The Game for Non-Gamers: (Forked from: Sexism in D&D)

[InVinoVeritas]

Forked from: Sexism in D&D and on ENWorld (now with SOLUTIONS!)

Not to completely disagree, but this isn't exactly about "female geeks" to the extent that "female geeks" means "women who already like D&D." Its about women who might like roleplaying if it weren't presented as a male power fantasy about hewing ogres in twain with your massive biceps or sneering at the muscular jock types while raining magical fire upon them with your massive intellect and/or innate specialness.

Its about all the girls out there reading Valdemar books who might give roleplaying games a chance if things were a little different both in terms of the sorts of games the publishers create, as well as the general culture of people who already play. At least that's what its about for me when I enter into these conversations.

This is a key point for me. There is always lots of talk of growing the hobby, and certainly sexism has been one of the stumbling blocks. The other thread has done a good job discussing that issue, so I won't go into it here.

However, although addressing sexism is necessary to grow the hobby, I am convinced it is not sufficient. There are more reasons that the non-gamer never tries or enjoys D&D. Furthermore, this has less to do with the non-gamer's gender than what the non-gamer values and seeks out in experiences.

As a point of reference, my wife loves fantasy, castles, fairies, the whole thing, but is 100% a non-gamer. Although she fully supports my hobby, enjoys the art, and encourages me, she has never shown any interest in rolling up a character. I asked her about this once after I played Oblivion for a bit. I made a character that looks like her, and she likes watching her wear medieval gowns, nice jewelry, and hanging out in castles. Anything else, though, brings her no interest. "All she ever does is run and fight things. She can't get real relationships with anyone. She can't fall in love. Could she do some housework?"

The housework comment surprised me. A bit more discussion, and the comment became clear: building and beautifying the area would be a far more important and noble goal for her than slaying monsters. She'd want to deliver medicine to the sick. She'd want to find pretty jewelry. The whole slay monsters thing, that's what you hire oafs to handle for you.

This is one of the big problems with getting someone like her into D&D. The vast majority of the system is dedicated to a myriad number of options for combat, with noncombat actions a stunted, glossed-over bit to the side. She would be more interested in a system in which the noncombat portion was a detailed, fully developed wonder with combat that little thing off to the side that gets handwaved when it gets in the way of the important, valuable noncombat stuff.

Lots of assumptions change the more you think about it. The whole experience system, for example, turns into "if you kill enough monsters, you'll become better at killing monsters" which is about as exciting as "if you take out the trash enough, you'll become better at taking out the trash." A PC's raw capability is no longer a source of prestige. Instead, the PC's history and accomplishments are. Wealth, lots of pretty things, and, most importantly, societal influence become the barometers of prestige. A mid-level warlord leading a large army into battle is better than a high-level loner swordsmaster. Both are completely eclipsed by a first-level priest who is famous for tending to the downtrodden, and loved by everyone in the city.

In short, we've all been playing Cops and Robbers when a number of non-gamers have been wanting to play House or Tea Party.

TTRPGs, however, are better at Tea Party than MMORPGs. But are we looking to beat the MMORPG? If we want more non-gamers to play, should we be finding ways to emulate social networking sites instead?

 

[Aus_Snow]

The housework comment surprised me. A bit more discussion, and the comment became clear: building and beautifying the area would be a far more important and noble goal for her than slaying monsters. She'd want to deliver medicine to the sick. She'd want to find pretty jewelry. The whole slay monsters thing, that's what you hire oafs to handle for you.

Noooooo! 'Tis the anti-D&D!1!! Aiieeeee!

Um, heh.

TTRPGs, however, are better at Tea Party than MMORPGs. But are we looking to beat the MMORPG? If we want more non-gamers to play, should we be finding ways to emulate social networking sites instead?

Hrm. I thought that there were MMORPGs that pretty much are that. Not WoW or whatever, but. . . I dunno, those other ones. *shrug* Never played a MMO of any sort, so maybe not.

Anyway, I've run completely pacifist (or violence-free) campaigns before. Not often, sure, but yep. Done that.

It's possible. I didn't use D&D, however. You could do it, no doubt. But as it happens, I was using skill-based rules each time.

I'm not sure what kind of answer / solution you're wanting, but I just thought I'd ramble on for a bit. So, done.

 

[Set]

And this may explain a little bit of the attraction that Vampire had with the less hack and slash oriented wargamer-derived set (who are not necessarily women). The game could very readily be set around building up resources (herds, contacts, followers, etc.) and 'building empires.' Granted, quite often the other players were just as enthusiastically trying to build their own characters empires at the expense of foiling your own ambitions, but that also could be fun (and when they did cooperate and pool their political and social resources, things got very fun).

I've found it frustrating in the extreme that AD&D (and many other games) seems to actively discourage any sort of 'base-building' or social ties being forged to a particular area, with even thematically-linked Adventure Path style campaigns often turning into 'wander off and kill X' missions, which end up abandoning / penalizing other styles of play. 'Builders,' whether builders of castles or social movements or crafters of magical items, tend to be told 'no, you can't take six months off to do X, the adventure is this way. Saddle up and abandon the part of the game that you like to go kill something.'

That sort of play is more of a defensive game (building a community, or becoming integrated into one) as the characters stay in one place and the adventures come to them, while the standard adventure is more of an 'offensive' game, with the adventurers going out to meet danger in it's lair, and leaving behind any sort of social / political ties they've built at the city gates.

 

[Hairfoot]

Most designers of RPGs are the product of an era during which confessing to an enjoyment of D&D was a ticket to humiliation and mockery, especially from women.

However, the design and marketing ethos of 4E demonstrates that they now realise that geekitude has gone mainstream - but only for men. The notion that women may also enjoy fantasy gaming is lagging behind the imperative of producing fight 'n loot adventures for testosterone-driven young men.

Unfortunately, Wizards of the Hasbro is dedicated to a conservative, extant target market model. So, if women want a game that caters to them, they'll have to demand it, vocally and often.

Also, Set's second paragraph.

 

[InVinoVeritas]

Noooooo! 'Tis the anti-D&D!1!! Aiieeeee!

Um, heh.

Hrm. I thought that there were MMORPGs that pretty much are that. Not WoW or whatever, but. . . I dunno, those other ones. *shrug* Never played a MMO of any sort, so maybe not.

Anyway, I've run completely pacifist (or violence-free) campaigns before. Not often, sure, but yep. Done that.

It's possible. I didn't use D&D, however. You could do it, no doubt. But as it happens, I was using skill-based rules each time.

I'm not sure what kind of answer / solution you're wanting, but I just thought I'd ramble on for a bit. So, done.

No problem, I suppose that's kind of the point. Would we have to turn D&D into "The Anti-D&D" to attract the segment of the population that isn't already attracted to the game? If so, is it worth it?

 

[InVinoVeritas]

And this may explain a little bit of the attraction that Vampire had with the less hack and slash oriented wargamer-derived set (who are not necessarily women). The game could very readily be set around building up resources (herds, contacts, followers, etc.) and 'building empires.' Granted, quite often the other players were just as enthusiastically trying to build their own characters empires at the expense of foiling your own ambitions, but that also could be fun (and when they did cooperate and pool their political and social resources, things got very fun).

I've found it frustrating in the extreme that AD&D (and many other games) seems to actively discourage any sort of 'base-building' or social ties being forged to a particular area, with even thematically-linked Adventure Path style campaigns often turning into 'wander off and kill X' missions, which end up abandoning / penalizing other styles of play. 'Builders,' whether builders of castles or social movements or crafters of magical items, tend to be told 'no, you can't take six months off to do X, the adventure is this way. Saddle up and abandon the part of the game that you like to go kill something.'

That sort of play is more of a defensive game (building a community, or becoming integrated into one) as the characters stay in one place and the adventures come to them, while the standard adventure is more of an 'offensive' game, with the adventurers going out to meet danger in it's lair, and leaving behind any sort of social / political ties they've built at the city gates.

Ooh! Here's a brainstorm!

Have both the offensive and the defensive game. Either have the players handle the resource shepherding followed by the lair invading, or have two DMs, with one group handling the resource shepherding in town, the others battling for glory elsewhere, and then the two groups come back together at the end of the adventure!

Will the knight return home victorious... or dead? Will his successes be heralded throughout town, or will he become a social pariah?

 

[shilsen]

I'll comment on one area here:

Lots of assumptions change the more you think about it. The whole experience system, for example, turns into "if you kill enough monsters, you'll become better at killing monsters" which is about as exciting as "if you take out the trash enough, you'll become better at taking out the trash."

You can go one further, if you want to de-emphasize the combat focus in D&D, which I've very successfully used and seen used by others. Rather than awarding XP for killing things, simply award a certain amount of XP every session, irrespective of what the PCs do. That has a lot of major advantages, as I see it. It completely frees up players to have their PCs do whatever they want them to do and enjoy, without it impacting their character's progression. You want your character to go kill a dragon? To go shopping? To design a better mousetrap? To go to the queen's ball? Go ahead. You'll still get the same amount of XP for it. It also doesn't privilege one particular mode of playing the game (combat) over any other, but leaves the players free to decide what mode matters to them and also allows them to switch modes constantly as they decide.

From a DMing standpoint, it frees you up from having to worry about anything to do with XP other than the question, "How fast do I want my PCs to level up?" And then you award XP at the rate you want them to level. Simple and easy. Everyone wins. I do this now when I DM and have for years, and I'll never use any formulaic system again as long as I game. And I've seen many other DMs use it (some on my suggestion) and they all seem to consider it the best method of assigning XP.

So if you go the direction you're suggesting, I'd recommend the above.

 

[Tuft]

Forked from: Sexism in D&D and on ENWorld (now with SOLUTIONS!)



This is a key point for me. There is always lots of talk of growing the hobby, and certainly sexism has been one of the stumbling blocks. The other thread has done a good job discussing that issue, so I won't go into it here.

However, although addressing sexism is necessary to grow the hobby, I am convinced it is not sufficient. There are more reasons that the non-gamer never tries or enjoys D&D. Furthermore, this has less to do with the non-gamer's gender than what the non-gamer values and seeks out in experiences.

As a point of reference, my wife loves fantasy, castles, fairies, the whole thing, but is 100% a non-gamer. Although she fully supports my hobby, enjoys the art, and encourages me, she has never shown any interest in rolling up a character. I asked her about this once after I played Oblivion for a bit. I made a character that looks like her, and she likes watching her wear medieval gowns, nice jewelry, and hanging out in castles. Anything else, though, brings her no interest. "All she ever does is run and fight things. She can't get real relationships with anyone. She can't fall in love. Could she do some housework?"

The housework comment surprised me. A bit more discussion, and the comment became clear: building and beautifying the area would be a far more important and noble goal for her than slaying monsters. She'd want to deliver medicine to the sick. She'd want to find pretty jewelry. The whole slay monsters thing, that's what you hire oafs to handle for you.

This is one of the big problems with getting someone like her into D&D. The vast majority of the system is dedicated to a myriad number of options for combat, with noncombat actions a stunted, glossed-over bit to the side. She would be more interested in a system in which the noncombat portion was a detailed, fully developed wonder with combat that little thing off to the side that gets handwaved when it gets in the way of the important, valuable noncombat stuff.

Lots of assumptions change the more you think about it. The whole experience system, for example, turns into "if you kill enough monsters, you'll become better at killing monsters" which is about as exciting as "if you take out the trash enough, you'll become better at taking out the trash." A PC's raw capability is no longer a source of prestige. Instead, the PC's history and accomplishments are. Wealth, lots of pretty things, and, most importantly, societal influence become the barometers of prestige. A mid-level warlord leading a large army into battle is better than a high-level loner swordsmaster. Both are completely eclipsed by a first-level priest who is famous for tending to the downtrodden, and loved by everyone in the city.

It does not have to do with gender, and it does not have to do with being a gamer or non-gamer.

Even as a long-time gamer combat can after many years of combat-centric campaigns turn into, as you put it, "if you take out the trash enough, you'll become better at taking out the trash." Wonderful phrase, by the way.

It would be wonderful if more gaming systems had the kind of openness that actively supported the kind of play you descibe as an alternative - not only to encourage the non-gamers, but also to allow for a change of pace for the regular gamers.

(And with "actively support", I mean doing more than say "its up to the DM" or "just invent a skill challenge" - I mean something that supports, rewards and encourages you to spend time and effort on it.)

 

[Asmor]

This is one of the big problems with getting someone like her into D&D. The vast majority of the system is dedicated to a myriad number of options for combat, with noncombat actions a stunted, glossed-over bit to the side. She would be more interested in a system in which the noncombat portion was a detailed, fully developed wonder with combat that little thing off to the side that gets handwaved when it gets in the way of the important, valuable noncombat stuff.

The only problem there is that you seem to be assuming that every RPG is like D&D. D&D is very, very heavily focused on combat, and it shows. Find a different system which isn't so heavily focused on combat, or is even heavily focused on social interactions or whatever floats your wife's boat.

White Wolf's system, though I personally don't care for it at all, seems rather balanced. If you'd prefer the "nuclear" option there's a myriad of indie games in which combat is about as detailed as social interaction is in D&D.

 

[Cadfan]

Faery Tale

Aye, Dark Overlord!

Once Upon a Time

These are some things you might consider in the meantime.

The first is an RPG aimed at small children. I don't mean this for you and your wife per se, but if you've got kids, its a great little game and your wife would probably enjoy playing just to partake in fun with the family. Its probably the best example of a roleplaying game for children on the market.

The other two are storytelling games. They're not RPGs, exactly, but there are roleplaying elements involved.

Aye, Dark Overlord! is a game where one player takes on the role of the dark overlord (the DM, really) and the others are his worthless henchmen. The worthless henchmen have just returned from utterly failing at their mission, in classic Disney/Saturday Cartoon style. Now they're trying to explain to the overlord exactly what happened, and why it is totally not their fault. And the best way to do that is to blame things on each other. Its light, funny, and people know the tropes of the cringing henchmen well enough to jump right into it.

Once Upon a Time is another storytelling game, this one based on faery tales. Basically, you play cards to take control of the narrative by adding in story elements. The winner is whoever uses their cards in the best way, but really it turns into a semi cooperative game where people try their best to make the story coherent.

There are some other options, like the Baron Munchausen game, that are really RPG-lites, but these are the ones with which I'm most familiar.​