Quote from: markfitz;876940I get what those who were saying that we shouldn't make generalisations about "all women this" or "all men that" were saying, and I also totally understand that they DIDN'T respond as if this was an attack on women. That wasn't their point.

While I do believe that there are more differences between individuals, especially when considered in small groups, than there are massive commonalities, and everyone should be judged as an individual, I do also think that there are cultural reasons that we can observe certain behaviours as being more common among certain groups than others. Obviously not all women gamers are like this or like that, but I do feel that there's an observable difference in the level of investment in the interpersonal relationship aspect of RPGs in many women I've gamed with.

This might help explain the fact that WoD seemed to bring many women into the hobby. Those games had much more of a focus on the social, as well as just the sexual, than most previous games. Maybe the taste I've seen among women for more sexual content is a subset of a taste for more relationship focus.

But I've also noticed that among groups of women, discussion of sex tends to be more detailed than it is among groups of men. With my female friends I find discussion more easily moves to discussion of sex and relationships, whereas with my male friends I have to push a little to get to that, which is something I am interested in from them too, and therefore seek.

Perhaps there's something about intimacy there. Male intimacy often seems to pass through an external object or pursuit that can be shared, whereas female intimacy is more straight ahead. Again, I don't mean this is the case for everyone, but our cultural norms on what is "guy stuff" and what is "girl stuff" must have an impact on how we relate to each other. You only have to look at Hollywood marketing of more male external action oriented films versus more female relationship oriented films to see this in action.

In gaming, it seems to hold true that many women are more interested in the interpersonal details of play and men in the more action or competition oriented details (such as combat). Hence perhaps women's higher interest in the erotic in games?

Yes, good post, I agree with everything you've written. Also there is nothing wrong with generalisations & categorisations, they are vital to understanding the world - as long as you remember there can always be exceptions. Refusing to make generalisations because there are exceptions feels very "Ignorance is Strength!" 1984-ish to me.

Quote from: S'mon;877019Yes, good post, I agree with everything you've written. Also there is nothing wrong with generalisations & categorisations, they are vital to understanding the world - as long as you remember there can always be exceptions. Refusing to make generalisations because there are exceptions feels very "Ignorance is Strength!" 1984-ish to me.

Generalizations are useful as a way of managing information. My point was not avoid all generalizations it was that for the typical player group of say 4-6 players, generalizing those 4-6 people by gender (or age, religion, level of education, etc.) is unnecessary (and typically adds no value) since you are dealing not with hundreds, thousands, or millions of people you don't personally know; you are dealing with only 4-6 people who you do know and about whom you likely know far more than just their gender.

For example, let's say you have 6 players: 3 men (Bob, Steve, and Pete) and 3 women (Elizabeth, Kathy, and Marcia). Most of the men (i.e. Bob and Steve) if left to their own devices, would never introduce any romantic or erotic content, while Pete is interested in some romantic or erotic content. On the other hand most of the women (i.e. Elizabeth and Kathy) introduce or are interested in introducing such content in play. Marcia, however, is not.

How does it help in analyzing the preferences of my players to generalize that men don't want romance and women do?

Quote from: Bren;877043Generalizations are useful as a way of managing information. My point was not avoid all generalizations it was that for the typical player group of say 4-6 players, generalizing those 4-6 people by gender (or age, religion, level of education, etc.) is unnecessary (and typically adds no value) since you are dealing not with hundreds, thousands, or millions of people you don't personally know; you are dealing with only 4-6 people who you do know and about whom you likely know far more than just their gender.

In that case generalisations will only be useful until you actually meet the individuals - I can prep better knowing I'll have 4 50-60 year old Dragonsfoot grognards, or 4 20-22 year old male UK University students, or 4 40-45 year old Americans of mixed sex from Ashville, or 3 20-30 year old female nurses, than if I knew nothing. Once I actually meet the players then I can get to know them as individuals.

Quote from: James Gillen;876708Step 1: Let your cats piss on you.

JG

I once had a cat, nervous about my leaving on a trip, pee on my suitcase after I'd started packing. It was quite a problem, but a good amount of cleaning took care of it.

So it requires not only a cat pissing on you (or your clothes) but you doing nothing to clean yourself after.

Quote from: S'mon;877144In that case generalisations will only be useful until you actually meet the individuals - I can prep better knowing I'll have 4 50-60 year old Dragonsfoot grognards, or 4 20-22 year old male UK University students, or 4 40-45 year old Americans of mixed sex from Ashville, or 3 20-30 year old female nurses, than if I knew nothing. Once I actually meet the players then I can get to know them as individuals.

From my experience that is a really odd, edge case example. I've never, ever been in a situation like that. I can't imagine ever wanting to play with 3-4 random strangers about whom I knew absolutely nothing other than age, gender, education or occupation. I suppose some sort of online meetup with random strangers could give you that situation if you didn't do anything to pre-screen people.

In which case, how much romance/erotic content, how much combat to include, whether PVP was OK or verboten, and other things, would be part of the pitch I was making so they have some inkling of what they are signing up for or I would wait to make all those decisions until after meeting the people and learning a bit more about them. So I'm still not seeing where assuming women like romance and men don't is helpful when dealing with actual, real people sitting across the table from you.

I think there are bound to be some women who will like erotic stuff in RPGs more, and a lot who really really won't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;877160I once had a cat, nervous about my leaving on a trip, pee on my suitcase after I'd started packing. It was quite a problem, but a good amount of cleaning took care of it.

The material and the time elapsed before observation and cleaning matters. But I'm guessing you haven't had a cat spray your carpet.

On the plus side, the new wood floor looks really nice in the dining room turned library.

Quote from: TristramEvans;876994Nothing is synonymous with any personality trait, but my experience has led to estimation based on the likelihood from an averaged aggregate. Over the course of my lifetime, what it comes down to is any autistic person I engage with is more likely, by a large factor, to be  good-natured, intelligent, and imaginative, than the average person.

In my experience the average person tends to be self-absorbed, obsessed with what other people think of them, inane, uneducated, lacking in imagination and problem-solving skills, judgemental, insecure, passive aggressive and petty. This is, from what I can tell over the course of an extremely well-travelled near 40 years, the default condition of humanity. The lowest common denominator = the vast majority of the species.

And that's why Donald Trump was doing so well up til now.  

JG

Quote from: Bren;877043Generalizations are useful as a way of managing information. My point was not avoid all generalizations it was that for the typical player group of say 4-6 players, generalizing those 4-6 people by gender (or age, religion, level of education, etc.) is unnecessary (and typically adds no value) since you are dealing not with hundreds, thousands, or millions of people you don't personally know; you are dealing with only 4-6 people who you do know and about whom you likely know far more than just their gender.

For example, let's say you have 6 players: 3 men (Bob, Steve, and Pete) and 3 women (Elizabeth, Kathy, and Marcia). Most of the men (i.e. Bob and Steve) if left to their own devices, would never introduce any romantic or erotic content, while Pete is interested in some romantic or erotic content. On the other hand most of the women (i.e. Elizabeth and Kathy) introduce or are interested in introducing such content in play. Marcia, however, is not.

How does it help in analyzing the preferences of my players to generalize that men don't want romance and women do?

Yeah I think I see the problem here. I'm not talking about making the generalisation and then applying it usefully to my players. I'm talking about moving from the particular to the general, observing a certain thing among my players, without prejudice, and then winding out loud if it applies more generally in other people's experience.

I had seen this among female players, and it doesn't then become a rule and inform my gaming choices, but rather just an anecdotal phenomenon of interest. I just wondered if other people had experience to confirm or contradict my own, with a view just to seeing how culturally constructed gender norms interact with our elf games.

Does that make more sense now? I'm not looking to establish a law, but rather to widen the net of observation.

Quote from: James Gillen;877176And that's why Donald Trump was doing so well up til now.  

JG

I'd laugh if it wasn't such a horrifying reality

Quote from: Omega;877018I think Europeans in OSR games/campaigns is ok.

As long as they're autistic.

Quote from: Bren;877161From my experience that is a really odd, edge case example. I've never, ever been in a situation like that. I can't imagine ever wanting to play with 3-4 random strangers about whom I knew absolutely nothing other than age, gender, education or occupation. I suppose some sort of online meetup with random strangers could give you that situation if you didn't do anything to pre-screen people.

I just read in another thread that you've ran games on conventions, Bren:)? Well, that's when you can't pre-screen people, unless your conventions are run differently!

Quote from: James Gillen;877176And that's why Donald Trump was doing so well up til now.  

JG

Quite possibly true, though slightly off-topic:D!

Quote from: Bren;877161So I'm still not seeing where assuming women like romance and men don't is helpful when dealing with actual, real people sitting across the table from you.

I wouldn't just assume it, but if I knew I was GMing for a group of Goth chicks who were into Vampire I might throw out some slightly different stuff than for a group of male WH40K fans. Nothing beats getting to know the individuals, of course.

Long term open player driven games let the campaign build on player preference, but one-shots or Adventure Paths are going to suit some players better than others.

Quote from: markfitz;877202Does that make more sense now? I'm not looking to establish a law, but rather to widen the net of observation.

Sure.

Quote from: AsenRG;877239I just read in another thread that you've ran games on conventions, Bren:)? Well, that's when you can't pre-screen people, unless your conventions are run differently!

Fair point. There's not a lot of pre-screening you can do in those cases. You can call the cops if they show up in a bloody T-shirt holding a butcher knife or kick their ass out of your game if they act like an asshole, but not much else.

What I meant to say was that I can't imagine wanting to sign up random people and then try to prep for them based on superficial knowledge like age, gender, education, or occupation. In those situations I've run a scenario that I thought was generally suitable rather than trying to tailor it in some way just because I knew there would (or would not) be women or grad students in attendance.

Quote from: S'mon;877244I wouldn't just assume it, but if I knew I was GMing for a group of Goth chicks who were into Vampire I might throw out some slightly different stuff than for a group of male WH40K fans. Nothing beats getting to know the individuals, of course.

I hear what you are saying, but I don't know that I agree. The vast majority of what I run is long-term campaigns (years long and scores or hundreds of sessions) so I usually have the luxury to wait and see what they want and enjoy. Also I ask people what they want and observe what they seem to enjoy and try to give them some of all that in play.

Besides, maybe the Goth chick really enjoys tactics and would like a game with challenging combat as a change of pace rather than more of the same old diet of angsty, brooding characters who sit around brooding and talking about their angst. Plus there is no way I am running Vampire or WoD. Maybe the 40K guy wants to play something optimistic and heroic for a change rather than one more iteration of "it's a crap sack world" and "we're screwed...again." Plus there is no way I am running Orcs in Space.

I played with some Goth chicks a couple of times. My friend was GMing. I didn't notice much difference in what they enjoyed in play from non-Goths or non-chicks. But then we were all playing FASA Star Trek. So maybe it wasn't the right forum for extra Gothy-ness. I'm sure I must have played with people who like 40K, but if so, I don't recall that it came up in game conversation.

QuoteLong term open player driven games let the campaign build on player preference, but one-shots or Adventure Paths are going to suit some players better than others.

True. That's one reason that one-shots should have a pitch to help people self-select. And let's be honest, signing up to run or play in a one-shot with people you don't know is a bit of caveat emptor. If you don't get an experience that closely matches what you want out of a game you shouldn't really be too surprised. One-shots are the game equivalent of a buffet - a chance to try something different to see if you like it without being stuck ordering it and eating it for your whole meal.

Quote from: Bren;877287I hear what you are saying, but I don't know that I agree. The vast majority of what I run is long-term campaigns (years long and scores or hundreds of sessions) so I usually have the luxury to wait and see what they want and enjoy. Also I ask people what they want and observe what they seem to enjoy and try to give them some of all that in play.

I'll mention one mistake I made by not tailoring to possible player preference - I was running a sword & sorcery themed 4e setting (using Goodman Games modules) as an introductory campaign for new players. One female player had major issues with S&S stuff, notably that the pic on her female warlord pregen PC had partial armour leaving midrift exposed - in fact a lot of (mild, PG) Conanesque sword & sorcery tropes she seriously took against, I think perhaps from personal experience (ie she was genuinely 'triggered'). After that experience I would tend not to use sword & sorcery tropes for a generic introductory campaign - especially one with female players. Whereas (eg) Forgotten Realms style high fantasy seems to be safe.

Now, most female players are ok with swords & sorcery, some love it, but it's something for me to be aware of now. Likewise any sort of quasi-realistic medieval sexism is best avoided if you don't know your female players. And adult content in the Game of Thrones style should perhaps be avoided with older (especially male) players - again most will be fine with it, but some will be offended.

These are just rules of thumb that IME tend to be useful, they are not universalisations, and if you know all your players well you can tailor to them specifically.