http://www.tor.com/2016/03/23/writing-women-characters-into-epic-fantasy-without-quotas/
Do you have accurate historical representation of women in your settings, /tg/?
>>46216389
There's not much of anything historical in pure fantasy settings, anon.
Much less those based solidly in the future.
>>46216389
Yes, my setting has plenty of whores.
>>46216389
>1.Have enough women in the story that they can talk to each other.
Sounds like a quota to me.
>>46216389
Reading that article was cringe, but then again I feel like that was the point all along, wasn't it?
No, because the game isn't about history, it's about having fun.
>>46216389
My setting is post-post-post human. The treatment of women varies between egalitarian and breeding sows, depending on where in the world you go.
Old!Humanity has grown kind of grumpy after they realized they really fucked the Living Gods thing up for themselves.
>>46216389
Neh, that wasn't interesting. It didn't help that I knew a lot of it already.
>>46216655 also has a point.
If I wanted to stimulate character women in epic fantasy, I would start NOT being into detail as she did, and tell about some cool historical women like Charlotte Badger, Thákane, Catalina de Erauso and Ching Shi.
That the wifes of blacksmiths manufactured the nails that they paid the taxes with isn't interesting to most people.
I dunno. I just kind of add as many women as I feel like to my setting. It's not like I have strict guidelines or anything.
>>46216389
>TFW my GM is a total weeaboo and 90% of the characters in his games are female.
>TFW nobody in my group even cares
>TFW when half our campaigns are Magical Girls or shameless cheescake psuedo-smut.
It feels so bad, but then I go "eh, who gives a shit?" and it feels good.
>>46216389
I like to think I do. Plenty of npc women appear, but they're in traditional female roles unless they're mages or otherwise connected with the supernatural world, which lets anachronistic elements creep in.
Granted *most* of my npcs are men, simply because the normal humans taht the players deal with tend to either be authority figures or people who want them dead.
I imagine fantasy worlds with histories where women did things.
>>46216991
Mah nigga.
>>46216991
I was gonna make a comment about how you're cancer... but then I realized I was sorta jealous. The people I play with are all super hardcore grimdark edgelords who think every setting needs to be Dark Souls and every session needs to end with half the party dying to mean anything (even though the overlying theme is probably that nothing means anything anyway).
Why can't I just have shitty weeaboo friends who know how to have fun?
>>46216389
No, because FANTASY.
I have whoever I feel like in my campaign. If I think (x) character would work better as a man or a woman then I make them accordingly.
If the express purpose of a society or faction is to be a knock-off of (x) historical society or faction then I make it accurate to that thing I'm blatantly ripping off.
Personally I don't care so long as
a) it's not magical realm
b) if it is claiming to be historically accurate, then it better fucking be because I'm a history major. If it isn't making that claim then idgaf
c) it's not retarded edge shit
They're important when they're important, and they aren't when they aren't. I make characters, not genders m8.
Yeah, maybe the wizard is a super stereotypical old man big beard guy, maybe another time it's a elf woman. I just mix and match to make the world appear like it has substance and difference, but I don't worry about the exact "proportion" of anything unless it starts to seem dumb.
It's fun to not have every character be the same, but if you worry about it too much then it just gets dumb and you end up introducing elements to the game which no one finds interesting.
Since the nation the characters hail from is basically the French First Republic with Psychic powers, and anyone can have psychic powers, it tends to be rather egalitarian when it comes to gender rights.
One of the most personally powerful people in the nation is a noblewoman with extensive training in Biokinetics, which means if she so chooses she can literally reach into your skull and rip out a chunk of your brain to gain your knowledge, or tear off a strip of your muscles and graft it to her temporarily.
So I suppose no, my setting does not have a historically accurate representation of women.
>you have to make things the way I want them!
It's The Witcher 3 all over again...
>>46216389
>Do you have accurate historical representation of women in your settings, /tg/?
No, but then I don't have accurate historical representation of *anything*. It's a fantasy story.
>>46216640
So does mine, but they're not all women. Also in some lands they have full-on guilds and temples and stuff, with apprenticeships and everything. In those lands they tend a bit more towards "geisha" then "whore", though.
>>46223271
This nigga is mah nigga.
>Let’s leave aside the argument that, in fantasy, if you’re going to include dragons you can also plausibly include women in a range of roles.
I always hated this line of reasoning, because I love worldbuilding. You don't just plop dragons into medieval Europe and write straight from that, because actual dragons would drastically change the world. You need to write a world where the existence of dragons has influenced the progress of society. To do less than that is shit writing.
Similarly, if you are writing something that is pseudo-medieval, and you keep structures like guilds, sexism towards women in social, legal and religious spheres, etc., just saying, "But there's female knights and everyone is fine with it," is shit writing. If you say, "Women have totally equal rights," you're doing better, but you still need to drastically redesign the world because there was an actual, literal patriarchy that was the bedrock of medieval European society and law, and making women equal changes that whole equation. It's pointless political correct bullshit to just hammer female pegs into male holes because, "Hey, dragons means no rules!"
In the same vein, A Crown For Cold Silver should be mandatory reading for everyone who bitches about inclusiveness. They've got women, men, trans, gay and straight relationships, and it works because the author built a new world, with drastically different societies, that could accept such a state of affairs. I could give less of a shit that the not-Sikh is some kind of crossdresser, because it fits perfectly into the society and world presented.
Instead of being accurate just make shit up and aim for an interesting story.pic fucking related
>>46216655
Quotas aren't necessarily a bad thing if they're just guidelines to help you be better at something you want to do anyway.
