You asked~Female gamers

[Wolfspider]

BMF, earlier I erased a post in which I commented on the way you argue your opinions. Not wishing to inadvertently insult you, I deleted it. I half wish that I had left it up.

I will say this. You make some good points, but your tone is not conducive to making those who disagree with you actually listen to what you say. Tone it down a bit and people will actually consider what you say more readily. While it's important that you sound sure of yourself, avoid using confrontational words like "prove" and expressions like "that proves my point," since they turn a discussion into a contest to be won or lost. (Ironic advice considering some of your recent points, eh?) The purpose of the kind of discourse present on this board is the exchange of ideas and opinions.

As my sainted grandmother used to say, "You catch more flies with sugar than you do with salt."

No offense intended. I have my share of problems with my tone as well....

 

[Wolvorine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: You asked~Female gamers

I Strongly agree.

I don't mind the cheesecake. I love it. I do mind the lack of beefcake.

To me fantasy imagry is all about Frazetta and Vallejo and that crowd.

It should be sensual, nearly erotic; and powerful, full of emotion and dynamic energy.

It's fantasy after all. I want it bigger than life.

I agree about Boris -- although I idolize the man much more for his powerful realism abilities moreso than anything else. I'm not much about the erotic, but emotion, motion, and dynamic energy are always good things to shoot for. I like to think of the art as not just an image, but as a peek into somewhere else. They're not just characters, they're real people doing something -- we just get to peek in at a single, frozen moment. You have to make some sort of connection, as the artist, with your image for that to happen. And that can be just hard, sometimes. Do I like looking at impressive, half-naked hardbodied women warriors? Well of course I do, I'm a guy. Do I like to draw them? If I'm asked to draw them, you'll see me shedding no tears over it. But, I prefer to sit down and give a picture some real hard, long thought about every character's choice in wardrobe. Wardrobe is actually very often what I think the longest, and hardest, about -- because I want the image to strike the viewer as looking right, above it being provacative. I like to think that my work tends to be acceptable by women on the whole for that, and every pic I draw gets passed by my s.o. before it gets finished (although admittedly, that's more for her strong analytical eye than for her female perspective, but I'm sure I'm getting that in the bargain).

Hmmm... looking back at all that, I guess what I was trying to say is that a touch of the erotic in fantasy art can be nice -- but only if the image is supposed to convey an aspect of erotica in the scene it's showing. It must have a contextual basis for being in the art.

 

[PenguinKing]

Interesting points, BMF - but it's all still predicated on the assumption that biological determinism is itself a valid way of looking at things. I don't know if you've noticed, but it has a staggeringly poor track record - the same very same argumentative procedure you employ today to "prove" that women have inborn preferrences in entertainment was used fifty years ago to "prove" that women are intellectually inferior to men, or a hundred years ago to "prove" that women are so mentally fragile that they have to be segregated from male society for their own good. It completely overlooks that people are treated differently on the basis of gender quite literally from the moment of birth - and that sort of early conditioning is tough to break.

- Sir Bob.

P.S. Nih!

 

[Wolvorine]

I know I'm jumping in a bit late, but I've got an interesting observation I'd like to share.

I don't think there's really any difference between male and female gamers with respect to the potential for mayhem in roleplaying - it's just the manner in which it is appreciated that differs. From what I've seen, male players get off on bringing blood and chaos down upon their foes, while female gamers enjoy knowing that they could if they wanted to. Time and time again, I've seen this difference of approach. A male player will create a character who could kill you six times over before your corpse hits the ground, and employ that capacity whenever possible; meanwhile, a female player will create precisely the same sort of character, but she'll use that capacity for mayhem to intimidate, terrorize, and manipulate rather than just to kill. In short, the if the male player's preference is to be the thunder and the lightning, the female player wants to be the calm before the storm.

PK, this was a brilliant analysis. It's exactly what I tried to say earlier, but you've worded it perfectly. My s.o. is sitting next to me as I read your post to her, nodding and saying 'exactly' the entire time. She had minimal contact with rpg's before we met, and has had mid-minimal contact since (we've played a few times, 1 or 2 just us, 3-4 times with a short-lived group, and we played the he!! out of Baldur's Gate, she's a natural Rogue or Wizard). But, to the point, that's exactly the playing style she uses.

Then again, in her very first group-game, she halted the game entirely for at least 15 minutes... buying jerky in town. Ahh shopping, if only the DM had had City Guide to keep her placated with. LOL

 

[BMF]

Wolfspider, thanks for your comments. I would have liked to see your deleted post. I always enjoy a good argument. Actually, I have tried to tone down my attitude a bit in this discussion already. I haven't cursed yet, and I haven't made any, (or very many) accusatorial statements either. That's pretty good for me...

You make a good point PenguinKing. Certainly Lizzy Borden benefited from false ideas about the nature of women and violence. However, sociobiology and the effects of testosterone are biochemical factors that have been studied at an increasing rate for the past 20 years. The ideas that led to Lizzy's failed prosecution were the sort of entrenched social concepts that Ashtel and others are saying stop girls from gaming today. It is true that those are factors, but we cannot neglect the biological aspect that modern science alerts us to.

It completely overlooks that people are treated differently on the basis of gender quite literally from the moment of birth - and that sort of early conditioning is tough to break.

I agree, that's why I said:

it is reinforced both by men and women in such an entrenched way that it is an inescapable reality.

Which means this discussion is really just academic. Even if biology didn't play a part, the social reinforcements that keeps us all in our "roles" would nearly insurmountable. However, I believe biology, or rather sociobiology, does play a factor. Remember that principles of sociobiology are not half-baked prejudices from the 19th century, they are developed on the solid foundation of the modern scientific method.

 

[PenguinKing]

Modern scientific method, eh? Remind me, how many times has the "modern scientific method" undergone significant paradigm shifts in the past half-century alone?

Still, your argument does gloss over a rather important fact: a "tendency" is a rather different animal from a "biological imperative". Certainly, behavioural tendencies do exist among genders, but there is a fair amount of evidence that these tendencies can easily be elimanated or even reversed subject to proper social conditioning. This in itself brings up an important point - how do we know that gender-based differences we see today are just socially reinforced versions of natural tendencies? It's entirely possible that some of the differences we observe are unrelated - or even run counter - to whatever natural tendencies may exist. Which brings us back to the same point - that the social arena would be a more worthwhile and productive focus than the biological. Hardcoded biology we can't do much about - we might as well give up now - but social conditioning offers much more leeway.

(I'm also speaking from experience here - it's rather an eye-opener to see a girl you thought was the epitome of demure femininity screaming "I hack blood on you!" and "DIE, MOTHER******!!!" while playing Samurai Spirits IV at maximum difficulty. )

- Sir Bob.

P.S. Nih!

 

[Wuxia]

Re: Oh

Well, wow

Thank you for all the posts so far and by all means keep them coming It is very interesting to hear what people have to say on the subject. When I first posted this, I accually didn't expect to get barely any replies, just the rantings of a girl, no? I didn't want to sound angry or offensive in anything that I wrote and I hope that no one took it that way.

In fact, you have started a war which will cuminate in the annihilation of those boards, but that's alright.

 

[S'mon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You asked~Female gamers

Cue images of mighty-thewed warriors monkey-gripping their greatswords of whacking.

Well, why not?

If you don't like it, don't buy the product. I don't see why Frazetta-style pulp Sword & Sorcery isn't as valid as any other kind. It shouldn't be the only thing on the market (and hasn't been since the early '80s) but I don't see any reason to ban it.

 

[S'mon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: You asked~Female gamers

Ideally, that's what we'd see. I don't mind cheesecake in and of itself, I just don't like it when it drowns out other depictions of women. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a loincloth clad barbarian hunk and a fur bikini-wearing valkyrie. If the images fit, there's no reason not to go with it. IMO, a game's images are important to a potential player because they show a window into the game world. If a potential female player sees only women in chainmail bikinis, she's liable to write the game off as juvenile. I think the the 3e PH strikes a nice balance in that regard. The images depict adventurers, not pin-ups.

Moderation in all things, including gaming art, is a healthy thing.

I agree when it comes to the core rulebooks - D&D is generic fantasy, so it needs to be accessible to the widest audience and usable in the widest number of gameworlds. I'd like to see a bit more variety in the product though, I think a bit too much of it remains tied to the very generic fantasy norms that 3e postulates as the default. d20 Conan (with appropriate art & a few rules changes) would be nice.

 

[S'mon]

On-topic comment: when my wife plays D&D it's very noticeable that her female PCs are very feminine characters who prefer to avoid combat, prefer subtlety to violence, and have a well-developed sense of self preservation, whereas her male PCs, who have equally well developed personalities, are macho warrior types happy to hack and slash with the best of them.

Not sure if this has any significance.

I've also noticed that a lot of the people I play PBEM RPGs with are female, but most women seem to prefer rulesless, diceless, freeform PBEMs where in-game conflict is typically resolved by agreement between the writers/players, and traditional D&D dungeon hacks rarely attract many female players.