Tip about getting female gamers...

[Arravis]

I didn't mean to imply that they are "newbies" cause they are women...

All the players in the group are relatively new to me, so they are all equall in that respect. Some of the male players are also newbies but I have a much easier time predicting their behavior then the female players. There's only one other "experienced" player in the group really. So the issue I've chosen to tackle here isn't one of newbiness... but gender.

I ask both the male and female players what they want, all the newbie players have a difficult time expressing this. Now, from experience and my own ability to more easily identify and know the desires of a male player, I'm better able to "guess" what the male players want. The female players are slightly more difficult. That's the crux of all that I've been saying. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[ElectricShrubbery]

Having skimmed this thread and being an enemy of political correctness... well, back on topic?

If you want female characters, do what the DM of our current game did. It's very simple, yet somehow I have a feeling none of you have ever considered it:

Get a male to play a female character.

However, this is not without flaws.

One of the poorer roleplaying members cannot get past the fact that the character is not the same gender as the owner.

In short:

"I give the sword to him."

"Her."

"He."

"She."

"It."

"Whatever."

And so on...

 

[barsoomcore]

I ask both the male and female players what they want ... I'm better able to "guess" what the male players want. The female players are slightly more difficult. That's the crux of all that I've been saying. Nothing more nothing less.

Now, Arravis, had you in fact said just THAT, I'd've had no concerns about what you'd said. What you actually said was:

Every time I think I've gotten to understand them they do something that totally throws off my conclusions and trashes all my ideas. When I was younger I thought I could come to understand them... but I've learned otherwise in my years.

I have gained a clearer understanding of how they are likely to react... I know that X event will likely result in Y reaction... but the why's are often lost to me . Like I said, anytime I think I figured it out, something new happens that blows it away, lol.

This position to me is a fundamentally broken one. And it's completely different from saying "I'm not so good at predicting what the women in my group want." What it sounds like you're saying is "All women are impossible to understand." Which is a really defeatist attitude.

I guess the point I'm making isn't that we should deny gender differences. It's that we shouldn't use gender differences to justify not bothering to understand each other. Which may not be what you meant to say, but IS what I heard you say. I think a statement like "When I was younger I thought I could come to understand them... but I've learned otherwise in my years." supports that interpretation of what you said. I don't accept that sort of attitude, and I will challenge it where I find it.

We should all of us all the time be making the effort to understand each other. Even if (maybe especially because) we'll never understand each other perfectly or completely.

 

[Arravis]

My point with that statement is that we can never truly understand each other or really anyone else for that fact. My definition of "understanding" means 100%, if you don't know something 100% in my book, you don't know it. I should have clarified that point, you are correct.

I do think we should try to get to know our loved ones and our fellows the very best we possibly can... but knowing that understanding will never be 100%. I felt the your claim to understanding was arrogant, but of course if you define understanding as not being necessarily 100%, then it's sheds a different light on that. Slightly different definitions for the same word can make a great difference it seems, hehe.

 

[barsoomcore]

Slightly different definitions for the same word can make a great difference it seems, hehe.

I have theory (it could bunnies) that 99% of all arguments are based on semantic differences. That is, people argue even though they ACTUALLY agree, but because they DEFINE things differently, they end up in these big long arguments. So I always try to be as precise as possible, identify the actual terms of disagreement, and see if shuffling definitions helps.

Clearly, we actually agree, we just defined the word "understand" differently. Sigh.

You know, I just don't understand people. No, wait...

 

[Arravis]

You would think with a minor in philosophy I'd know better...

I agree that language is one of the biggest barriers on these kinds of issues... additionally, it doesn't help that english isn't my 1st language, rofl... oh well, we got it cleared up .

 

[Pielorinho]

it doesn't help that english isn't my 1st language, rofl... oh
well, we got it cleared up .

At which point I noticed you were from Alabama. Southern is pretty close to English, don't worry!

I've never felt like I have a harder time understanding women in my games than men. The worst misunderstandings I've had with another player have been with my own brother. The most perplexing player I ever had was a man -- he simply didn't see the scene the way I saw it, or else he had an entirely alien kind of common sense (I say oxymoronically). The most annoying player I ever had was a woman. The worst game I've ever played in was run by a guy.

There are some social differences that I find difficult to overcome in gaming. I've never found a biological difference that had much impact on gaming.

Daniel

 

[Arravis]

I'm spanish, I only live in AL, not from here . Huntsville is more or less civilized, so I'm happy .

Anyway, were you a player or a dm? I've never had any conflicts or problems with female gamers, I just find it slightly more difficult to maintain the same level of entertainment that I provide my male players. It's not that once game time comes the girls have less fun, but that it takes a bit more pre-game work for me to make sure everything is prepared for.

Think of it this way...

Male players ask for A, B, C, D, and E in their games... the core books offer me help with B, C, D, and E, so all the work I have to do is A.

For my female players they ask for C, D, E, F and G in their games... but the core books only offer me help with C, D and E, so that leaves F and G that I have to wok out. A bit more work, is all.

Damn... that's an overly complicated example... but it's hard to explain.

 

[Henry]

IMC, I set CRs for encounters or challenges rather than creatures -- so you get the XP simply for getting through the encounter or succeeding at the challenge, regardless of whether or not you killed anything.

Then you are using the system as it was meant to be used. This whole "D&D is about killing stuff only" thing really surprises me - it's a holdover from 1E thinking.

 

[barsoomcore]

Then you are using the system as it was meant to be used. This whole "D&D is about killing stuff only" thing really surprises me - it's a holdover from 1E thinking.

Well, yeah. I think they could have made a bigger point of it, though. And when monsters each have CRs attached to them, the notion that killing monsters is how one gets XP is hard to shake. It's not an easy problem to solve -- pretty much all you can do is be really really clear that CRs are meant to represent challenges and that any means of overcoming the challenge is as good as any other.

I think it's clear to anyone who reads the rules carefully and considers things, but I don't think it's as in one's face as it could be.