Changing the subject line since we've strayed from strictly sim vs rp now. *smiles* Okay, there is no definite "males act this way, females act that way" style. BUT. I know that my style has always differed greatly from a lot of the *people* I've gamed with. And from people I still do game with. I'm heavy into the character interaction, although god save me from GMless games where there is all emphasis on conversation and no GM intervention whatsoever to save us from ourselves. *chuckles* I have friends who are very plot-oriented -- they lay down every possible option and plan every little last detail out. And a lot of people fall somewhere in between. These styles of play have been traditionally associated with the female and male stereotypes. Females tend (note, not all) to be more free-associative, nurturing, more emotional, etc. Men tend to be more logical, structured. Hence, in-depth RP vs rules based play. It's not an unknown stereotype, nor an out of line one, honestly. It can be backed up by psychological data. Now, this isn't to say that everyone fits this stereotype. I know some very plot oriented women. As many of you have heard from me before, one of the groups I've seen with brutal hack and slash years ago (Warhammer FRP) was all female. They enjoyed chorusing the critical hit table. I also know several men who really enjoy emotional character RP -- and I love GMing them. *big grins* Anyway, I'm not entirely certain where I set out to go with this... but I just wanted to point out that generalizations are just that, and that not everyone fits, but that they quite often come from data that well, fits the generalization. Oh, and when I was a kid, I RPed because it came from let's pretend. I was doing it before I knew what it was, and having a great time at it, and just kept going. Despite the fact that it was male dominated. But I truly came into my full all out love of it when I started to GM and started working with character oriented plots that were far different than what the rules recommended. And when I discovered diceless and could cheerfully toss out mechanics that were more cumbersome than logical to me. So I guess I am pretty stereotypical for a girl. *smiles* D. +-------------------------------------------------+ | Deb Allen (Atwood?) / D-Singer / Tryslora | | d-singer@hall-of-mirrors.com | | http://www.hall-of-mirrors.com | +-------------------------------------------------+ | The Black Road -- an Amber DRPG Convention | | http://www.theblackroad.org | +-------------------------------------------------+ | "You must never run from anything immortal. It | | attracts their attention." | | - _The_Last_Unicorn_ | +-------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
Deb Attwood wrote: >I know that my style has always differed greatly from a lot of the *people* >I've gamed with. And from people I still do game with. I'm heavy into the >character interaction, although god save me from GMless games where there >is all emphasis on conversation and no GM intervention whatsoever to save >us from ourselves. *chuckles* I have friends who are very plot-oriented >-- they lay down every possible option and plan every little last detail >out. And a lot of people fall somewhere in between. > >These styles of play have been traditionally associated with the female and >male stereotypes. Females tend (note, not all) to be more >free-associative, nurturing, more emotional, etc. Men tend to be more >logical, structured. >Hence, in-depth RP vs rules based play. >It's not an unknown stereotype, nor an out of line one, honestly. It can >be backed up by psychological data. 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. 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. 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. > >Oh, and when I was a kid, I RPed because it came from let's pretend. I was >doing it before I knew what it was, and having a great time at it, and just >kept going. Despite the fact that it was male dominated. But I truly came >into my full all out love of it when I started to GM and started working >with character oriented plots that were far different than what the rules >recommended. And when I discovered diceless and could cheerfully toss out >mechanics that were more cumbersome than logical to me. So I guess I am >pretty stereotypical for a girl. *smiles* 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. I further suggest that roleplaying games that centre around combat spring from war and board gaming, and that games that centre around character story interaction spring from the 'let's pretend' thing that you mention. This is not to say that either is better or worse than the other, just that their sources are different. In general, people who come to roleplaying games to tell the stories of their characters, within the framework of the DM's story, came to them late. Whatever purposes we put a game to currently, there's no denying that it started out as a simulation of war, at the skirmish scale. In many cases, it is still used as a model of different kinds of conflict encounter. There's little doubt that the first players of the game were predominantly male, and their interests were more to do with the resolution of a particular kind of conflict. Nowadays, more people come to roleplaying for different reasons, and those reasons have more to do with performance and art than they have to do with the size of their bonuses to hit and damage and their damage capacity. 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. Now, one sees games like the Masquerade, and the rest of the White Wolf line, which emphasise story, rather than an environment in which to meet monsters and introduce them to some sharp steel. I suggest that there are different roleplayers, now, that they are drawn to different things, and that the market has widened. To that end, roleplayers are no longer the same critturs that they were in the Seventies. As the demographic widens, the range of human behaviour observable within a given sample changes. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jim Arona wrote: JA> Frankly, you'd have to back it up in that fashion. My experience has not JA>shown me any like this. I DM 3 women, and 4 men at the moment, and I would JA>be forced to define two of the women as being more logical than JA>free-associative, and two of the men as being more free-associative. Today's (on the web) Dilbert is particularly apt here, I think: PHB: Ming, everyone says our web site is ugly. Ming: Really? Every person on Earth said that? Even Tibetan monks? PHB: Maybe it was just one person. Ming: And you confused him with the entire planet? Neither Deb nor I am claiming that even Tibetan monks have the broad gender-biased tendencies we've noted (they're generalities and trends, only noticeable in large samples), but I think someone is confusing his experiences with the entire planet... -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jim Arona wrote: > 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. 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. > 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? > 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. > 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. -- Carl D Cravens (raven@phoenyx.net) GMAST List Owner Ignoramus? I prefer the term "informationaly impaired" ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
>JA> Frankly, you'd have to back it up in that fashion. My experience has not >JA>shown me any like this. I DM 3 women, and 4 men at the moment, and I would >JA>be forced to define two of the women as being more logical than >JA>free-associative, and two of the men as being more free-associative. > >Today's (on the web) Dilbert is particularly apt here, I think: > >PHB: Ming, everyone says our web site is ugly. >Ming: Really? Every person on Earth said that? Even Tibetan monks? >PHB: Maybe it was just one person. >Ming: And you confused him with the entire planet? > >Neither Deb nor I am claiming that even Tibetan monks have the broad >gender-biased tendencies we've noted (they're generalities and trends, >only noticeable in large samples), but I think someone is confusing his >experiences with the entire planet... You have chosen to accept a particular kind of activity as being male or female predominant. Admittedly, as a generalisation. I don't accept your contention. I have no experience that this is the case, and am disinclined to take you on your word on the matter. I will always prefer my own experience as the final judgement on whether or not something is right, and simply because a lot of people are prepared to support a contention doesn't, of itself, convince me to accept yours. There have been times when people thought the world was flat. I haven't said that I think women and men play differently. I have said that I don't believe that men require rules more than women. If anything, my experience has been that men wish to operate in a world that is freer of those constraints than women are. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that there is enough evidence for me to take that position firmly. What I am convinced of is that there is no distinct evidence one way or the other. In the view of the fact that the contention has been made, then the contention ought to be shown. Otherwise, you could make any number of wild assertions. I am merely saying that I don't believe a word of this particular contention, unless it's backed up with some reputable source. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
> >> 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/
