Why the closed cliques?
Polite Elliot
Is there a reason why RPG'ing is such a cliquey pastime?
Although I have encountered groups and clubs that welcome new players
with open arms, many more are closed shops. Doesn't this attitude
strangle the hobby? Putting off new players and discouraging older ones
from trying top break into groups?
Are there any other players or DM's who have had difficulties finding
groups.
And why. Any suggestions?
Unknown
In article <35000A...@bton.ac.uk>, Polite Elliot <EK...@bton.ac.uk> writes:
> Is there a reason why RPG'ing is such a cliquey pastime?
Yes, there is.
The reason is that to the average game needs one GM and perhaps five players.
Most GM's can cope with at most six or seven players.
Imagine that you're a GM with a group of players who've been playing in the
game for a while. Everything is going swimmingly, you're all getting on well
and having lots of fun, and the campaign isn't going to come to end anytime
soon.
Now imagine that someone at work finds out you are into roleplaying and wants
to join your group. The trouble is, you've got as many players as you are
comfortable with. You're certainly not going to dump a friend you've been
playing with for a year just because someone new has come along, are you?
A similar argument exists for why new GM's in an area might have difficulty
finding new players. Most people have limited free time and if they are already
in a game or two a week they are unlikely to want to join up with someone new.
So it is all a matter of timing. If you turn up when a group has just
dissolved, had someone leave, or finished a campaign, you are much, much more
likely to be able to get a game than if you arrive mid-campaign... but certaily
in our group the stable periods are much longer than the unstable ones. Hence,
to an outsider, we're probably a clique.
> Although I have encountered groups and clubs that welcome new players
> with open arms, many more are closed shops. Doesn't this attitude
> strangle the hobby? Putting off new players and discouraging older ones
> from trying top break into groups?
I don't think it strangles the hobby because I think it is a natural
consequence of the structure of gaming groups within the hobby. Clubs have
a bit more of a responsibility to recruit people, particularly if they
do more than offer a room to roleplay in and want an influx of new members.
It would be nice if they held regular "newcomers evenings" where
everyone who turns up that night agrees to play a single session of some game
other than their on-going campaign. Sadly, that can be quite a lot of effort
and many people would rather just play their regular campaign instead.
All of which doesn't really help when you move to a new town and need to find
some people to roleplay with, sadly. What you have to do is to find people
interested in joining a new game as opposed to people who like roleplaying.
Start by putting adverts in local game shops and on the net. If there is a
local club, turn up to it, stand on a table and announce your presence.
Offer to run a game even if you prefer playing- better to find a group and
then hope to get someone else to run things. Ask people at work if they've
every heard of roleplaying. Ask if they'd like to try a game, then set up the
best single-session game you can think of. I have found that the beginners'
game puts rather different demands on the GM, so here's what's worked for me.
Find out what your prospective players are into first, then pander to it. If
they're all Pratchett fans, run some light-hearted fantasy. If they're SF fans,
try some Star Trek.
Avoid asking any established players along if possible; if there's only one,
make sure his character has a peripheral role with interesting quirks. Avoid
making them the leader at all costs. In fact, if you're going to have a leader,
make sure it is the quietest of your new players and make sure you give him/her
adequate stage time.
When you start, spend a few minutes familiarising them with what an RPG is and
what you expect of them. Explain the setting as quickly as you can and get them
into it.
You've got to get them involved as soon as possible after
starting the session, so start with a minimal ruleset. Prince Valiant and
Star Wars are good systems to start with; freeforms with no formal rules are
even better. For such games a brief description of who their character is,
what important things they know and what they can do is quite enough. It is
worth making sure everyone has a crib sheet or character sheet so they don't
have to remeber anything, but make sure it is a single side of A4 at the very
most. Call Of Cthulhu is OK. Some people swear by Everway (although I
personally can't abide it). Whatever you do, don't start them off with
something mechanically complicated like GURPS, HERO or Aria!
Make sure you have pregenerated characters available but also be prepared
to generate a character for anyone who wants one really quickly. If they have
ideas already for god's sake encourage them and don't worry about the game
balance too much, it's only a one off after all. Explain *all* the bits on the
character sheet *very briefly* and tell them that you'll stop to explain any
other bits if they want but that you'll tell them what to do whenever they need
to roll dice or whatever.
Make the setting limited- for example, in a Star Wars game, start them off
outside the Imperial Signals base with a bug to plant rather than in a
spaceship with nothing to do. Some players will naturally take to the
infinite possibilities presented but many will just not be used to thinking
this way and will need higher-than-average prompting and railroading until
they get into the game.
Railroad them a bit, but not totally, and never, never let any one of them
get bored. Throw things at them any time they start to get too quiet and make
sure they have to keep reacting to things. Throw lots of problems at them to
get them acting together as a team, escpecially important if they don't already
know each other. Encourage them to ham it up as much as they can manage, and
ham up your NPCs in return. Be dramatic; think like a Hollywood epic rather
than an arthouse film. Lots of excitement! Big explosions! Special Effects!
Don't make the game too long, unless they are really into it. Two and
half hours is probably fine. The whole idea is to leave them hungry for more,
but do make sure that the game reaches a satisfactory ending.
Afterwards, make a point of sitting down and chatting with them. Offer around
beer and munchies and get them chatting. Explain what other sorts of games you
are interested in and explain anything they have questions about. Explain the
difference between a one-off and a campaign and invite them all back.
Don't be surprised when two or three of them don't want to play again, either
they didn't like it or they aren't interested in the sort of games you are.
Respect their choice.
Cheers, Hywel Phillips.
--
| Hywel T. Phillips | Rutherford Appleton Laboratory | |
| (MC/4f Coordinator) | and DELPHI experiment, CERN | e+ e- -> f1 f2 f3 f4|
|=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*|
| H.T.Ph...@RL.AC.UK Hywel.P...@CERN.CH |
| Speaking personally, not on behalf of RAL or DELPHI |
Neil Barnes
Polite Elliot (EK...@bton.ac.uk) wrote:
: Is there a reason why RPG'ing is such a cliquey pastime?
:
: Although I have encountered groups and clubs that welcome new players
: with open arms, many more are closed shops. Doesn't this attitude
: strangle the hobby? Putting off new players and discouraging older ones
: from trying top break into groups?
Because once you've got 3-8 people in a group (numbers depending on GM
preference) you really can't take additional players. So when people come
looking for a game to join, they're going to be out of luck.
This used to happen at our university club - people (principally
non-students) would turn up in the middle of the summer term, and be
disappointed that no one was starting new games. OTOH when non-students
turned up during Freshers week, they tended to be more likely to get
involved in games.
--
neil
Limbo Folk
>Although I have encountered groups and clubs that welcome new players
>with open arms, many more are closed shops. Doesn't this attitude
>strangle the hobby? Putting off new players and discouraging older ones
>from trying top break into groups?
You make it sound as if gamers everywhere have some kind of duty to embrace
anyone who wants to do something similar. For the most part the reality of it
is that people drift haphazardly into a certain kind of pastime on which they
and a few friends have decided to spend some time. I have very little
experience of formal clubs, but the ones I've come across have been willing to
talk to anyone (at least for a short while) because that's what a club's for.
If you happen to come across a "club" that wants to vet you and discard you
then you should simply stop regarding it as a club and go in search of some
humans.
This probably sounded more aggressive than was intended, but basically there
are some sniffy groups who get off on considering themselves to be clubs and on
the whole they aren't a major inconvenience to anyone so long as you avoid the
temptation to take them seriously.
Cheers,
Dave
Philip Masters
Howard and Neil have answered the question pretty well, and I can't add
much to what they said. (Well, I'd argue about calling GURPS a complicated
system, but that's borderline religious wars territory.) I would also
suggest that people not only worry about adding new players to a group
because of the raw numbers problem; frankly, there's always going to be a
fear that a new player will turn out to be a munchkin, a total berk, or
just a bore with body odour. It's unfair, because most candidates are
doubtless nice people, but it's always easier to keep new people out than
to eject them once you've let them in.
However, I will say that this is a problem for the hobby, and it'd be nice
to find a solution. Howard's guide to recruiting completely new players is
fine, but one can't always find candidates. It's hypocritical of me,
because I'm not a great club attender myself, but I would suggest that
local clubs put some effort into keeping the mixing process going. Welcome
new members; ask people to run one-off scenarios every month or so "to try
out new games" (and, implicitly, to let people get the measure of each
other as players); set up some sort of notice-board or log of new
campaigns; make sure that the club meetings have space and time enough that
no-one has to invite unknowns or odd people into their homes to game with
them. Stuff like that.
--
Phil Masters
* Home Page: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Phil_Masters
* "Battle not with flamers, lest you become a flamer; and stare not too
deeply into the 'net, or you will find the 'net staring into you."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche (loosely translated)
* Note: I have kill-filed all "Multipart/Alternative" postings. HTML is
very nice, but not on Usenet.
Robin Low
>
>with open arms, many more are closed shops. Doesn't this attitude
>strangle the hobby? Putting off new players and discouraging older ones
>from trying top break into groups?
>And why. Any suggestions?
People have very firm ideas about how games should be played. I suspect
that some groups are scared of letting an unknown quantity in for fear
that it might prove disruptive or 'not our sort of gamer' and thus spoil
a game.
Of course, some gamers are just bastards. If you express an interest in
the 'wrong' game or 'wrong' style you get sneered at and excluded.
--
Robin Low
Juppy
On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 14:37:27 +0000, EK...@bton.ac.uk (Polite Elliot) wrote:
> Is there a reason why RPG'ing is such a cliquey pastime?
>
> Although I have encountered groups and clubs that welcome new players
> with open arms, many more are closed shops. Doesn't this attitude
> strangle the hobby? Putting off new players and discouraging older ones
> from trying top break into groups?
Every single gaming group I've been involved with in the last 20 years (oh
god I feel old now) has been based around a group of friends. Someone
might drag in a friend that the others don't know, but the core to every
group has been that we knew each other before we started gaming together.
I don't know how this compares with other people's experiences.
And the only time I ever went to a club was with one of the above groups,
when we couldn't play at someone's house - we just used it as a convenient
and friendly place to hold our own game.
John
--
John Upstone * jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk * ju...@cix.co.uk
Dial up, Log in, Chill out * Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
..................................................................
"It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine
medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who
apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity."
- Dave Barry, Miami Herald
Limbo Folk
In article <1998Mar6.155800.1@v2>, htp@v2 (H.T.Ph...@rl.ac.uk) writes:
>Ask people at work if they've
>every heard of roleplaying. Ask if they'd like to try a game, then set up the
>best single-session game you can think of. I have found that the beginners'
>game puts rather different demands on the GM, so here's what's worked for me.
>
>Find out what your prospective players are into first, then pander to it. If
>they're all Pratchett fans, run some light-hearted fantasy. If they're SF
>fans, try some Star Trek.
This kind of thing is all perfectly correct and practical. With enough
determination you can enveigle *anyone* into playing CoC, I find, and after
that, depending on their emerging tastes, there's Star Trek, Top Secret,
Paranoia, Runequest, Amber, other stuff. All of those (except some of the
other stuff) I've seen work well. All involves finding some victims, though.
Hywel's made loads of other excellent points which for a change I'm too tired
to reiterate, but the focus of what he's saying, and what I'd do, seems to be
to go out and start constructively manipulating the lives of a few hapless
passers-by. Expecting an established group to pay you to come and play with
them is bound to lead to disappointment all round. Get sneaky: at worst it'll
be entertaining.
Cheers,
Dave
Limbo Folk
In article <memo.19980307...@juppy.compulink.co.uk>,
jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk (Juppy) writes:
>Every single gaming group I've been involved with in the last 20 years (oh
>god I feel old now) has been based around a group of friends. Someone
>might drag in a friend that the others don't know, but the core to every
>group has been that we knew each other before we started gaming together.
>I don't know how this compares with other people's experiences.
Once, a long time ago and far, far away, I replied to an ad in WD about a
local(ish) gaming group. The encounter was a disaster -- not because I had
time to piss anyone off, but I was simply a gooseberry so they and I tried to
enjoy some Traveller and then we politely parted. Shan't be doing that again.
Once a group of players evolved out of a casual contact I had with someone on
a network conference on science fiction, and that lasted a good while and it
could be resurrected here and there. Once I started playing games with a bloke
I met through having bought some stuff off him over Usenet, and that worked
really well until it got all screwed by other rubbish. Currently I might be
pulled into yet another group because I know one member and the group's
exploding. In the end it's all a bit like life. Wondering how best to
formalise it and get it to be supportive would be like trying to persuade your
cats to herd your washing into a corner and fold it up.
Possibly we've hit the good old Good Old Days thing again here... but I don't
really thingk so.
Cheers,
Dave
C Coward
jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk (Juppy) writes:
By 'eck Juppy, once again in my browising around USENET I run into someone
from somewhere else.
>Every single gaming group I've been involved with in the last 20 years (oh
>god I feel old now) has been based around a group of friends. Someone
>might drag in a friend that the others don't know, but the core to every
>group has been that we knew each other before we started gaming together.
>I don't know how this compares with other people's experiences.
I think this probably is going to be most peoples' experience - certainly
was for me. I did go to my uni. roleplaying club a couple of times and had
some decent evenings but all of my other roleplaying has been with mates
o' mine (and my family).
Chris
Juppy
On 7 Mar 1998 03:21:05 GMT, limb...@aol.com (Limbo Folk) wrote:
> Once, a long time ago and far, far away, I replied to an ad in WD about
> a local(ish) gaming group. The encounter was a disaster -- not because
> I had time to piss anyone off, but I was simply a gooseberry so they and
> I tried to enjoy some Traveller and then we politely parted. Shan't be
> doing that again.
I've made some good friends by having someone bring a mate along to a
gaming group. Met a few arseholes that way, too, of course. ;)
It's a lot easier if you know at least one person there.
> Possibly we've hit the good old Good Old Days thing again here... but
> I don't really thingk so.
I wish people wouldn't keep using that phrase. I have awful flashback
memories of the TV programme of the same name... ;)
Juppy
On 7 Mar 1998 14:47:06 GMT, cc...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk (C Coward) wrote:
> jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk (Juppy) writes:
>
> By 'eck Juppy, once again in my browising around USENET I run into
> someone from somewhere else.
Bloody hell, Chris, you're not a dice-rattler too, are you? :)
> core to every >group has been that we knew each other before we started
> gaming together. >I don't know how this compares with other people's
> experiences.
>
> I think this probably is going to be most peoples' experience -
> certainly was for me. I did go to my uni. roleplaying club a couple of
> times and had some decent evenings but all of my other roleplaying has
> been with mates o' mine (and my family).
Oh yes, in fact the first people I GMed to were a mate from school and my
dad. Now when you take into account the fact that my day was a lay
preacher, and enjoyed it so much he got some of his mates from church to
play too, it all adds up to quite an interesting footnote to bring out
when daft religious types bring up the "D&D is Satanism" argument. :)
James Palmer
On 7 Mar 1998, Juppy wrote:
>
> Oh yes, in fact the first people I GMed to were a mate from school and my
> dad. Now when you take into account the fact that my day was a lay
> preacher, and enjoyed it so much he got some of his mates from church to
> play too, it all adds up to quite an interesting footnote to bring out
> when daft religious types bring up the "D&D is Satanism" argument. :)
>
One guy I knew was going to found a group consisting entirely of gamers
with professionally religious (e.g ordained/lay preacher/academic
theologian/whatever) parents, half of whom had either introduced their
parents to rpgs or vice versa. I figure a good Biblical knowledge gives
you a pretty fine background for gaming. Isn't Mark Rein*Hagen the son
of a preacher man? Might explain the hangup about the body in Vampire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. My skin is black
upon me, and my bones are burned with heat." - Job 30:29-30
My Ars Magica campaign: www.christs.cam.ac.uk/~ajb72/index.htm
My beloved college: www.jesus.cam.ac.uk
Juppy
On Sat, 7 Mar 1998 21:31:53 +0000, jr...@hermes.cam.ac.uk (James Palmer)
wrote:
> One guy I knew was going to found a group consisting entirely of gamers
> with professionally religious (e.g ordained/lay preacher/academic
> theologian/whatever) parents, half of whom had either introduced their
> parents to rpgs or vice versa.
Could have made for some interesting games.
> I figure a good Biblical knowledge gives you a pretty fine background
> for gaming. Isn't Mark Rein*Hagen the son of a preacher man? Might
> explain the hangup about the body in Vampire.
Yes, he is. And that similarity might also partly explain why I like
Vampire so much. :)
C Coward
jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk (Juppy) writes:
>On 7 Mar 1998 14:47:06 GMT, cc...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk (C Coward) wrote:
>> jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk (Juppy) writes:
>Bloody hell, Chris, you're not a dice-rattler too, are you? :)
'fraid so. Been a while since I last played though - trying to get this
PhD out of the way reduces my spare time considerably. Soon though, soon.
>Oh yes, in fact the first people I GMed to were a mate from school and my
>dad. Now when you take into account the fact that my day was a lay
>preacher, and enjoyed it so much he got some of his mates from church to
>play too, it all adds up to quite an interesting footnote to bring out
>when daft religious types bring up the "D&D is Satanism" argument. :)
Ever had to point that out to any of the aforementioned daft religious
types? It'd be interesting to know their reaction. Don't think I'll ever
forget the first time I DMed - 10 years old with my mum and my sister
after getting the Basic D&D set (with that ever-so-dodgy-yet-very-fine
Errol Otus picture on the front) for Christmas. None of us knew what we
were doing. Picked it up quick enough though and the rest as they say is
history....
Now, where did I leave my dice?
Chris
Juppy
On 8 Mar 1998 13:18:13 GMT, C Coward (cc...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk) wrote:
> >Bloody hell, Chris, you're not a dice-rattler too, are you? :)
>
> 'fraid so. Been a while since I last played though - trying to get this
> PhD out of the way reduces my spare time considerably. Soon though,
> soon.
I can see how the doctorate might get in the way a bit.
I think all those nights spent roleplaying till dawn were quite good
training for other similarly nocturnal activities. ;)
> >to play too, it all adds up to quite an interesting footnote to bring
> >out when daft religious types bring up the "D&D is Satanism" argument.
> :)
>
> Ever had to point that out to any of the aforementioned daft religious
> types? It'd be interesting to know their reaction.
Unfortunately it usually has little impact. My dad's successor in our
local church banned his son from playing RPGs.
> Now, where did I leave my dice?
Down the back of the sofa.
Jonathan Rowe
>On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 14:37:27 +0000, EK...@bton.ac.uk (Polite Elliot) wrote:
>
>> Is there a reason why RPG'ing is such a cliquey pastime?
>>
>> Although I have encountered groups and clubs that welcome new players
>> with open arms, many more are closed shops. Doesn't this attitude
>> strangle the hobby? Putting off new players and discouraging older ones
>> from trying top break into groups?
Permission to be provocative?
I've found RPGing to be not merely cliquey (that would be
understandable) but downright boorish. RPGers are, by nature, a bunch
of articulate and verbally-aggressive egomaniacs. You don't persist
long in this hobby unless you've got a dash of the intellectual bully
about you.
Most RPG groups are friendship groups, so they put up with each other.
Beyond that I'd say that Joe Roleplayer typically takes little or no
interest in other people's experiences, contributions or achievements,
but wants to discuss his own at length. That's why people's eyes glaze
over when someone new starts describing a gaming anecdote, that's why no
one wants to hear other GMs' theories or solutions, that's why two
gamers discussing the last campaign they played in quickly turns into
psychic armwrestling.
It's probably only natural. I don't think RPGs attract boors as such,
but the RPG experience is about an imaginative reality and that's really
not a communicable thing, is it? "You had to be there!" What's more,
I'm as bad as anyone else in this regard. Try to tell me how your
Paladin got to 9th level or your Nosferatu came to terms with the fact
that his father abused him, and I'll show you the door. Ask me about my
favourite RPG experiences, though, and I'll talk you senseless. Beware!
So I'd say the RPG groups naturally become cliques, react with hostility
to outsiders (not necessarily neophytes) and put women right off!
Just being provocative, mind you...
--
Jon Rowe
Valkyrie Magazine
"Mundus Nihil Pulcherrimum"
Limbo Folk
In article <PtuY0CAN...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe
<valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes:
>I've found RPGing to be not merely cliquey (that would be
>understandable) but downright boorish. RPGers are, by nature, a bunch
>of articulate and verbally-aggressive egomaniacs. You don't persist
>long in this hobby unless you've got a dash of the intellectual bully
>about you.
Ha! Call that a usefully generalisable proposition? Speak for yourself, you
patronising snob, you.
Cheers,
Dave
Unknown
In article <PtuY0CAN...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe <valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes:
Granted!
>
> I've found RPGing to be not merely cliquey (that would be
> understandable) but downright boorish. RPGers are, by nature, a bunch
> of articulate and verbally-aggressive egomaniacs. You don't persist
> long in this hobby unless you've got a dash of the intellectual bully
> about you.
Hmmm.
I always wondered why Valkyrie was quite so yobbish. Now I know.
I'd just like to say that most of my group are neither verbally agressive nor
egomaniacs. Well, one or two are a bit verbally agressive, but are sufficiently
good roleplayers that they don't do it when playing quiet characters.
> Most RPG groups are friendship groups, so they put up with each other.
> Beyond that I'd say that Joe Roleplayer typically takes little or no
> interest in other people's experiences, contributions or achievements,
> but wants to discuss his own at length. That's why people's eyes glaze
> over when someone new starts describing a gaming anecdote, that's why no
> one wants to hear other GMs' theories or solutions, that's why two
> gamers discussing the last campaign they played in quickly turns into
> psychic armwrestling.
Well, I once got pulled up short by listening to two people in the postgraduate
bar at Birmingham talking about a roleplaying game. It gradually dawned on me
that they were talking about *MY* game... and neither of them was playing in
it! (Although admittedly they'd played in some of my games which had a vague
relation to one under discussion).
I will admit that my eyes glaze over on the 'net when someone relates an RPG
anecdote that lasts for more than a paragraph or two, but it depends on how
well written it is. Similarly, tales of adventures long ago can be good fun
when told by someone with the knack or deadly dull by Rimmer (I rolled a two
and a six!)
So it ain't necessarily so....
Juppy
On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 07:48:29 +0000, Jonathan Rowe
(valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> Permission to be provocative?
Oi, Jon - no!
> I've found RPGing to be not merely cliquey (that would be
> understandable) but downright boorish. RPGers are, by nature, a bunch
> of articulate and verbally-aggressive egomaniacs. You don't persist
> long in this hobby unless you've got a dash of the intellectual bully
> about you.
I can think of several people in each of the gaming groups I've played in
who don't fit that description. Though I'm probably not one of them. ;)
However I would hope that over the last 20 years, I've learnt to tone my
act down a bit, and give the others some room.
> Most RPG groups are friendship groups, so they put up with each other.
"Put up with"? I roleplay with my best friends, not people I "put up
with".
> Beyond that I'd say that Joe Roleplayer typically takes little or no
> interest in other people's experiences, contributions or achievements,
> but wants to discuss his own at length. That's why people's eyes glaze
> over when someone new starts describing a gaming anecdote, that's why no
> one wants to hear other GMs' theories or solutions, that's why two
> gamers discussing the last campaign they played in quickly turns into
> psychic armwrestling.
So am I the only person in the world who actually enjoys listening to
other people's stories, provided they're told with wit and style? Yes,
some people barrage you with a tale of how they kill the dragon with a
double-critical strike. But some people have anecdotes that are about
people and situations, from either the characters' perspective or the
players'. And that makes them no different to any other kind of anecdote.
> It's probably only natural. I don't think RPGs attract boors as such,
> but the RPG experience is about an imaginative reality and that's really
> not a communicable thing, is it? "You had to be there!" What's more,
> I'm as bad as anyone else in this regard. Try to tell me how your
> Paladin got to 9th level or your Nosferatu came to terms with the fact
> that his father abused him, and I'll show you the door. Ask me about my
> favourite RPG experiences, though, and I'll talk you senseless. Beware!
Eek! Does that mean I should avoid the editorial columns in Valkyrie? ;)
> So I'd say the RPG groups naturally become cliques, react with hostility
> to outsiders (not necessarily neophytes) and put women right off!
WHAT?!?!
Since I left school I've always played in groups that have had *at least*
one female player. Is that really so unusual?!
Jonathan Rowe
In article <1998Mar9.101233.1@v2>, htp@v2.? writes
>> I've found RPGing to be not merely cliquey (that would be
>> understandable) but downright boorish. RPGers are, by nature, a bunch
>> of articulate and verbally-aggressive egomaniacs. You don't persist
>> long in this hobby unless you've got a dash of the intellectual bully
>> about you.
>
>
>I always wondered why Valkyrie was quite so yobbish. Now I know.
Rats. The problem with starting a thread like this is that you can't
tell if people are being ironic in their responses....
Heh-heh. I'll assume that Hywel was detecting the pointed hyperbole in
my posting and responding in kind.
There is a serious point, though (isn't there always?), that the people
who do perservere with RPGs do, in general, have quite sophisticated
verbal skills and the essentially intimate nature of RPG sessions means
that, for a hobby with so many adherents, there isn't the same sort of
fellow-feeling or commonality of purpose you'd find, say, in a
fraternity/sorority of fly-fishers or rugby-players. For your most
dramatic or poignant roleplaying experiences, there are usually only
half a dozen witnesses and, since RPG experiences are essentialy unique,
it means that engrossing or radical gaming, rather than drawing people
into a greater sense of community with fellow-gamers, in fact tends to
isolate them.
To be anecdotal, I find people are immensely defensive about their
gaming experiences. I think most of us (myself included) operate with
an unspoken assumption: that our gaming experiences have been the most
dramatic/humourous/emotional/cathartic/imaginative... 'cause, naturally,
we have no insight into what goes on in other groups when we're not
about (and being *told* about it afterwards is no substitute). RPGing
also knits friendships very closely - you can end up really respecting
the people you roleplay with because you often see them at their very
best (funniest, wisest, most ingenious or sensitive or flamboyant - all
this without the aid of too much alcohol too!). I feel a vague urge to
evangelise about the smashing people I roleplay with and the great
things they do - I feel a corresponding impatience when other people,
for precisely the same reason, try to tell me about their much-loved
players/GMs. It's a definition of Hell, really ("c'st les autres") and
I'm sure I remember CS Lewis summing the problem up in an article on
friendship (Andrew can no doubt confirm my meandering memory).
Look, I'm baring my soul here.
Please don't flame me!
(please)
Jonathan Rowe
In article <memo.19980309...@juppy.compulink.co.uk>, Juppy
<jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 07:48:29 +0000, Jonathan Rowe
>(valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>> Permission to be provocative?
>
>Oi, Jon - no!
>
Ahah! Yes! Oh yes....
>> I've found RPGing to be not merely cliquey (that would be
>> understandable) but downright boorish. RPGers are, by nature, a bunch
>> of articulate and verbally-aggressive egomaniacs. You don't persist
>> long in this hobby unless you've got a dash of the intellectual bully
>> about you.
>
>I can think of several people in each of the gaming groups I've played in
>who don't fit that description. Though I'm probably not one of them. ;)
>
Nah, neither am I.
>However I would hope that over the last 20 years, I've learnt to tone my
>act down a bit, and give the others some room.
>
>> Most RPG groups are friendship groups, so they put up with each other.
>
>"Put up with"? I roleplay with my best friends, not people I "put up
>with".
>
I was being ironic - though I suspect that my friends consist of that
subcatergory of my general acquaintances who put up with me best.
>> Beyond that I'd say that Joe Roleplayer typically takes little or no
>> interest in other people's experiences, contributions or achievements,
>> but wants to discuss his own at length. That's why people's eyes glaze
>> over when someone new starts describing a gaming anecdote, that's why no
>> one wants to hear other GMs' theories or solutions, that's why two
>> gamers discussing the last campaign they played in quickly turns into
>> psychic armwrestling.
>
>So am I the only person in the world who actually enjoys listening to
>other people's stories, provided they're told with wit and style? Yes,
>some people barrage you with a tale of how they kill the dragon with a
>double-critical strike. But some people have anecdotes that are about
>people and situations, from either the characters' perspective or the
>players'. And that makes them no different to any other kind of anecdote.
>
Absolutely... though there's a sliding scale here and (to mix my
metaphors) maybe a moving goalpost too. How someone dealt with the Drow
at the end of Hall of the Fire Giant King would have held me enthralled
at the age of 18. It would take Oscar Wilde to do it now.
>> It's probably only natural. I don't think RPGs attract boors as such,
>> but the RPG experience is about an imaginative reality and that's really
>> not a communicable thing, is it? "You had to be there!" What's more,
>> I'm as bad as anyone else in this regard. Try to tell me how your
>> Paladin got to 9th level or your Nosferatu came to terms with the fact
>> that his father abused him, and I'll show you the door. Ask me about my
>> favourite RPG experiences, though, and I'll talk you senseless. Beware!
>
>Eek! Does that mean I should avoid the editorial columns in Valkyrie? ;)
>
'Fraid so <grin>
>> So I'd say the RPG groups naturally become cliques, react with hostility
>> to outsiders (not necessarily neophytes) and put women right off!
>
>WHAT?!?!
>
>Since I left school I've always played in groups that have had *at least*
>one female player. Is that really so unusual?!
Um, I dunno. Yeah, I think all my post-school gaming has included at
least one woman (though she is my wife now). But women make up a
minority within the hobby, nonetheless. I was firing off rounds blindly
with this one, something about masculine v feminine speech-styles,
discourse analysis, that sort of thing. I'll think about it further and
post the rought draft of my PhD thesis in the near (?) future...
Andrew Rilstone
In article <Z1ebUMAQ...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe
<valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes
>It's a definition of Hell, really ("c'st les autres") and
>I'm sure I remember CS Lewis summing the problem up in an article on
>friendship (Andrew can no doubt confirm my meandering memory).
Sounds like "The Inner Ring" (in "Screwtape Proposes a Toast") but it
could be the "philia" chapter in "The Four Loves." Did he mention
walking holidays? Lewis's definition of friendship seemed to be "people
you go on walking holidays with."
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
*******************************************************************************
"At last, the 1998 show."
*******************************************************************************
Jo Hart
Jonathan Rowe wrote:
> I feel a vague urge to
> evangelise about the smashing people I roleplay with and the great
> things they do - I feel a corresponding impatience when other people,
> for precisely the same reason, try to tell me about their much-loved
> players/GMs.
I have noticed this also. I find that with other people, if they are
amusing and good storytellers I have a lot of patience for the actual
gaming war-stories (esp if they can be told in under 5 minutes ;) ),
rather less for 'Isn't my character just so great!?' stories. But the
cliquishness comes in when you are with at least 2 other people from the
same group who retreat into the in jokes and story swapping -- it's like
sitting in the old folks home and trying to be polite to granny and her
friends when they are talking about the blitz.
I wish there was a polite way to say to people 'Yes, its great but why
don't you just stick it on the web and give me the URL, that way I can
read it if I'm bored and ignore it for the purposes of conversation'. I
have happend upon several impolite ways to imply this ;)
The reason it feels a bit rude is because if everyone's boasts about how
swell their group is are compelling, I'll end up feeling depressed and
excluded, and if they aren't convincing then I'll just think they are
gits. I suppose it is like anything really -- you just have to work out
when the audience is getting bored -- you WERE telling your story with
the audience in mind, right?
> Look, I'm baring my soul here.
>
> Please don't flame me!
>
> (please)
>
(Maybe I'm just too soft)
jo
(but hey, the last gaming war story I actually webbed up, because I am
like that
http://www.btinternet.com/~jhart/IN_sess1.html )
Jonathan Rowe
In article <vYPwFGA+...@aslan.demon.co.uk>, Andrew Rilstone
<and...@aslan.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <Z1ebUMAQ...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe
><valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes
>>It's a definition of Hell, really ("c'st les autres") and
>>I'm sure I remember CS Lewis summing the problem up in an article on
>>friendship (Andrew can no doubt confirm my meandering memory).
>
>Sounds like "The Inner Ring" (in "Screwtape Proposes a Toast") but it
>could be the "philia" chapter in "The Four Loves." Did he mention
>walking holidays? Lewis's definition of friendship seemed to be "people
>you go on walking holidays with."
Yes, it was "philia" in "4 Loves". He contrasts Olympian (serene,
superior, complacent, condescending) friendship circles with Titanic
(restive, defensive, touchy, militant) ones, explaining how positive
friendships formed out of common interest or shared experience easily
degrade into one or the other.
I recall there's always a pub at the end of his walks. That's how he
speaks to my condition!
Mary Gentle
In article <memo.19980309...@juppy.compulink.co.uk>,
jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk (Juppy) wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 1998 07:48:29 +0000, Jonathan Rowe
> (valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
[....]
>
> > So I'd say the RPG groups naturally become cliques, react with hostili
> ty
> > to outsiders (not necessarily neophytes) and put women right off!
>
> WHAT?!?!
>
> Since I left school I've always played in groups that have had *at least
> *
> one female player. Is that really so unusual?!
>
> John
> --
> John Upstone * jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk * ju...@cix.co.uk
> Dial up, Log in, Chill out * Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
> ..................................................................
> "It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine
> medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who
> apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity."
> - Dave Barry, Miami Herald
>
I'm no shy retiring violet, but _I_ found rpg groups cliquey enough to
put me right off, when I started this whole insane pursuit.
After that, I was put off by finding groups which consisted of social
inadequates with no life...
Now I _am_ a social inadequate with no life, and I roleplay with my
friends. (Er some mistake shirley?):)
What I intended to say was, I found friends who were interested in
roleplay and joined in with them. I still have no idea how I'd break into
the little cliques in the club I first encountered. And the first
AD&D game I was invited to join kept me sitting on the sidelines for two
hours (Me: "I do this." GM: "No you don't.") and nearly put me off for
life.
Finally I found the people who don't regard me as Dean Swift's dog, and
it's been all downhill from then on... (Uphill? Sideways? Round in
circles?)
mg
Robin Low
>There is a serious point, though (isn't there always?), that the people
>who do perservere with RPGs do, in general, have quite sophisticated
>verbal skills and the essentially intimate nature of RPG sessions means
>that, for a hobby with so many adherents, there isn't the same sort of
>fellow-feeling or commonality of purpose you'd find, say, in a
>fraternity/sorority of fly-fishers or rugby-players. For your most
>dramatic or poignant roleplaying experiences, there are usually only
>half a dozen witnesses and, since RPG experiences are essentialy unique,
>it means that engrossing or radical gaming, rather than drawing people
>into a greater sense of community with fellow-gamers, in fact tends to
>isolate them.
Based on my experience of the one club I've been involved with I have to
say that I am in total agreement with the above.
>To be anecdotal, I find people are immensely defensive about their
>gaming experiences. I think most of us (myself included) operate with
>an unspoken assumption: that our gaming experiences have been the most
>dramatic/humourous/emotional/cathartic/imaginative... 'cause, naturally,
>we have no insight into what goes on in other groups when we're not
>about (and being *told* about it afterwards is no substitute).
> RPGing
>also knits friendships very closely - you can end up really respecting
>the people you roleplay with because you often see them at their very
>best (funniest, wisest, most ingenious or sensitive or flamboyant - all
>this without the aid of too much alcohol too!). I feel a vague urge to
>evangelise about the smashing people I roleplay with and the great
>things they do -
I agree again, but I have also wanted to kill a lot of them as well from
time to time, and I'm sure that feeling has extended to me sometimes,
despite my undeserved reputation for being nice. The problem with my
particular group was partly because we were all reasonably bright,
highly opinionated and in possession of big mouths, but mostly because
we all lived with one another: three student houses all fit to burst
with roleplayers and hardly a non-roleplayer in sight (there was one,
but I he's finally moved on). We played together, lived together and
frequently slept together. You know, I had never enjoyed a party unitil
I went to one with this bunch. We were so incenstuous and we used to
continually talk about RPGs. Sometimes we loved one another and
sometimes we hated one another. I'm drifting into incoherent anecdote
territory so I'll stop, but I expect you undertsand what I'm on about to
some extent.
Hang on a mo though - what made us such a tight-knit bunch was the fact
that our relationships both real world and game worlds were so complex
and binding that it was hard to involve others unless there was place in
the puzzle already for them to fit. Make sense? Or just prententious?
I'm rambling and it's all too complicated and personal to explain.
But I'll post it anyway.
>Look, I'm baring my soul here.
Nothing wrong with that. As long as you don't make a habit of it :)
Robin
--
Robin Low
Robin Low
In article <7u9jiMAd...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe
<valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes
>><valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>I'm sure I remember CS Lewis summing the problem up in an article on
>>>friendship (Andrew can no doubt confirm my meandering memory).
>>
>>Sounds like "The Inner Ring" (in "Screwtape Proposes a Toast") but it
>>could be the "philia" chapter in "The Four Loves." Did he mention
>>walking holidays? Lewis's definition of friendship seemed to be "people
>>you go on walking holidays with."
>
>Yes, it was "philia" in "4 Loves". He contrasts Olympian (serene,
>superior, complacent, condescending) friendship circles with Titanic
>(restive, defensive, touchy, militant) ones, explaining how positive
>friendships formed out of common interest or shared experience easily
>degrade into one or the other.
I think I need to read that.
Robin
--
Robin Low
Robin Low
>Since I left school I've always played in groups that have had *at least*
>one female player. Is that really so unusual?!
It certainly appears that there are relatively few women involved in
roleplaying. Based on personal experience I believe this appears to be
the case for most of country only because so many female roleplayers
seem to go to Bangor Univeristy where I was at. I think the current
committee is at least 50% female, and none of them are hermphrodites.
In the three years I was there I never once played in a game without at
least one woman in it, and I was playing in four different games a week
at one point.
Of course, we weren't so blessed that hordes of lonley males wouldn't
gather around female freshers every September.
I was chatting to a friend recently and she said that the female
roleplayers that she knew were the sort of women that that generally
preferred the company of men (not for a sexual reason, I hasten to add)
to the company of women. Admittedly, there isn't much choice in the
matter, but I think there's something in it. Any thoguhts, anybody?
Robin
--
Robin Low
Robin Low
In article <EpM4K...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Mary Gentle <mary_gentle@ci
x.compulink.co.uk> writes
> I'm no shy retiring violet, but _I_ found rpg groups cliquey enough to
>put me right off, when I started this whole insane pursuit.
>
>After that, I was put off by finding groups which consisted of social
>inadequates with no life...
>
>Now I _am_ a social inadequate with no life, and I roleplay with my
>friends. (Er some mistake shirley?):)
Sounds fine to me. I spent years with the socially 'adequate' and was
bored to tears. Then I met the socially incompetent and had the happiest
times of my life.
>What I intended to say was, I found friends who were interested in
>roleplay and joined in with them. I still have no idea how I'd break into
>the little cliques in the club I first encountered. And the first
>AD&D game I was invited to join kept me sitting on the sidelines for two
>hours (Me: "I do this." GM: "No you don't.") and nearly put me off for
>life.
The game you desribe sounds terrible. I've met several people over the
years who think roleplaying is stupid on the basis of their first
experience. Glad your weren't put off.
I was lucky.
The university club I joined ran Sunday sessions which were just fun
knockabout affairs. If you made an impression or just failed to irritate
people you were invited to join the more serious games during the week.
It sounds elitist and snobby, but having seen what some people could do
to a game I think it had it's merits. More often than not those who
didn't make it into established cliques were quite happy to go off and
form their own.
Mmm. A bit off the point, but like everything else I've written this
evening I'll let it stand.
Robin
--
Robin Low
Sheila Thomas
In article <PtuY0CAN...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>
valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk "Jonathan Rowe" writes:
>I've found RPGing to be not merely cliquey (that would be
>understandable) but downright boorish.
Rarely, in my experience. perhaps I have just been very fortunate.
> and put women right off!
Really?
Sheila
--
____________________________________________________________________________
home: mal...@granta.demon.co.uk http://www.granta.demon.co.uk
work: smth...@twi.co.uk http://www.twi.co.uk
Lap tops? Make mine small and feline!
____________________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Rowe
In article <889654...@granta.demon.co.uk>, Sheila Thomas
<mal...@granta.demon.co.uk> writes
>> and put women right off!
>
>Really?
>
>Sheila
Irony is one thing, but the point holds. How many people use this
newsgroup on a regular basis (40-50?) and how many are women (5? 10?).
Lewis Jardine
Jonathan Rowe wrote:
>
> In article <889654...@granta.demon.co.uk>, Sheila Thomas
> <mal...@granta.demon.co.uk> writes
> >> and put women right off!
> >
> >Really?
> >
> >Sheila
>
> Irony is one thing, but the point holds. How many people use this
> newsgroup on a regular basis (40-50?) and how many are women (5? 10?).
>
Yes, but first compare the numbers of women who regularly use the net
with the numbers of men...
In my experience women are generally less keen on the "wargaming"
(destructive) aspects of RPGs where they form a minority (roughly 10%).
But they are just as keen on the purely roleplaying (creative)
aspects such as free forms where they are almost 50% with any
small discrepancy explained by the fact that they have relatively
fewer introductory routes into this aspect of the hobby.
So Jonathan, have you been to a free form?
There are rarely any problems filling the female roles
(I know that I've never been asked to do so, but perhaps the
beard detracts from my chances).
Cheers
Lewis
Thom Baguley
Mary Gentle wrote:
> I'm no shy retiring violet, but _I_ found rpg groups cliquey enough to
> put me right off, when I started this whole insane pursuit.
>
> After that, I was put off by finding groups which consisted of social
> inadequates with no life...
>
> Now I _am_ a social inadequate with no life, and I roleplay with my
> friends. (Er some mistake shirley?):)
>
> roleplay and joined in with them. I still have no idea how I'd break into
> the little cliques in the club I first encountered. And the first
> AD&D game I was invited to join kept me sitting on the sidelines for two
> hours (Me: "I do this." GM: "No you don't.") and nearly put me off for
> life.
>
> it's been all downhill from then on... (Uphill? Sideways? Round in
> circles?)
>
> mg
I had a similar experience trying to join a club, not an rpg though (it
was Badmington). I had a truly dismal time and have never played since.
I seemed to have no problems breaking into the cliques at university
club when I was an undergrad - but that was because lots of other
newbies joined at the same time. Most of the time I've just gamed with
friends (and Dave).
Thom
The Philosopher's Stone
Lewis Jardine <jar...@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk> writes
>In my experience women are generally less keen on the "wargaming"
>(destructive) aspects of RPGs where they form a minority (roughly 10%).
>But they are just as keen on the purely roleplaying (creative)
>aspects
found that they can follow the plot easily and contribute to problem
solving but the second dice-rolling is required (such as combat) the
interest goes.
** Falling Out Of The Light Is Just As Divine As Falling In **
Jonathan Rowe
In article <3507F1...@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk>, Lewis Jardine
<jar...@rmcs.cranfield.ac.uk> writes
>So Jonathan, have you been to a free form?
>There are rarely any problems filling the female roles
>(I know that I've never been asked to do so, but perhaps the
>beard detracts from my chances).
I was thinking specifically of "trad" RPGing. I can understand why
freeforms are in a different position entirely.
Limbo Folk
In article <3507F5...@lboro.ac.uk>, Thom Baguley <t.s.b...@lboro.ac.uk>
writes:
> Most of the time I've just gamed with
>friends (and Dave).
It's a tragic tale. Thom's friends started paying me to keep him occupied for
a while on and off. It seemed a good little earner until the strain inevitably
caught up with me, in turn, and my complaint started. Now looking into the
insurance situation but my hopes aren't high. At the very least I should have
charged a higher rate. If I had, I might now be able to afford the drugs
legally, rather than having to send the kittens out to steal them.
Cheers,
Dave
Limbo Folk
In article <eZD5PoA+p$B1E...@jmccalmont.demon.co.uk>, The Philosopher's Stone
<Th...@jmccalmontREMOVE.demon.co.uk> writes:
> I'd agree with this. When i've tried to "initiate" women i've often
>found that they can follow the plot easily and contribute to problem
>solving but the second dice-rolling is required (such as combat) the
>interest goes.
Personally I've found women potentially at least as capable as men in properly
understanding the purpose of this more or less arbitrary element. If anything
I've found a few males, and no females, to be noticeably prone to mistaking
that process for something to be artificially optimised.
Cheers,
Dave
Thom Baguley
Explains why you were singing "You've got to pick a pocket or two ..."
to young Smudge last time I was in Limbo then ...
Thom
Polite Elliot
Does anybody have any suggestions for breaking this aspect of the hobby.
I am sure games company's and shops wopuld like to see the hobby grow
and I as a GM would too.
More clubs would seem to be a good idea. A place where new players can
get to know each other, a fertile soil for groups to grow out of.
Where does the responsibility lie? Should company's and shops be setting
up societies? After all it is in their financial interest to expand the
hobby(I point out GW and the Warhammer game which grows steadily while
other RPG companys whither. I think RPG'ing has just as much potential.)
Or players and GM's themselves - us? I always thought University would
have strong traditions but mine (Brighton) has none at all.
Any thoughts out there?
Any solutions?
Any action?
Elliot
Brighton
Neil Barnes
Polite Elliot (EK...@bton.ac.uk) wrote:
: Does anybody have any suggestions for breaking this aspect of the hobby.
As I said before, I think it's pretty inevitable due to the nature of
gaming, but here're my suggestions..
: More clubs would seem to be a good idea. A place where new players can
: get to know each other, a fertile soil for groups to grow out of.
IMHE there are two ways to join a roleplaying group - the first is to be
invited (usually in a pretty informal way), and the second is to set it
up.
An existing group is only likely to need a few new players at any one
time, and will recruit potential players through a word of mouth-type
process. So basically if know that you're a good roleplayer, they get on
well with you normally and they knownyou're looking for a game, then
you've got the best chance of getting into a group. If you don't get on
well with the memebers of a potential group in real life, then you're
not likely to fit into their gaming group.
The other way is to set up a campaign - you're at Brighton right? Does
your university have a society - if so try to take advantage of that. The
best times to try and recruit new players are at the start of the year
(obviously), the end of the first term/ beginning of the second term or
the end of the year (post exams - in anticipation of next year).
If your university doesn't have a gaming society (and I gather quite a few
don't) then try setting one up - if nothing else it looks good on your CV.
Otherwise there's all the traditional routes like advertising here or in a
local games or comics shop.
: Where does the responsibility lie?
Everywhere and nowhere.
: Should company's and shops be setting
: up societies? After all it is in their financial interest to expand the
: hobby(I point out GW and the Warhammer game which grows steadily while
: other RPG companys whither. I think RPG'ing has just as much potential.)
If companies set them up, people are always going to be pretty suspicious
- I understand TSR used to organise national AD&D competitions and such
like, but if you're not into AD&D that's not much interest.
However setting up clubs is a hefty inestment of time, and for a large
organisation, money. I can't see any UK rpg company setting up a network
of National clubs, since the actual return on investment would be minimal.
Shops? It would seem a good idea for shops to enourage local gaming
groups, supply table space (one could make it a condition that players
using a table bought their food from the shop) for playing or even just
reading the books they just purchased. Something similar to a net cafe.
However I imagine there's some legal stuff to consider, and the risk of
trouble from uncooperative customers.
: Or players and GM's themselves - us?
But of course.
: I always thought University would
: have strong traditions but mine (Brighton) has none at all.
Student Apathy strikes back. Are there many active student gaming
societies?
--
neil
Mary Gentle
In article <eZD5PoA+p$B1E...@jmccalmont.demon.co.uk>,
Th...@jmccalmontREMOVE.demon.co.uk (The Philosopher's Stone) wrote:
[...] When i've tried to "initiate" women i've often
> found that they can follow the plot easily and contribute to problem
> solving but the second dice-rolling is required (such as combat) the
> interest goes.
Ahh, poor little fluffy-heads, all those dice are too much for them...
<shit-eating grin>
Perhaps the reason male players are fine with dice is that you don't
generally have to count higher than twenty?
<rlf>
EK25
I want to open a discussion on ways of changing our hobby as a whole,
not simply ways of getting into a group myself. The problems I have had
in Brighton seem quite widespread and there are many reasons.
But is there a solution out there?
Is there a good club template out there? There must be quite a few
success stories as well as disasters.
Jonathan Rowe
In article <Eps90...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Mary Gentle <mary_gentle@ci
x.compulink.co.uk> writes
<chuckle>
Except, he didn't say that the maths aspect of dice rolling was too
demanding for the women-gamers of his acquaintance, just that a
procedure central to RPGing was, somehow, more tedious for them than for
their male counterparts.
I suspect it isn't dice per se, but dice do represent the *game* aspect
of RPGs and this, perhaps, is related to a division on gender lines.
The toy manufacturing industry knows pretty well that boardgames are
played by pre-pubescent boys and market accordingly. Most of our
childhood gaming experiences tell us that, if it's got dice in it, it's
aimed at boys. Culturally, this might extend back a couple of centuries
to the connection between dice and gambling and all the no-ladies-here
caddishness that was associated with that.
The Philosopher's Stone
Jonathan Rowe <valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes
>I suspect it isn't dice per se, but dice do represent the *game* aspect
>of RPGs and this, perhaps, is related to a division on gender lines.
Exactly, I find that female neophytes take to the creative side of
RPGing better than males... males look at skills and power whereas
females look at background and having a consistant character design.
It's just what i've observed, in my book it makes fems naturally better
RPGers than males.
> Culturally, this might extend back a couple of centuries
>to the connection between dice and gambling and all the no-ladies-here
>caddishness that was associated with that.
It also has something to do with the male => mechanical toys ;
Female => dollies division which was so predominant up until recently.
Males were seen as practical therefore they were pushed into to the
definite boundaries of "ruled" play whereas fems were allways seen as
more social, carers therefore they were given dolls and pushed towards
enacting social situations and family construction. It's all related to
gender roles in adult life.
Mary Gentle
In article <GinsBCA7hiC1Ew$A...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>,
valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk (Jonathan Rowe) wrote:
> In article <Eps90...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Mary Gentle <mary_gentle@ci
> x.compulink.co.uk> writes
> >In article <eZD5PoA+p$B1E...@jmccalmont.demon.co.uk>,
> >Th...@jmccalmontREMOVE.demon.co.uk (The Philosopher's Stone) wrote:
> >
> >[...] When i've tried to "initiate" women i've often
> >> found that they can follow the plot easily and contribute to problem
> >> solving but the second dice-rolling is required (such as combat) the
> >> interest goes.
> >
> >Ahh, poor little fluffy-heads, all those dice are too much for them...
> ><shit-eating grin>
> >
> >Perhaps the reason male players are fine with dice is that you don't
> >generally have to count higher than twenty?
> >
> ><rlf>
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Except, he didn't say that the maths aspect of dice rolling was too
> demanding for the women-gamers of his acquaintance, just that a
> procedure central to RPGing was, somehow, more tedious for them than for
> their male counterparts.
>
><snip>
Tedious? Hmm, I see another reason diverging...
What it is, you see, is that all us girlies are too shy to let the guys
know our _real_ attitude to combat ("Come on you m*****-f***** of a dice,
give me a natural 20, I want to slice, dice, rip, mutilate..." Er, well,
you see what I mean.) and thus we pretend it's 'tedious'.
<heh-heh-heh>
Saeid Razavi
Why do we have to justify our hobby just 'cos some girl gets scared the boys
are playing together?
Ah RPGs ain't for girls... no they should stay in the kitchen and cook us up
some snacks when we're hungry.
(Just a little snip at the three girlies in my round-the-table campaign who
give me hell! I wish I never got them interested!
No, seriously my advice to anyone whose had difficulty in convincing a
girlfriend / female friend or flatmat, as in my case, to play just stress
the principle of imagination, fantasy and having fun. As far as dice goes,
from Monopoly to RPGs I have only met girls who love the dice rolling. In
fact, as far RPGs are concerned, novice female gamers, well okay I only have
a handful of examples, focus too much on the dice. Its like, "When do I
roll this funny one?" and "Can I roll for attack? Can I?"
But I think the way RPGs are marketed and sold makes it a geeky hobby which
most women I know have thought a bit wierd. I mean in my local Virgin
Megastore the RPGs are at the back of the Third Floor and you get a lot of
stupid computer game phreaks poking fun at them. I mean, what's that about?
Also RPG players as one girl pointed out tend to stay fairly geeky (All you
Goths out there!) and have severe personal hygiene problems. 'Course I'm no
Brad Pitt but I can see there point of view when you consider that six or so
pubescent men stuck in a enclosed environment for six or so hours with pizza
and the like may not be the most attractive thing.
SO basically, my point is that gaming culture is not something that
mainstream people look seriously unless you challenge their views about the
hobby. But before you do that, take a good look at yourself and think...
Ken Walton
In article <EptHL...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Mary Gentle <mary_gentle@ci
x.compulink.co.uk> writes
>What it is, you see, is that all us girlies are too shy to let the guys
>know our _real_ attitude to combat ("Come on you m*****-f***** of a dice,
>give me a natural 20, I want to slice, dice, rip, mutilate..." Er, well,
>you see what I mean.) and thus we pretend it's 'tedious'.
Oh, I don't know. There was one woman in a long-running campaign I ran
who had been playing GURPS for about 5 years, and *still* fluttered her
eyelashes at the nearest man, held out her character sheet and said
"What do I roll for damage again?"
But on a failed roll, she has been known to exclaim "I'm more lethal
than that it real life!"
--
Ken Walton mailto: k...@kenjo.demon.co.uk
=================================================================
Find the Role-Players' Tool Kit, a free generic rules-lite RPG at
http://kenjo.demon.co.uk ========================================
"A fool and his monkey are easily parted."
Jonathan Rowe
In article <EptHL...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Mary Gentle <mary_gentle@ci
x.compulink.co.uk> writes
>What it is, you see, is that all us girlies are too shy to let the guys
>know our _real_ attitude to combat ("Come on you m*****-f***** of a dice,
>give me a natural 20, I want to slice, dice, rip, mutilate..." Er, well,
>you see what I mean.) and thus we pretend it's 'tedious'.
>
Ah well, that's all right then, isn't it.
Come to think of it, though, it isn't just women who are
underrepresented in the hobby. So are most people who aren't white and
middle class.
(And before anybody responds indignantly protesting their membership of
the proletariat or boasting about how they were sent down t' pit at age
of 6, I'll content myself with observing that access to a modem and
subscription to usenet confers default membership of the bourgeosie as
standard).
Anyway, let's have some affirmative action on this.
Mary Gentle
In article <c8UMQEAs...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>,
valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk (Jonathan Rowe) wrote:
<snip>
> Come to think of it, though, it isn't just women who are
> underrepresented in the hobby. So are most people who
aren't white and
> middle class.
>
> (And before anybody responds indignantly protesting their
membership of
> the proletariat or boasting about how they were sent down
t' pit at age
> of 6, I'll content myself with observing that access to a
modem and
> subscription to usenet confers default membership of the
bourgeosie as
> standard).
><snip>
_Or_ a pleb with a job which needs e-mail, but who can't stop
playing with usenet and meet a deadline!
Yours,
A Pleb With A Job That...
No, you're right, in general; but then, how many roleplaying
people got their start in uni? And this is still (and will
become, again) a mostly middle-class place to go.
What kind of affirmative action did you have in mind?
Jonathan Rowe
In article <Epv1G...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Mary Gentle <mary_gentle@ci
x.compulink.co.uk> writes
>No, you're right, in general; but then, how many roleplaying
>people got their start in uni? And this is still (and will
>become, again) a mostly middle-class place to go.
>
>What kind of affirmative action did you have in mind?
Not sure. Not sure if the hobby consensus really *wants* a muti-
cultural class-transcending gender-balanced ethos (the bourgeosie can be
as reactionary - no, *more reactionary* - as anyone).
Although it's been derided, I approve of what White Wolf does with the
conscious variation of gender-specific pronouns and inclusion of
alternative racial groups/sexual orientations in their products. But
Vampire (for example) remains a rich-kids RPG. The tacit assumption is
that the PCs are all WASPs who have the surplus income to hang out at
cool nightclubs. Moreover (and this is more to the point), all the
published scenarios revolve around macho posturing, bourgeois power-
games and a narrow gamut of urban settings as perceived by comfortable
middle-class intellectuals.
Anybody out there written any scenarios (not necessarily for Vampire)
which do actually challenge the sociological myths of roleplaying?
Jo Walton
In article <+dUI0CAo...@kenjo.demon.co.uk>
K...@kenjo.demon.co.uk "Ken Walton" writes:
> In article <EptHL...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, Mary Gentle <mary_gentle@ci
> x.compulink.co.uk> writes
> >What it is, you see, is that all us girlies are too shy to let the guys
> >know our _real_ attitude to combat ("Come on you m*****-f***** of a dice,
> >give me a natural 20, I want to slice, dice, rip, mutilate..." Er, well,
> >you see what I mean.) and thus we pretend it's 'tedious'.
>
> Oh, I don't know. There was one woman in a long-running campaign I ran
> who had been playing GURPS for about 5 years, and *still* fluttered her
> eyelashes at the nearest man, held out her character sheet and said
> "What do I roll for damage again?"
>
> But on a failed roll, she has been known to exclaim "I'm more lethal
> than that it real life!"
She is the only person I've ever met who can't quite manage the
Everway rules.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.
Juppy
> > >In article <eZD5PoA+p$B1E...@jmccalmont.demon.co.uk>,
> > >Th...@jmccalmontREMOVE.demon.co.uk (The Philosopher's Stone) wrote:
> > >
> > >[...] When i've tried to "initiate" women i've often
> > >> found that they can follow the plot easily and contribute to
> > >> problem solving but the second dice-rolling is required (such as
> > >>combat) the interest goes.
And before I could cry "bollocks!" a load of other people got in there
first.
> > Except, he didn't say that the maths aspect of dice rolling was too
> > demanding for the women-gamers of his acquaintance, just that a
> > procedure central to RPGing was, somehow, more tedious for them than
> > for their male counterparts.
> >
> ><snip>
>
>
> Tedious? Hmm, I see another reason diverging...
>
> What it is, you see, is that all us girlies are too shy to let the guys
> know our _real_ attitude to combat ("Come on you m*****-f***** of a
> dice, give me a natural 20, I want to slice, dice, rip, mutilate..."
> Er, well, you see what I mean.) and thus we pretend it's 'tedious'.
>
> <heh-heh-heh>
That sounds *much* more like most of the women players I know. Except they
don't usually pretend they're not like it... :)
John
--
John Upstone * jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk * ju...@cix.co.uk
Dial up, Log in, Chill out * Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
..................................................................
"It is inhumane, in my opinion, to force people who have a genuine
medical need for coffee to wait in line behind people who
apparently view it as some kind of recreational activity."
- Dave Barry, Miami Herald
Saeid Razavi
>Anybody out there written any scenarios (not necessarily for Vampire)
>which do actually challenge the sociological myths of roleplaying?
>
Well, the closes I came is getting abunch of mostly English players to play
a richly, detailed and reasearched AD&D campaign set in a quasi-Persian
campaign setting. Of course, western minds couldn't cope with that at all.
I mean in my medieval Arthurian setting boiling people in oil was a common
practice against criminals and it was fine (as was lion-bating in my
ancients campaign) but as soon as I had women in "Islamic" dresses (there
was a fundementalist fire-worshippers) they just couldn't get there heads
around it!
My point is that the majority of roleplayers are western, white,
middle-class males and the games that they play are suited to their
interests. When you have a bit of variety in the RPG market the stuff just
don't sell (e.g. Al-Qadim setting for AD&D, this cool Japanese manga like
RPG I played a couple of times which didn't feature combat <oh my God!>)
Anyway,
Sid.
Rupert Boleyn
jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk (Juppy) wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Mar 1998 16:24:57 GMT, "Mary Gentle"
>(mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
>> What it is, you see, is that all us girlies are too shy to let the guys
>> know our _real_ attitude to combat ("Come on you m*****-f***** of a
>> dice, give me a natural 20, I want to slice, dice, rip, mutilate..."
>> Er, well, you see what I mean.) and thus we pretend it's 'tedious'.
>>
>> <heh-heh-heh>
>
>That sounds *much* more like most of the women players I know. Except they
>don't usually pretend they're not like it... :)
The only woman in our group had previously played a Marine in
Traveller, and a Mage Of Fiery Burning in our C&S game, and recently
said that in my new AD&D2 game she'd like to play something a little
less combat oriented. She then went thrugh the rules and selected a
Bard, and armed her with a Sabre. So far she's always been right up
with the Fighters hacking and Slaying with the best of 'em.
R. Boleyn <rbo...@clear.net.nz>
Palmerston North, New Zealand
"This weak, degenerate generation - even their sins are watered down.
The old pirates of my father's day could have eaten them all for
breakfast and digested their bones before lunch."
_The Warrior's Apprentice_, by Lois McMaster Bujold
Unknown
In article <esoKyBAG...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe <valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Not sure. Not sure if the hobby consensus really *wants* a muti-
> cultural class-transcending gender-balanced ethos (the bourgeosie can be
> as reactionary - no, *more reactionary* - as anyone).
No, I don't think I do.
I'm happy if people from non-white, non-middle-class backgrounds discover that
they enjoy roleplaying.
But I don't particularly care if they do or they don't.
I don't enjoy many of the pursuits which are popular in other cultures
(kabbadi, for example, or reading the Koran) but I don't wish to stop the
people who do enjoy them from doing them, nor do I feel the need to intrude
upon them. Why shouldn't they extend the same courtesy to me?
My friends and I enjoy our games. We are indeed white, middle-class, university
educated. You're only ever going to get to play RPGs with people you've
actually met, and those people will tend to be drawn from a similar social
group. Unsurprisingly, the games we play draw on our common experiences and
cultural backgrounds. We are all familiar with Tolkein and the Arthurian myths,
for example, so a game supplement which attempts to explain these works to an
audience from a Hindu background would not be of any use to us. I fail to see
why our playing games rooted in our own cultural background is in any way a bad
thing. We like to try playing games set in other cultural backgrounds as well
(for example, Ancient Egypt, Rome and fantasy settings bearing resemblence to
Aztec civilisation) but we necessarily start out by describing things in terms
which are meaningful to white, middle-class, university-educated people.
Games companies do the same. They know their audience because they are writing
for people like themselves. This is in no way meant to exclude anybody
from a different background, but isn't explicitly designed to include them
either. If roleplaying were to take off in India, you would get Indian RPG
authors publishing material for their own audience and they would probably do a
much better job of it than the current companies ever could.
So I don't think that being designed to appeal to white, middle-class people
is necessarily a bad thing.
> Anybody out there written any scenarios (not necessarily for Vampire)
> which do actually challenge the sociological myths of roleplaying?
Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to what the "sociological myths of
roleplaying" might be? Then I can tell you whether or not any of my scenarios
challenge them.
Cheers, Hywel Phillips.
P.S.:
I'd also point out that any discussion on usenet is going to be
heavily biased in its sampling- you're reduced the set of all roleplayers down
to the set of roleplayers who read and post to usenet, and that's probably a
very biased sample. So don't make the mistake of thinking that the posting
profile on the newsgroup in any way matches the profile of people who play
RPGs.
--
| Hywel T. Phillips | Rutherford Appleton Laboratory | |
| (MC/4f Coordinator) | and DELPHI experiment, CERN | e+ e- -> f1 f2 f3 f4|
|=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*|
| H.T.Ph...@RL.AC.UK Hywel.P...@CERN.CH |
| Speaking personally, not on behalf of RAL or DELPHI |
Neil Barnes
Saeid Razavi (sa...@apollonet.co.uk) wrote:
: Of course, western minds couldn't cope with that at all.
: I mean in my medieval Arthurian setting boiling people in oil was a common
: practice against criminals and it was fine (as was lion-bating in my
: ancients campaign) but as soon as I had women in "Islamic" dresses (there
: was a fundementalist fire-worshippers) they just couldn't get there heads
: around it!
These being full Chadors I take it, rather than Harem girl outfits?
How many roleplayers really deal with medieval European society? Most
fantasy games have a very heavy gloss.
I've also had (European) players tell me that I could never hope to
understand the medieval Japanese mind, it being too alien to my
white-boy-C20-liberal mindset. I'm not sure I'm convinced.
: When you have a bit of variety in the RPG market the stuff just
: don't sell (e.g. Al-Qadim setting for AD&D, this cool Japanese manga like
: RPG I played a couple of times which didn't feature combat <oh my God!>)
A Manga-style game without fighting? How bizarre. (Ranma 1/2 fan)
--
neil
Jonathan Rowe
In article <1998Mar16.120916.1@v2>, htp@v2.? writes
>In article <esoKyBAG...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe
><valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Not sure. Not sure if the hobby consensus really *wants* a muti-
>> cultural class-transcending gender-balanced ethos (the bourgeosie can be
>> as reactionary - no, *more reactionary* - as anyone).
>
>No, I don't think I do.
>
>I'm happy if people from non-white, non-middle-class backgrounds discover that
>they enjoy roleplaying.
>
>But I don't particularly care if they do or they don't.
Well, of course, and why should you? But - and I put this to you purely
for the sake of argument - don't you think that the RPG hobby has
something of the nature of an old Victorian-style gentleman's club to
it? A retreat from the stresses of a more complicated society into a
self-elected grouping where (metaphorically speaking) we can smoke
cigars and damn the Dutch over our brandies? In this Club we meet with
our peers - people who share our values and assumptions and idioms of
speech and thought. Sure, there may be some mem-sahibs there, but (like
the mem-sahibs of the British Raj) they're women who have subscribed
wholeheartedly to the prevailing patriarchal ethos: they're women who
can adopt masculine discourse, for example, and who feel comfortable in
a predominantly male peer group (I'm not suggesting this means female
gamers are thereby "less feminine" - this sort of cultural bilingualism
is a talent and an asset, I'm sure). We all like it in here and (gulp)
we might like it less if more of "them" were to be admitted...
>Games companies do the same. They know their audience because they are writing
>for people like themselves. This is in no way meant to exclude anybody
>from a different background, but isn't explicitly designed to include them
>either.
So, it's a vicious circle. Games companies create the games the public
want, thus shaping a public which wants the games the companies write.
Chicken? Egg? I dunno!
>
>So I don't think that being designed to appeal to white, middle-class people
>is necessarily a bad thing.
Heavens, no. Not necessarily a good thing either. But certainly a
culture-barrier to those outside the paradigm looking to enter the hobby
(which is ironic, since roleplaying - existing in the imagination - has
the potential to be a great leveller of class/race/gender, a tool which
players can use to redefine selves and the norms that shape them).
>
>
>> Anybody out there written any scenarios (not necessarily for Vampire)
>> which do actually challenge the sociological myths of roleplaying?
>
>Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to what the "sociological myths of
>roleplaying" might be? Then I can tell you whether or not any of my scenarios
>challenge them.
Oh, let's list a few... (not really addressing gender/race issues, more
superficial things - just to illustrate)
1. Protagonists are largely male, aggressive and without strong social
attachments (family or friends outside of their adventuring group).
2. Characters identify themselves by their profession/office/marketable
talents, rather than by their relationships or culture
3. Females acquire significance insofar as they conform to male norms.
4. People are motivated by power and wealth, rather than ideology or
sexuality (for example).
5. The deaths of creatures of a different species are of little concern
- even if they're sentient.
6. Revenge, justice and curiousity motivate people strongly, but
compassion, desire and domesticity do not.
Etc.
Obviously, a lot of this could be described as "bad roleplaying", or an
inevitable spillover of the Game aspect of RPGs into the construction of
scenarios, NPCs and characters. But the point is that despite pious
exhortations in rulebooks, and the odd exceptional game that roots
itself in a particular culture (Pendragon for medieval Europe, Bushido
for feudal Japan), RPGs don't do much in terms of rules-design or
example-by-published-scenario to redress this. (How many actual
published Pendragon scenarios make kinship an issue?)
With a dash of deconstruction, it wouldn't be hard to analyse the
sexist/racist/bourgeois/whathaveyou ideology inherent in most RPGs (not
hard because - I suspect - it's the largely unstated or unrecognised
ideology of most games designers and players: liberal, secular,
patriarchal, affluent).
>
>P.S.:
>I'd also point out that any discussion on usenet is going to be
>heavily biased in its sampling- you're reduced the set of all roleplayers down
>to the set of roleplayers who read and post to usenet, and that's probably a
>very biased sample. So don't make the mistake of thinking that the posting
>profile on the newsgroup in any way matches the profile of people who play
>RPGs.
Absolutely. Although <sly grin> that hasn't stopped usenet commentators
in the past assuming that their perspectives were somehow representative
of the hobby...
Of course, I've been "taking a position" here, but I do have some
respect for the position and I think, if RPGs ever become a more
mainstream hobby (instead of the "cult" status they currently enjoy) it
should be addressed. Some companies are addressing it, in an awkward
and inconsistent sort of way (WW's political correctness, the New Age
psychology implicit in a lot of Jonathan Tweet's work, like Everway).
It's possible, though, that a certain WASPishness is inherent to RPGing:
like Flower Power, the hobby assumes reasonably well-educated and
literate types with a lot of free time and a lifestyle of sufficient
comfort that time spent in "escapism" isn't time squandered.
Rupert Boleyn
nb4...@ncs.bris.ac.uk (Neil Barnes) wrote:
>
>I've also had (European) players tell me that I could never hope to
>understand the medieval Japanese mind, it being too alien to my
>white-boy-C20-liberal mindset. I'm not sure I'm convinced.
And men acan't possibly understand women, and, and, and. Take this too
far and it becomes obvious that we can't understand each other well
enough to be having this conversation.
FWIW I suspect that we have little more in common with the Normans of
1100 than with the medieval Japanese of 1500 odd. And IMO the medieval
knights would've understood the Samurai of Japan just fine, and
vice-versa. Power and politics are much the same where ever one goes.
antony johnston
Saeid Razavi <sa...@apollonet.co.uk> wrote:
> Also RPG players as one girl pointed out tend to stay fairly geeky (All you
> Goths out there!) and have severe personal hygiene problems
...you've never actually met any goths, have you?
--
antony johnston
http://www.mostlyblack.demon.co.uk/
PS: the man in the orange shirt is not really here.
MarSThrel
>>Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to what the "sociological myths of
>>roleplaying" might be? Then I can tell you whether or not any of my
>scenarios
>>challenge them.
>Oh, let's list a few... (not really addressing gender/race issues, more
>superficial things - just to illustrate)
>
>1. Protagonists are largely male, aggressive and without strong social
>attachments (family or friends outside of their adventuring group).
>2. Characters identify themselves by their profession/office/marketable
>talents, rather than by their relationships or culture
>3. Females acquire significance insofar as they conform to male norms.
>4. People are motivated by power and wealth, rather than ideology or
>sexuality (for example).
>5. The deaths of creatures of a different species are of little concern
>- even if they're sentient.
>6. Revenge, justice and curiousity motivate people strongly, but
>compassion, desire and domesticity do not.
>
Damn isnt it really embarrassing when you realise your games come down to six
major points, and you used to enjoy the lie you told yourself that your games
where different.
However i have been part of games that got away on a small scale from some of
the above.
1) The character i played in a long term campaign was single, a pacisifist and
totaly non aggressive. He had to bring up his two neices and also had a circle
of friends he cared for deeply. However i have to say that the direction the GM
took the game made me feel at the time that he was punishing me for not playing
an aggresive character who never had a care for his particular point of view.
Looking back though havbing violence happen around him and challenging his
ideals was a must considering the entire point to the campaign in the first
place.
Also in the same campaign an NPC who was by career an ex soldier backed out of
events becasue he was worried about his families safety.
2) The problem at times with this point as one of system, and the way we are
used to it. I feel that my players in Cyberpunk think of their characters as
entites that have personality, even if the system pigeonholes them.
Also as a sidepoint a character in the game who is by system deffinition a solo
has an NPC with a large hold over him, so much so that one comment from her had
him decide to get into security work rather than the more lucractive
assasinations and the like. The NPC is the characters Mother.
3) I believe most if not all of the male GM's and players fall into this one.
No matter how hard we try not too.
4) This is something i have tried to steer my players from often, currently i
believe in the cyberpunk game im playing the overiding goal is wealth and
power. The NPC who the chatacters take the piss out of and want dead is one who
is fighting for strong ideals and thinks of his community over himself. The
players even comment out of game that the guy is stupid, and more than likely
being manipulated. I just dont think they can understand that in a cyberpunk
environment people with ideals and morals exist.
(The fun thing is however in this campaign they are surrounded by them!!)
5) Something i am glad i read as after reading this will begin to address it
strongly.
6) Again something i agree with. In this current campaign the PC's found a
young girl who had been forced into drugs and prostitution. One player stated
"the bitch is uselelss if she cant do anything to get out of this we may aswell
sell her corpse as the revenue will at least be put to good use!", another a
doctor took her in until her rent went up and then threw her out. The girl
wasnt helping with Income.
The defense by the players "looking after her isnt really part of the plot is
it?"
Just a reply.
Mark T
Darchangel
Lets look at the stereotypical roleplayer (as seen by the "general" public).
He (its always a he) loves his computer, is socially retarded, has dubious
personal hygiene, lives in a world of his own, worships Satan, has a
childish mentality ie. won't grow up, a megalomanical turn of mind, and a
coathanger for a body.
Aside from the fact that I've probably just described Bill Gates, I reckon
we all know someone like this to some extent. Probably because each of these
are human traits.
I've known many gamers in my time, few of whom are the geeks previously
described in other posts. Female, male, gay, straight, nerdy, normal (that
word again), sane, insane.
I don't care. I play RPGs because I like playing them. If the testosterone
level gets too high, so what? If I'm playing Shazblat the Werehamster in
AD&D, who cares? As long as we all get a good game (DM Included!), no one
ought to mind.
One final point. RPGs are by their nature cliquish. Talk about an RPG
session to a friend while on the bus and watch the looks on other peoples
faces, as you tell them what you did to that damn Dragon last Friday...
Philip Masters
In article: <GT267AAg...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> Jonathan Rowe
> But - and I put this to you purely
> for the sake of argument - don't you think that the RPG hobby has
> something of the nature of an old Victorian-style gentleman's club to
> it? A retreat from the stresses of a more complicated society into a
> self-elected grouping where (metaphorically speaking) we can smoke
> cigars and damn the Dutch over our brandies? In this Club we meet with
> our peers - people who share our values and assumptions and idioms of
> speech and thought.
Ooh! What a wonderful collection of button-pushing images and implicit
assumptions!
This is sheer, shallow rhetoric, apparently designed to induce nodding of
heads and abandonment of actual thought. If I ever used the words
"politically correct", I'd be using them now.
(Yes, I did see the words "for the sake of argument". They do not excuse an
attempt to invoke blind prejudice. Even if it is blind prejudice against a
dominant cultural group.)
> ... Sure, there may be some mem-sahibs there, but (like
> the mem-sahibs of the British Raj) they're women who have subscribed
> wholeheartedly to the prevailing patriarchal ethos: they're women who
> can adopt masculine discourse, for example, and who feel comfortable in
> a predominantly male peer group (I'm not suggesting this means female
> gamers are thereby "less feminine" - this sort of cultural bilingualism
> is a talent and an asset, I'm sure). We all like it in here and (gulp)
> we might like it less if more of "them" were to be admitted...
But then, if we filled our games with fluffy bunny rabbits, clothes
shopping expeditions, and discussions of cookery, we would of course (and
rightly) be accused of invoking a shallow and sexist image of "femininity"
in order to expand our markets. We'd also fail miserably to appeal to the
sort of non-gaming women who *I'd* want to see reached by some magically
transmuted, female-friendly games (such as my wife, for example).
But look at it another way; RPGs are not half as much of a stereotyped
masculine preserve as Jonathan seemingly wants to make out. Playing them
emphasises verbal and social skills over physical, for example, and they
are an indoor, intellectualised hobby (unlike, say, football). Let's face
it, the stereotyped gamer is a weedy, nerdy figure (or a skinny goth - that
is, a nerd with pretentions to fashion sense). They're not exactly
"feminine", but they are light-years away from stock conceptions of
lads-down-the-pub masculinity. If more men than women happen to buy into
this cultural pattern, that may want fixing - but it's not because we're a
convincing part of the masculinist, patriarchal hierarchy.
> >Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to what the "sociological
> >myths of roleplaying" might be? Then I can tell you whether or not any
> >of my scenarios challenge them.
>
> Oh, let's list a few... (not really addressing gender/race issues, more
> superficial things - just to illustrate)
>
> 1. Protagonists are largely male, aggressive and without strong social
> attachments (family or friends outside of their adventuring group).
> 2. Characters identify themselves by their profession/office/marketable
> talents, rather than by their relationships or culture
> 3. Females acquire significance insofar as they conform to male norms.
> 4. People are motivated by power and wealth, rather than ideology or
> sexuality (for example).
> 5. The deaths of creatures of a different species are of little concern
> - even if they're sentient.
> 6. Revenge, justice and curiousity motivate people strongly, but
> compassion, desire and domesticity do not.
The trouble is, these range from ideas that are indeed embedded in the core
of role-playing to sillinesses that have long since been abandoned by all
but the most regressive of spotty teenage D&D'ers. For example, (1) is
arguably usually true, although it's subject to periodic challenges from
many directions (from the Ars Magica idea of community-building to the
late-teen propensity to make every PC group look like Charly's Angels),
whereas (6) gets knocked down every time a bunch of D&D characters charge
off to save a bunch of villagers from a cruel tyrant...
Hell, when push comes to shove, RPGs are just plain diverse. They have
their trends and stereotypes, some of them quite annoying, but faced with
guilt-laden neo-liberal simplifications, the correct response is probably
one contemptuous word. Unfortunately, it is also an inherently masculine
word, so I wind up typing ramblings like this post instead.
--
Phil Masters
* Home Page: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Phil_Masters
* "Battle not with flamers, lest you become a flamer; and stare not too
deeply into the 'net, or you will find the 'net staring into you."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche (loosely translated)
* Note: I have kill-filed all "Multipart/Alternative" postings. HTML is
very nice, but not on Usenet.
Unknown
In article <GT267AAg...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe <valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>I'm happy if people from non-white, non-middle-class backgrounds discover that
>>they enjoy roleplaying.
>>
>>But I don't particularly care if they do or they don't.
>
> Well, of course, and why should you? But - and I put this to you purely
> for the sake of argument - don't you think that the RPG hobby has
> something of the nature of an old Victorian-style gentleman's club to
> it? A retreat from the stresses of a more complicated society into a
> self-elected grouping where (metaphorically speaking) we can smoke
> cigars and damn the Dutch over our brandies?
It has as much of the nature of the working man's social club, the Victorian
ladies' sewing circle, a tribal gathering or any other
place where people who want to associate with each other gather together to
retreat from the stresses of a more complicated society.
Why is having such a place a bad thing? I like having my friends around for an
evening. We chat. We catch up on each other's news. We play a roleplaying game.
Not very different from going down the pub with your mates or having them come
around and watch the footy. Your criticism seems to be mostly levelled at us
being who we are.
> In this Club we meet with
> our peers - people who share our values and assumptions and idioms of
> speech and thought. Sure, there may be some mem-sahibs there, but (like
> the mem-sahibs of the British Raj) they're women who have subscribed
> wholeheartedly to the prevailing patriarchal ethos: they're women who
> can adopt masculine discourse, for example, and who feel comfortable in
> a predominantly male peer group (I'm not suggesting this means female
> gamers are thereby "less feminine" - this sort of cultural bilingualism
> is a talent and an asset, I'm sure).
I dispute the patriachal ethos bit: I think you are projecting a considerable
amount of your prejudice onto groups about which you know nothing. Also,
almost by definition women who play with a group that is mostly men will
be comfortable with a predominantly male peer group. Of course, there are
groups out there which are predominantly or exclusively female as well and your
broad generalisation clearly fails when it comes to them.
> We all like it in here and (gulp)
> we might like it less if more of "them" were to be admitted...
That's not what I said, nor even what I implied.
I explicitly stated that it would be good if people from other backgrounds
discovered they enjoyed RPG's and have no intention whatsoever from preventing
anyone playing RPGs. On the other hand, since I do it for fun, I don't expect
to have to go out evangelising either.
>>Games companies do the same. They know their audience because they are writing
>>for people like themselves. This is in no way meant to exclude anybody
>>from a different background, but isn't explicitly designed to include them
>>either.
>
> So, it's a vicious circle. Games companies create the games the public
> want, thus shaping a public which wants the games the companies write.
> Chicken? Egg? I dunno!
Yes, it is a vicious circle. Except of course that some games companies
have already broken into other markets: the GURPS play-along-a-books in
Japanese, for example.
What you seem to be proposing is a crusade. Do you want us all to stop our evil,
white middle-class patriachal games in favour of fluffy multicultural
non-offensive to everybody games? The problem is that these games will not even
appeal to the current core audience. Who are you going to sell them to? Who are
you going to get to play them?
What I propose is different: those of us who enjoy our evil, white middle-class
games will carry on playing them. Those interested in expanding into different
markets create games specifically targeted at those new markets. Then people
can play their good, Hindustani heros with non-western values. Will those games
be superior to mine? I contend not, they will simply be different. I will not
complain about them, indeed, it will probably be a good thing. But don't expect
me to want to play in them. They might prove interesting, but they might also
prove impenetrable if you lack the cultural background assumed by the writers
of the game.
>>
>>So I don't think that being designed to appeal to white, middle-class people
>>is necessarily a bad thing.
>
> Heavens, no. Not necessarily a good thing either. But certainly a
> culture-barrier to those outside the paradigm looking to enter the hobby
> (which is ironic, since roleplaying - existing in the imagination - has
> the potential to be a great leveller of class/race/gender, a tool which
> players can use to redefine selves and the norms that shape them).
Bollocks.
>>Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to what the "sociological myths of
>>roleplaying" might be? Then I can tell you whether or not any of my scenarios
>>challenge them.
>
> Oh, let's list a few... (not really addressing gender/race issues, more
> superficial things - just to illustrate)
>
> 1. Protagonists are largely male, aggressive and without strong social
> attachments (family or friends outside of their adventuring group).
OK, average sex balance of PCs is about 50:50. Aggressive? By no means all
characters are, although most of them have a certain amount of drive. We've
played peasants and fields, where everbody stayed at home in the village and
grew crops and gossiped, but it palls after a while. A slightly more proactive
element is useful in actually telling any sort of story. Without strong social
attachments? Sometimes, sometimes not. The quest format of games tends to force
people into abandoning these attachments, but we've also had an adventuring
mother with a young child searching for a kidnapped husband (child and husband
as NPCs) whilst taking on another one of the PCs as a lover.
> 2. Characters identify themselves by their profession/office/marketable
> talents, rather than by their relationships or culture
You mean like my calling myself a particle physicist rather than the person
married to Heather or that I'm Welsh? Believe it or not, I have no problem
keeping multiple overlapping definitions in mind when discussing myself and
other people and do this in games as well. NPCs are of necessity described in
shorthand because I don't have infinite time; if the PCs are staying in an Inn,
the Innkeeper is defined by his profession because that's how the characters
are most likely to encounter him. If they get chatting, they might find that
he's a widower, his eldest son has gone off to war and that the family
originally hails from Broad Brook. PCs tend to have more depth although usually
not at the start of play as most of my players seem to be develop in play
types. We have an Elven slave who serves the Countess as her bodyguard and who
refuses his freedom because he doesn't want to have the responsibility of
deciding upon his own actions.
> 3. Females acquire significance insofar as they conform to male norms.
? I'm not even sure that I understand what that means.
Do you mean that a woman is only significant if she acts like a man?
In what way acts like a man? Men are rather different from each other: what
exactly is a male norm? (Obviously a grey bloke from a Twix advert).
> 4. People are motivated by power and wealth, rather than ideology or
> sexuality (for example).
Few people are exclusively motivated by anything, but I wouldn't have said that
our PCs or NPCs are exclusively motivated by power and wealth.
> 5. The deaths of creatures of a different species are of little concern
> - even if they're sentient.
Depends on what the creature is doing. If it has been eating people, then it is
of great concern: it needs to happen as soon as possible.
We don't go in for the "slaughter the orcs because the detect alignment spell
says they're evil" if that's what you mean. That particular moral simplicity is
absent from all but the most thudding of published games.
> 6. Revenge, justice and curiousity motivate people strongly, but
> compassion, desire and domesticity do not.
I'll rule out domesticity as an aim to be attained during play, because if it
is attained, you're back to Peasants and Fields again, but the others certainly
enter at some stage.
I don't see why any of these are myths, sociological or otherwise.
I also note that applying your six points to most of worldwide literary
tradition one would discover that almost everything ever written could be
criticised under at least one of them. Are we to say that Beowulf
should be rewritten so that Beowulf has agonising soliloquies over the death of
poor innocent Grendel (or even better sorts it all out over a cup of milky
tea)? Should we require that Herakles be told not to be so silly, forget those
nasty tasks and just plough the fields like a good boy? No Chinese stories have
people more concerned about power and wealth than desire, do they? No demons
were ever slain by Shiva, were they? Sinbad- nasty unattached male type.
Your concerns seem to have far more to do with your own particular hangups
than with any real desire to investigate other cultures.
> Etc.
>
> Obviously, a lot of this could be described as "bad roleplaying", or an
> inevitable spillover of the Game aspect of RPGs into the construction of
> scenarios, NPCs and characters. But the point is that despite pious
> exhortations in rulebooks, and the odd exceptional game that roots
> itself in a particular culture (Pendragon for medieval Europe, Bushido
> for feudal Japan), RPGs don't do much in terms of rules-design or
> example-by-published-scenario to redress this. (How many actual
> published Pendragon scenarios make kinship an issue?)
AD&D Birthright- characters rule domains and have to make serious decisions
which affect their subjects; adventures can center around failed crops as well
as rampaging beasts.
AD&D Al-Qadim
RuneQuest- lots of intelligent races, cultures to belong to and identify with,
plenty of religions to become idealistic about.
RuneQuest Vikings - very high degree of cultural immersion.
GURPS supplements for many, many cultures, including Ancient Rome, Aztecs, the
Ice Age, China (though not very well done I gather), Arabian Nights, etc.
AD&D supplements for many cultures including the Celts, Ancient Rome again,
Renaissance Europe, etc.
RoleMaster/HERO Ancient Greece, Arabian Nights again...
Nothing like as isolated as you claim. Granted most of them are Western
traditions, but those are the ones most culturally accessible to the players.
> With a dash of deconstruction, it wouldn't be hard to analyse the
> sexist/racist/bourgeois/whathaveyou ideology inherent in most RPGs (not
> hard because - I suspect - it's the largely unstated or unrecognised
> ideology of most games designers and players: liberal, secular,
> patriarchal, affluent).
I translate:
"With a dash of prejudice it wouldn't be too hard to twist ever story ever told
into something that looks superficially sexist/racist/bourgeois/whatever".
True, but a totally futile and uninformative excercise.
Hywel.
Unknown
In article <66271...@philm.demon.co.uk>, Philip Masters <Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Hell, when push comes to shove, RPGs are just plain diverse. They have
> their trends and stereotypes, some of them quite annoying, but faced with
> guilt-laden neo-liberal simplifications, the correct response is probably
> one contemptuous word. Unfortunately, it is also an inherently masculine
> word, so I wind up typing ramblings like this post instead.
You're so restrained, Phil.
I just couldn't resist that one choice word!
Cheers, Hywel.
David G. Bell
In article <6eh5rf$c33$1...@apple.news.easynet.net>
sa...@apollonet.co.uk "Saeid Razavi" writes:
> >Anybody out there written any scenarios (not necessarily for Vampire)
> >which do actually challenge the sociological myths of roleplaying?
> >
>
>
> Well, the closes I came is getting abunch of mostly English players to play
> a richly, detailed and reasearched AD&D campaign set in a quasi-Persian
> campaign setting. Of course, western minds couldn't cope with that at all.
> I mean in my medieval Arthurian setting boiling people in oil was a common
> practice against criminals and it was fine (as was lion-bating in my
> ancients campaign) but as soon as I had women in "Islamic" dresses (there
> was a fundementalist fire-worshippers) they just couldn't get there heads
> around it!
>
> My point is that the majority of roleplayers are western, white,
> middle-class males and the games that they play are suited to their
> interests. When you have a bit of variety in the RPG market the stuff just
> don't sell (e.g. Al-Qadim setting for AD&D, this cool Japanese manga like
> RPG I played a couple of times which didn't feature combat <oh my God!>)
I find that the biggest problems come with the less obviously alien
settings. Al-Qadim, or one of the Samurai-era Japan games, is obviously
different, and the writers put in a lot of stuff to help explain how
people think. But take something nearer to home--nearer to the game
author's experience--and they assume far more knowledge on the part of
the players.
So I find something such as Teenagers From Outer Space or Tales From The
Floating Vagabond more difficult to cope with than, for instance,
Bushido. It isn't necessarily that the details are right, as long as
they are well enough explained that the game author (and any adventure
authors) can be in agreement with the players.
If the setting expects a certain response to a situation, and the
players don't realise this, an adventure that depends on that response
to advance the plot begins to feel wrong.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..
Thom Baguley
Darchangel wrote:
>
> Lets look at the stereotypical roleplayer (as seen by the "general" public).
> He (its always a he) loves his computer, is socially retarded, has dubious
> personal hygiene, lives in a world of his own, worships Satan, has a
> childish mentality ie. won't grow up, a megalomanical turn of mind, and a
> coathanger for a body.
> Aside from the fact that I've probably just described Bill Gates, I reckon
> we all know someone like this to some extent. Probably because each of these
> are human traits.
Surely some mistake. Bill Gates doesn't worship Satan. He _is_ Satan.
Thom
Rob Lally
In article <c8UMQEAs...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe
<valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>Come to think of it, though, it isn't just women who are
>underrepresented in the hobby. So are most people who aren't white and
>middle class.
>
>(And before anybody responds indignantly protesting their membership of
>the proletariat or boasting about how they were sent down t' pit at age
>of 6, I'll content myself with observing that access to a modem and
>subscription to usenet confers default membership of the bourgeosie as
>standard).
>
>Anyway, let's have some affirmative action on this.
>
I agree afirmitive action is needed.
I say we gather all of the WW products in the world together pack them up and
ship them off to be distrubuted to peasants in China.
Who's with me
Rob
Jonathan Rowe
In article <1998Mar17.101158.1@v2>, htp@v2.? writes
><a great deal, actually, but I choose to snip it>
>Your concerns seem to have far more to do with your own particular hangups
>than with any real desire to investigate other cultures.
Aaawwwww, come off it. The single most aggravating quality in debate is
when someone chooses to reduce any arguments one might have (which,
being arguments, are susceptible to being true or false) to mere
expressions of personal "hang-ups" or "complexes" or "obsessions". Thus
we can dismiss those with whom we disagree by saying "Oh, well, he would
say that because he's middle-class/a man/insecure/has hang-
ups/whatever".
I don't have any "hang-ups" on this matter. Do you? Thought not! Your
assumption that I don't have any sort of "authentic" desire to
investigate other cultures is sheer presumption. You know nothing about
me.
In other words: Sheesh! Lighten up! I was putting forward a tentative
observation about a subtext in RPG publications and a social dynamic
that tends to arise in gaming groups. I wasn't attacking individuals.
I certainly wasn't attacking *you*. Why would I be devoting so much of
my time or energy to the hobby (and, indeed, be posting on this
newsgroup) if I thought that RPGs were A Bad Thing and that RPGers were
Bad People?
There's a certain bitter irony to all of this. If I were reckless
enough to post a thread under the title "RPGs encourage defensiveness"
what would I get back? Messages saying: "Defensive? Me? I'm not
defensive! How dare you suggest that I'm defensive!" So it goes.
But, since I don't like getting offensive responses, or being used as
some sort of whipping-boy because I'm naive enough vocalise a viewpoint
that people aren't prepared to tolerate, I'm prepared to recant. Here
goes my recantation.
"Roleplayers are great people. We're not sexist. We're not racist. We
don't subscribe to patriarchy. We are open minded students of humanity
in its broadest spectrum. Anybody who implies otherwise must be a
pinko, liberal, commie, PC, agitator whose phlegm is based soley on
personal inadequacies and sheer ignorance of culture, literature and
sociology. People like that should put up or shut up."
There. I've signed my name to it. Now I'm off to burn my copy of "The
Female Eunuch" and cancel my subscription to "The Guardian".
That feels better. Now I fit in again.
Jonathan Rowe
><valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> But - and I put this to you purely
>> for the sake of argument - don't you think that the RPG hobby has
>> something of the nature of an old Victorian-style gentleman's club to
>> it? A retreat from the stresses of a more complicated society into a
>> self-elected grouping where (metaphorically speaking) we can smoke
>> cigars and damn the Dutch over our brandies? In this Club we meet with
>> our peers - people who share our values and assumptions and idioms of
>> speech and thought.
>
>Ooh! What a wonderful collection of button-pushing images and implicit
>assumptions!
>
Why, thank you. I thought it was rather colourful myself.
>This is sheer, shallow rhetoric, apparently designed to induce nodding of
>heads and abandonment of actual thought. If I ever used the words
>"politically correct", I'd be using them now.
>
Oh no! My position crumbles before the inexorable logic of your
argument. ;}
>(Yes, I did see the words "for the sake of argument". They do not excuse an
>attempt to invoke blind prejudice. Even if it is blind prejudice against a
>dominant cultural group.)
>
Sorry, thought we were on usenet, where "the sake of argument" is
sufficient justification for most postings which will elicit a varied
and informative response. Must check the newsgroup's FAQ on that one...
can't recall anything about Devil's Advocacy being banned, much less
mere rhetorical provocation. As for "blind prejudice" . . . well, I'm
at a loss for words. I think your sharp rhetoric is running away with
you a little, Phil. "Mixed metaphors" - yes. "Woolly thinking" -
probably. "Cynical satire" - well, maybe you're right. But "blind
prejudice" - ouch!
>> ... Sure, there may be some mem-sahibs there, but (like
>> the mem-sahibs of the British Raj) they're women who have subscribed
>> wholeheartedly to the prevailing patriarchal ethos: they're women who
>> can adopt masculine discourse, for example, and who feel comfortable in
>> a predominantly male peer group (I'm not suggesting this means female
>> gamers are thereby "less feminine" - this sort of cultural bilingualism
>> is a talent and an asset, I'm sure). We all like it in here and (gulp)
>> we might like it less if more of "them" were to be admitted...
>
>But then, if we filled our games with fluffy bunny rabbits, clothes
>shopping expeditions, and discussions of cookery, we would of course (and
>rightly) be accused of invoking a shallow and sexist image of "femininity"
>in order to expand our markets. We'd also fail miserably to appeal to the
>sort of non-gaming women who *I'd* want to see reached by some magically
>transmuted, female-friendly games (such as my wife, for example).
>
And mine, for that matter. But, yes, what you're saying is critique of
political correctness, a fairly simple one (I'll resist the temptation
to call it "sheer shallow rhetoric" because that would be unfair), but a
critique nonetheless. But can you not acknowledge that too many of the
central female NPCs in most published scenarios are eithe femme fatales
or not-so-cute-as-you'd-think Electra Assassins who can bring death with
a flick of their hairpins? If there's a feminist critique on history
(as "his-story" rather than "her-story") then the same arguments apply
to RPGs. You might not agree with those arguments (and, for the record,
I don't either, though I think they have contributed a perspective which
is invaluable to a balanced understanding of history) but they are
arguments which are, for example, shaping our educational establishment
and entertainment culture...
>But look at it another way; RPGs are not half as much of a stereotyped
>masculine preserve as Jonathan seemingly wants to make out. Playing them
>emphasises verbal and social skills over physical, for example, and they
>are an indoor, intellectualised hobby (unlike, say, football). Let's face
>it, the stereotyped gamer is a weedy, nerdy figure (or a skinny goth - that
>is, a nerd with pretentions to fashion sense). They're not exactly
>"feminine", but they are light-years away from stock conceptions of
>lads-down-the-pub masculinity. If more men than women happen to buy into
>this cultural pattern, that may want fixing - but it's not because we're a
>convincing part of the masculinist, patriarchal hierarchy.
>
I agree with Phil's description of RPG skills, but, look, if patriarchy
was synonomous with drinking beer and smoking tabs it would have been
done away with long ago. The corridors of power, the boardrooms of big
business, the wood-panelled halls of academia - these are also light
years away from the stock conceptions of lads-down-the-pub masculinity,
but it is surely there, if anywhere, that the mores and norms of the
dominant culture are reinforced and directed. If I suggest that there's
a patriarchal subtext in RPGs (I think, in general, there is...) and in
the social dynamics of RPG groups (I think, in general, there *might*
be) then only someone whose first language was not English would come
away believing I'd painted individual gamers as lager-swilling bovver-
boys.
>> >Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to what the "sociological
>> >myths of roleplaying" might be? Then I can tell you whether or not any
>> >of my scenarios challenge them.
>>
>> Oh, let's list a few... (not really addressing gender/race issues, more
>> superficial things - just to illustrate)
>>
>> 1. Protagonists are largely male, aggressive and without strong social
>> attachments (family or friends outside of their adventuring group).
>> 2. Characters identify themselves by their profession/office/marketable
>> talents, rather than by their relationships or culture
>> 3. Females acquire significance insofar as they conform to male norms.
>> 4. People are motivated by power and wealth, rather than ideology or
>> sexuality (for example).
>> 5. The deaths of creatures of a different species are of little concern
>> - even if they're sentient.
>> 6. Revenge, justice and curiousity motivate people strongly, but
>> compassion, desire and domesticity do not.
>
>The trouble is, these range from ideas that are indeed embedded in the core
>of role-playing to sillinesses that have long since been abandoned by all
>but the most regressive of spotty teenage D&D'ers. For example, (1) is
>arguably usually true, although it's subject to periodic challenges from
>many directions (from the Ars Magica idea of community-building to the
>late-teen propensity to make every PC group look like Charly's Angels),
Agreed
>
>whereas (6) gets knocked down every time a bunch of D&D characters charge
>off to save a bunch of villagers from a cruel tyrant...
>
Cobblers (to resort to sheer shallow rhetoric). Most D&D characters
take down local tyrants for the same reason the Allies threaten to bomb
Iraq: simple retributive justice.
>Hell, when push comes to shove, RPGs are just plain diverse. They have
>their trends and stereotypes, some of them quite annoying, but faced with
>guilt-laden neo-liberal simplifications, the correct response is probably
>one contemptuous word. Unfortunately, it is also an inherently masculine
>word, so I wind up typing ramblings like this post instead.
>
And I'm glad you did. Single contemptuous words don't provoke much
reflection (nor, frankly, do they indicate much <pointed glance in
Hywel's direction>). P.C. ideology is so unpopular these days that
anyone daring to express it should take "guilt-lade neo-liberal
simplifications" as a compliment. At any rate, I will take it as
such... 8>
Yet, P.C. thinking must be impacting on the hobby, otherwise why would
many male gamers accept the stereotype that they are "weedy nerdy
figures" or "skinny goths" with a smile and a shrug, but get so
indignant if it's suggested that they're "laddish" or "chauvinist"?
Jonathan Rowe
In article <19980317135...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Rob Lally
<robl...@aol.com> writes
Gosh. And I always thought it was a conspiracy of Chinese mystics and
the Chinese Communist party who were writing all WW's products in the
first place!
The Philosopher's Stone
Jonathan Rowe <valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes
>6. Revenge, justice and curiousity motivate people strongly, but
>compassion, desire and domesticity do not.
political philosophy. It has been argued that the libertarian
"rights"-based approach to politics (one largely embraced by RPGing) is
a very male outlook and is essentially very selfish.
The argument is essentially a critique of a psychological study
performed ages ago by I forget who but it studied moral devellopment in
a vaguely Piagetian context. Children were asked how to solve moral
dilemmas, Males argued in terms of abstract concepts, Females in down to
earth social terms (mainly interms of protecting the family or general
doesticity). In the original study Males were seen as morally more aware
because they used abstract concepts to resolve the problems. Feminists
argue that this is unfair or downright false, think in terms of familial
units.
If we apply this line of argument to RPGing we see that at first
glance the morality of RPGs is profoundly sexist and egotistical.
HOWEVER, what is a family if not a social group? what is an adventuring
party if not a social group? Are the mechanisms at work here that
different? PC's will often do things for the good of the group, even
when it personally disavantages them, I myself have let a few characters
die for the good of the group, money is divided up equally, votes are
taken and the general ethos is not I - we - them but we - them. Parties
are families. Therefore to argue that RPGing neglects the
social/familial side is clearly a category mistake.
** Falling Out Of The Light Is Just As Divine As Falling In **
The Philosopher's Stone
Paul Watson <pa...@lazar.demon.co.uk> writes
>We could argue indefinitely about _how much_ of a stereotyped masculine
>preserve RPGs are, but the fact remains that there are a lot more men
>playing them than women, making them, to some degree, a masculine
>preserve.
I think that that's a bad choice of words. "Preserve" implies that
it is purpousefully kept the way it is, this would mean that you're
suggesting that male roleplayers dont want female roleplayers. I don't
think that's true at all, most male gamers seek to initiate their
partners at one point or another.
I suspect, however, that you meant that even if women are allowed
in it's an overwhelmingly male hobby. That's true trivially, it's a
fact... any values you heap into that are extraneous to that fact.. in
other words... you're stating the blooming obvious.
>Whilst I'm sure we all agree that RPGs have got a lot of good things to
>offer, it still doesn't change the fact that there's a problem here
yes, but badly diagnosing it as chauvinism isnt going to help find a
cure. Insular, yes... Sexist, no.
>P.C. thinking certainly is impacting on the hobby, and it's getting the
>same resistance from (small c) conservatives and those with vested
>interests that it's got from elsewhere in society.
I dont think that PC is a cut and dry problem... I prefer to be
thought of as fat rather than physically overextended or whatever. Sure
Pc in general is a good thing... most of its precepts are allready
present in "good manners" though. I dont think that this is a case of
"if you're not part of the solution..."
>To be critised on what we thought was one of our achievements stings a
>bit.
I think that the charge of rampant sexism gets a similar
treatment to that of RPGs being cult-like mind games. We dont think that
it's true. We dont mind being called nerds because it is a relatively
fair assessment. Call anyone something that they're not they'll
complain.
Paul Watson
Ooh, this is an interesting one...
>>Oh, let's list a few... (not really addressing gender/race issues, more
>>superficial things - just to illustrate
I think the issues below aren't really "superficial". Points 1 and 3
certainly start to address gender issues.
>>1. Protagonists are largely male, aggressive and without strong social
>>attachments (family or friends outside of their adventuring group).
I think this one is slowlty changing - but it still has some way to go.
I have made sure that almost every player character in the group I am
ref-ing at the moment has a relative in town who is constantly reminding
the players of their familial duties. The problem is actually addressed
in your next point - getting the characters to identify themselves by
their relationships...
>>2. Characters identify themselves by their profession/office/marketable
>>talents, rather than by their relationships or culture
usually because the Players don't bother to explore these things, or the
Ref has not bothered to create them in enough detail. Having said that,
identifying yourself by your profession/office/marketable talents is
pretty normal in the real world - people tend to say "I'm a
artist/engineer/estate agent" or whatever - it is one way in which
people define their personal identity. Of course, if this is the _only_
frame of reference for their personal identity then something is wrong.
Most people have several facets which build up a simple personal
identity. These include (in varying degrees) age group, gender,
culture, subculture, position in family, Profession, (social) class,
religion, political stance etc. It is the sum of these parts which
makes up the basic identity.
>>3. Females acquire significance insofar as they conform to male norms.
This is a very interesting and valid point. I'd like to hear more about
your ideas on this. What would a game be like in which this was
reversed (where Males only acquire significance by conforming to female
norm)?
>>4. People are motivated by power and wealth, rather than ideology or
>>sexuality (for example).
Not in the group I play with, but in general it's probably true. Of
course, _some_ people are motivated by power and wealth in the real
world, but _most_ characters are motivated by power and wealth in rpgs.
>>5. The deaths of creatures of a different species are of little concern
>>- even if they're sentient.
This is true, and it's also true in the Real World. Most people don't
care about the deaths of animals - if they did then most people wouldn't
eat meat. I could start ranting (I'm a vegan and AR activist), but I
don't think this is the right place for me to air my views on animal
rights. ;-)
>>6. Revenge, justice and curiousity motivate people strongly, but
>>compassion, desire and domesticity do not.
This is a Catch 22. The Ref thinks that the Players probably won't go
for a story that relies on compassion/desire/domesticity. The Players
don't have the chance to see any stories relying on these things because
the Ref thinks...
--
Paul
Ceci n'est pas un sig
Saeid Razavi
>
>...you've never actually met any goths, have you?
>
No, not the medieval (whatever) variety but a couple of friends of mine are
self-styled goths and I apologize for using the term blandly.
But in my (somewhat narrow) book if you got dark, greasy type hair, wear
anks, lots of black, rave about the Crowe, wine on about death, heavy rock,
pretending to be wild (when really you're just a nerd) and smell kind like
dead meat... you're a goth.
Paul Watson
Jonathan Rowe actually said something I agree with when he wrote...
>>> But - and I put this to you purely
>>> for the sake of argument - don't you think that the RPG hobby has
>>> something of the nature of an old Victorian-style gentleman's club to
>>> it? A retreat from the stresses of a more complicated society into a
>>> self-elected grouping where (metaphorically speaking) we can smoke
>>> cigars and damn the Dutch over our brandies? In this Club we meet with
>>> our peers - people who share our values and assumptions and idioms of
>>> speech and thought.
since someone suggested legalising cannabis at the Tory Party
Conference.
Phil Masters argued:
>>But look at it another way; RPGs are not half as much of a stereotyped
>>masculine preserve as Jonathan seemingly wants to make out.
We could argue indefinitely about _how much_ of a stereotyped masculine
preserve RPGs are, but the fact remains that there are a lot more men
playing them than women, making them, to some degree, a masculine
preserve.
>Playing them
>>emphasises verbal and social skills over physical, for example, and they
>>are an indoor, intellectualised hobby (unlike, say, football).
Whilst I'm sure we all agree that RPGs have got a lot of good things to
offer, it still doesn't change the fact that there's a problem here
which (judging by the Disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells spluttering quality
of certain replies to Jon's post) no one wants to deal with or even (in
some cases) admit the existance of.
>Let's face
>>it, the stereotyped gamer is a weedy, nerdy figure (or a skinny goth - that
>>is, a nerd with pretentions to fashion sense). They're not exactly
>>"feminine", but they are light-years away from stock conceptions of
>>lads-down-the-pub masculinity. If more men than women happen to buy into
>>this cultural pattern, that may want fixing - but it's not because we're a
>>convincing part of the masculinist, patriarchal hierarchy.
Ever heard this one:
"If you're not part of the solution..."
>And I'm glad you did. Single contemptuous words don't provoke much
>reflection (nor, frankly, do they indicate much <pointed glance in
>Hywel's direction>). P.C. ideology is so unpopular these days that
>anyone daring to express it should take "guilt-lade neo-liberal
>simplifications" as a compliment. At any rate, I will take it as
>such... 8>
Doesn't "guilt-laden neo-liberal simplifications" count as "a wonderful
collection of button-pushing images and implicit assumptions" ? ;-)
>Yet, P.C. thinking must be impacting on the hobby, otherwise why would
>many male gamers accept the stereotype that they are "weedy nerdy
>figures" or "skinny goths" with a smile and a shrug, but get so
>indignant if it's suggested that they're "laddish" or "chauvinist"?
>
P.C. thinking certainly is impacting on the hobby, and it's getting the
same resistance from (small c) conservatives and those with vested
interests that it's got from elsewhere in society.
What has amazed me is the force of the reaction against the very thought
that we are, in some way, not quite perfect as a hobby. I suppose we've
always prided ourselves on the way we'll accept any "weedy male nerd"
into our fold who isn't really accepted by anyone else. God, we've even
accepted some women! What else do these people want? :-)
To be critised on what we thought was one of our achievements stings a
bit.
Oh well, there goes any chance of making friends here. :-)
--
Paul
Not someone who'll be against the wall when the revolution comes!
Paul Watson
The Philosopher's Stone wrote:
> Paul Watson <pa...@lazar.demon.co.uk> writes
>>We could argue indefinitely about _how much_ of a stereotyped masculine
>>preserve RPGs are, but the fact remains that there are a lot more men
>>playing them than women, making them, to some degree, a masculine
>>preserve.
>it is purpousefully kept the way it is, this would mean that you're
>suggesting that male roleplayers dont want female roleplayers. I don't
>think that's true at all, most male gamers seek to initiate their
>partners at one point or another.
> I suspect, however, that you meant that even if women are allowed
>in it's an overwhelmingly male hobby. That's true trivially, it's a
>fact... any values you heap into that are extraneous to that fact.. in
>other words... you're stating the blooming obvious.
>
Whilst I think you're undoubtedly right that most male gamers seek to
initiate their girlfriends/wives into the hobby, I still think that the
way the roleplaying hobby presents itself on the whole tends to put
women off, which does indeed make it a "Male Preserve" (sounds like jam
or something!). I don't think this is _deliberate_ sexism, and I'm not
accusing each and every roleplayer of being sexist.
I think that a combination of factors can lead to the _perception_ that
the roleplaying hobby is sexist. These factors include the attitudes of
a small minority of roleplayers, the artwork of many (although not all,
by any means) roleplaying products, the stereotypical roles (prostitute
etc. - see Jon's earlier post) of female characters in many (although
not all, by any means) published scenarios etc.
>>Whilst I'm sure we all agree that RPGs have got a lot of good things to
>>offer, it still doesn't change the fact that there's a problem here
> yes, but badly diagnosing it as chauvinism isnt going to help find a
>cure. Insular, yes... Sexist, no.
>
My dictionary defines "insular" as "Narrow, Prejudiced". If the
insularity in question is strongly gender-based then I think you've got
a fair definition of sexism.
>>P.C. thinking certainly is impacting on the hobby, and it's getting the
>>same resistance from (small c) conservatives and those with vested
>>interests that it's got from elsewhere in society.
> I dont think that PC is a cut and dry problem... I prefer to be
>thought of as fat rather than physically overextended or whatever. Sure
>Pc in general is a good thing... most of its precepts are allready
>present in "good manners" though. I dont think that this is a case of
>"if you're not part of the solution..."
I'm glad you're aware that the "physically overextended" stuff is the
extreme end of PC, which has been greatly exagerrated in the media. As
such, when I use the phrase PC I am refering to what I'd call the
_sensible_ stuff (anti-racist, anti-sexist etc).
I'd rather be called fat than "physically overextended" as well
(thinking about it, I'd rather not be called fat either, but that's
beside the point!), but I've been in a gaming group where I've heard
black people being refered to as "Niggers" and I'm sure I found that as
offensive as most people on this newsgroup would. The person in
question was blatantly sexist as well.
I think that the term "Politically Correct" has been too devalued by its
opponents to be of any use (score one to its opponents, I suppose).
>>To be critised on what we thought was one of our achievements stings a
>>bit.
> I think that the charge of rampant sexism gets a similar
>treatment to that of RPGs being cult-like mind games. We dont think that
>it's true. We dont mind being called nerds because it is a relatively
>fair assessment. Call anyone something that they're not they'll
>complain.
I don't think it's _rampant_ sexism, but, as I said earlier, I think
that the roleplaying hobby can easily be perceived as being sexist,
especially by an outsider.
I'd like to stress again that I don't believe that most of the people
involved in roleplaying are sexist, but I do think that the _image_ of
the roleplaying hobby can be perceived as sexist. By not attempting to
alter the image, the roleplaying hobby will continue to be perceived as
sexist.
This is what I meant by "If you're not part of the solution...".
Thanks, BTW, for responding to my post in such a level-headed manner.
After I'd sent my earlier post I wondered if I'd made it a little too
off-hand and confrontational, and I was a little worried all I'd get
would be knee-jerk responses. In that, at least, you have proved me
wrong! ;-)
Jonathan Rowe
In article <vehgIRA$fqD1...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe
<valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes
far too much, really. So, to lighten the tone, here's my
Guide to Politically Correct RPGs
1. AD&D
Well, that maximum strength for females has to go for starters. As does
the racial typecasting of elves-are-magicians and halforcs-are-assassins
and dwarves-can't-cast-spells. Let's have a multicultural character
generation system with dwarves mages and half-orc paladins. Alignments?
Don't get me started - Gary Gygax shoving his Judeo-Christian polarised
Law/Choas Good/Evil dichotomies down everyone's throats. Alignments
need an infinite number of permutations to account for the variety of
personal ethical orientations out there. Why are all the character
classes so violent? What about Peacemakers, Holistic Goddess-Nurturers
and races like half-hobbit (what? you think short people can't be
sexually assertive? sizist!!!!!), half-troglodyte (odour-ist!!!!!) and
half-bullywug (enough of this anti-batrachian prejudice!). The personal
hygeine of ghasts should not be a subject of crude discrimination - it's
an individual body-imaging decision and to describe it as "stench" is
arrant anthropocentrism. Saving throws, indeed!
2. CHIVALRY & SORCERY (whatever edition - and who's to say more recent
ie. younger editions are superior to more chronologically-enhanced ones?
Age-ist!!!!)
Chivalry? Pah! A naive euphemism for xenophobic militarism justified
by paternalistic authority-figures seeking to subjugate the peasant
class within a stratified caste-system that relates socio-economic
status to intangible spiritual worth! Yet another expression of
patriarchy's attempts to railroad wimmin into the inevitable
madonna/whore polarity.
Sorcery? A masculinist hijacking of essentially matriarchal spiritual
traditions, obfuscating the emotional quest for the primal elan vital
(the word sorcerer deriving from "sorcier": one who divines the sources,
a water-finder, a plumber of the primeval depths of the id where
quintessentially feminine archetypes exist) with abstract, Western
paradigms of Aristotelian so-called logic (which are, in and of
themselves, hierarchical and oppressive).
Condescension and Shibboleths, I call it.
3. PENDRAGON
Armoured knights with swords - the stormtroopers of a brutal miltarised
state, inured against contact with their alienated female-sides by the
"armour" of chauvinistic warrior-codes. Don't try to tell me the sword
isn't a phallic symbol? Arthur's so-called "Table Round" is a crude
caricature of the circularity of true shamanic wisdom, the mailed fist
of patriarchy justifying the absorbtion of ethnic diversity by appeal to
abstract Western concepts of "justice" and "equality" (highly suspect
terms, both of them).
PCs shouldn't be privileged aristocrats but peasants, experiencing the
realities of life in a dehumanising feudal regime. They should have
Passions like "Love (Anarcho-Syndiclist Commune)" and "Hate (Bigoted
Intolerant Worldviews, ie Christianity)". A worthwhile peasant-campaign
would involve developing a mandate for a legitimate system of government
based on fair distribution of resources, in place of the "farcical
aquatic ritual" by which the so-called "Pendragon" legitimises his rule
of terror.
4. VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE
Willpower is a dubious stat. The notion of outwardly-directed invasive
personal orientation is at the root of Western society's cultural
malaise. I propose "Acceptance" as a more philosophically acceptable
term. "Disciplines" implies a master-servant relationship, showing how
this game, despite its superficial acknowledgement of alternative sexual
orientations, remains rooted in rigid Classical thought. Golconda?
Vampires should strive towards a state of Photosynthesis, in which they
are not only freed from an exploitational cycle with their fellow-beings
but also contribute meaningfullly to the environment by the recycling of
carbon dioxide gases.
5. EVERWAY
Politically Correct Everway? A tautology, surely?
6. MACHO WOMEN WITH GUNS
Aaaargh!!! Nyerrrrgle!
[Ppppfth! Small billow of smoke erupts from side of temple. Slumps
forward, face down into the keyboard
Vicky
The Philosopher's Stone wrote:
>
> >6. Revenge, justice and curiousity motivate people strongly, but
> >compassion, desire and domesticity do not.
> political philosophy. It has been argued that the libertarian
> "rights"-based approach to politics (one largely embraced by RPGing) is
> a very male outlook and is essentially very selfish.
> The argument is essentially a critique of a psychological study
> performed ages ago by I forget who but it studied moral devellopment in
> a vaguely Piagetian context. Children were asked how to solve moral
> dilemmas, Males argued in terms of abstract concepts, Females in down to
> earth social terms (mainly interms of protecting the family or general
> doesticity). In the original study Males were seen as morally more aware
> because they used abstract concepts to resolve the problems. Feminists
> argue that this is unfair or downright false, think in terms of familial
> units.
> If we apply this line of argument to RPGing we see that at first
> glance the morality of RPGs is profoundly sexist and egotistical.
> HOWEVER, what is a family if not a social group? what is an adventuring
> party if not a social group? Are the mechanisms at work here that
> different? PC's will often do things for the good of the group, even
> when it personally disavantages them, I myself have let a few characters
> die for the good of the group, money is divided up equally, votes are
> taken and the general ethos is not I - we - them but we - them. Parties
> are families. Therefore to argue that RPGing neglects the
> social/familial side is clearly a category mistake.
You're thinking of Kohlberg's theory of moral development which said
that morality is based on concepts of justice developed in a series of
stages. He based his theory on a male sample group initially then
applied it to women and found that often they did not reach the highest
stage (he said this meant they were amoral). Carol Gilligan researched
this and found that women tended to define morality more in terms of
caring, relationships and responsibilities rather than rights and
justice, concepts that Kohlberg did not consider.
Returning to roleplaying, in games I've played in, wealth is often an
incentive and so is saving our own skins. However within games we
co-operate, share and help each other out. More to the point we also
help NPCs for no reasons other than friendship or because they simply
need help and it fits in with our characters (though we've also been
cruel and callous to all we encounter when the occasion demands). In my
Cyberpunk game one of the PC's has a younger sister whom he has caring
responsibilities for.
I've asked a lot of my female friends along to our group to game and
they've all really enjoyed it. One still games, the others stopped
because of time committments and because if offered a choice of going
out or going gaming, went out (I've always chosen gaming which to me is
'going out' - does this make me really sad?). The men in the group tend
not to tell girlfriends about gaming for fear of seeming nerdy. Mind you
I don't tell many people either since people still seem to remember that
dammed cartoon 'Dungeons and Dragons' that used to be on and think it's
something to do with that which is really embarrassing.
Vicky
The Philosopher's Stone
Paul Watson <pa...@lazar.demon.co.uk> writes
> I still think that the
>way the roleplaying hobby presents itself on the whole tends to put
>women off, which does indeed make it a "Male Preserve" (sounds like jam
>or something!).
well I think that this area is improving, though this is more of a
PR problem than an actualy problem in the nature of the hobby.
> These factors include the attitudes of
>a small minority of roleplayers,
a percentage, I'm sure no higher than in any other white middle
class dominated hobby.
> the artwork of many (although not all,
>by any means) roleplaying products,
I think that you'd be hard pressed to find a chainmail bikini
nowadays. There's MWWG but that's ironic. But even then, how many
loinclothed barbarians were there?
>My dictionary defines "insular" as "Narrow, Prejudiced". If the
>insularity in question is strongly gender-based then I think you've got
>a fair definition of sexism.
touche, though I actually meant "of or forming an island".
> but I've been in a gaming group where I've heard
>black people being refered to as "Niggers" and I'm sure I found that as
>offensive as most people on this newsgroup would.
Yeah, i've seen that too... I once walked out of a game at a
convention after the rest of the party decided to rape the female guide.
But then again, I've played in games that were astonishingly right on
and socially just.
>I think that the term "Politically Correct" has been too devalued by its
>opponents to be of any use (score one to its opponents, I suppose).
well it did get a bit out of controll in some areas, the media, as
you point out, crucified it for its troubles.
> By not attempting to
>alter the image, the roleplaying hobby will continue to be perceived as
>sexist.
There's not actually that much that one can do to change the PR
apart from just recruiting female gamers. There are plenty of grown up
games out there which dont fall into violence like so many other games.
>Thanks, BTW, for responding to my post in such a level-headed manner.
no problem, I've had it happen to me numerous times =)
The Philosopher's Stone
Jonathan Rowe <valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes
>Well, that maximum strength for females has to go for starters. As does
>the racial typecasting of elves-are-magicians and halforcs-are-assassins
>and dwarves-can't-cast-spells.
though this is meant and taken as ironic, it's actually unPC to
argue such things. Elves would most likely defend their culture as
musicians and forest dwellers... seeking merely to clean up confusions
and stereotyping. The maximum strength for women i think shouldn't have
gone from ADD, women do have a smaller percentage of body weight as
muscle than men.
> Don't try to tell me the sword
>isn't a phallic symbol?
and only Arthur could pull it out of the rock that is mother england
and go and hit people over the head with it. Alternatively, Arthur is
given his masculinity by the lady of the lake... a form of spiritual
losing of virginity. =)
> They should have
>Passions like "Love (Anarcho-Syndiclist Commune)" and "Hate (Bigoted
>Intolerant Worldviews, ie Christianity)".
Wasnt there a christian RPG where swimming was taken off of the
root stat "Happyness"?
Ryan J. Maynes
Hi all!
New to this group and couldn't help but notice this thread. I don't see
what the big problem is. Have any of you ever asked a girl to game?
Probably why you don't see too many female gamers around. If you weren't so
worried about a girl thinking that if you asked them to game they might
think that you are trying to pick up on them, then you might have a female
or two in your group. (The last sentence did make sense, read it again.)
Unless of course you are picking up on them...
But anyway, I have gamed for years, since junior high even. There have
always seemed to be female gamers around. True, they are outnumbered, but
that is to be expected as, quite simply, most girls aren't interested in
gaming. Right now, I am involved in a group of seven gamers, three are
female. So, I don't see the closed male cliques you are talking about.
Also, the stereotypes that are listed from 1-6 below don't always apply.
>>> 1. Protagonists are largely male, aggressive and without strong social
>>> attachments (family or friends outside of their adventuring group).
>>> 2. Characters identify themselves by their profession/office/marketable
>>> talents, rather than by their relationships or culture
>>> 3. Females acquire significance insofar as they conform to male norms.
>>> 4. People are motivated by power and wealth, rather than ideology or
>>> sexuality (for example).
>>> 5. The deaths of creatures of a different species are of little concern
>>> - even if they're sentient.
>>> 6. Revenge, justice and curiousity motivate people strongly, but
>>> compassion, desire and domesticity do not.
Even when gaming with my just male group, there are sometimes a few PC
crossdressers(guys role-playing girls, or vice versa). They don't even play
how you would think the typical guy gamer would play them, i.e. femme fatal,
or conformed to a male society. As for the bit about no social attachments,
that is a product of poor role-playing. So numbers one and three are out.
Characters identifying themselves by marketable skills, what of it. I
identify myself as a director of tech support sometimes. But I think that
you have a point, but it is system specific. Actually, it is system
specific to any system that uses a 'class' or 'profession' or even an
'occupation' based character generation system. It is difficult to not
refer to a character as a fighter, if that is the template used to create
it. This is why I prefer the non classed systems. They also tend to offer
more flexibility.
Numbers four through six also seems to be largely a product of role-playing.
The part about gamers being goths or geeks doesn't apply either. I am not a
Goth, and don't fit into your definition of geek. I am an avid sports fan,
athletic, I go to parties and get drunk, I go dancing, I have some fashion
sense, and a life. However, like most gamers, I have been classified as a
geek before for being intellectual. Well too bad, it is a fact that most
gamers are in the top ten percent of intellectual prowess. (Not that that is
particularly neat, if you are in the 98 percentile, and you are in a room
with, say a hundred random people, you are likely to be the third smartest
person in the room.) Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to brag, just
demonstrate a point. Not all gamers are geeks.
If you don't like the stereotypes, stop perpetuating them. I am guessing
that gamers are the ones who are going to be reading this. Take some
responsibility for your hobbies PR, no one else will. If anything is going
to change the current views of gamers, it is the gamers themselves.
Ryan
Jonathan Rowe wrote in message ...
Supermouse
In article <KL35tAAm...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe
<valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <vehgIRA$fqD1...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe
><valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes
>far too much, really. So, to lighten the tone, here's my
>
>Guide to Politically Correct RPGs
>
>1. AD&D
>the racial typecasting of elves-are-magicians and halforcs-are-assassins
>generation system with dwarves mages and half-orc paladins. Alignments?
>Don't get me started - Gary Gygax shoving his Judeo-Christian polarised
>Law/Choas Good/Evil dichotomies down everyone's throats. Alignments
>need an infinite number of permutations to account for the variety of
>personal ethical orientations out there.
Erm...if that was meant to be a parody of the extremist 'PC' ranting
style, then I'm worried. I'm worried because the changes made are the
standard changes in my peer group. It is standard that, in a fantasy
campaign, limiting characters on account of the characters' race or
gender has long been seen as a 'wrong'. Having eight fixed worldviews
has been abandoned as a 'wrong'.[1] If thats an extremist view, then why
are most of the people I know extremists?
[1]Come to think of it, 'Gary Gygax' and 'AD&D' are classed as 'wrongs'
too, but that's not cogent to this argument.
Cordially,
--
Supermouse
There will be no Whitewash in the White Mouse.
Jonathan Rowe
In article <SY4yfCAK...@rat-cage.demon.co.uk>, Supermouse
<Super...@warnco.com> writes
>>Guide to Politically Correct RPGs
>>
>>1. AD&D
>>Well, that maximum strength for females has to go for starters. As does
>>the racial typecasting of elves-are-magicians and halforcs-are-assassins
>>and dwarves-can't-cast-spells. Let's have a multicultural character
>>generation system with dwarves mages and half-orc paladins. Alignments?
>>Don't get me started - Gary Gygax shoving his Judeo-Christian polarised
>>Law/Choas Good/Evil dichotomies down everyone's throats. Alignments
>>need an infinite number of permutations to account for the variety of
>>personal ethical orientations out there.
>
>Erm...if that was meant to be a parody of the extremist 'PC' ranting
>style, then I'm worried. I'm worried because the changes made are the
>standard changes in my peer group. It is standard that, in a fantasy
>campaign, limiting characters on account of the characters' race or
>gender has long been seen as a 'wrong'. Having eight fixed worldviews
>has been abandoned as a 'wrong'.[1] If thats an extremist view, then why
>are most of the people I know extremists?
Hate to break it to you... <g>
No, the PC observations I was making were supposed to start plausible
then degenerate quickly. I think most AD&Ders ignore the stat-
restrictions for sex (and race too); though I don't think there are
many who create an alignment for every personal ethical orientation!!!
Do you *really* do that? Do your PCs have alignments like "Lawful
Irritated" or "Chaotic Vegetarian" or "Compassionate Evil"? (If they
do: cool! but seriously - what do you replace "eight [shurely nine?]
fixed worldviews" with?)
Ooer... this could rekindle the "Should the Alignment system be
scrapped" debate. Don't think I could handle the timewarp that would
involve
j_h...@hotmail.com
In article <WiC29IA5...@lazar.demon.co.uk>,
Paul Watson <pa...@lazar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> What has amazed me is the force of the reaction against the very thought
> that we are, in some way, not quite perfect as a hobby.
Can I ask what you mean when you talk about 'we'?
I've never felt very conscious of being part of a coherent larger group
outside the friends I RP with -- I suppose there are the people I see in
gaming shops, which I usually dash into and out of as quickly as possible in
case one of them decides to stop discussing the niceties of Klingon foreign
politics and follow me home (apart from the time I feigned deep interest in
Heresy cards because the guy who was stacking them on the shelves was quite
cute.. anyone want to buy a couple of spare starter packs of Heresy? :-) )
Does it make any sense to talk about 'we as a hobby'? Or do you mean the
people who do go to clubs and conventions (am I in a minority by not doing
these things?)
jo
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
j_h...@hotmail.com
Philip Masters
In article: <vehgIRA$fqD1...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> Jonathan Rowe
> Sorry, thought we were on usenet, where "the sake of argument" is
> sufficient justification for most postings which will elicit a varied
> and informative response. Must check the newsgroup's FAQ on that one...
> can't recall anything about Devil's Advocacy being banned, much less
> mere rhetorical provocation.
That's another lovely phrase, "Devil's Advocacy" - especially as it gets
used on Usenet. It lets people post any amount of irritating or offensive
rubbish that is guaranteed to annoy a lot of people, and then, when they
are called out, they can run away, grinning smugly and chanting "It may not
all be true, but it provoked a response!"
Sorry. Not buying.
> ... But "blind
> prejudice" - ouch!
Unless you are saying that your past posts were a particularly extensive
exercise in "Devil's Advocacy", I suggest that you do examine your own
blind prejudices. They seem to extend a fair way.
> >But then, if we filled our games with fluffy bunny rabbits, clothes
> >shopping expeditions, and discussions of cookery, we would of course
> >(and rightly) be accused of invoking a shallow and sexist image of
> >"femininity" in order to expand our markets. We'd also fail miserably to
> >appeal to the sort of non-gaming women who *I'd* want to see reached by
> >some magically transmuted, female-friendly games (such as my wife, for
> >example).
>
> And mine, for that matter. But, yes, what you're saying is critique of
> political correctness, a fairly simple one (I'll resist the temptation
> to call it "sheer shallow rhetoric" because that would be unfair), but a
> critique nonetheless.
Fine, except I don't pretend to know what "political correctness" means
these days. The phrase seems to have become so tangled up with lardings of
both excessive irony and tragic lack of irony, from both left and right,
that it had become useless before I even first heard it. So I don't pretend
to critique it.
(It's worse than "post-modernism", it really is.)
> ... But can you not acknowledge that too many of the
> central female NPCs in most published scenarios are eithe femme fatales
> or not-so-cute-as-you'd-think Electra Assassins who can bring death with
> a flick of their hairpins?
Umm... Probably not. I'm away from home at the moment, and the only RPG
material I've got to hand to analyse is White Wolf stuff, so I can't try to
shred this the way it deserves. I mean, the manuscripts of *mine* currently
sitting around RPG publishers' offices include a narrative set in Ottoman
Turkey where the heroine gets to save the hero's life twice, through
application of intelligence (not hairpins), and an adaptation of
Pratchett's Discworld complete with stats for the Lancre Coven, (not to
mention a superhero scenario with a Muslim NPC hero team who I bust a gut to
make sympathetic and heroic), but that's just boasting.
Frankly, I don't buy enough scenarios - as opposed to setting books - to
attempt a proper answer to this. But it sounds shakey to me.
> >whereas (6) gets knocked down every time a bunch of D&D characters
> >charge off to save a bunch of villagers from a cruel tyrant...
> >
>
> Cobblers (to resort to sheer shallow rhetoric). Most D&D characters
> take down local tyrants for the same reason the Allies threaten to bomb
> Iraq: simple retributive justice.
So sitting around the community for ten years, helping with the harvest and
occasionally looking tough-but-not-aggressive when a would-be bandit
passes, is okay, but nailing said bandit after the event is mere
"retributive justice"? Hmm. It begins to sound like the problem must lie in
the nature of story-telling.
But if you said that narrative was inherently patriarchal, I really *would*
have to accuse you of post-modernism.
> And I'm glad you did. Single contemptuous words don't provoke much
> reflection
Such as "cobblers"?
> ... P.C. ideology is so unpopular these days that
> anyone daring to express it should take "guilt-lade neo-liberal
> simplifications" as a compliment. At any rate, I will take it as
> such... 8>
Damn. Once somebody is stuck in a nice comfortable martyr complex, they are
so rarely worth arguing with.
> Yet, P.C. thinking must be impacting on the hobby, otherwise why would
> many male gamers accept the stereotype that they are "weedy nerdy
> figures" or "skinny goths" with a smile and a shrug, but get so
> indignant if it's suggested that they're "laddish" or "chauvinist"?
But I had come to terms with being called a nerd, while preferring to avoid
being called a chauvinist, fifteen years before I heard or saw the term
"political correctness".
It's usually easier to tolerate comment based on on truth (and most gamers
are more or less nerdish) than it is to put up with insults that are simply
untrue.
Philip Masters
In article: <WiC29IA5...@lazar.demon.co.uk> Paul Watson
<pa...@lazar.demon.co.uk> writes:
> ... a knee-jerk conservative reaction unseen
> since someone suggested legalising cannabis at the Tory Party
> Conference.
"Knee-jerk conservative"? Woo. Long time since I got called *that*. Feels
kind of nice, really. Shows it's not just the American right-wingers I
can wind up on Usenet.
> Whilst I'm sure we all agree that RPGs have got a lot of good things to
> offer, it still doesn't change the fact that there's a problem here
> which (judging by the Disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells spluttering quality
> of certain replies to Jon's post) no one wants to deal with or even (in
> some cases) admit the existance of.
("Disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells spluttering"? I probably ought to archive
this post.)
I'd love to deal with it, insofar as it's a problem. It's just that first,
we need to determine (a) how much of a problem it is, and (b) what the real
cause is. Assuming that anything involving male preponderance is down to
some kind of semi-conscious patriarchal conspiracy, or suggesting that the
way to make a hobby "better" is to change everything about it, including
everything that makes it interesting to its current enthusiasts, just seems
like missing the point, somehow.
Look, I really can't see the shortage of women playing RPGs as a major
feminist issue somehow. Votes for Women? Equal pay for equal work?
Protection from domestic violence? *Those* are problems. What we have is a
minor irritation, perhaps a slight embarassment, and maybe a small loss
for women who'd enjoy RPGs if they tried them. But men who are unable to
attract women are traditionally just told to have more baths and practice
their social skills.
(It's our pretentions to art that cause all this hassle, I suspect. I bet
that model railway-building is just as much of a male preserve, but that
no-one loses half as much sleep over it.)
> Ever heard this one:
> "If you're not part of the solution..."
"...You're part of the precipitate."
(Good solid Maoism there. Revolutionaries Unite! Those not with us are
against us, and should be subject to revolutionary justice! Precipitately!)
> Doesn't "guilt-laden neo-liberal simplifications" count as "a wonderful
> collection of button-pushing images and implicit assumptions" ? ;-)
It's tragically short of imagery, actually. Plenty of solid button-pushing,
though, I'll agree.
> P.C. thinking certainly is impacting on the hobby, and it's getting the
> same resistance from (small c) conservatives and those with vested
> interests that it's got from elsewhere in society.
Mmm. Snorts of contempt.
> Oh well, there goes any chance of making friends here. :-)
Friends? You want to make friends, join a dating agency.
(You want to make anything like friends *round here*, remember that it's a
uk.* newsgroup. If you can't convey irony without smilies, you maybe have a
problem with the prevailing ethos...)
John Upstone
> >I'm happy if people from non-white, non-middle-class backgrounds
> >discover that they enjoy roleplaying.
> >
> >But I don't particularly care if they do or they don't.
>
> Well, of course, and why should you? But - and I put this to you purely
> for the sake of argument - don't you think that the RPG hobby has
> something of the nature of an old Victorian-style gentleman's club to
> it?
Ooh, this should be good. I can see people reaching for their keyboards to
reply even now. :)
<rolls up sleeves>
> A retreat from the stresses of a more complicated society into a
> self-elected grouping where (metaphorically speaking) we can smoke
> cigars and damn the Dutch over our brandies?
How then is roleplaying so different in this matter to many other
pastimes?
> In this Club we meet with
> our peers - people who share our values and assumptions and idioms of
> speech and thought.
We do? There are perhaps some common values and idioms that are purely
game-related, but otherwise I'd say that's not true. Just as with my
non-roleplaying friends, there are people I game with who have very
different values and assumptions to mine.
> Sure, there may be some mem-sahibs there, but (like
> the mem-sahibs of the British Raj) they're women who have subscribed
> wholeheartedly to the prevailing patriarchal ethos: they're women who
> can adopt masculine discourse, for example, and who feel comfortable in
> a predominantly male peer group (I'm not suggesting this means female
> gamers are thereby "less feminine" - this sort of cultural bilingualism
> is a talent and an asset, I'm sure). We all like it in here and (gulp)
> we might like it less if more of "them" were to be admitted...
You're trying to tell me that for a woman to survive in a role-playing
environment, she has to be come "one of the boys"? Nonsense, say I! In the
first place, some male gamers I know are amongst the least "laddish" men I
know. Secondly, if a woman does have to do as you describe, she should
find herself a better GM and some more mature gamers to play with.
Roleplaying hasn't been exclusively about gun or sword-toting macho heroes
for more years than some roleplayers I know have actually been alive.
> So, it's a vicious circle. Games companies create the games the public
> want, thus shaping a public which wants the games the companies write.
> Chicken? Egg? I dunno!
This I do agree with, to some extent. Look at White Wolf, or even SJG.
Back before GURPS, most of us were quite happy to learn a new system every
time we roleplayed in a new setting.
> >So I don't think that being designed to appeal to white, middle-class
> >people is necessarily a bad thing.
>
> Heavens, no. Not necessarily a good thing either. But certainly a
> culture-barrier to those outside the paradigm looking to enter the hobby
> (which is ironic, since roleplaying - existing in the imagination - has
> the potential to be a great leveller of class/race/gender, a tool which
> players can use to redefine selves and the norms that shape them).
How do people "enter the hobby"? Do they wake up one morning and think "I
want to roleplay", only to find that there is a 'culture-barrier'
preventing them from entering our 'paradigm'? Or do they get invited to
play by their friends, and have their entry into the world of gaming that
way?
Gamers moving to a new area may complain that it's difficult to get
involved with existing groups, as may people whose former gaming partners
have quit the hobby, but I think most people's *introduction* is through
friends. I don't think that's because of any barrier - I think it's
because that's the only way you'll be lured into roleplaying. It has to be
described to you, and if you find the description appealing, you'll give
it a try.
> >Perhaps you would care to enlighten me as to what the "sociological
> >myths of roleplaying" might be? Then I can tell you whether or not any
> >of my scenarios challenge them.
>
> Oh, let's list a few... (not really addressing gender/race issues, more
> superficial things - just to illustrate)
>
> 1. Protagonists are largely male, aggressive and without strong social
> attachments (family or friends outside of their adventuring group).
Bollocks! :) This *is* 1998, isn't it? Sure, some characters are still
like that - the nature of some types of game means that the protagonists
are likely to be people with no ties. But it's by no means the rule,
especially when you consider modern-day games.
> 2. Characters identify themselves by their profession/office/marketable
> talents, rather than by their relationships or culture
To some extent, because most games involve characters being employed, and
so they need to have a desirable skill of some kind. But that profession
doesn't define their *identity*.
> 3. Females acquire significance insofar as they conform to male norms.
Ooh boy, does your GM need some lessons in avoiding stereotypes or what?!
;)
> 4. People are motivated by power and wealth, rather than ideology or
> sexuality (for example).
Utter nonsense. Even in cyberpunk worlds I've had characters motivated by
both of the latter. Simple greed is a fairly boring motivation, at the end
of the day. Love, lust, friendship, ideology, revenge, hatred, fear -
these kind of motivations are much more fun to play. Especially since most
characters have a mix of several.
> 5. The deaths of creatures of a different species are of little concern
> - even if they're sentient.
Now that's just silly. Are we all still playing dungeon crawls then?
> 6. Revenge, justice and curiousity motivate people strongly, but
> compassion, desire and domesticity do not.
But not as silly as that! Except perhaps the domesticity part.
These are such monumental generalisations that I hardly know where to be
begin refuting them. And in my experience they're very inaccurate.
> Obviously, a lot of this could be described as "bad roleplaying", or an
> inevitable spillover of the Game aspect of RPGs into the construction of
> scenarios, NPCs and characters.
Hell, all of it could be described as bad roleplaying. Or perhaps as
*unimaginative* roleplaying - and since roleplaying is all about
imagination that's quite a serious indictment. People can play games that
way, and some probably still do. People may sometimes deliberately choose
characters that partly fall into one or more of your stereotypes, but
often those elements are part of a much more complex characterisation.
This is getting close to the "roleplaying vs. roll-playing" argument here
- both are valid elements of the hobby as a whole, but I think that you're
selling people short if you think that even the hack & slash merchants are
quite as shallow as you're painting them.
> But the point is that despite pious
> exhortations in rulebooks, and the odd exceptional game that roots
> itself in a particular culture (Pendragon for medieval Europe, Bushido
> for feudal Japan), RPGs don't do much in terms of rules-design or
> example-by-published-scenario to redress this. (How many actual
> published Pendragon scenarios make kinship an issue?)
I have to admit here that I don't really have much experience of this - in
20 years of GMing I've almost always written my own material.
> With a dash of deconstruction, it wouldn't be hard to analyse the
> sexist/racist/bourgeois/whathaveyou ideology inherent in most RPGs (not
> hard because - I suspect - it's the largely unstated or unrecognised
> ideology of most games designers and players: liberal, secular,
> patriarchal, affluent).
I really object to this, not just because I don't feel it represents me,
but because I don't feel it represents most of the gamers I've known in
those 20 years. I can only base my opinion on my own experiences, but they
lead me to a very different conclusion to the one you've reached.
> Absolutely. Although <sly grin> that hasn't stopped usenet commentators
> in the past assuming that their perspectives were somehow representative
> of the hobby...
LOL!
> Of course, I've been "taking a position" here, but I do have some
> respect for the position and I think, if RPGs ever become a more
> mainstream hobby (instead of the "cult" status they currently enjoy) it
> should be addressed.
In an age of television and computer games, is roleplaying *ever* likely
to become a mainstream hobby? I doubt it.
> Some companies are addressing it, in an awkward
> and inconsistent sort of way (WW's political correctness, the New Age
> psychology implicit in a lot of Jonathan Tweet's work, like Everway).
People often talk about political correctness as if it was something
people do for the sake of appearance, without really believing in it. It
can, of course, be taken to ludicrous extremes, but the idea of using
language with some consideration of how it will be received strikes me as
a good one.
> It's possible, though, that a certain WASPishness is inherent to RPGing:
> like Flower Power, the hobby assumes reasonably well-educated and
> literate types with a lot of free time and a lifestyle of sufficient
> comfort that time spent in "escapism" isn't time squandered.
I think I actually agree with this bit... :)
John
--
John Upstone * jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk * ju...@cix.co.uk
Dial up, Log in, Chill out * Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
.................................................................
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the
impurities in our air and water that are doing it." - Dan Quayle
Scott Hill
Darchangel <may...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<6ekh1l$ail$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>...
> Lets look at the stereotypical roleplayer (as seen by the "general"
public).
> He (its always a he) loves his computer, is socially retarded, has
dubious
> personal hygiene, lives in a world of his own, worships Satan, has a
> childish mentality ie. won't grow up, a megalomanical turn of mind, and a
> coathanger for a body.
Hate to confirm the stereotype, but, that all sounds dangerously close to
someone I actually know ! Apart from the loves his computer, is socially
retard, dubious hygene and Satan worship bits, that is. But then I'd guess
I'm even worse. (just add the loves his computer bit back in ;-)
--
Scott Hill
Sc...@DDLinks.co.uk
Software Engineer (and all round nice guy)
"The best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't
exist..."
- Verbal Kint.
"the Internet is here so we can waste time talking about nothing in
particular when we should be working" - Marcus Hill.
The Philosopher's Stone
Vicky <vi...@anansi.demon.co.uk> writes
>You're thinking of Kohlberg's theory of moral development which said
>that morality is based on concepts of justice developed in a series of
>stages.
That's the one... I remember Kohlberg came into it but I couldnt
remember which way round the debate went.
> In my
>Cyberpunk game one of the PC's has a younger sister whom he has caring
>responsibilities for.
yeah, but my point is... is there THAT much of a difference between
RPG morality and that espoused by feminist political theorists? I dont't
think there is for the reasons I outlined.
>I've asked a lot of my female friends along to our group to game and
>they've all really enjoyed it.
I've never known a woman to not enjoy RPGing... its just the
getting them to play in the first place and then come back which is
troublesome.
>I've always chosen gaming which to me is
>'going out' - does this make me really sad?
I dont think so but then again i'm biased. Seriously though is
playing a game more sad than getting drunk and sexually molested by a
football supporter called Trevor?
>dammed cartoon 'Dungeons and Dragons' that used to be on and think it's
>something to do with that which is really embarrassing.
You mean the one with the red midget that kept on trying to kill
them?
The Philosopher's Stone
>> Some companies are addressing it, in an awkward
>> and inconsistent sort of way (WW's political correctness, the New Age
>> psychology implicit in a lot of Jonathan Tweet's work, like Everway).
um...sorry... why would Teapot transendentalism and Voyager
cultural diversity be more female?
Jonathan Rowe
In article <55381...@philm.demon.co.uk>, Philip Masters
<Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> writes
a lot of stuff which I won't dignify by reposting in full
but here's a taster
>That's another lovely phrase, "Devil's Advocacy" - especially as it gets
>used on Usenet. It lets people post any amount of irritating or offensive
>rubbish that is guaranteed to annoy a lot of people, and then, when they
>are called out, they can run away, grinning smugly and chanting "It may not
>all be true, but it provoked a response!"
>
This is Phil in full flow. Notice the adjectives "irritating",
"offensive", the adverb "smugly", the verb "annoy" and the noun
"rubbish". This is what, on Planet Phil, passes for discussion. Phil's
manifesto for what should and should not be posted on usenet is, of
course, a science sharing with mathematics the quality of objective
truth, so I'll let this eye-opening comment speak for itself and pass on
to my real issue...
but first, a little consolidation. I posted a semi-humourous little
piece suggesting that there is a subtext in RPGs and a concommitant
dynamic in RPG groups which reinforces the norms of the dominant
culture. This, really, is not a surprising remark. It could equally
well be made of prime-time TV shows, national newspapers and video
games. Why did I post it?
>to annoy a lot of people
Uh-uh, sorry Phil, but no. I did it in the hope of generating some
considered feedback. If my analysis is faulty (as many of my analyses
are), then wiser heads will point out the faults. I come away with a
wiser head myself. If my analysis has merit, then other voices will
confirm and refine it. I again grow wiser. And, in fact, a number of
people have contributed thoughtful objections or redefinitions.
Excellent!
Then there's the "bollocks" brigade. I'll say no more about them,
except to digress into a fable -
Let's imagine a world where RPGs have been hijacked by the Ku Klux Klan.
In this world, the majority of people who actually play RPGs are
inveterate white supremecists. The RPGs haven't changed: they can be
attacked or defended on their merits; the facist ideologies of the
majority of players are, as it were, accidental. Then, imagine a world
where the majority of players are all liberal Guardian-reading
vegetarians but the games themselves are designed by Klansmen. These
RPGs will be different: there will be an ideology suffusing them. The
players could ignore it, or twist it positively in their own campaigns.
Nevertheless, the racist ideology will probably deter some new players
and might have some malevolent effect on the social dynamics within
gaming groups. Thankfully, of course, we don't live in a world remotely
like either of these.
The point being, one can suggest that RPGs might have such-and-such a
subtext in them, without for one moment accusing any individual gamer of
being a misogynist or a racialist. Nobody needs to feel personally
insulted. Nobody needs to dish out insults in their turn.
All this is obvious. So why, then, do I have to put up with postings
like this:
>I suggest that you do examine your own
>blind prejudices. They seem to extend a fair way.
Phil, you owe me an apology. To set yourself up in judgement over my
"blind prejudices" is an act of impertinence verging on arrogance. You
know almost nothing about me or my prejudices. You may respond to the
string of ASCII characters I tip onto the newsgroup, but don't pretend
for a moment that you know me or even begin to understand me. You may
of course explain to me, civilly, why the proposition I posted is
mistaken; but you seem unwilling to do this. I say "unwilling" because
you're clearly able enough. Your aggressive and highly personal tirade
has been quite unworthy of you. Change tack, or let it drop.
Anyway...
To further the argument, I think the issue of "P.C." in RPGs *has* been
raised already. Check out the designers' notes for any White Wolf game
. . . these people obviously regard the games they are creating as
contributing positively, in their own small way, to a more egalitarian
society, one which values women, alternative sexual orientations,
personal spiritual quests and disenfranchised cultural minorities, all
equally. You might say "That's why I don't like WW games" but, along
with the equally right-on Wizards of the Coast, WW is the gaming
phenomenon of the 90s. An awful lot of people are buying both the game
and (it appears) the sociology that goes with it. But WW stumble as
often as they fly: look at the stock Bad Guys for Vampire: the
Masquerade - Assamite (Arabic), Setite (African), Lasombra (Hispanic)
and Tzimisce (Slavic). Yeah, some gamers in their chronicles will try
to redefine these stereotypes positively, but it's work. I had the
mildly embarrassing experience of GMing a Vampire chronicle when a new
player joined - he was from Iran originally. He asked what Clan
represented Iranian culture. "Oh, you know, the Assamites - a sect of
cold-blooded Assassins who murder for blood in the name of Allah". I
didn't say that, but it made me look at the World of Darkness afresh.
Defend the World of Darkness by all means (or, for that matter, tell me
I've got the Assamites all wrong!), but don't - please - anybody acuse
me of being a lousy Storyteller or a closet racist, okay?
Jonathan Rowe
In article <memo.19980318...@shikasta.demon.co.uk>, John
Upstone <jo...@shikasta.demon.co.uk> writes
>> 1. Protagonists are largely male, aggressive and without strong social
>> attachments (family or friends outside of their adventuring group).
>
>Bollocks! :) This *is* 1998, isn't it? Sure, some characters are still
>like that - the nature of some types of game means that the protagonists
>are likely to be people with no ties. But it's by no means the rule,
>especially when you consider modern-day games.
Err, sorry? Oh... you're finished. I just assumed that any riposte
beginning with "Bollocks" would conclude with some sort of explaination
as to *why* it's bollocks, other than the fact that it's 1998 (what!
did they abolish gender-stereotyping in 1997 and nobody told me?)
>> 2. Characters identify themselves by their profession/office/marketable
>> talents, rather than by their relationships or culture
>To some extent, because most games involve characters being employed, and
>so they need to have a desirable skill of some kind. But that profession
>doesn't define their *identity*.
You *seem* to be missing the thrust of my point. In most RPGs players
act as "types". Within a typical RPG scenario, a lot of PCs function
as, say, a Street Samurai or a Bannaret Knight rather than a Loving
Father or a Jilted Girlfriend. They may have those additional features
on their character sheets (as "quirks") but those things are *usually*
ornamentation. Certain, published campaign settings/scenarios assume
that the PCs will interact with the plot as these sort of "types". This
is particularly ironic in games like Vampire, Cyberpunk or Pendragon
where a lot of time in character generation is given over to thinking
about relationships and commitments which are then ignored for purposes
of running the scenario.
>> 3. Females acquire significance insofar as they conform to male norms.
>
>Ooh boy, does your GM need some lessons in avoiding stereotypes or what?!
>;)
Har-har. *I* do the GMing. But <composes serious expression> I wasn't
suggesting that there are stupid GMs out there who indulge in shallow
stereotyping (well, there probably *are*, but I wasn't thinking about
that). I was suggesting that there are features in the inspirational
films/books, mechanics/assumptions in the rules themselves and
stereotyping-by-example in published scenarios. I couldn't really vouch
for what individual GMs get up to.
>> 4. People are motivated by power and wealth, rather than ideology or
>> sexuality (for example).
>Utter nonsense. Even in cyberpunk worlds I've had characters motivated by
>both of the latter. Simple greed is a fairly boring motivation, at the end
>of the day. Love, lust, friendship, ideology, revenge, hatred, fear -
>these kind of motivations are much more fun to play. Especially since most
>characters have a mix of several.
I said "people" not "PCs". And, again, while most contributors to this
newsgroup could cite, anecdotally, all sorts of rounded characters
they've played (three cheers all round!) I don't think that answers the
point: look at most published scenarios or campaign settings - what are
the Player Hooks? What are the main Antagonists doing and why? Then
come back and tell me I'm wrong.
>> 5. The deaths of creatures of a different species are of little concern
>> - even if they're sentient.
>Now that's just silly. Are we all still playing dungeon crawls then?
Well, a lot of people do, otherwise why is AD&D still selling so well?
But, beyond killing kobolds there's phasering Klingons, dynamiting Deep
Ones, butchering Broo, etc. I know a number of gaming groups have gone
beyond this, but games designers are still playing catch-up. One of the
radical things about Vampire was, for me, the idea that PCs should make
a Humanity check every time they injured someone or took a life.
Vampire is just about the only game which brings an element of moral
choice into what, in other games, is presented as a purely tactical
choice (although I notice that both Kult and Malefex require PCs to make
a sort of "sanity" roll when they take part in violence).
>> 6. Revenge, justice and curiousity motivate people strongly, but
>> compassion, desire and domesticity do not.
>But not as silly as that! Except perhaps the domesticity part.
>These are such monumental generalisations that I hardly know where to be
>begin refuting them. And in my experience they're very inaccurate.
Oh c'mon. Either refute 'em or don't, but don't just stand there
huffing and puffing! Actually, all 6 points were put forward in the
expectation that someone would knock them down, but the only one I'd be
prepared to put my neck on the block for - because I really believe it
holds true for the majority of RPGs - is (6)... ironically the point you
regard as too silly to be worth countering. Go figure!
>> With a dash of deconstruction, it wouldn't be hard to analyse the
>> sexist/racist/bourgeois/whathaveyou ideology inherent in most RPGs (not
>> hard because - I suspect - it's the largely unstated or unrecognised
>> ideology of most games designers and players: liberal, secular,
>> patriarchal, affluent).
>
>I really object to this, not just because I don't feel it represents me,
>but because I don't feel it represents most of the gamers I've known in
>those 20 years. I can only base my opinion on my own experiences, but they
>lead me to a very different conclusion to the one you've reached.
What??? Are you saying that you and your gamer friends *don't* have
liberal and secular philosophies? Do you roleplay with fundamentalists
or facists? I can hardly believe it. "Patriarchal" is a word nobody
wants to be buried under, but if you or your friends are male
professionals then it's a difficult one to avoid without wading into a
big debate about "what is Patriarchy anyway and does it really exist at
all?". Affluent? Well, we *none* of us want to admit to that: "Oh, I
make enough to get by - but I wouldn't call myself well-to-do." But,
nevertheless, if you're devoting all your free time to jobhunting or
making ends meet, you won't have much time for gaming. Most students
count as affluent for my purposes, BTW, since they usually have free
time and disposable income (features shared with the well-off).
>> Of course, I've been "taking a position" here, but I do have some
>> respect for the position and I think, if RPGs ever become a more
>> mainstream hobby (instead of the "cult" status they currently enjoy) it
>> should be addressed.
>
>In an age of television and computer games, is roleplaying *ever* likely
>to become a mainstream hobby? I doubt it.
Worthy of a thread in and of itself. I agree with you, but who'd have
thought virtual pets would ever get bought by anyone? And as for line-
dancing . . . will someone explain it to me, please?
>> It's possible, though, that a certain WASPishness is inherent to RPGing:
>> like Flower Power, the hobby assumes reasonably well-educated and
>> literate types with a lot of free time and a lifestyle of sufficient
>> comfort that time spent in "escapism" isn't time squandered.
>
>I think I actually agree with this bit... :)
<too stunned to rejoinder>
antony johnston
Saeid Razavi <sa...@apollonet.co.uk> wrote:
> But in my (somewhat narrow) book if you got dark, greasy type hair, wear
> anks, lots of black, rave about the Crowe, wine on about death, heavy rock,
> pretending to be wild (when really you're just a nerd) and smell kind like
> dead meat... you're a goth.
what if you have naturally black, crewcut hair, wear an ankh, nothing
but black, rave about at techno clubs, have come to terms with death
[1], prefer Eno to NiN, hold down a respectable (generally perceived as
non-nerdy) job, and smell like a normal human being?
...sounds far more like most of the goths I know =!>
--
antony johnston
http://www.mostlyblack.demon.co.uk/
PS: the man in the orange shirt is not really here.
[1] ie, shit scared of it.
The Philosopher's Stone
Jonathan Rowe <valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes
>What??? Are you saying that you and your gamer friends *don't* have
>liberal and secular philosophies? Do you roleplay with fundamentalists
>or facists? I can hardly believe it.
LOL gold, pure gold... hey... he's a fascist and he's proud.
> Most students
>count as affluent for my purposes, BTW, since they usually have free
>time and disposable income (features shared with the well-off).
well, If I were a union type I'd point you the hefty debts
students are left in after uni and the need to take up part time jobs...
but not being one of those types and knowing what students spend on
Alcohol and fags I think you might have a point.
I actually thought that your "arguments" were jokes.
Paul Watson
Philip Masters wrote
>("Disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells spluttering"? I probably ought to archive
>this post.)
>
'Fraid you'll have to wait for another one to archive. Unless you want
to have a quick splutter at something and I'll repeat the post, of
course :-) (that was a post-ironic smilie)
>I'd love to deal with it, insofar as it's a problem. It's just that first,
>we need to determine (a) how much of a problem it is, and (b) what the real
>cause is. Assuming that anything involving male preponderance is down to
>some kind of semi-conscious patriarchal conspiracy,
was made fairly obvious in my last post.
>or suggesting that the
>way to make a hobby "better" is to change everything about it, including
>everything that makes it interesting to its current enthusiasts, just seems
>like missing the point, somehow.
things which, in your opinion, "makes (roleplaying) interesting to its
current enthusiasts" then we really _do_ have a problem - more so than I
thought.
>feminist issue somehow. Votes for Women? Equal pay for equal work?
>Protection from domestic violence? *Those* are problems. What we have is a
>minor irritation, perhaps a slight embarassment, and maybe a small loss
>for women who'd enjoy RPGs if they tried them.
but that doesn't make it unworthy to be discussed. Besides, the issues
of "Votes for Women" etc, probably wouldn't be entirely relevant on
uk.games.roleplay whereas the problems of sexism in the RPG hobby would.
Which is why I'm discussing sexism in RPGs here, and not the other
problems in the world.
>But men who are unable to
>attract women are traditionally just told to have more baths and practice
>their social skills.
>(It's our pretentions to art that cause all this hassle, I suspect. I bet
>that model railway-building is just as much of a male preserve, but that
>no-one loses half as much sleep over it.)
railway-building!
>
>> Ever heard this one:
>> "If you're not part of the solution..."
>
>"...You're part of the precipitate."
the sand.
>(Good solid Maoism there. Revolutionaries Unite! Those not with us are
>against us, and should be subject to revolutionary justice! Precipitately!)
>
if you can't think of a convincing argument.
>> Doesn't "guilt-laden neo-liberal simplifications" count as "a wonderful
>> collection of button-pushing images and implicit assumptions" ? ;-)
>
>It's tragically short of imagery, actually. Plenty of solid button-pushing,
>though, I'll agree.
>
>> P.C. thinking certainly is impacting on the hobby, and it's getting the
>> same resistance from (small c) conservatives and those with vested
>> interests that it's got from elsewhere in society.
>
>Mmm. Snorts of contempt.
>
>Friends? You want to make friends, join a dating agency.
>
>(You want to make anything like friends *round here*, remember that it's a
>uk.* newsgroup. If you can't convey irony without smilies, you maybe have a
>problem with the prevailing ethos...)
>
Wouldn't want to give your pace-maker too hard a time, after all.
(for those who don't "do" irony, please imagine a smilie here)
--
Comrade Paul
facing the wall with a rifle when the revolution comes.
In an ironic, post-modern way, of course.
With no smilies, 'cos they're passe, aparently.
Jonathan Rowe
In article <EcIqrwAS...@jmccalmont.demon.co.uk>, The Philosopher's
Stone <Th...@jmccalmontREMOVE.demon.co.uk> writes
>I actually thought that your "arguments" were jokes.
To be frank, I'm not so sure myself any more...
I'll try jokes instead. Maybe they'll be taken as arguments ;>
PJS
On 18/03/98 01:49, in message <107835...@philm.demon.co.uk>, Philip Masters
<Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> (It's our pretentions to art that cause all this hassle, I suspect. I bet
> that model railway-building is just as much of a male preserve, but that
> no-one loses half as much sleep over it.)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, when you really sit down and think about it, the the words "male
dominated hobby" is almost tautology; what hobbies are there which are NOT male
dominated? I might be inclined to think that RPGs are less so than most others,
in fact.
---
"Many of us throw up our hands and say "I don't understand
this stuff"... as if ignorance of science were a badge
of artistic merit"
- Polly Toynbee
---
Limbo Folk
In article <SV+f6CAd...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan Rowe
<valk...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <55381...@philm.demon.co.uk>, Philip Masters
><Ph...@philm.demon.co.uk> writes
>a lot of stuff which I won't dignify by reposting in full
>but here's a taster
>
>>That's another lovely phrase, "Devil's Advocacy" - especially as it gets
>>used on Usenet. It lets people post any amount of irritating or offensive
>>rubbish that is guaranteed to annoy a lot of people, and then, when they
>>are called out, they can run away, grinning smugly and chanting "It may not
>>all be true, but it provoked a response!"
>>
>
>This is Phil in full flow. Notice the adjectives "irritating",
>"offensive", the adverb "smugly", the verb "annoy" and the noun
>"rubbish". This is what, on Planet Phil, passes for discussion. Phil's
>manifesto for what should and should not be posted on usenet is, of
>course, a science sharing with mathematics the quality of objective
>truth, so I'll let this eye-opening comment speak for itself and pass on
>to my real issue...
Actually I quite enjoyed that bit. I've been watching this with mounting
disbelief, and took the above as final, clinching proof that... well... that
the Masters breakfast has been slightly off par for the past couple of days.
Or something -- you know, something really =irksome=, whatever it was. Maybe
the breakfast was OK, but the new chambermaid presented it without the
recommended degree of aplomb, so of course the whole day's instantly out of
whack. Phil's thoroughgoing lack of any actual point amounts to a pot/kettle
interface embarrassment at best, but most likely it's just another of those
own-petard humiliating encounters (of the kind best observed quietly from the
distant future). Usually I have to work to get people to do this. They don't
normally leap on stage and demand to do it for nothing, and at such length --
excellent.
>Phil, you owe me an apology. To set yourself up in judgement over my
>"blind prejudices" is an act of impertinence verging on arrogance.
Actually I have to disagree with you here, Jon. It started out as arrogance of
the most flagrant variety and then, much to the surprise of those of us who
might normally consider that rock-bottom, it commenced tunnelling with a
tenacity best compared to that of Michael Howerd when really, really... well...
"answering" a question. Thoroughly.
(Presumably it's still going, so I suppose there's the possibility of running a
sweep as to where it'll finally surface. It would be nice to get some value
out of it, at least.)
>You
>know almost nothing about me or my prejudices.
And there probably isn't time for that anyhow...
>You may
>of course explain to me, civilly, why the proposition I posted is
>mistaken; but you seem unwilling to do this. I say "unwilling" because
>you're clearly able enough.
The proposition underneath it all seems eminently arguable. Florid in its
presentation, I'd say, but obviously intended that way and arguable all the
same. Lots of the superstructure seriously doubtful, as well, also as
intended. I can't quite understand the motive for the Masters spleen or the
other examples of wobbly rhetoric. People are unbalanced by the bleeding
obvious? Jokes annoy them?
I'd engage with the actual theme, but the violently reactionary turn that the
whole thing's taken in response to Jon's (at worst) harmless wurblings is
altogether too distracting. Personally I thought that Jon's wurblings had a
fair bit of substance to them so I suppose the reactionary screechings should
be examined for evidence of alien thought systems, CIA influence, New Labour
New Public Outrage, or anything else that might exempt them from any need for
logic.
>Your aggressive and highly personal tirade
>has been quite unworthy of you. Change tack, or let it drop.
I think your chances are limited here by the opposition's vocabulary, but I'm
looking forward to either the apology or some astonishingly tightly reasoned
(it'd have to be) defence and justification. An apology, actually, when it
comes to it....
>To further the argument, I think the issue of "P.C." in RPGs *has* been
>raised already. Check out the designers' notes for any White Wolf game
>. . . these people obviously regard the games they are creating as
>contributing positively, in their own small way, to a more egalitarian
>society
OK, I'll engage with it just a bit.
Fuckit -- even Gygax thought (at least that's what he said) that this hobby
would improve life for everyone: it'd turn us all into problem-solvers and
team workers, at least. Just why we need the great EGG as a guru is of course
something that probably only he is qualified to explain, but we can let that
pass for the time being. The fact remains that All That Time Ago there was the
idea that society's best values (in some view or another) could be upheld and
entrenched (simultaneously -- not a bad trick) by roleplaying. Oddly, the
people who played the game based on this outlook, and who enjoyed it enough to
keep playing it, seemed to have some sympathy with the ideas, and within their
own groups they maintained them.
Presumably the people who perpetuate the worst examples of arrant Tweetery in
its virgin form =really= believe that visualising the inner nature of Princess
Beautiful-Nose (who is undoubtedly in great peril, but she can be saved by a
Hero with True Vision) and using it as an inspiration for one's personal
life-metaphor (or whatever -- that stuff makes me feel as if I'm drowning) go
at it with just the same kind of enthusiasm. Presumably, also, this can't
happen unless the group as an entity in itself can feel fulfilled and find some
reason to continue by enacting such rubbish. Not quite the brandy-and-Dutch
thing that Jon was describing, but very much a Green-Field-at-Glastonbury kind
of thing that could easily be substituted into his argument without making it
in any way invalid. Of course a gaming group perpetuates and (presumably)
reinforces the values shared by its members. It's obvious. The question
appears now to be how anyone can possibly be disagreeing with this -- but it
should be whether anyone has anything interesting to say about the obvious
underlying truth of it.
Unless they're all roleplaying at being rolepayers, of course.
Never mind. It must be time for Mr Punch to pop up again in one guise or
another. Bring on the show.
Cheers,
Dave