>
>>   Frankly, you'd have to back it up in that fashion. My experience has
not
>> shown me any like this. I DM 3 women, and 4 men at the moment, and I
would
>> be forced to define two of the women as being more logical than
>> free-associative, and two of the men as being more free-associative.
>
>Are you really unfamiliar with the general studies in this area.  It's a
>known and well-accepted theory that women and men are different from each
>other.  And the way they differ are *generally* as has been stated on this
>forum.  Your experiences may differ, but your experiences are not a
>scientific study.
>
>Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.  Not a case-study, specifically,
>but certainly a work derived from such knowledge.  Nobody writes such a
>popular book about how different men and women generally are without it
>having some substantial truth to it.  If it were all a lie, it wouldn't be
>so well received.
>

Men Are from Mars, Woman Are from Venus is not a scientific study. I decline
to accept your source. Point to something from the Lancet or Nature, and I'd
be listening.

>In reading this book, I find that my wife and I are often reversed in
>several areas.  But that doesn't mean that, in general, the book's
>observations are not applicable.
>
>> I recognise that you are making the point that it is a generalisation
that
>> people fall into it. And, that it's one that a lot of people don't.
>
>But enough do that the generalization can be made.


Which is, in fact, what I said. I just don't happen to accept this
particular generalisation as being an accurate one.

>>  I just don't accept it as valid. It has not been something that is
>> validated by my experience, although I am happy to accept that this is
what
>> most people BELIEVE is the case.
>
>Your experience is not the whole of experience and not a representative
>sample.  Have you ever been in outer space?  How, then, can you be sure
>that it is a vacuum?  How can you be sure that the lunar landings weren't
>done on a Hollywood soundstage?  Why, then, do you assume that because
>your experience with men and women does not match the generalization, the
>generalization must be false?  There are hundreds of books whose basis is
>this generalization... can they all be inaccurate because they do not
>match up with your experience?

Books like Men Are from Mars, etc, have been inaccurate in the past. I'm
happy that you find some value in it. I'm not at all convinced if this is
your source of information.
And, as far as other books are concerned, I haven't seen any others
mentioned that could really be defined a reputable source. I'm not prepared
to simply accept your position, simply because you say there are hundreds of
books. There may well be. How many of them would be accepted as reasonable
source material by a sociological institute?

>
>> I, too, prefer diceless games, and am quite prepared to throw out rules.
I
>> suggest to you that it isn't a female propensity, at all.
>
>Just because it is a female propensity doesn't mean males cannot be that
>way and that all females are that way.  Do you know what "propensity"
>means?  In general, women are more likely to accept diceless, ruleless
>games than men.  Just because you choose something that is generally
>preferred more by women than men doesn't say anything about the general
>rule, nor does it say anything about you beyond your not fitting the
>general rule.

What you are saying is that because I like diceless games, then that is no
evidence to suggest that women do not prefer diceless, rulesless games more
than men do. On the other hand, you're prepared to use a book that is aimed
at the market, rather than any objective audience to defend your point.
I am not saying that women and men don't play differently. I am saying that
I see no evidence to support your contention that women prefer games that
have fewer rules than men do.
Perhaps my experience is idiosyncratic, and outside the norm. I doubt it,
but perhaps it is. On the other hand, you seem to offer as justification for
your own position a text that one can really only call commercial, and
indeed, you say that its commerciality supports your position, because if it
is so popular, then it must be true.
Unfortunately, popularity is no measure of an issue's accuracy. Otherwise,
we could vote and have an effect on gravity.
>
>> Roleplaying games have come a long way since the Seventies, and it has
>> changed in the face of a variety of interests. At one time the only game
to
>> play was Dungeons & Dragons, because that was all there was. Interests
have
>> changed.
>
>Are you aware that Dungeons and Dragons still holds the lion's share of
>the roleplaying market?  Despite all the distance we have come, the
>majority of gamers are still playing in the seventies, if sales figures
>are any indicator.
>
Yes. I am aware of that. Are you aware what the sales figures were for White
Wolf in the Seventies? They were exactly zero. That's because they didn't
exist then. They do, now, along with games like EarthDawn, Torg, et al.
Dungeons and Dragons has been around for a long time, and I don't imagine it
going away anytime soon. However, roleplaying is becoming a wider
experience. There are more and more different kinds of game around than
there were. This variety of games attracts different kinds of players.
Different kinds of players means that the original stereotype of a
roleplayer is no longer an accurate model.
I suggest that whoever or whatever that stereotype was, it is folly to draw
on it as a generalisation of a roleplayer, now.


----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/