5th Edition and the Female Demographic

[Umbran]

I work in tech in marketing/advertising. For designing a product or something like a game, my experience is that they use goal-oriented user profiles instead of demographic profiles, meaning they wouldn't target the game design at a gender but at what the individuals playing are likely to want out of their gaming experience.

In software development, one often uses "user roles" - defined archetypes of users. The user profiles are often of specified. Those user roles are used to think about what the needs of the user are - it's like thinking about what Lidda and Ragnar would do with your software.

That sounds analogous to your goal-oriented profiles. The question is, where do they get the goals?

 

[nedjer]

In software development, one often uses "user roles" - defined archetypes of users. The user profiles are often of specified. Those user roles are used to think about what the needs of the user are - it's like thinking about what Lidda and Ragnar would do with your software.

That sounds analogous to your goal-oriented profiles. The question is, where do they get the goals?

By moving from defining gameplay largely in terms of what PCs are, to framing gameplay in terms of what parties do?

A 'Fighter' doesn't seem much of a goal-orientated characterisation; it's more an incitement to violence that contradicts the more rounded concept of an adventurer or explorer.

Fighting for a 'just cause' or colonizing a continent appears to offer a more fluid and dynamic framework, which places 'Fighters' in the context of what they can choose to do as a whole - rather than what they are meant to do/ how they are labelled.

 

[SarahDarkmagic]

In software development, one often uses "user roles" - defined archetypes of users. The user profiles are often of specified. Those user roles are used to think about what the needs of the user are - it's like thinking about what Lidda and Ragnar would do with your software.

That sounds analogous to your goal-oriented profiles. The question is, where do they get the goals?

So, for a D&D game, we might have user profiles like the ones in the 4e DMG and these. I'm not sure they are right but are more to serve as examples of where my brain is at:

Beer & Pretzels - A more casual-style game group where the primary objective is to set aside some time to socialize with friends. These players might have other things in their life that takes precedence over gaming such as a full-time job and family responsibilities. They tend to be more casual and want a game that's easy to pick up and fits into their busy lifestyle. Well-written adventure modules and easy to use tools to put together and run an adventure might appeal to this group given their limited time.

Weekend Extravaganza - These players are often young and in school. They want a game that they can play for 6-8 hours at a time. They might use published content but many of them also produce their own.

Multi-Campaign Player - Some players play multiple times per week in a number of campaigns. These players tend to like to create very specific PCs and desire a lot of options to customize their characters. The DMs for these groups often run many campaigns and rely on published modules for most of their games, such as the content produced by the living campaigns such as LFR.

While women might be more likely to tend towards a particular group, I don't think they are the sole members of any one group. What's more likely to keep them away is the continued lack of known women creators and the continued belief in some areas that D&D is a game that men play. I mean, even within this thread I've seen comments along the lines of "I don't know any women who play 4e" even though I'm a prominent 4e blogger and now freelancer. It's ok, not everyone knows me and that doesn't invalidate their experience of not knowing a woman who plays 4e, but I do think those sorts of statement create an environment that continues to push women away from gaming.

Take the niece. Her boyfriend and his friends all play. Did they ask her to play or did they assume she didn't want to play? If they ask, did she say no because she was afraid of seeming stupid in front of them (which was a fear that kept me from joining my husband's group for years).

 

[Barastrondo]

Do you think it's possible to create a profile for the 'typical' male gamer? I think what some of us are saying is that we find that just as impossible. For me, I wonder if the belief that women are easier to stereotype is part of what could make women feel unwelcome.

The only major characterization that I'd make about female gamers is that most of them have some experience in being treated as "the Other." Efforts to fight that needn't go too crazy with trying to target a specific personality profile. I wouldn't assume that, say, women don't prefer tactical combat (certainly untrue in my wife's case). Rather, efforts for inclusion can be very common-sense. Are females roughly 50% of the population? Then maybe use them in 50% of the examples, or illustrations, or even the language.

What I learned from my time at White Wolf was that treating active inclusion in the sense of "we expect that you are 50% of our potential audience and will act accordingly" was all it took. The only people alienated by acting as though female gamers are not just welcome, but expected, are people who will drive away your female audience anyway. And I'm of the opinion that an industry that feels it needs to retain guys like that doesn't really deserve to prosper.

 

[Umbran]

By moving from defining gameplay largely in terms of what PCs are, to framing gameplay in terms of what parties do?

Um, no. And, in particular, I don't think anyone in the know has said that WotC used such techniques.

A 'Fighter' doesn't seem much of a goal-orientated characterisation;

It isn't the class or character's goals we are talking about. We are talking about the *player's* goals. If WotC used such tools in their design, they'd be looking at what players wanted to do in games, and designed characters that allowed them to do those things.

Some players do want to stand and deliver, toe to toe with the BBEG. Hence, the Fighter, and Defenders in general.

It is important to note that the goals here are pretty low-level, rather than high-concept. This is common in the approach. "I want to colonize a new continent," is not something easily supported by rules design, being too broad an activity to design directly to. If you were writing word-processing software, you would not design directly to, "I want to write the great American novel". You'd write to lower-level tasks required to accomplish that higher goal (like not having your program barf on files approaching 100,000 words).

Now, clearly, there are player goals that are not represented by the current game. That's because, to put it simply - you cannot please everyone. It is not possible to build a game (or any product) that meets *everyone's* goals, and attempting to do so is taking the fast road to failure. Whether you're making software, fabric softener, or RPGs, you have to pick what you're going to aim for.

it's more an incitement to violence that contradicts the more rounded concept of an adventurer or explorer.

Contradicts? Because adventurers oh so rarely incite or engage in violence? Really? Sorry, I don't buy that at all.

 

[nedjer]

Um, no. And, in particular, I don't think anyone in the know has said that WotC used such techniques.



It isn't the class or character's goals we are talking about. We are talking about the *player's* goals. If WotC used such tools in their design, they'd be looking at what players wanted to do in games, and designed characters that allowed them to do those things.

Some players do want to stand and deliver, toe to toe with the BBEG. Hence, the Fighter, and Defenders in general.

It is important to note that the goals here are pretty low-level, rather than high-concept. This is common in the approach. "I want to colonize a new continent," is not something easily supported by rules design, being too broad an activity to design directly to. If you were writing word-processing software, you would not design directly to, "I want to write the great American novel". You'd write to lower-level tasks required to accomplish that higher goal (like not having your program barf on files approaching 100,000 words).

Now, clearly, there are player goals that are not represented by the current game. That's because, to put it simply - you cannot please everyone. It is not possible to build a game (or any product) that meets *everyone's* goals, and attempting to do so is taking the fast road to failure. Whether you're making software, fabric softener, or RPGs, you have to pick what you're going to aim for.



Contradicts? Because adventurers oh so rarely incite or engage in violence? Really? Sorry, I don't buy that at all.

Modules have been defined as high concepts every time a module has said something along the lines of . . . 'explore the Underdark, Drow guilds, Mind Flayer enclaves, Palace of Orcus . . . for 4-6 players with PCs of 8-12th level' in the blurb. It's how settings are framed and sold all the time - right through to Points of Light . . .

So, if we can define a party's goals in terms of taking on Orcus and a bunch of his minions in a particular setting, why can't players choose to define a party's goals in terms of defeating an undead army or striving to becoming a demonslayer?

Like if we were asking someone out, you seem to be pitching 'let's make sure we pack all the right items in a rucksack just in case and go down to the local pub and play darts - every date'. While I'm pitching, 'lets drop everything, run away together and explore a continent'. Bet I get more dates

 

[Umbran]

So, if we can define a party's goals in terms of taking on Orcus and a bunch of his minions in a particular setting, why can't players choose to define a party's goals in terms of defeating an undead army or striving to becoming a demonslayer?

You seemed to have missed a major point. We aren't defining the party's goals. We are listing goals of individual users.

And, the reason we don't define the goals on such a high levels is that, ultimately, those high-level things are not usually the players root motivations. Exploring a continent, or growing powerful enough to take on Orcus is something we expect to take months, if not years, of play - that payoff is a long, long way off, and hopes of it are not going to keep the player at the table. We need to get at the rewards that people get every time they use the rules, not once in the campaign.

Also, if we dig down deeper, we are getting at things more basic, more applicable to a wide range of longer-term goals. I give you characters that do the sorts of things players want to do moment to moment. You get to determine what they do longer term.

Think of it this way - I'm talking about making sure someone has food and water, and you're talking more about lifestyle choices. Whatever your lifestyle, you need food, water, and air.

Like if we were asking someone out, you seem to be pitching 'let's make sure we pack all the right items in a rucksack just in case and go down to the local pub and play darts - every date'. While I'm pitching, 'lets drop everything, run away together and explore a continent'. Bet I get more dates

Apples and oranges.

I'm not designing a single date, for a specific person. I'm designing a toolkit for assisting dates, that I sell not to you in particular, but to thousands or even millions of people who go on dates. I sell you the rucksack full of stuff, and then on a particular date, you'll pull out the individual items you need to make that one date work.

You really want to go exploring a continent *without* a rucksack full of stuff on hand? I think you'll find your paramour unimpressed when he or she discovers you did drop everything - so you don't have bug spray, and you didn't so much as pack a picnic basket. Hungry and itchy does not make for a good date, you know.

Now, maybe you have worked out how to make bug repellent out of local flora, and how to forage for mangoes. But as I said, I'm not making this for you, personally and individually. I have to think about all those other people who don't have those skills, and need what's in a rucksack.

 

[Barastrondo]

Modules have been defined as high concepts every time a module has said something along the lines of . . . 'explore the Underdark, Drow guilds, Mind Flayer enclaves, Palace of Orcus . . . for 4-6 players with PCs of 8-12th level' in the blurb. It's how settings are framed and sold all the time - right through to Points of Light . . .

So, if we can define a party's goals in terms of taking on Orcus and a bunch of his minions in a particular setting, why can't players choose to define a party's goals in terms of defeating an undead army or striving to becoming a demonslayer?

They can, but I can guarantee you that if your expectation is that every player is content with their personal goals being "kill the things the GM wants you to kill anyway," you'll completely miss the boat on a number of players. That doesn't account for things like "build a trade empire," "take over the keep of my father," "found an academy," "become head of my House," "see my daughter married off to a good man who can take care of her," "become a new incarnation of the Lightning Witch" -- all things I've seen players take for themselves.

Player goals of "kill the end-boss" are very well satisfied by video games and the like, and there's no shortage of adventures that assume that the most exciting thing players could do is slay the same big threat that any generic party could aspire to slay. But the players who have player goals other than "what the GM was setting us up to do anyway" -- those are the ones that are trickier to reach.

 

[Elf Witch]

This gives me something...I've been around for a while, myself, and what you're describing isn't unique to females, either.

Perhaps if D&D- and other games- integrated into their PC design rules systems like you find in systemless supplements like the great Central Casting books, you'd draw more women to the hobby.

Face it- even without giving mechanical benefits (like Disadvantages, Themes, etc.), those books are an invaluable stimulus to creativity.

No it is not, a lot of the male players I play with want the same thing as well.

One of the reasons I love Shadowrun even though I can't stand cyberpunk fiction is the flaws and advantages. Using them can really help you define and make a unique character especially if the GM requires that you fit the flaws in your background.

Also the books talk about special clothes that are bullet proof and go into details for them from high fashion to practical not to mention the adorable little guns that come in fashion colors my PC has one for every outfit.

Another thing I have noticed about most of the woman I have played with and this includes me is that we name our mounts and know what color they are and we take care and give our familiars personality and get really upset if they are killed. I have never really noticed this as much with male players.

My favorite gaming books tend to have an equal amount of fluff to crunch a book full of crunch bores me to death but a book full of fluff does not.

I think it would benefit DnD if they added more flavor and more ways to define a character rather then just feats and skills. I have noticed that flaws seem to be a bad word in DnD which is to bad because they can add to the role playing experience.

 

[Desdichado]

I think it would benefit DnD if they added more flavor and more ways to define a character rather then just feats and skills. I have noticed that flaws seem to be a bad word in DnD which is to bad because they can add to the role playing experience.

Character Flaws :: d20srd.org