A few general comments on the choice of genders discussion (which I’ve been listening to for a while without contributing anything of substance):
I like historical verisimilitude – both in historical fiction, and in fantasy worlds that are clearly drawing on a historical template. I also recognize that our ideas about “what really happened” are based for the most part on the histories told by powerful, privileged groups. We’re still only slowly reconstructing what the last couple thousand years were like from the point of view of the unremembered and silenced… and of course we’ll never be able to do so completely. So the “verisimilitude” I like the most is when I feel like a story breaks through some of the past millennia’s propaganda, to exceptional individuals from the downside of history who managed to make their stories heard.
With that said, I can think of four approaches to writing gender in historical CoG stories:
One. Historical realism - single sex protagonist. If the protagonist is male, this is relatively easy to write, and immersive for male readers; but it is distancing or alienating for many non-male readers. It’s also difficult to write without reinforcing historical wrongs; as @ScarletGeisha has said elsewhere, “the problem with old timey settings is that there is a strong tendency for both author and reader to indulge in the sexism and make excuses about realism.” Offering no choice of gender in a CoG game implicitly affirms the idea that historically, women couldn’t be heroes/warriors/rulers/criminal masterminds. Of course, that isn’t true. Women in those roles may have been exceptional… but they don’t have to be, and will become less so as we tell more stories that celebrate the strength, competence, and/or ruthless criminality of both sexes.
If the protagonist is female, it’s distancing/alienating for many non-female readers. It can also reinforce sexism rather than challenging it, if written poorly. Otherwise, great. But most people who write historical CoG games default to writing male protagonists, with all the problems noted above.
Two. Historical realism - choice of sexes. Very hard to write with true verisimilitude. In any given historical context, there would be a huge plot difference between someone rising to the top on the lowest difficulty setting there is versus a pretty damn tough one. You’d essentially end up writing two separate, barely overlapping storylines – and one might end up significantly less interesting than the other, especially if you want to write one set in e.g. a formal military context. (Matt, I’m glad on inclusion grounds that you’re writing the “girl disguised as a legionnaire” option… but I’m not actually sure it ranks much higher on the verisimilitude front than a simple Broadsides-style genderflip).
Three. Historical realism - both sexes. The reader doesn’t get to choose gender; rather, the story has two protagonists, one male, one female, and the perspective shifts between them. For example, a brother-sister pair who rise to power using all the avenues available to both sexes in a given historical context. You wouldn’t have to write two wildly different versions of each vignette, and could still explore both sides. It has the disadvantage of taking one major choice out of the player’s hands; and some people won’t enjoy playing someone of the opposite gender, even temporarily.
Four. Historical escapism. An “alternate history” world which goes for verisimilitude in nearly everything but excludes misogyny. Shatters immersion for some readers; shatters exclusion (and thus makes immersion possible) for others.
and of course, that brings us closer to
Five. Fantasy. Which can work any way you want; and it makes me chuckle to see some people’s suspension of belief utterly collapse at gender equality in fantasyland, but stay intact through a long, intent debate on the (fundamentally implausible) mechanics of vampire procreation. (@P_Tigras, feel free to tell me why that’s an unfair tease).
While 2 and 3 are commendably ambitious options, it seems to me that most CoG readers could be satisfied by a combination of 1 and 4 – which would also be vastly easier to write. Let those who value historical realism play as a male. Include an option to flip the PC to female for readers who come to CoG looking for historical escapism rather than historical realism. Label as such, so that both sides know what they’re getting. Don’t include the PC in the game art (which I’d advise even for a single-gender game, so that the player can envision the PC for themselves).
If the mere existence of a non-historical path destroys immersion for readers who don’t intend to play that path… well, that’s a level of sensitivity with which I struggle to sympathize.
My issues with AotC are nothing that I haven’t already mentioned in older threads. There is a difference between being placed in a feminine role, and being made to feel small or effiminate. For example, when the Queen -effortlessly- picks your male character up off the balcony and sets him on the ground, lots of red flags go off in my head. Most men can’t lift other men off the ground without putting their backs into it. Effortlessly lifting someone off of a balcony is something a very strong man does to a lightly-built woman, not something women can generally do to men, not unless the man is very, very small. So now I’m picturing Augustina as Kong or Chyna of WWE fame, and neither is someone I consider attractive. I’m also picturing my male character as a 90 lb midget, which is not how I had been previously been picturing my character. The image of Kong or Chyna picking Verne Troyer (Mini-Me from Austin Powers) up off of a balcony and setting him on the ground is not one I find particularly compelling.