5th Edition and the Female Demographic

[SarahDarkmagic]

I think it really depends on the group and the DM. A good DM can make sure that they are compensatory to the advantages. Again like I said designers don't trust DMs .

One way to handle this is to make it it an add on feature to the game one you can drop in easily if you want these kinds of things in game.

One way to read it is to say they don't trust DMs. Another way to read it is to say that they had other design goals and trusted that good DMs would bring these things to their games if they desired it.

My understanding from listening to a number of 4e designers is that one of their big goals was to make the game easier to run for the DM both to help the aging audience who sees their time split between work, family, and fun, and to get new DMs into the fold. Add to that another desire to make organized play easier to run and participate in, and that, in my opinion, explains a lot of the design changes made in 4e. To me, it seems primed to produce a consistent play experience game after game with very little prep on the part of the DM.

The problem as I see it is that most games aren't run in an organized play environment. They are home games run by people who don't all have the same opinion about the value of consistency and where the concerns of moving a character between tables doesn't matter. It's also not as important in a home game environment to "cover" for average or even bad DMs; groups who want to have fun tend to find their fun in what they do. But the rules set up for those other groups often feel like they are in the way of the good home DM.

In my opinion, a nice side benefit of the rules changes is that optimizing a single character was nerfed considerably. I honestly think that attracts more women, as well as others, to the table. The changes also made group composition and optimization more important which, in turn, emphasizes cooperative group play over individual competition for the best build. This too should attract more women to the table, especially the change to having the "healer" be able to accomplish more in combat. That's why I don't think it's the rules that have to change as much as the mindset around women and the game does, both at WotC and in the community.

Of course, much of this could get wiped away if the designers decide to bring back those elements that emphasized individual builds and player knowledge over character knowledge.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

One way to read it is to say they don't trust DMs. Another way to read it is to say that they had other design goals and trusted that good DMs would bring these things to their games if they desired it.

The one problem I have with your reframing is the case of the young/inexperienced GM who has the potential to be good, but has never seen that kind of mechanic before. Without having seen it, it will be hard for him to "stumble upon" it as a potential game element.

At least present it as an optional rule...

 

[SarahDarkmagic]

The one problem I have with your reframing is the case of the young/inexperienced GM who has the potential to be good, but has never seen that kind of mechanic before. Without having seen it, it will be hard for him to "stumble upon" it as a potential game element.

At least present it as an optional rule...

A young/inexperienced DM, imo, is likely to have a hard time integrating the rule into her games in a satisfactory manner. As she gains experience, she can find the optional rules; due to resources they'll probably be in other books or online.

I'm not arguing against optional rules but rather the decisions made make sense in terms of the design goals they seem to have set for 4e and, thus, it has more to do with creating a consistent play experience and being easier for new/inexperienced DMs than a statement of trust with regards to DMs.

 

[Umbran]

Again like I said designers don't trust DMs .

Designers list damage for weapons. Apparently, designers don't trust DMs to assign appropriate damage. Designers even have the audacity to describe how to award XP (or the game's equivalent). So, designers clearly don't trust GMs to handle advancement in their own games, either.

Heck, designers give GMs all sorts of game mechanics! Designers must not trust GMs to do so much as resolve a single action in game without their help!

(Sorry to go hyperbolic there. I just wanted to demonstrate where that logic fails.)

It is a designer's job to give a GM a solid framework to run a game. It isn't that they don't trust GMs, but that they think they're supposed to give a GM a game that they can lean on without having it break. Balancing RP-only flaws is a fragile thing, not so good for leaning upon.

And, while we are by no means a representative sample, several folks in this thread have noted that several games have the kind of flaws you're talking about, and they tend to be abused by players and not properly enforced by GMs. Anecdotally, at least, maybe GM's can't generally be trusted to work such a system well.

 

[Elf Witch]

Designers list damage for weapons. Apparently, designers don't trust DMs to assign appropriate damage. Designers even have the audacity to describe how to award XP (or the game's equivalent). So, designers clearly don't trust GMs to handle advancement in their own games, either.

Heck, designers give GMs all sorts of game mechanics! Designers must not trust GMs to do so much as resolve a single action in game without their help!

(Sorry to go hyperbolic there. I just wanted to demonstrate where that logic fails.)

It is a designer's job to give a GM a solid framework to run a game. It isn't that they don't trust GMs, but that they think they're supposed to give a GM a game that they can lean on without having it break. Balancing RP-only flaws is a fragile thing, not so good for leaning upon.

And, while we are by no means a representative sample, several folks in this thread have noted that several games have the kind of flaws you're talking about, and they tend to be abused by players and not properly enforced by GMs. Anecdotally, at least, maybe GM's can't generally be trusted to work such a system well.

As someone who has played for years and played every edition I have watched the game become more codified and depend less on DM fiat now some say this is a good thing because it helps inexperienced DMs plan CR and XP awards. But I have seen a negative aspect as well and that is DMs often get boxed into a corner and can't try new things because oh my gosh it is not part of the RAW.

Take XP awards I don't use them as written never have never will. I don't like how fast they level characters and I give XP for more than just killing things and taking their stuff. You get more XP from me if you role played your character or if you came up with a creative plan other then we charge and hit it. Yet I have to argue with some players over I don't care what the DMG says about XP and the encounter this is how much you are getting.

Or god forbid I change how a monster works. I have had players go wait that is not how trolls work what do you mean only acid will stop them from regenerating It says on page xx of the monster manual that it is fire.

I have also read people talk about other systems where in their experience the flaws work. Like my experience with Shadowrun and never once seeing flaws abused badly that they unbalance or break the game.

If we are going to go on things that can be abused multi classing is a huge one a good powergamer can break a game with a legal combination of multi classing and using prestige classes but you don't see that not being a part of the game. In those cases it is up to the DM to say umm no. And then they will get an argument on how it is not against the rules.

As I said before it would be great if DnD had a well written flaws and edges system as optional rules that encourage role playing not just mechanical improvements to the character.

 

[Elf Witch]

One way to read it is to say they don't trust DMs. Another way to read it is to say that they had other design goals and trusted that good DMs would bring these things to their games if they desired it.

My understanding from listening to a number of 4e designers is that one of their big goals was to make the game easier to run for the DM both to help the aging audience who sees their time split between work, family, and fun, and to get new DMs into the fold. Add to that another desire to make organized play easier to run and participate in, and that, in my opinion, explains a lot of the design changes made in 4e. To me, it seems primed to produce a consistent play experience game after game with very little prep on the part of the DM.

The problem as I see it is that most games aren't run in an organized play environment. They are home games run by people who don't all have the same opinion about the value of consistency and where the concerns of moving a character between tables doesn't matter. It's also not as important in a home game environment to "cover" for average or even bad DMs; groups who want to have fun tend to find their fun in what they do. But the rules set up for those other groups often feel like they are in the way of the good home DM.

In my opinion, a nice side benefit of the rules changes is that optimizing a single character was nerfed considerably. I honestly think that attracts more women, as well as others, to the table. The changes also made group composition and optimization more important which, in turn, emphasizes cooperative group play over individual competition for the best build. This too should attract more women to the table, especially the change to having the "healer" be able to accomplish more in combat. That's why I don't think it's the rules that have to change as much as the mindset around women and the game does, both at WotC and in the community.

Of course, much of this could get wiped away if the designers decide to bring back those elements that emphasized individual builds and player knowledge over character knowledge.

Well it would be nice if the experienced DMs had the resources to do so instead of having to make them themselves. Sure you can do it but having it already as an option to just show your players and everyone can read how they are going to work would make the DMs job easier.

I don't want to start an edition war but 4E design is one of every game being consistent to me that is saying that every time I walk into a McDonald's I know that the big mac will be the same and taste the same. Now that is great if I want a big mac. But I would not want a big mac for every meal. I find the system bland. I think it is a good system for con games and one shots but as a steady diet it leaves something to be desired. YMMV

Your last statement kind of blew my mind having the ability to have an individual build instead of a cookie cutter build will some how make people metagame is just absurd.

Though I fully agree that changing the rules completely is not the answer to getting more female players.

 

[SarahDarkmagic]

Well it would be nice if the experienced DMs had the resources to do so instead of having to make them themselves. Sure you can do it but having it already as an option to just show your players and everyone can read how they are going to work would make the DMs job easier.

Which is why I agree that there should be optional rules.

I don't want to start an edition war but 4E design is one of every game being consistent to me that is saying that every time I walk into a McDonald's I know that the big mac will be the same and taste the same. Now that is great if I want a big mac. But I would not want a big mac for every meal. I find the system bland. I think it is a good system for con games and one shots but as a steady diet it leaves something to be desired. YMMV

Thanks for repeating my point about consistency but instead of just agreeing that 4e strives for a fairly consistent and repeatable experience (which may not be everyone's cup of tea), you chose to compare it to fast food. Places like Capital Grille and Ruth's Chris also strive for a consistent but excellent experience.

Your last statement kind of blew my mind having the ability to have an individual build instead of a cookie cutter build will some how make people metagame is just absurd.

Though I fully agree that changing the rules completely is not the answer to getting more female players.

You can have an individual, non-cookie cutter build in 4e. It just takes a little work and a desire to do it, unlike the past where it was easy to do but harder to do well. Some people will prefer one way over the other. Which one is picked depends on the design goals of the system.

 

[Kaodi]

Going back to the question of the cast for a show (or even a book about a party, as the questions are all equally valid there) , I think there are a lot of problems with reducing it down to pure archetype. Because characters are not just their gender, race, and class. They have other characteristics which are important to development. And besides, if you make rules like " No Women As Primary Casters " , you are pretty much saying " Women Cannot Have The Most Awesome Powers " (at least according to how things were over most of the life of D&D), which is an entirely different pitfall from stereotypes.

But consider that almost every traditional class has a " problem " angle.

Barbarian " Even your fighting women have to be emotional. "
Bard " Just what we need, another diva. "
Cleric " Not every woman is this pure, caring type. "
Druid " Why is every treehugger a girl? "
Fighter - Respect.
Monk " Waif-fu has been done, and it silly then too. "
Paladin " Why does the warrior have to be of virginal purity? "
Ranger - Melee - Respect, Ranged: " Girls are not tough enough to get up close? "
Rogue - Respect.
Sorcerer " Why do girls always get cast as the weak magic use? "
Wizard - See Sorcerer, But " At Least She Is The Smart One "

Some of these might be a bit of a stretch, but it is mainly supposed to be illustrative.

If you were doing a show and are going to cast a female warrior, make her an in your face, medium to heavy armour wearing, and obviously strong. No more waifs. I would also cast either a female artificer, or bite the bullet and have a female wizard. But not a skinny, beautiful wizard. Rather, a really robust, strong, imposing wizard who can fight as well. Almost but not quite a sword mage (thinking someone similar to Mariska Hargitay from Law & Order). Definitely the smartest person in the party and both knowledgeable and intellectual. Round it out with a male half-orc druid, dwarven crossbow ranger, half-elf paladin and a changeling rogue no one is really sure about.

 

[nedjer]

Designers for major systems aren't allowed to trust the GM. They are required to prepare the way for add-ons of wonderous bits and bobs, many monsters and the like. If a system and its support makes it too easy to GM no one buys the extra stuff.

 

[Elf Witch]

Thanks for repeating my point about consistency but instead of just agreeing that 4e strives for a fairly consistent and repeatable experience (which may not be everyone's cup of tea), you chose to compare it to fast food. Places like Capital Grille and Ruth's Chris also strive for a consistent but excellent experience.



You can have an individual, non-cookie cutter build in 4e. It just takes a little work and a desire to do it, unlike the past where it was easy to do but harder to do well. Some people will prefer one way over the other. Which one is picked depends on the design goals of the system.

Because in my opinion 4E is as bland as fast food take out. Which is why I compared it to it. Like I said YMMV. I don't think they improved the game at all as a matter of fact it took the game in a direction that I find discouraging. It is not by a long shot what I want out of a gaming experience and I don't think the woman I have introduced to the game would have found it more appealing. You so many more decisions to make in a combat round with your powers and you have to track them it is much more bookkeeping then a lot of them would enjoy. Here again other people may have a different experience.

And just to make sure because after all this is the internet I am not attacking you or your choice to play and enjoy 4e. I am just stating my opinion on why I don't like the mechanics of 4E.


I also don't buy that the systems that came before lacked consistency well maybe after awhile in 2E where every DM started to have a dozen different house rules. But I have not found that to be true of 3.0 or 3.5. Once you learn the rules they seems to be used without a lot of house ruling by every DM I have played with.

I don't think it is the system that makes play great it is the DM and the players a good system just makes that easier. Because a lousy DM can't make a game fun no matter how fantastic the system is.

And again I have to disagree with your last statement I have never had an issue as a player or DM being able to build a balanced non cookie cutter character in 3E.