other domains) would help here.

2. The other question I have is whether something as superficial as changing some character sexes around is really what it takes to draw in more female players. That, too (because of its superficiality, ignoring the differences in interests between women and men), strikes me as sexist in itself. I'm not saying that it's a pointless endeavor. I'm saying that if we really want to appeal to women, and respect their differences, we need to look deeper than just throwing in a bunch of female characters.

Ultimately, this question may be unanswerable for Birthright. After all, there are reasons that certain hobbies attract more men than women, and vice versa. And its not just representation of your kindred sex in those hobbies. Its that different things appeal to us. Sports and gaming may have plenty of women interested in them, but look at the demographics and you see that these, like all past times, are not evenly distributed across the sexes, in terms of their fans. Strategy games in particular seem to attract more men than women. Its a difference in how our minds work and where our interests lie.

I'm not saying its not a worthy endeavor to try to appeal to more women and to better welcome those who join us in this great game. I'm saying just keep in mind that what appeals to men by and large may not appeal to as many women, and vice versa, and lets not just gloss over those differences or treat them as if they're not real--that, to me, would itself be sexist. So we can't expect that we can change Birthright to appeal to women as much as men and expect it to be the same type of game.

So I would encourage looking for meaningful changes deeper than the numbers.

Now that I've probably offended everyone, I'll get off my soapbox. :)

arpig2

09-22-2014, 05:33 AM

The other question I have is whether something as superficial as changing some character sexes around is really what it takes to draw in more female players.
I don't know, but what I do know is that not having made that superficial change caused people to not play, so it sure couldn't hurt.

Duck Call Lass

09-22-2014, 05:42 AM

Mostly, though, with regards to this thread, I must question to some degree the premises.

1. Why must a woman's worth be defined by how much she can be like man?

Honestly not sure where you're getting that from. That's not an implication of the original post nor anything that anyone has said in it.

Ultimately, this question may be unanswerable for Birthright. After all, there are reasons that certain hobbies attract more men than women, and vice versa. And its not just representation of your kindred sex in those hobbies.

Roleplaying is much closer to dressing up and playing with dolls than it is to sports like football, though.

There are definite barriers to female participation in roleplaying games based not on the nature of the game itself but on the way that the people who play it -- and who produce the games that are played -- systematically exclude women players.

So yeah it might be nice to say "only guys like to sit around telling stories and moving around their little dollies on the table," it's not only untrue, but it also hides a lot of the sexism that is prevalent in the RPG hobby that you only hear about when you start really listening to women players (and women who tried to play, and gave up).

rugor

09-22-2014, 01:14 PM

There are definite barriers to female participation in roleplaying games based not on the nature of the game itself but on the way that the people play it.

That in a nutshell, is it.

It's a fantasy game, it gives you a foundation, a set amount of facts and ideas, nothing in the game says a woman cannot be Emperor or Wizard or High Marshal... its all on the DM and players.

I have played in Birthright PBeMs that were DMed by women (actually two entirely different campaigns that were run/overseen by women, not men). Birthright is a setting that I have seen draw more interest from women than any other D&D based game. IMO that has to do with it having little to do with hack-and-slash fight-or-flight type of gaming and more to do with intrigue and politics. The setting allows a woman to play any role, the only biases truly inherent in it are the ones projected into it by the players using it.

arpig2

09-22-2014, 04:06 PM

You got it rugor, so the question is, how do we address that in the context of the Birthright game.

While it is true, that it is up to the DM to tweak their individual campaigns, the barrier (or rather the disincentive) that DCL has spotlighted is in the setting as presented in the canon material.

I think that since we are now three editions (or four, depending on if you count 3.5 as a separate edition) and nearly 20 years out from when the setting was published, that we should be more willing to abandon our strict adherence to that canon.

AndrewTall

09-22-2014, 09:54 PM

There is a saying that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, but anyone in the publishing industry will tell you that the cover it vitally important - it is an attempt to indicate the type of story that will be found within as the "purchase", or in this case the decision to play, is inevitably made without detailed knowledge of the setting.

So although I fully agree with the "equal does not mean identical" issue, I do see the gender of rulers, or at least "main characters" as a "shop window" issue and so consider that we should think about it.

I agree with people who have said that compared to the medieval world BR is clearly far more gender equal, indeed it is probably better than the modern world (the UK has had a pitiful 1 female PM), but it could be better, particularly outside Anuire.

When making extensions we should consider thinking "how will this look to a woman / person from one of the source countries (for the non-Anuirean nations)" - I know that I've looked back on a few bits I've wrote in PS Danigau with embarrassment.

Lee

09-23-2014, 12:29 AM

What I find most interesting is that the OP asked for ideas on how to change the gender balance, and almost everybody responded by saying there was no imbalance.

I find that very depressing.

I didn't read it as denying an imbalance, just that we needed to see the numbers.

Allow me to think out loud for a bit. It looks to me like Anuire comes close to the desired 50% ratio. I'm certainly OK with the idea of bringing out the Vos as "women rule behind the throne, men are the ones who are warleaders" concept. Perhaps something similar would work for the Rjurik or Khinasi. I'd be reluctant to make the same change for all 3 cultures, though.

Having Anuire as something unique in having some of their women ruling is interesting, too. They are supposed to be more socially/politically advanced (at least they think so), and perhaps the most influenced by the elves, who we thought of as more matriarchal, too. Maybe the other cultures are sort of rejecting gender equality as part of resisting the Empire and/or sidhelien influence? That might put an interesting spin on a game concept I have for Suiriene (the Anuirean outpost island).

arpig2

09-23-2014, 01:09 AM

I didn't read it as denying an imbalance, just that we needed to see the numbers.
You needed to see the numbers? Why? Why do you need it proven to you that an imbalance exists? The fact that women perceive an imbalance in interesting player positions should be sufficient without having to do a statistical analysis. And listing various female abominations to counter the perception is silly because they aren't available to play (or at least not normally - hmmmm, now there's an interesting campaign idea... hmmmm...).

The reason why the numbers don't matter is because women who see a lack of interesting choices won't stick around to read your lists of available female regents, they have already seen them and don't find them sufficiently cool to want to play them, and so will go look elsewhere for their gaming fun.

It isn't the raw numbers in any one place, it is the limited choices that are available. And as much as I like my Vos idea, that isn't in and of itself a solution, because that just inverts things (though having one of the major cultures female dominated is a neat idea if for no other reason than to deepen the differences between cultures.) What is needed is a good selection of exciting positions for women to play, without them having to be an oddity in whatever region is being played.

Now this doesn't mean that one culture, let's say the Khinasi, couldn't be majorly male dominated, and the Vos majorly female dominated and the other cultures spread out in a spectrum between those two extremes, the flavour of the over all culture isn't as important as the availability of interesting positions to play.

Of course, the simplest way to resolve this issue is just to simply declare that the canon regent ha died and the player's PC has inherited, and so the gender of the regent presented in the canon is unimportant.

However, to get even deeper into this topic, one could argue that there is a shortage of appealing female archetypes in fantasy role playing period (how would you like it if your fighter was expected to run around in a chain mail loincloth?), and it behooves us all to listen carefully when one of the few women who do play share their thoughts and impressions. Assuming of course that we want our hobby, and this setting/ruleset in particular to grow and prosper.

rugor

09-23-2014, 02:30 PM

You needed to see the numbers? Why? Why do you need it proven to you that an imbalance exists? The fact that women perceive an imbalance in interesting player positions should be sufficient without having to do a statistical analysis.

What I would like to see, is more than the opinion of one or two women.
I would think it would be wise to seek out the opinion of those women who have played the game, have a background with it, and with other RPG / PBeM games and get THEIR perspective.

Its certain to have more value than my own, in regards to this topic.

As I said in my last post in this thread, I have been involved in three PBeMs the past decade, two of the three were overseen/DMed by women (plural in both cases). There was never any discussion or debate from them in regards to this particular topic that I recall, which makes me wonder why now there is this perception.

By canon: Who rules Roesone? Who rules Medeore, Talinie and Tuornen? What temple/god is prevalent in Ariya, Binsada? Make the Vos run by women you say... Aren't the priestesses of Kriesha all powerful in some tribes?

As to how you can dress it up, to better lure in future players of the female persuasion, that is up to the DM and players involved... unless you are talking about re-writing what is canon, and shifting the focus of the game, and redoing the artwork, and the whole nine yards.

arpig2

09-23-2014, 05:08 PM

What I would like to see, is more than the opinion of one or two women.
I would think it would be wise to seek out the opinion of those women who have played the game, have a background with it, and with other RPG / PBeM games and get THEIR perspective.
Sorry, but that to me reads as "I don't like this idea, so I am going to keep demanding more proof until they give up".
An all to common tactic when discussing gender issues. Personally, I am satisfied with the evidence presented by the OP, the women who declined to play in my campaign, and my daughter (an avid D&D player, but one not at all attracted to the Birthright setting).

unless you are talking about re-writing what is canon
That is precisely what this thread is about. Ideas as to how to rewrite the canon to achieve a greater gender parity.

Sheigh

09-24-2014, 06:35 AM

That is precisely what this thread is about. Ideas as to how to rewrite the canon to achieve a greater gender parity.

Rewrite the canon however you see fit in your campaign. It's your campaign. It's your world as soon as you decide to make it your world. The job of this group has been stewardship of the campaign world we were given though, adjusting it to meet new rule sets, not rewriting canon for social justice.

The ultimate truth of Birthright as a campaign setting is that it has a level of gender parity unheard of compared to human history past or present.

Raesene Andu

09-24-2014, 08:52 AM

Sorry, but that to me reads as "I don't like this idea, so I am going to keep demanding more proof until they give up".
An all to common tactic when discussing gender issues. Personally, I am satisfied with the evidence presented by the OP, the women who declined to play in my campaign, and my daughter (an avid D&D player, but one not at all attracted to the Birthright setting).

Personally I have never encountered this issue with Birthright and two of the five players in my current campaign are female.

Have you asked your daughter what it was that didn't attract her to the setting? It may be something as simple as how you sell it to potential players.

arpig2

09-24-2014, 02:40 PM

Personally I have never encountered this issue with Birthright
Of course you haven't, nobody has, and the FRP world is awash with avid female players. The OP and I are the anomalies.

Have you asked your daughter what it was that didn't attract her to the setting?
Golly no, now why didn't I think of that?
Of course we have discussed it, that's why I mentioned her opinion.

It may be something as simple as how you sell it to potential players.
I doubt that very much since I have been running successful Birthright campaigns for nearly 20 years now. Of course, one reason for my success could well be that I have never used the published setting.

Know what? I really don't care a fig if you, or anybody else has encountered this problem before or not, that is completely irrelevant. The thread was started to discuss ways to achieve a more equitable gender balance, and sorry, but the endless posts by men saying the balance is just fine are now getting downright stupid.

Duck Call Lass

09-24-2014, 06:21 PM

AndrewTall

09-24-2014, 09:12 PM

It's really hard to address a problem when the demands to prove that problem exists are so high.

Eh, well, there are plenty of other campaign settings to play around in. Birthright can stay as it is, I'll be happy doing other things. I'm pretty sure that this is not the community for me.

It's a new concept for most - I don't think it's been raised before, so I'm not surprised that there is some confusion caused. That's partly because the significant majority of play is in Anuire where, as Raesene noted, the number are much more equal outside of the heartlands so in practice it's probably not been as big an issue in the games played as the numbers outside of Anuire indicate might be expected.

I don't hear any negativity towards women, or desire not to attract women - I suspect that everyone would be only too happy to see more female players, suggestions on improvements that will make the game more interesting to women etc and any suggestions you made would be very welcome.

In practice our agreement with WOTC, and the lack of new published material limit what we can "officially" do, in practice I'd see it as expanding the options presented in the wiki, adding more characters, bearing the gender-bias perception in mind when writing/etc.

I played a campaign which was specifically male primogeniture and so on which, while historically accurate, diverged from my view of the setting negatively, I felt it made us look bad and it just didn't feel right to me.

arpig2

09-25-2014, 12:28 AM

I don't hear any negativity towards women, or desire not to attract women
I guess you weren't really listening then Andrew, because I heard it loud and clear.

arpig2

09-25-2014, 12:30 AM

Sheigh

09-25-2014, 12:39 AM

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't invalidate their point, just as much as it doesn't invalidate your point. The responders aren't interested in a social justice crusade and pointed out that there are lots of powerful female NPCs. Many of them acknowledge that a 1:1 parity doesn't exist, but they aren't willing to change anything directly based on the source material. Agreeing to disagree is fine, calling an opinion stupid is childish.

Anyone can change Prince Fhileraene to Princess Phileraene for their campaign and I support anything that makes a player feel more comfortable. Several players, myself included, feel comfortable with things as they are. Honestly, I don't feel like rewriting the campaign world I fell in love with for fear that it might end up not being the campaign world I fell in love with. What you do with your game is entirely up to you.

arpig2

09-25-2014, 01:37 AM

What you do with your game is entirely up to you.
That's what the OP asked for ideas on, instead of some ideas she got a ton of people explaining why there was no need.

Honestly, I don't feel like rewriting the campaign world I fell in love with
Honestly, I have always wished that somebody would rewrite the entire thing.

Sheigh

09-25-2014, 05:09 AM

Nobody's stopping you but you.

Sorontar

09-25-2014, 07:08 AM

Nobody's stopping you but you.

Indeed, a number of campaigns have made good work of extending Birthright beyond Cerilia's borders or into another world. I don't see the difference between that and having a homegrown version of Cerilia itself. However, on this site we will always have to distinguish between canon-based Cerilia and any other Cerilia on the wiki/downloads etc.

As to parity. We have been talking about approaches to take to change the role of women in Birthright [1] but part of the problem seems to be that not everyone can see where the problem is, hence the stats. I am not reading the stats as saying "see there is no problem". I am seeing the stats as saying "we are having a problem defining the problem". If we can't define the problem then it is hard to solve.

Sorontar

[1] Though some now seem to be talking about the amount of female players who play Birthright, which may be related but a separate problem.

Fizz

09-25-2014, 07:42 AM

I am not reading the stats as saying "see there is no problem". I am seeing the stats as saying "we are having a problem defining the problem".

That's how i read it too. You can't address an issue without understanding it.

Plus, the OP expressed a desire to achieve a 50:50 balance. You can't achieve that if you don't know from where you're starting. It's like saying X+Y=100, solve for X. To get a value for X, you've got to know what Y is.

-Fizz

arpig2

09-25-2014, 04:47 PM

Nobody's stopping you but you.
I've been doing it for 20 years now, several times in fact.

Rowan

09-25-2014, 04:49 PM

I'd like to add that the setting never has seemed to assume any sort of strict male primogeniture. In fact, it implicitly has most realms accepting without question the possibility of female rule. So creating more of a statistical balance doesn't really violate canon assumptions, I don't think. Just switching the sexes of rulers or replacing them with female characters seems easy enough to do, if potentially a lot of work. I think it would be easier to replace with new characters than to try to change peoples' common understanding of canon material.

I was questioning earlier whether filling a quota was really what was necessary to attract female players. That assumption itself seemed somewhat sexist to me. It also potentially opens other doors. Do we need to fill racial quotas as well?

While game-by-game modifications are easily made (and just about everyone makes changes), at some point, it does begin to seem like a "social justice crusade" as mentioned rather than just playing a game. At that point, should we not be also arguing for democracy and the freedom of serfs? Where does it end?

In fact, I think part of the charm of Birthright is that it while it IS more modern in attitude than medieval times, it still preserves more of the feel of that setting than most RPGs. That means that it includes warts and injustices. That realism is something that I find appealing, a recognition of the human condition, tension that can be played out in the game. In fact, I'd argue it's partly that kind of brutal realism and injustice that makes Game of Thrones appealing to so many. As The Matrix pointed out, humans have a hard time accepting a utopia (and we likely would not be interested in playing one in BR).

And there's also the problem of changing canon, both legal and because people are so used to the story and characters. Might be easier to do a reboot and rewrite with advancing the timeline at least a generation, maybe 100 years, like has been done with FR. If such a thing were to occur, you could maybe more easily incorporate some of the goals like in the OP in a "new canon" type scale--though consensus would be difficult over the changes that should occur over that 20-100+ years.

I find the OP question intriguing as more than just looking for a statistical parity, as in achieving a quota. I find it more interesting to consider the deeper differences between men and women and what appeals to each as far as style of game and types of game play and story. I find explanations in the story of those differences more appealing than merely switching the sexes of some characters.

So I'm actually advocating for a deeper consideration of the question, more than a cosmetic solution.

arpig2

09-25-2014, 04:49 PM

I am not reading the stats as saying "see there is no problem". I am seeing the stats as saying "we are having a problem defining the problem". If we can't define the problem then it is hard to solve.
The problem has been more than adequately defined, more than once.

Rowan

09-25-2014, 05:09 PM

The problem has been more than adequately defined, more than once.

As I was just saying, and several others have said here, there may be more to the issue than superficial changes. So yes, we're still trying to define what that "something else" is.

I've played with quite a few women over the years. Different things about RPGs tend to appeal to them more than what appeals to men. And it hasn't been equal statistical representation of the sexes that turns them on (or off) to the game.

So lets go deeper. Deeper in to the story elements, deeper into the gameplay elements.

Thelandrin

09-25-2014, 05:52 PM

The problem has been more than adequately defined, more than once.

At the risk of sounding petty, clearly it hasn't been so, otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion about this very point. Failures to communicate and/or understand can be entirely bilateral.

arpig2

09-25-2014, 09:38 PM

So yes, we're still trying to define what that "something else" is.
No you aren't nobody is doing anything of the sort. Sorry, but I have seen this same BS response in a hundred different contexts when the question of gender equality or parity is raised, so you go ahead and keep telling yourselves that.

And I'll keep shaking my head in disgust.

clearly it hasn't been so
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Thelandrin

09-25-2014, 10:57 PM

Smugly refusing to engage with others if they don't agree with you does not make for a very good conversation.

Sheigh

09-25-2014, 11:49 PM

Ah, I think I see the problem. Most of us are looking at equality (everyone of any gender has an equal chance of being a regent) but the argument is for parity (there are an equal number of male and female regents). Does that grab the heart of the concern? Equal chance of success vs demonstrated equal outcome?

Fizz

09-26-2014, 01:27 AM

The problem has been more than adequately defined, more than once.

I agree with the others, it has not been adequetely defined. Maybe it has been in your head, but you've not stated it here.

This thread started with the OP making a comparison to the historical Europe, a desire for a more even gender distribution, and asking if anybody had done so already. The OP wanted input on what they could do for their own game. The OP did not mention changing canon, and did not even make any mention of a "problem". In fact, the OP even said the current gender balance was "fine for a historical game".

and almost everybody responded by saying there was no imbalance.

No, nobody said this. What was said it that was more gender neutral than historical Europe. And that comparison arose because the OP made the comparison to Europe in the very first post. The OP even asked if anyone had run the stats in post #6. And then someone did run the numbers, and you criticized them for it. Quantifying the issue is not marginalizing it.

And listing various female abominations to counter the perception is silly because they aren't available to play

The OP asked about NPCs. By definition NPCs aren't available for play.

The OP said: "Most of the heroes, villains, and NPC regents are male" and "...changing some of the male NPCs to female".

Awnsheghlien are NPCs, so they count just as much as any other hero and villain and ruler. So what kind of criticism is this? You're inventing a point of contention that never existed.

Personally, I am satisfied with the evidence presented by the OP,

What evidence is that? The OP expressed a desire for 50:50 balance. The OP did not present any evidence of anything.

In fact, it's been others in this thread who have provided evidence, by actually quantifying the degree of imbalance. Yet you criticize them for it.

I really don't care a fig if you, or anybody else has encountered this problem before or not,

So only you are allowed to bring your experiences to the discussion, and all others are irrelevant?

the endless posts by men saying the balance is just fine are now getting downright stupid.

Oh, you mean like post #1 by the OP that said it was "fine for a historical game"? Yet you ignore all the other posts by people who agreed that there'd be no harm in changing some of the genders? Tell me, who said that you shouldn't change anything? What post number was that?

You have expanded upon the scope from what was stated by the OP, and misread many of the responses to the OP. You're finding conflict here where there is none.

Is the issue the non-50:50 gender split? Is it about attracting females into specifically Birthright? Is it sexism in rpgs in general? You've expanded the scope of the original post so much that no one knows what you're talking about.

So i'd suggest you actually re-read what was stated and not taint the entire discussion with your own confirmation bias.

-Fizz

rugor

09-26-2014, 07:43 AM

One cannot taint what is already tainted by pointing out that taint. So i'd suggest you actually re-read what was stated and not ignore the taint that permeates the entire discussion with your own confirmation bias.

Please let us do so:

Hi everyone,

One thing I've noticed when reading the Birthright materials is that, taking its cues from historical Europe, it's a very male-dominated place. Most of the heroes, villains, and NPC regents are male, for example.

That's fine for a historical game, but I like a bit more gender parity in my fantasy gaming. Plus, nothing I've seen in Birthright would suggest that naturally occurring bloodlines have a preference for the male sex, so it seems that apart from the use of investiture, there should be as many female regents as male regents.

I'm thinking about just changing some of the male NPCs to female, to balance out the gender balance a little.

Has anyone else done something like this already? Anything you'd particularly suggest regarding important NPCs to gender-swap?

(Oh, and also I'm going to assume greater presence of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender NPCs in the world, something which wasn't addressed much if at all back in the TSR days.)

So this is a recent joinee to Birthright, WELCOME by the way!

Her question, as I interpret it (and I freely admit I may be wrong in my interpretation) is: Why are most of the heroes and villains and regents male? It seems to me to be like medieval Europe, male dominated, can we change that?

In which in general, we all gave some reply akin to: Well, Roesone, Medeore, Tuornen, Dhoesone, etc. are run by female characters, and then there is the White Witch, Queen Elf, etc. ... and in general its all about what the DMs and players want anyway. They can change things as they wish, and often do.

And then it went south.

The Game Setting in Anuire reflects Europe to some degree, complete with the fall of the empire (Imperial Rome or the Holy Roman Empire) the fracturing into a variety of smaller states and religions, and the rise of the merchant class... yes in many ways the game setting reflects europe's past. Anuire does anyway. And Rjurik lands reflect north of the roman empire. And Khinasi reflect the middle east... and so on.

So can you totally trash that setting, and create a different type, one filled with friendly elven realms and women dominating at least one or more of the human societies... absolutely, its been done before... but its not canon... it doesn't need to be, it can be whatever the DM and players want it to be.

In order to drastically change Birthright, you have to trash the background and history of everything those cultures are, the history of the 12 tribes or Cerelia... basically create a new game, one that uses similar game mechanics.

So the short answer is no... the canon cannot be changed.
But the DM and players can make their Birthright world whatever they want it to be.

Rowan

09-26-2014, 02:40 PM

The canon resonated with people originally because it bore more similarities to our real world past than most other fantasy settings, and gave the opportunity to explore nobility and rule in that context. 20-30 years in, with lots of history and player assumptions, agreements with WotC, etc, canon is pretty set. Modifications to it, then, have been game by game--and many games are heavily modified.

If we want to change things significantly, or even seek a "refresh" of the setting, we could update rules and so forth and either advance the story some number of generations into the future (as WotC has done twice now with FR) or even backtrack it to a point previous in the timeline.

In other words, not changing the existing canon (which is so entrenched I question whether you can do it anyway, which is why it is done on a case by case, game by game basis instead), but rather creating a new canon for an updated setting at a different time period. Not replace, but add to. Much easier than replacing.

Based on conversations I've had with my wife and some other female gamers (and my experience gaming with women), to appeal more to women, we ought to look at compelling stories to add more depth to female characters and roles (i.e., more than just "gender parity"), and also to look at some of the aspects of game play, such as streamlining and balancing rules further, more built-in mechanics supporting collaboration and special events (like tournaments, feasts/festivals, etc), more structure around alliance and diplomacy, more inherent rewards and goals beyond simply heavy competition and becoming the greatest and strongest and ruling over all. That would bring more emphasis and support to areas that, in my experience, women enjoy more (the loner and dominance, and rules min-maxing, aspects seeming to be more male-oriented).

I have ideas in most of these areas, just haven't had time to flesh them out and write them down.

Thelandrin

09-26-2014, 10:22 PM

I think that now would be a great time for people to stop discussing each other and either get back to the thread topic or abandon it entirely.

arpig2

09-26-2014, 10:23 PM

Why? It has been firmly established that there is no desire to discuss the topic honestly? Top the point that the OP has left the community in disgust.

Thelandrin

09-26-2014, 10:29 PM

If there is no desire for the topic to be discussed honestly, there is no point to this thread. That's the group's choice to make.

AndrewTall

09-26-2014, 11:06 PM

We can actually make a move towards parity with undermining canon, canon is in most cases only a summary of a domain, many have just 1 or 2 page write-up's. So there is nothing to stop us writing a female character who is a powerful lieutenant or even the power behind the throne - many of the PS's introduced very substantial characters and often the ruler was not a dominant as the regional write-up suggested. Since at least Anuire is clearly more equal than the historical sources, I don't think that additions like that would undermine canon.

More fundamental to encouraging women is possibly the idea of supporting role-play over roll-play, which I entirely agree with and would welcome any suggestions. Every great memory (and sadly the terrible ones) of BR games that I have centers around good or bad role-play, the actual board-game aspects of the game tended to be fairly trivial by comparison except where they ended the game due to d4-1 mentality or grievous mechanic issues.

From what I understand LARP has a fairly good gender balance compared to most RPG's, has anyone got any experience of why that is and whether we can borrow from LARP's?

Also, and possibly it is a silly point, but I don't recall a wiki artiicle or thread on how (and why) BR has diverged from history, in-play if we draw on history we almost inevitably draw on male-dominated sources so a "this is what's been done and how we make it work" type article would be interesting and possibly useful in play for those less confident in world building (although I grant that most BR DM's are likely fairly experienced due to the setting's age).

Fizz

09-27-2014, 02:19 AM

Why? It has been firmly established that there is no desire to discuss the topic honestly? Top the point that the OP has left the community in disgust.

You are the source of that dishonesty. It was you who derided this entire board for things that were never said. Who else was dishonest? Where?

But i'm now thinking that Sheigh and Thelandrin are correct: attempting to engage you further is pointless.

-Fizz

Fizz

09-27-2014, 02:53 AM

So there is nothing to stop us writing a female character who is a powerful lieutenant or even the power behind the throne

I'd been wondering about this. Does the person need to be a new person never before mentioned?

For instance, Blood Enemies describes Y'urre, the true power behind the Manticore. But it also discusses his wife and lieutenant N'chel. But what if Y'urre himself is actually being manipulated by N'chel? Does that make N'chel the true regent? Would that be breaking canon?

(Either way i kind of ilke that idea of that doubly-hidden power.)

More fundamental to encouraging women is possibly the idea of supporting role-play over roll-play, which I entirely agree with and would welcome any suggestions.

Hopefully 5e will encourage the game from roll- towards role-. But will that translate to attracting more women to the game? I have no idea how well 4e did in that regard since i avoided 4e entirely.

if we draw on history we almost inevitably draw on male-dominated sources so a "this is what's been done and how we make it work" type article would be interesting and possibly useful

Ross Watson did an episode of his podcast where he discusses rpg sexism with women who are in the rpg industry. Would this be useful?
http://gamerstavern.org/episode-35-sexism-and-gaming-or-dont-be-part-of-the-problem/

-Fizz

Sorontar

09-27-2014, 02:57 AM

As Thelandrin said, we want no name calling from anyone. This thread is not a debate about the debate.[1] If people do not give constructive input, their posts will be deleted.
If you disagree with someone else, say why and support your argument with relevant examples and evidence.

So let us talk about the topic, not each other.

Sorontar

[1] Yes, it can be a debate about the topic, but not about how we are debating it.

Rowan

09-27-2014, 05:48 AM

I think that now would be a great time for people to stop discussing each other and either get back to the thread topic or abandon it entirely.

I think most of us have been wanting to do just that, with no further aspersions cast against us. I'd prefer that those of us who wish to have a conversation continue to do so, and ignore those who ignore our posts and accuse us of not wanting to talk about the topic, even as we're doing exactly that.

We can actually make a move towards parity with undermining canon, canon is in most cases only a summary of a domain, many have just 1 or 2 page write-up's. So there is nothing to stop us writing a female character who is a powerful lieutenant or even the power behind the throne - many of the PS's introduced very substantial characters and often the ruler was not a dominant as the regional write-up suggested. Since at least Anuire is clearly more equal than the historical sources, I don't think that additions like that would undermine canon.
Actually, as I've said previously, I think there's strong implication in the canon that there is no strong preference in most realms for male primogeniture. At worst, the default situation seems semi-salic. At best, absolute primogeniture (not respecting sex or birth order), dependent mostly on special designation of the heir (usually by the prior ruler), though perhaps with default guidance in some direction if no heir was clearly designated, or if challenges arise to such.

I find that inheritance laws and challenges come up quite often in games, and it can be a very interesting topic of discussion.

It's interesting, also, to compare Roman inheritance law (which was by no means absolute and required a far greater degree of meritocracy than later medieval primogeniture), given the Roman allusions of Anuire (and how this would have influenced the one-time vassal states in Rjurik, Brechtur, and Khinasi). In fact, the other former subject cultures may hold truer to those older Anuirean/Roman influences (if they paralleled the real world Roman Republic more) than Anuire has.

Also, and possibly it is a silly point, but I don't recall a wiki artiicle or thread on how (and why) BR has diverged from history, in-play if we draw on history we almost inevitably draw on male-dominated sources so a "this is what's been done and how we make it work" type article would be interesting and possibly useful in play for those less confident in world building (although I grant that most BR DM's are likely fairly experienced due to the setting's age).

This is what I was getting at. We need story depth for this, and I think there's a lot to explore here. Also, this is where we help to emphasize the "role" play over "roll" play. That desire for roleplay emphasis is yet another reason that I think superficial selection of gender parity is not enough--and is, in itself, a form of pandering that hides a more subtle sexism.

I think a very strong case can be made for why women would "matter more" in Birthright than in the real world. Whereas in our real history, male rulership is often played out through dominance exerted through power, violence, competition, etc, which easily explains the subjugation of women (and others), in Birthright things don't favor the men so much. Divine bloodlines can be an equalizer (especially if you make them matter even more in your game, which I tend to).

In Birthright, the bloodline that women carry matters a great deal to the power of the bloodline of the dynasty. Not so in the real world, where women were used primarily to assert noble pedigrees and form alliances, but weren't necessarily perceived as inherently lending strength to the dynasty.

So in Birthright, there is a natural favor built in for any individual who carries a strong bloodline. This could easily give rise to more female regents, even whole institutional roles for women based on this power and privilege. More on those roles later.

Also, I see women valued even more in the formation of families (which, being the primary purpose of marriage, impacts marriage in-game, as well). More on that later, too.

And, of course, we have the ideas specifically proposed earlier to highlight the role of women in some races and cultures, and even in some classes (sorcerers, priestesses).

To strengthen any story connections, we can also consider house rules or include them in rules updates for conversion to newer systems. For instance, the power of non-realm-holders was bemoaned as discrediting the value of having female regents of non-landed domains; this can be corrected, at least to some degree. Also, I've always been interested in seeing how the "power behind the throne" can be reflected better in game mechanics, and not just role-play manipulation. There's also perhaps more possibility for co-rulership, with shared investiture and regency.

And the whole topic I touched on of strengthening the aspects of the game that appeal most to female players (which I proposed were the team-playing and interaction, diplomacy and alliance, more tangible rewards for goals other than conquest and domination, and role-play opportunities like tournaments and festivals and suchlike).

rugor

09-28-2014, 04:58 PM

And in reply to Rowan, and those posts just above his, what we are talking about is the DM and players choosing to make the setting their own.

I'm sorry I can't see the issue more clearly, as it obviously bothers some, and my replies are clearly not getting the message across I am trying to put forth.

Whatever limitations are being put on a woman to play any role in the game are likely being imposed by those that are playing the game with them.

If there is a criticism about the game itself, as it was written a couple decades back, all we can do is point to Roesone, Medeore, Talinie, and the other realms which are indeed run by women regents... and there are opportunities for others as well, why can't Aubrae Avan become the first woman regent in Avanil? A historic change, would make for a great story, Anuire's own Queen Elizabeth type of campaign.

Lasica Diem is the only heir to Diemed, she to can become a ruling regent as well as the most powerful purveyor of Magic in the region.

Soraene Alam can become the regent of Alamie, another powerful politician and purveyor of Magic.

All of Anuire can become awash in this next generation, of women regents, from Roesone to Avanil, Diemed to Alamie, Talinie to Arenwe... the realms of Boeruine and Ghoere in their backwards war-minded male dominated societies can be the minority (and perhaps the enemy that joins these other realms together) in the game.

But that is all up to those who play the game... and most importantly, how the DM presents the game... its about your ability to communicate what you want to do, and where the game is going to go.... its YOU... the DM... the PLAYERS... that make Birthright or ANY RPG game what it is... and they fail, and women are turned off by them because of what YOU present to them... or DON'T present to them.

DevinParker

02-09-2015, 06:21 AM

I agree that there seems to be far less reason for male dominance in Cerilia than historical Earth; this, bloodlines, and the presence of magic as an equalizer has given me plenty of reason to have fun casting my NPCs with a variety of genders, regardless of profession or position.

As arpig2 mentioned, I've decided to make my Cerilian Elves matriarchal and matrilineal (as I usually do in my fantasy games with Elves, anyway). I adopted the Uvandir from "Wicked Fantasy" for my Dwarves, and as written, they don't really have much concept of gender; however, I decided that there are many who choose what outsiders would define as a feminine appearance because they felt it suited their individual expression.

I changed some of the written NPCs in the setting books from male to female for my Roesone campaign; for example, I changed Royal Captain Tael Brosuine to a female, imagining her looking like Daryl Hannah's character Elle Driver from "Kill Bill."

Finally, when randomly generating NPCs, I use a number of tables I've created to describe them. The chance for them to be male or female is equal, and based on some of the descriptors I've generated, I've interpreted some of them to be homosexual, transgender, asexual, etc.

In my current campaign, the PCs were rather surprised to learn that the grubby Goblin Magician they've been following around was female - they couldn't tell from her appearance, not being Goblins, themselves. They're going to be even more surprised when they find out that she's considered a beauty among her kind! Both of these things were aspects I generated randomly (I also use Comeliness for my NPCs), and I think doing things that way has added to the game's story considerably.

Magian

02-09-2015, 09:35 AM

In my experience this is a non-issue. Anyone in RP can choose to make a character how they like. I haven't run into anyone saying they can't be of one gender or another nor of one sexual orientation or identity or another in any games I've ever played. Anyone who plays RP asks the DM / GM if they can play such and such. That is the only place that I foresee any potential problem, that being the response of the DM.

If we assume that we are all adults, then that is like saying we are giving each other the benefit of the doubt. Therefore we should also be able to trust in each other's judgement especially a DM judgment call. Unless we have cases of DMs or players blocking efforts of the OP I don't see a problem. To assume something else is something that I argue is yet to be established.

I didn't see anything from the posts of those who replied that justified the OP's response. Unless we aren't free to voice our opinion. I think we have an established understanding that that isn't the case.

My direct reply to the OP. I don't care. If my players want to play something that changes a current character, that is usually what is always done. Players choose their own way to play. Birthright fans tend to be Game of Thrones fans. There are gender differences and sexual orientation differences there and I have no issues with it nor anyone else that I've spoken to about it. Therefore if you want to do it, go for it. I'm sure it would bring more depth and character to your campaign.

As far as an issue of attracting new players I don't see it as an issue if we clarify up front that you can make your character however you want. As for changing the setting, who cares, let people do what they want it is their game. We can learn a lot from a new perspective on games in our favorite setting.

One thing I won't accept is an implication that we are jerks and don't include differences among us. Most of us developed this gaming hobby as a result of jerks in our own social circumstances and to be equated with those whom oppressed us in our youth won't get you anywhere closer to the truth. You are barking up the wrong tree. This isn't a gamergate sort of thing here where there are a bunch of psychotic trolls (who troll everyone) here. This was an intelligent discussion with different opinions. If we can't have those, then what is the point of anything any more?

arpig2

02-16-2015, 11:00 PM

I don't care.
That much is obvious.

Lord_Johnny

10-18-2015, 04:46 PM

Queen Liliene Swordwraith
Duchess Eriene Mierelen
Duchess Laela Flaertas
Baroness Fhiele Dhoesone
Duchess Eluvie Cariele
Mhaellie Bireon
Baroness Marlae Rosoene
Medhlorie Haensen
Hermedhie
Mhistacai
Sarae Sommerlin
Queen Isaelie
Mhaire Cwllmie

I think the OP hasn't perused Ruins of Empire sufficiently. Its loaded with female rulers.

Okay, so I'll be the first to admit that I haven't read the whole thread, because I got to this point (and a few comments after) and honestly Arentak hit the nail on the head. There ARE a lot of women that are regents. Yes, there are more male regents, but modern sensibilities aside, there just wouldn't have been a great many regents of a female nature.

Not because women couldn't handle the mental necessities, but because of the more physical demands placed on regents both historically and game wise. I point to the aspects of where regents are expected to do a lot of adventuring, in a world where magic is very limited, then most things are physical. As such, the limitations of the female body come to the fore, when trying to fight for extended periods, especially in low tech societies, then many female regents wouldn't be the norm.

Again, this is taking a realistic look at things, with true limitations being applied to a game. Remember it's a game, and if you want to change things, then make a GM call. It's a game. Make it fun.

Magian

10-23-2015, 01:22 AM

I think the implication of the game is that in the fantasy setting women are able to do anything even physical challenges as well as men. That is why sex doesn't have a + or - to attributes. That is just standard D&D. So in a natural environment a parity of sexes is viable given these assumptions.

As said previously we are free to determine our own games. I have yet to see a case where a DM was bigoted towards a player regarding such issues. Until that happens, it is a non-issue.

I said before I don't care about this more so in the respect of character sexual identity. Again this is personal preference for a game. If you want to do it go ahead no one is stopping you. If you feel the need to play out such dimensions with your characters, then that is fine that is your game to explore how you like. I don't care because I don't get into my character's sexuality in gaming. I don't care to get into other character's sexuality in games either. It is none of my business. If I wanted to explore that, then I would, but I don't have to and I am not wrong or bigoted or ignorant for that as some would infer.

What this thread is about is imposing an ideology on our gaming and attempting to shame us for not being persuaded by that ideology. The OP asked for help. When they got it they shamed those who helped them and left the conversation. I mean how much time was invested by these people to run the numbers for that person? They wanted a 50/50 ratio and the numbers were provided in order to establish how the game is setup up in regards to that ratio. That would have been the first step in reaching a solution for the OP. Instead the OP said that these people who looked into the game for them were in some way oppressing them by merely looking into it with inquisitive minds. I'm sorry but that isn't looking for Gender Parity in Birthright it is an attempt at establishing an ideological presence.

Mirviriam

10-23-2015, 02:49 PM

... a realistic look at things, with true limitations ...

...definitely not a realistic look.

Logically speaking - just because there aren't more - doesn't mean they aren't capable of it.

That's bad science to make that claim, as in the real world we call that correlation & often cite that it is not the same as causation.

Oh yea...

I am back. Punks.

-Mirv

Mirviriam

10-23-2015, 04:47 PM

Oh & btw ... I was examining a way to show case worlds and implement rules for birthright back when I left. I didn't have an online repository - so the info is gone, minus some 60 pages of scribbling and horrible php code.

I was coming back to check & see if the other two guys ever got anywhere in their efforts to make online games to resemble table top BRCS.

If someone did make one ... well, that's a good place to start for show casing an adjusted game or home brew. I know when I left, myself and the other two were working on creating an interface for our respective games where people could type in the stats/descriptions of realms/regents/npc etc. I don't have a live ruby on rails server, but from what I studied this last summer it seems like a perfect utility.

If I write the entry system to a database, it shouldn't be too hard for me to turn around and display the data back to you guys. I'm a bit fuzzy on the user credentials section & my database would probably need some overhauls as time goes on - but it could work better than you designing & sharing pdf's all over - as the data could then be feed to PBEM's or automated PBEM's.

The easiest way I envision it is just taking the default from 2nd edition off the old java tool (which I would need someone to post to me again) & once my data entry tool is up - people punch in the stats for it. Then other's access their own copy of the original and begin tweaking. There's ways to pick and choose the parts you want from other people too.

TL;DR:

I won't rewrite Birthright for you, but I could help by putting up some webpages to help you guys collaborate on it & show it on the internet. I'd really like to know someone would try using it before I put aside time from my leather business to do this though!

EDIT: BirMailer is still alive! updated 8/2015: http://sourceforge.net/projects/birmail/

DevinParker

04-22-2016, 09:37 PM

A bit of a thread necro, but while reading Frances and Joseph Gies' Women in the Middle Ages, I noted a passage that reminded me of this discussion:

"...a recent study [publishing date 1978] by historian David Herlihy of records of sales, leases, and exchanges in the period from 700 to 1200 gives important insight into the role played by women of other classes. A small but significant percentage of the numbers, varying with century and region, identified the protagonists not by patronymics - "Peter, son of Sylvester" - but by matronymics - "Peter, son of Matilda." Evidently some women were so well known in their communities that their names, rather than those of their husbands, identified the sons. The mother's family may have been long established or wealthy, or she may have had outstanding personal qualities, or have been in control of the family property." (p. 25-26)

So that's another way to increase the profile of women in the setting - an increased use of matronymics for both PCs and NPCs.

AndrewTall

04-22-2016, 10:21 PM

A bit of a thread necro...

Nice one and it makes particular sense in a setting with mystical bloodlines that could easily come from either parent that give pride to the bearer (hopefully).

nickgreyden

04-24-2016, 05:25 AM

More nerco as I haven't seen this thread...

As to the OP, being male and playing with an all male cast, this issue has never been an issue for us and so we've never done anything like this. That being said, female rulers are female and male are male and we move on our merry little way making no fuss over or mansplaining away female rulership. In fact, as to our current game we have underway, the heir apparent to the United Lands of Cerilia is the daughter of one of our players.

However, I'm rather troubled by the breakdown of female/male leads outside the lands of Anuire. Most of our games steer clear of that quagmire to begin with and I was originally keenly aware of all the high ranking female characters. I'm taken aback by how replete I thought other lands were filled with powerful female leaders only to find them grievously lacking.

My inexperienced advice in this area is simple; do what you want and what your players want to do. RPG's are just a story. The DM provides the setting and the plots while the PCs provide the characters and the action. It is a collective story, the last gasps of the beautiful yet dying art of the oral traditions of old, make it the best damn story it can be!

Johnny112

05-02-2016, 02:03 PM

...definitely not a realistic look.

Logically speaking - just because there aren't more - doesn't mean they aren't capable of it.

That's bad science to make that claim, as in the real world we call that correlation & often cite that it is not the same as causation.

Oh yea...

I am back. Punks.

-Mirv

Okay, so please tell me the last time you got into full plate, or a breast plate, or even just chain mail.
I can tell you the last time I did. It was about 3 weeks ago. The light stuff was 30 pounds, that hung from the shoulder. This requires a built up upper body strength, which means you need to have muscles that are developed to carry such weight. This is where testosterone comes into play, because testosterone allows for the muscles to more easily develop, and to be stronger and more dense.

Needless to say, men have a higher testosterone quantity than females. That's biology. Therefore, males have a far easier time developing the muscle NECESSARY for the ability to have the upper body strength NECESSARY for the use of armor.

Therefore yes, this is a realistic look at true limitations based on the physiology of the human anatomy. This is a direct link, aka causation, of limitations placed upon the different genders due to specific developments in the human anatomy because of aforementioned physiological adaptations.

However, as others mentioned, there is no gender considerations in the books. So, as I said, remember it's a game, and make it fun.

Magian

05-04-2016, 07:39 PM

This is about regents. Regents do not necessitate heavy armor wearing. As you can see from the list to the post in which Mirv was referring that there is a number of regents that don't qualify for heavy armor and yet they are regents.

Wearing heavy armor and doing hard tasks doesn't not require the building of muscle mass as much as it requires stamina. The farm life is a good comparison to living a life of hard tasks such as wearing heavy armor daily. There are quite a few people who grew up on farms that can outdo body builders in many respects. The hard life requires stamina. Building muscle doesn't. Hence you see many fighters with huge muscle mass tiring out before the little guy who is strong and can hit hard too. Wearing heavy armor requires stamina more than muscle mass. The body adjusts to a hard task like a back pack. Yes muscle builds to compensate but not like body builders where they measure testosterone, which seems to be your argument. Any female body could compensate for a huge backpack and heavy armor. It is not out of the realm of possibility. Don't confuse modern people with the hard lifers in a fantasy world. We are soft compared to them, so yes it is a reach to get to the level they are on. It is very Nietzsche-esque in a sense that we've actually lost something by living softer, that doesn't mean we can't adjust, including women.