[The Darklord]

No its not a previously lost Jane Austen manuscript, though there's a thought...

This is a question for anyone really but I would be particularly interested in what the ladies who larp would think of it.

How would people feel if there was a greater gender divide in a setting?  For example throughout much of european history women ranged from second (at best citizens) to being virtually goods and chattels, depending on the exact time/place and social standing.  What if we were to represent this idea in a setting? Either for men or women. 

Now it should go without saying that any real world carry over from this would be likely to be met with a kicking (verbally if you are lucky) and rightly so but could it be used as part of a worlds background.  I am not saying women could not be fighters as there have always been exceptions to this rule in real life - just that it would be harder from a social perspective to be one.  Also I am obviously thinking of this in terms of a specific setting rather than trying to apply it to all of larp.  Is it something we could explore and get something from in terms of roleplay or would it just put people off.

[madarcher]

Hmmmm.... this is definitely a thinker. I've always had the whole medievel sexism thing at the back of my mind anyway, but nobody really seems to act as though it is part of the setting (whichever one that might be) so I have just ignored it and got on with playing whoever I feel like playing.

At the moment there are only two women who are regularly at our events anyway (myself and Christine) and I think this could make attracting others slightly more difficult (imagine trying to explain it to a woman who is umming and ahhing about coming to her first event, which can be pretty daunting anyway). Personally I would be up for it as an experiment, but would worry that life could get a litttle dull for us if it was a regular setting. I think it would have to be something we tried out to see how it went. Another concern would be whether the male LARPers would actually want to or be comfortable with treating us in such a way (being the considerate potitically correct bunch that they are ) because if they weren't the concept could fizzle out quite quickly.

I've just realised this all sounds quite negative and I'm certainly not against the idea, these are just a few things that would need consideration. Maybe it could be tried out as part of a one off event - halloween perhaps?

[The Darklord]

Mad archer - thanks for the reply, as I said this was an idea for A setting not necessarily what we would be playing all the time.  As you say its not the most welcoming idea to a woman new to roleplay however it is perhaps something we could explore - "larp its not just there for the nice things in life like and orc attack and sexual equality"  We quite naturally tend to bring in our modern values into larp and often thats a good thing.  Certainly if you want to have a nice generic fantasy setting its probably better that we do but is it something we should automatically assume?

In no way should having the kind of setting I am talking about prevent women from playing the characters they want to - just that a woman who fights is going to be regarded as strange by most people - thus giving opportunity to roleplay.  The idea of the lads being uncomfortable with the idea is one that had occured to me to - to be honest I may well be uncomfortable with the idea myself, thats probably why its interesting.  Should roleplay just be mucking about with your mates or should it sometimes have a bit more to say for itself? Hmm...

[Artemisia]

Yum, yum, juicy topic!
After my first couple of events, I asked Scott for advice on developing my character and he described how many female players went for roles as healers, nuns or whores -typically as they are portrayed in much fantasy fiction- but there was no compulsion to do so and plenty of women played fighters. Being the idiosyncratic individual that I am, I immediately followed one of the many historical women I have researched over the last couple of decades. Artemisia Gentileschi was an accomplished Rennaisance artist who was accepted and celebrated until the Victorian period. In order for her to succeed she needed the support of her artist father -same as many male artists. In the pre-industrial period, women had much more equality, yes roles were more definded - and, as today, try keeping a high powered job whilst spending much of your adult life pregnant or raising children, but during the industrial revolution, women were excluded from much of the skilled work and became lower paid. Alongside the economic changes, the development of the middle classes created the ideal of the woman's role as homemaker, subservient to her husband. To the working classes this was not possible as all members of the family able to work, had to do so to contribute to the family income.
This 18th/19th century ideal of 'woman' pervaded middle and upper class society, hence leading to the denial of women such as Artemisia. Her paintings became attributed to her father, after all how could a woman possibly portray violence and sexuality with such energy?
Go back to pre-industrial Europe, roles were much more evenly shared out. A fit and able woman shared agricultural tasks with men and vice-versa. yet issues such as inheritance and the male role as protector do make a difference. The survival of the community relies on the raising of the next generation, and having had a go at playing a pregnant woman, the need to protect the child does effect the role, keeping out of combat and letting others do the protection. I've been impressed by David Gemmell's female characters. He manages to write convincingly of women operating as valued members of society, without too much steriotyping.
Certainly valuing LARP roles that are non-combat, could attract more women, and even give more scope to male roles - but if you want the subservient role playing, you really need to move to cultures with slaves, male and female. Wives as chattels didn't really exist in lower levels of medieval society, more so in upper levels with political marriages- but these were as much of sons as of daughters.
So, take your pick of which society and when, I'll certainly have a go for an event...but beware of steriotyping. Earlier societies were a lot more equal than they are usually portrayed. Go for the more religious ones, now there you get extreme divisions.
 But there again, in many muslim countries women often have more equality in education and employment than in the west, and divorce laws are much more liberal. You did ask, Darklord!
Part of me does question what sort of role playing you're after though! (dirty laugh)

[Artemisia]

Having slept on it, maybe the issue is class structure. Living in a liberal democracy, we tend to shun the idea of class. This was much more the pervading principle in western society until very recently. How much does role play incorporate this? Does LT or any other system? If so, does it become more like historical re-enactment? I wonder.
What I do see, are people wanting to take part in roleplay events so that they CAN play someone other than themselves, hence the high proportions of warriors and wizards. Playing a character who is subservient could quickly lose its appeal - who wants to turn out on a night to feel controlled and oppressed? - be honest, would you really? It sounds masochistic to me! Playing pregnant Artemisia was interesting and generated situations other than fighting off an orc/zombie/bandit attack, but meant I missed out on many a fun melee (she spent much of that time locked in a back room with a drow and a King's Council). And if roleplay isn't fun, would you want to take part?
We cannot help but see the world through our modern eyes - hence the difficulty of interpreting the past; history is subjective, not objective. But one aspect does not change, people are people, no matter what period or place. Build a character with a personality, hopes, fears, desires, beliefs- then no matter what the situation the plot team come up with, you can have fun. Personally I wonder at how few IC arguments there are, is this because of our 21st century liberalism? or reserve about displaying emotion? As you have said before Darklord, bring on the melodrama...

[The Darklord]

As ever you bring an interesting angle to things artemisa.  To be honest I was thinking more in a setting where most players would be either gentry or servants of gentry with a few exceptions, roughly equivalent of reneaisance england with a bit of italy thrown in if that helps.  However the question could equally apply to any setting you care to bring into discussion.  It is a broader question really than just relationships between genders (as the social class of the people interacting will determine a lot of that anyway).  I guess the thing is really that I don't like generic fantasy larp settings.  They usually have a strong history and background setting but no or very little foreground if you see what I mean.  There is ussually very little in the way of customs or social conventions other than our own - for instance fashions as well as practicality and legality, including social standing will affect the weapons carried by what people yet most larp its a free for all with rapiers up against stone axes and no one ever seems to wonder why?  Wearing a sword when in civillian dress was unusual in Europe up until about the 16th century.    Now if someone decides that in their setting its not unusual then fair enough but it would be nice if they had decided that rather than not thinking about it. 

In your first post you imply that there was a lot more equality between genders than later in the 18th or 19th centurys - and you are probably correct but what about the laws on inheritance?  A womans possesions becoming her husbands?

Gender sterotyping is just one aspect and a way of opening up conversation about setting more generally I guess.

[Scaryfatmaniffer]

My take on this is that the whole argument you have raised darklord is almost "a very small symptom of the disease" rather than the disease (or issue) itself.

Your last comment touched on it more when you said that you did not like generic fantasy systems or that there was plenty of background (sometimes) but very little foreground.

I agree - emphatically and wholeheartedly.

There are hundreds of little niggles that creep through the hobby - and as Artemisia said earlier roleplay should be fun - and there I believe lies the problem.
"one man's meat is another man's poison" - allow me to digress for a minute - I enjoy playing bridge - as does Dean, Rob, Scott, Ross , Ratty et al...
we can all play the cards well and we can all bid alright - albeit very basically. When we play we like to drink, chat between hands, tell rude jokes etc. If we went to a bridge club we would all be outcasts (far more than if we went as chess players or clay pigeon shooters who wanted to learn bridge). We play cards but we want somrthing different from the hobby.
Now all us roleplayers have a slightly different take on what would make the best ever event. Some like good costumes, others like in character talk (both charactersiation and language), others want to fight loads, meet with their mates whilkst dressed up etc etc.
What makes fun... To Mr. Briggs using the word Garderobe made it for him ... Scott needs his spot on costume, I need characterisation etc.

I am currently going through a crisis of faith where roleplaying is concerned - I get the urge to undertake a Nazi book burning with all my roleplaying rule books, hunt down rules lawyers with the fanatical zeal of a witch hunter and consign damage calls to the nether pits of hell. You may think that I am quitting or giving up - as these are the symptoms of many that have quit in the past - but NO I wish to move on...

This doesn't mean that I am right (or wrong) simply that the hobby as it stands; as Artemesia said, is no longer particularly fun (for me).
Talking to Tom yesterday we were discussing how quite combat, rules orientated players can cope with (and yes enjoy) stuff like House of Erasmus - which has no rules, no rules bound progression or experience system at all. Why cannot this be done and enjoyed in a quasi medieval fantasy setting.
Then you need to concentrate on costume, manners, class boundaries, sexism, weapon type, fashion, legneds, histories, maps, etiquette etc. rather than wondering how I can get an extra rank with sword or immunity to blunts.
Combat calls detract utterly from combat - running around doing silly little chops shouting 5 - ask a certain young police constable how you can justify this to his other mates on the force without considerable amusement. Perhaps if this was like Erasmus he might have not only defended his position but invited others along.
I am not trying to say Erasmus is something special either - it is generally poorly planned but with a reasonably solid theme. I would imagine thea Rob and Ross spend far more time writing their linears than Alex and I do an Erasmus.
My summing up of this typically crazy Inkley rant is this - what do you want from the hobby - there are no rights or wrongs. Only your view matters to you in the sense that whatever anyone says will not sway what makes things fun for you. To me though; before you call something try it and make an informed choice - don't tell me Morris dancing is crap if you've never done it - because whilst I might agree the answer I would give is How the **** do you know?
We have been brought up with D and D, Lorien Trust, warhammer and they are all good and right in their own way - but is there something else? Try and see - look beyond the box - after all the earth is no longer flat - as the 13th century GAry Gygax would have told you it was !

[The Darklord]

What I do see, are people wanting to take part in roleplay events so that they CAN play someone other than themselves, hence the high proportions of warriors and wizards. Playing a character who is subservient could quickly lose its appeal - who wants to turn out on a night to feel controlled and oppressed? - be honest, would you really? It sounds masochistic to me!

Would I really?  Well I have once or twice but more to the point would I get something out of having to work around those boundaries?  Would I be able to play convincingly a wanted man who has taken a job as a servant to lay low while he is being hunted elsewhere?  Would this proud outlaw be able to survive in a world where he isnt even allowed to look his master in the eye without risking at best a whipping?  Then it becomes interesting again.  I remember playing an escaped slave in  a big indoor roleplay once - not a character I would probably have picked but probably one of the biggest rushes in my early roleplaying career was slinking around the event trying not to look suspicious whilst trying to find the one person in the place who might help me as opposed to the many who would have me back into slavery.  Would you rather play a female mercenary captain in a setting where they are ten a penny or where they are rare and you will be having to prove yourself just because you are female?  Which is the greater challenge?

[The Darklord]

Both the scary fat man and artemisa have mentioned enjoyment/masochism. 

Should roleplay be fun?  Well of course it should be fun but what does that mean?  Something different to everyone no doubt but does that mean each event must cater to absolutely everyone?  Even if it were possible I suspect the results would be bland meaningless events that most of us wouldnt want to go to anyway.  Just because we enjoy one aspect of a hobbey I hope it doesnt mean we should ONLY enjoy that aspect of a hobbey.

Take a non larp example - I like martial arts, I train in several.  Some sessions I go to a fairly "soft" very little pain, very little pressure and the focus is more on "art" or "technique"  others are focused more on practicality, they can be dark unpleasant and painfull at times.  Fair enough the violence isnt "real" - in terms at least that people are able to go home and go to work the next day but the pressure is real, the adrenalin is real.  Am I being paid to go to these sessions?  No.  Am I being forced to do them? No.  So I must be going because I enjoy them.  But that dosent mean I cannot enjoy sitting a reading a book or taking my daughter out for a walk does it?  Fun in larp dosent have to just come from sitting about drinking and waiting for the next fight, or from having the perfect costume or expressing your character perfectly.  Its time to experiment people.  If you are uncomfortable then you are probably heading in the right direction.

[Scaryfatmaniffer]

I like that about being uncomfortable - we are all very firmly wedged up our own comfort zones, or just don't see the box you are in let alone that you can get out of it.


The point I was trying to get across is that different people enjoy different things, and may find other bits less enjoyable. I think the new linears are well written and thought out but I am not particularly enjoying them - now they are as good a linear as any I've been on - so this leads me to the conclusion that I don't really enjoy linears (as they are presented in the LARP hobby).
This is no blame on anyone but I go to support two guys who have been putting in huge amounts of effort, and ensure that someone is putting money in their coffers for the trouble so as to enforce the real world ethos that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Now you could have a linear in which characters spent the day going from A to B constantly thinking "what was going on?" I would probably love it but I don't know who else would? As you say Darklord you should appreciate lots of aspects of the hobby, but if you are not enjoying them at all ...
To me LARP (or my vision of LARP) is Not a Game. - It is acting, drama whatever; for your own pleasure rather than an audiences.
I cannot see the whole winning, experience hunting, power gaming, thing at all other than as a bit of a laugh for a one off. This may leave me out on a limb in many ways in the hobby. One of the reasons why I am so happy to let the guys run the linears at the moment as they are catering for what people want (and they're enjoying it too!).
I am always struggling to suggest my ideas to people who either don't want to do it (rarely said) or I can't see how that would work (and then are unwilling to try).
At least now stuff is being run by people who enjoy it for those who are enjoying it.

[The Darklord]

Chris- we have disccussed this lots, probably a good thing to bring the conversation on here so that maybe more people will contribute - I have a feeling both of us want somthing more from the hobbey than we are getting at the moment but what that missing factor is is quite hard to define.  I tend to agree with you that larp should be like acting for oneself (and the other participants) rather than an audience.  Experience is just a way of allowing your character to progress (not necessarily the best way certainly not the only way).  But that kinda ties in with my comment about being uncomfortable.  Traditionally larp has allowed characters to progress via experience in order to become more powerfull.  This is fine as long as you are still getting a challenge so we must escalate the threats and challanges people face.  From orcs to trolls to demons ad nauseaum.  This of course leads to some pretty high fantasy which is fine if you are wanting to do that kind of high fantasy.  I think with a lower fantasy setting (or even realish world as in Erasmus) it is perfectly possible to do away with some of this experience gathering.  No matter how great a swordsman you are you are still limited to fairly human abilities - therefore you dont need to buy hundreds of hit points or massive damage with a sword.  Maybe a more freeform style is what we need. Of course we are either going off topic or getting to the heart of the matter depending on your pov.

[Artemisia]

There is pleasure to be had working within structure – learn the route through and it is comfortable and you can achieve. But then you are constrained by the structure. To break free of that you need to play the rebel/’proud outlaw’ (Darklord), a heroic, but lonely figure, appreciated by later generations, rarely celebrated in their own time. Do I want to spend my precious leisure time going through the same battles as I do in daily life? Not particularly. I want to experience life through the eyes of different characters – high or low fantasy is not the issue, but are there role play opportunities for character interaction? What is becoming clear is that events run by different people cater for different tastes. One size fits all is not good enough. I read some fantasy books (love David Gemmell, Ursula Le Guin, Tolkein etc) but also read Victorian novels (George Elliot, Bronte) Russian novels, Spy novels, Adventurebooks … the same with music…I do not stay within one ‘type’ - Heavy metal, jazz, folk, Bach... through to Gregorian Chant.
Currently the LARP opportunities we have are linear (combat, ‘winnable’, with a route through using prior knowledge of rules and strategies) and Erasmus (so intellectual, characterisation is often left by the wayside as you battle to get your head around the plot). Both of these are enjoyable. What I also need is character interaction. Tavern nights? If we continue with different people running events, we will manage to create a wider range of role play opportunities. I’m planning a short series of events to follow up a plot line which appeals to me. It may or may not be to others tastes, but as with the example of morris dancing, don’t dismiss it until you’ve tried it.
Break free of stereotypes – rebel a bit- you can always return to the safety of rules and XP in another event. BUT this requires different people to plan/run events and feel free to experiment – give a different perspective. Don’t grumble, get on and do something about it.
I’ll support anyone’s event – I love enthusiasm and passion – just don’t expect me to conform –my daily life is bound by conformity in order to earn a living, LARP for me is a chance to break free.
Do you play football, tennis, chess etc in order to win? - or for the fun of taking part? I’m hopeless at all of these and would probably drive you mad as your team would probably lose with me on your side. But you need someone to argue with, find a new perspective, engage with your feminine, empathetic side – that’s me. I forget rules, just feel my way through.
I want events that cater for me, so I create those opportunities – but I still need someone to play with.
So basically, yes, to events with and without rules – with different settings – formulaic and non-formulaic- I can devise a 1000pt character who can bring down a golem – I just prefer to devise a character who interests me and see what happens. It is creating the story that matters.
A bit of a ramble there, but that’s it for now – off camping at Speyfest – weird blend of  Scottish folk music, heavy rock, modern stuff – it’ll probably be next week before I check this forum again.
Keep up the discussion.

[The Darklord]

I've left this discussion for a while, partly because of holidays and partly just to see if my response changes with a bit of mulling.  Artimesa, you seem to be missing my point -"dont expect me to conform"  At exactley what point did I say that anyone had to conform?  In a sense all settings are restrictive in some way or other so to encourage creativity should we abandon any notion of setting?  The point surely should be that a character that is somewhat different to the social norms of a setting is going to stand out, thus hopefully creating opportunities for interaction.  Sure that shouldnt be the only interaction thats going on but still.  Even in a setting where (for example) most males think women can not fight and have no ideas beyond cooking and  cleaning (and no I wasnt going that extreme with my idea its just an example) THis does not mean all women who play are going to be expected to be like that or that all guys are going to be sexist morons.  Think of the same sterotypes today - do all teenage white males wish they were black? What it may mean is that there is an option to play that way or that many npcs may hold those views.  And once again people who are different stand out - you have to have something which you are not conforming too.  I've done an event where the organiser said you can come as literally anything you want - by your logic this should have been the best event ever?

[Artemisia]

I've done an event where the organiser said you can come as literally anything you want - by your logic this should have been the best event ever?

Possibly, but it could also be the worst! - it would depend on the other players - Sounds a bit like Erasmus to me.
Ease back on the 'conform' comment - it was meant in support of actually engaging with a character and being creative with the setting and context. These could be the boundaries, not a set of rules. Could this character actually do this in this setting? This clearly throws up challenges of detailing places and contexts. the character doesn't necessarily have to be different, just do people always do what they 'should' do? (Unless your character is the conforming type.)
Yes, I agree setting clear boundaries does give you something to push against. Changing boundaries gives different challenges. Do I seem any more on your wavelength yet Darklord? I think I am, but I find typing so infuriating - lack of expression, intonation, body language, chances to question, clarify...
I reiterate - a range of events allows for different types of roleplay - freeform drama  to winnable game type events. Different people have different tastes.
Anyone else out there want to pitch in?

[The Darklord]

Anyone else out there want to pitch in?

It would be nice but I fear that most of the people who want to have commented.

I quite agree with you that typing on the interweb is one of the most imperfect versions of an imperfect medium.  Hard to do compilcated discussion with no feedback via body language, expression tone etc. Still I was looking for feedback on one little idea and I think the gist of it is that as part of a setting it has possibilities but there is a risk of misunderstanding/putting people off. 

Moving on to broader things, yes I think we probably are more on each others wave length than not in some respects of the hobbey.  To be honest though I sometimes find it frustrating that it seems the hobbey has to be divided up into different events to cover all the bases.  I would like to see an event that is pure combat where people role play their hearts out, or one where they do not feel the need to drop out of character to solve the mental puzzles that come along.  I think its easy for any of us to get caught "inside the box" but really, the hobby does not force a certain style of play - the players do.