Representation & Your Message

[LordSmerf]

Asking for less polemic writing is good, IMO. But I believe you'd need to explain why it's a good idea...and many would be so shocked at the idea that they just wont absorb it.

I do not see this as the point at all.  As i read it the point is not so much a case of writing non- or even low-polemic material so much as it is recognizing that we generate polemic material.  Essentially, recognizing that we are not actually producing "objective" work allows us to make better games...  That's how i see it anyway...

Thomas

[M. J. Young]

These quotes are out of order, because they make more sense in my mind in this sequence, for purposes of this post.

Now I know that there have been a few games made by girls, and some of these have been successful. Great! Now make more! We do.

Because here's the perfect solution.

But is it the perfect solution? Is there nothing to be said for the talents and experience of experienced game designers?

I note that often someone who writes a book which is essentially autobiographical or "insider historical" (e.g., "I was part of the Watergate scandal, and this is what I saw") will collaborate with a professional writer. Nowadays the name of the collaborator will appear on the cover (usually in small print, prefaced by "with"), but we all know that the content comes from the person whose story is being told and the structure and style comes primarily from the experienced co-author. Not so long ago such books were "ghosted", in that the person who actually wrote the text got his name on some copyright office form but never reached the public eye. This is because it actually takes talent and practice to write a book.

Should it not be so as well for a game? A good deal of the justification for the very existence of the Forge is that it does--that there are people here who have experience willing to share with those trying to figure out how it's done, along with others who are struggling with the same issues of design who have tried some of the possible answers already. Those who have done something before are usually better able to do it again.

It's all well and good to point to the earliest games and say that they were designed by men, so women should also start cold. On the other hand, few if any of those earliest games are still in print in their original forms, and few of those game designers didn't go back and attempt to do better in some other game design.

Perhaps then the perfect solution would be that if someone who is a game designer is really interested in a particular issue that involves the identities of some group of people of which he is not a part, he should seek to collaborate with someone who has first-hand experience as a member of that group and would be interested in attempting to convey some of that through a game design.

The Forge should be more open to addressing issues of setting and the complexities of transmitting a polemical worldview to players of your game.

I'm interested in this statement, and wondering how it would play.

Mostly I do setting design at present; I am working on some system stuff, but most of that I've pretty much got handled. It's the sheer number of settings Multiverser consumes that keeps me busy. So let's suppose I have an idea for a setting, and I need to figure out how to make it work with Multiverser. Is it Indie? I'd say so--E. R. Jones and I still own the rights to the system, and Valdron Inc has to have our approval on anything it publishes that connects to the game. Is it game design? I do see setting threads from time to time. So if I've got a snag with a setting, how would I go about posting it to the game design thread? This is a particularly interesting problem, I think, as most of the system elements would already be in place, and those that aren't would be referential to the published rules--e.g., the world would need set biases and affiliation, the characters and creatures would have to be statted, the equipment would require definition, specific magic might be necessary, but all of these things would be constructed within the parameters already defined. So, apart from survey-type posts regarding what people like and don't like, how could such a thread proceed?

That's a serious question, incidentally; don't take it as an objection.

I guess what i'm getting at is: If you really want to address a social issue, make sure you do your research. Do research as if you were going to write a book or a published academic paper. If you fail to do this then you are merely presenting the issue as you see it . Not that that is a bad thing so much as it is limited. Your game may teach people what you think about it, but awareness of your view is not awareness of the issue itself.

In principle, that makes sense; but at what point have you done enough research?

If I want to create a fantasy world with a feudal Japanese flavor because I like ninja and samurai and think a lot of gamers would want to play in such a world, how much research do I need to do? Can I read AD&D's Oriental Adventures, the setting material from Feng Shui, and Legends of the Five Rings, and be satisfied? If I spend a day Googling sites that provide information on Japanese feudal society and structure, and extrapolate from it the relationships between the social classes and the various strains of nobility, is that enough? Should I refrain from writing anything at all until I've completed a doctorate in Asian cultural studies focusing on feudal Japan?

The point is that people who express opinions on subjects invariably believe that they already know enough to form an opinion and to validate it. Granted, some know nothing at all, and consider that sufficient. Assuming you're somewhere between nothing at all and a doctorate in the field, at what point do you actually know enough?

The only legitimate answers seem to be that you know enough when 1) you feel like you know enough and 2) you can accomplish your goals without looking like a complete fool to most people with a smattering of knowledge in the field. Yet that in some ways doesn't seem a sufficient answer. How do you know when you know enough?

--M. J. Young

[LordSmerf]

M.J.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, i will take it point by point.

1. Collaboration

I totally agree.  In fact i was sort of getting at that with my "research" and "interview" stuff, but i never really made this conncetion.  On that topic: can anyone think of a game that was co-written in this way?  One in which an expert on a subject collaborated with an experienced game designer to produce an game (generally) or an RPG (specifically)?  This is clearly something different than liscensing.

2. Asking for help regarding Setting

Another good point.  One i am not entirely sure i am able to answer.  It seems that it should be rather straightforward, but i have not really seen question of this type over in Game Design.  Part of the problem may be that some people (like myself) just had not thought of Setting as being something that should intentionally promote your Worldview.  It will be interesting to see if threads addressing Setting begin to show up more often.

3. How do you know you've done enough research?

Good question, i hope i can answer that.  Basically i think that the answer is highly dependant upon the goal of your game.  Assuming that you are ariming for as "accurate" a game as you can get, i would say that the answer is the same as if you had asked that question of a book.  The answer is somewhat fluid.

Is that helpful at all?  I'm not sure i actually answered the question.

Thomas

[Ben O'Neal]

It's all well and good to point to the earliest games and say that they were designed by men, so women should also start cold. On

Of course, but I think there's an important point here... none of us here at The Forge are the "original designers" of RPGs. I started making my own games about 8 months ago now, and I've only been playing for a few years, and not very regularly at that. And yet I can still come up with something that some people seem to like (Scarlet Wake). I'm hardly a model designer, but if I can be here where I am, what the hell is the difference for any girl doing the same?

The fact is, no-one, regardless of gender, race, or whatever group identity will be "starting cold". Ok, maybe alot of people might start designing without knowing about how common it is or the sheer variety of other games out there, but they at least have some experience with some existing games. So what's the problem? They can't possibly be any worse off than most other game designers are when they started out. Where are the barriers?

Perhaps then the perfect solution would be that if someone who is a game designer is really interested in a particular issue that involves the identities of some group of people of which he is not a part, he should seek to collaborate with someone who has first-hand experience as a member of that group and would be interested in attempting to convey some of that through a game design.

I wouldn't say this is the perfect solution, but it certainly would be a good thing to do anyways. I think there are two main problems with this as a solution. Firstly, as Jonathan has been saying, games written by outsiders can't really deliver the full potential of a game written by an insider, because insiders, being human, don't really care about how objectively accurately they are portrayed, as much as about the subjective reality of their portrayal.  Secondly, all people, as humans, trust and favour members of their own group over others for practically everything, but especially when it comes to anything personally relevant or relevant to their group identity. Humans invariably favour other humans over other animals, females favour other females over other males, americans favour other americans, new-yorkers favour other new-yorkers, gun-nuts favour other gun-nuts etc. Every human identifies with many many different groups at many different layers. The more groups overlap in common between two people, the more they will relate and trust each other. Accuracy doesn't matter with this, until it reveals that they don't overlap as much as previously thought.

So to bring this back to the issue, any game written by white middle-class males is highly likely to appeal to other white middle-class males moreso than to people who don't identify with any one of those three categories. So a game written by a white-middle-class female is more likely to appeal to other white-middle-class females than to other people who don't identify with any one of those categories. It's not a matter of knowing about the game's author, it's a matter of the reader simply being more likely to relate to the content and style. I remember reading someting once about white people reading something which they related to highly, and were then shocked when they found out it was written by a black person (it was a study done in the middle of last century).

So in short, if you want more girls to game, more girls need to write games. We have The Forge, and many other online forums for the design of games, so the support network exists and seems to be working for taking amatuer designers and making them half-decent. So I keep coming back to the question: Why aren't there more girl designers? There should be at least a comparable proportion of girl designers to gamers as exists for guys. But I'm not seeing it.

I do not see this as the point at all. As i read it the point is not so much a case of writing non- or even low-polemic material so much as it is recognizing that we generate polemic material. Essentially, recognizing that we are not actually producing "objective" work allows us to make better games... That's how i see it anyway...

Ok.... so we recognize our games are not-objective....so what? Most intelligent people who've past puberty recognise that their own opinions and thoughts and life experiences are entirely subjective (well, I HOPE most intelligent people recognise this). But how does this recognition help? In my mind, all it can do is push us to do all we can to be more objective, by doing as M.J. mentioned, which is researching. But I don't think that people really need to be shown why researching your subject is a good idea. I also can't see how designing all games with no interest in any sort of accuracy could be a good thing. There has to be accuracy somewhere, and even though alot of people won't agree with your accuracy (due to subjectivity), it is that accuracy which draws other people to play your game. Just make a topic on RPG.net about "accurate combat mechanics" and see how many replies you get. No-one likes playing games with bullshit rules, which is, IMHO, why there are so many D&D rip-offs.

So what is it about accuracy that is so bad? Is it that people claim to make accurate games? If so, then who can argue with them? I mean really, if you say that their game is not accurate because of X, and they only think it is accurate because of their limited subjective experience, then they can say that the only reason you think that X is accurate is because of your subjective experience. So in all reality, their game IS perfectly accurate, because it is perfectly accurate *to them*.

-Ben

[LordSmerf]

Ok.... so we recognize our games are not-objective....so what? Most intelligent people who've past puberty recognise that their own opinions and thoughts and life experiences are entirely subjective (well, I HOPE most intelligent people recognise this). But how does this recognition help?

I believe you answered your own question here:

Just make a topic on RPG.net about "accurate combat mechanics" and see how many replies you get.

Just because we recognize intellectually that our opinions are just that, opinions, it does not necessarily follow that we make that connection with regards to our work.  As you mention above people do not often realize that they are not objective.

Recognizing and acknowledging our limitations often allows us to avoid mistakes that we would otherwise make.

Thomas

[Rich Forest]

Plenty of interesting stuff here,

Research is my first haven, so I'll start there. How much is enough? Well, we all have to answer that question for ourselves. But I think there's another question that we should start asking before we even start the research, and that is, "What's worth researching?" Sure, it seems obvious, but I mean it seriously. "What parts of the game play experience do I, as designer, want to contribute to? What is this game about? What do the characters do? How do I want to impact play?" And then use that to guide your research, but also be ready to change your initial ideas based on what you come up with in the research. That's step one for me, and I guess I stop researching when I have to. Actually, I should probably research less, if I'm answering the question truthfully. Because I'm not very good at finishing game designs. I'm great at researching them.

So on to the question of getting better representations, and allowing people to represent themselves through your game. You might say, "I want to have interesting and varied portrayals of group X, let's say 'Chinese Rock Musicians.'" We'll use Jonathan's specific example here. So ok, how do you get that? Well, of course, there's research. But that's going to have its limitations. I like some of the other ideas, like M. J.'s point about the possibilities for collaboration. I don't know that much of this has been done, and I can see obvious practical reasons why, but it's an interesting possibility. I suspect it'll be dependent on who you know who is interested enough in gaming to want to collaborate, though, as far as that goes. I don't see a lot of possibilities for roping my unsuspecting friends who aren't interested in gaming into the job of acting as "expert witnesses." You could ask people to look over your manuscript and give feedback, of course, and the internet is good for that sort of thing.

So let's turn our attention back to a game about Chinese Rock Musicians. The next question, before we get into the thorny question of how to let them represent themselves through your game, is why do you want to write a game about Chinese Rock Musicians in particular? (Remember, this is only an example, so insert your own "This game is about X" here, and don't limit yourself to just representations. Also, Jonathan, I don't expect you'll have answers to these questions right off – don't feel pressured to answer them in this thread just because I'm asking them. I'm just exploring.) What makes this different than just a game about rock musicians? Is it the political situation in China? Is it an apparent clash between rock and roll and your image of Chinese culture? Is it that you think Chinese Rock music is cool? (And then, of course, that's not enough, so what's cool about it?) What is it? Why does it have to be about these folks in particular, this game? And is this even going to work well in the medium of RPGs? I don't have answers to these questions, and they'll have different implications for whatever game you're working on.

The point is that this kind of careful self-reflection can only improve your game. It will sharpen your focus if you force yourself to justify everything you include. All this is what Chris is talking about when he poses the deceptively simple seeming question, "Why are we doing this again?" Because answering it, really, is not so easy. Many people have a very hard time getting beyond "Because it's cool" or "Because that's how the world works." So I don't think it's obvious. I think it has to be something you address explicitly in your design. And if you settle for the easy answers, you're doing your eventual game a disfavor. None of what I'm saying is probably particularly new, but I think it bears repeating.

I think the most interesting direction, to me, is to think of it from the standpoint of letting the players explore how they represent the world through your game. And that's been explored in Narrativist facilitating games in particular, I think, but hasn't been (and doesn't have to be) limited to them. The game system and setting and color, etc., all these elements are setting a framework for what the game will eventually have to say, and for the ways that it influences what can be explored.

Callan, sorry if I misread what you were saying with the "PC" thing. Pet peeves can be blindingly fierce, and that's one of mine, so I probably missed your real point :-) Now, to answer your questions about polemics in games, hm, here's my take on it. I agree pretty much with what Thomas is saying. For me, the point isn't that game designs should be less polemical. (Although maybe it's the term "polemical" that's tripping things up here. I'll stop using it.) Ok, so for me, it's not that we should try to be "neutral" in our game designs. We should realize that they're only giving a limited view of the world, I mean let's face it, even the most detailed game design only presents a grossly limited view of its game world. So the point is, we should recognize not only that we have a limited view, but that our games can present even only a limited aspect of our limited view, so we might as well go ahead and say what we want to say, and we should be ready to hear what other people have to say about the claims we've made through our game designs. If I include rules and setting materials in my game and somebody comes out and says, "Hey, why is that even in there? You're saying X about Y." Then my reaction shouldn't be, "No, I'm not, you don't get it." It should be, "Hm, where'd that come from? What is it in the game that lead to that? Ok, now is it a fair point?" Because I might have put something in does have implications I don't like, in retrospect, or that I didn't recognize. I could've been wrong about it. But then again, the person who is leveling the critique could be wrong too. I'm fallible, but so are other people, so I need to give their questions serious consideration. But I don't have to agree with them in the end, or change my final game, if after considering it honestly, I still prefer to do it my way. So it's about doing it my way, admitting that I'm doing it my way, and being clear about why I'm doing it a certain way. And of course admitting that I might have gotten it wrong.

Ben, I'm inclined to agree with Thomas about the fallibility thing. It's one thing to admit that we're fallible in a general, out of context way, but it's another thing entirely to actually recognize it when we're in action, especially when we have a ton of effort or emotion invested in something, in this case a game design. Callan's examples about martial arts are relevant here, as are (as Thomas has pointed out) the importance of debates about accuracy on RPG forums, or hell, the multitude of fierce debates about just about anything that you can find in chatrooms and forums all across the internet.

Now here's something I'm not saying – that everything that everyone believes is true because they believe it, and I respect their beliefs. That is in complete opposition to the idea that people make mistakes, that they're fallible, which is absolutely essential to all of my points, and I think to the premise of the entire thread. If I claim that everyone's beliefs are equally true, I can't say that beliefs are fallible, and I can establish no basis for making any kind of claim at all. I can respect someone's beliefs without accepting that they must be true. It's easy to confuse the thornier issue of "truth is complicated" with the strong-strain claim "there is no truth." The point is, what is "true" is a thorny issue in a lot of cases, and in a game design, well, forget it. Nobody is going to cover everything in a game design. So we're left with the question of what's important.

What I haven't done yet, that I probably should have, is point to other relevant threads. I'm just going to point to one, and a very recent one at that -- this thread and the related discussions that led up to it and followed it are complementary to Jonathan's points. I'm just going to mention one little bit of the discussion that I think is complementary, that answers the question, "So what?" All RPGs are incomplete. Hugely so. That means that by putting anything in the game, I'm saying as author, "This is the part of your gaming experience I want to influence." Right? I mean, system, setting, etc. etc. – whatever pieces I include are my "polemic," to use the term Jonathan started with. (I know I said I was going to stop using it. Bah.)  These are the "What this game is about, and what's real here in this game." They're my contribution. For me, that's a kind of "Yeah, I knew that, but I never really knew it" kind of insight. I mean, I can hear it over and over again, but do I remember it when I'm designing something? Well, that part's not so easy.

That's why I like to think of these issues, that is the issues raised in this thread, and in the thread started by Ben Lehman that I just linked to, and in Ralph's "Sacred Cows" thread, and all the way down through the ages to the stuff raised by Ron's "System Does Matter" all as a kind of designer's checklist. Ok, I just drafted a game. Next, I can ask myself, about every single thing I put in that game, "Why is this in here? Why is this, of all things, the part of play I chose to include as the part I want to influence? And while I'm at it, what parts of play do I want to influence that I haven't talked about in the game? Why not? How can I put them in there?" And so on.

So that's the "So what" of the thread, at least for me.

God, I gotta stop joining in on these things. I have a problem with being concise. :-)

Rich

[Ron Edwards]

Whoa! I'd completely forgotten to provide this link for anyone who's interested: Trollbabe, feminism, and the chainmail bikini.

Jonathan, as the current artist for the Trollbabe comic, I think you'll be especially interested.

Best,
Ron

[SrGrvsaLot]

I think it's a good idea to avoid the common intellectual fallacy of overemphasizing the diffrences between groups. I remember reading an article in some magazine about girls and videogames. One of the girls they interviewed summarized the problem perfectly. She said (and I'm paraphrazing here), "I'll play it if it's good." You're not going to draw more women into the hobby by making games "for girls." You're going to draw more women into the hobby by making better games. For people. Period.

As far as the issue of representation goes. While I agree it would be difficult for a white American male to represent Asia or Africa without innacuracy or prejudice, it would be no more difficult a task than presenting medieval Europe (which everybody who ever picked up a copy of D&D seems to think they can do). In fact, it may even be easier. I think it's safe to say that all the white, American males on this board have more in common with a modern-day Japanese person (be they male, female, or otherwise) than they do with some random English peasant from circa 1450 AD. Why is it impossible to write honestly about the one, but not the other?

I think it's a bad idea to make any game about a specific group of people unless there's a very good reason to do so. The game about Chinese Rock Musicians is a good example. I can understand why someone might want to make a game about Rock Musicians. It's a cool proffession that most people don't get to experience. There's lots of potential drama, what with travelling around, booking gigs, corrupt managers, etc. But why are they Chinese? Is the game set in China? If so, why? Do you want to explore the Chinese government's reaction to rock musicians, or the way an essentially capitalistic proffession adapts to a "communist" society? If so, you don't need to be Chinese for that. After all, oppression knows no color. If the game's not set in China, the question's doubly important. Are Chinese rock musicians any different than rock musicians of other ethnicities? Probably not. Probably the only difference is how other people react to them. If you highlight this in the game, than the game's not really about the Chinese rock musicians so much as it is about the society that surrounds them.

I guess what I'm saying is this. In 99% of the cases, gender or ethnicity really don't matter. What's more important in an RPG context is what the people do. If you highlight issues of race or sex in a game, it should be done for a reason, not just to be "inclusive." After all, most systems are flexible enough for players to make a female or black or gay character if they really wanted to.

Final thought: any time you write an RPG, you're probably writing about things with which you have no experience. It's a mistake to think of writing about other cultures as a special type of inexperience. The only difference between writing a game set in Asia and a game set in America is the location. If your characters don't act like real people, they're both going to suck.

[Ben O'Neal]

I think it's a good idea to avoid the common intellectual fallacy of overemphasizing the diffrences between groups.

Ah, now this is where it gets slightly complicated. It's not so much a matter of there actually being an objectively large difference between groups, because this is in most cases non-existant, impossible to measure, or at least very difficult. But it doesn't matter anyway. What matters is the actual group member's perceptions of the differences between their own group and others. You are quite right that the "difference myth" is both common and a fallacy, and it's the commonality that is the real problem. As I mentioned before with the writing example that white people related to but were then shocked when they discovered it was written by a black person, it's not a matter of there actually being a difference between the groups, it is a matter of there being a percieved difference. As long as girls think that guys are the only ones making games, they will have a preconception that the games will be ill-suited to their liking. I know this is a sweeping generalisation, so don't try to pick me up on it.

The fallacy isn't something that gets in the way of solving the problem, it is the problem. But it's so ingrained into the human psyche that not you or I will ever be able to remove it, so we have to work with it in mind first. It takes years of education to get people to see the fallacy for what it is, and years more to integrate it into their underlying perceptual processes. Rich touched on this, though for a different reason:

It's one thing to admit that we're fallible in a general, out of context way, but it's another thing entirely to actually recognize it when we're in action, especially when we have a ton of effort or emotion invested in something, in this case a game design.

So the simple fact that people are so susceptible to their own underlying fallacious processing is, I think, the real reason why gaming is a male-dominated hobby. I suspect that there are a significant proportion of both males and females who think that gaming is a "male-hobby" in the full sense of the term, and this belief itself is an obstacle. Slightly less extreme is the belief that males "run" the hobby, and are therefore responsible for making it appealing/not repugnant to females. No-one "owns" or "runs" gaming, so it's nobody's responsibility to change or add to it for the sake of anybody but themselves. There are no walls here, no gates and no bouncers. We, in most cases, welcome any new addition to our hobby with open arms and support. But it is, IMHO, the base fallacious beliefs about both the hobby itself and those who are involved which prevents more girls/minorities from entering, and an outsider's individual beliefs are never going to be swayed by what us insiders debate about.

So as I've mentioned before, the only way to circumvent this false assumption about gaming is to manipulate it and use it to full advantage. If individuals bias their perception based on false senses of group distinction, and thus believe that gaming is a hobby focused on catering to males, then we need the existing female gamers to start making games to act on that process, by making those same individuals see a "different movement" in gaming, started by and focused on catering to girls. Of course, objectively, the differences between "male games" and "female games" will be practically zero, but that's not what matters. What matters is that outsiders can see that there may be a section of the gaming hobby which they believe will be more oriented towards and enjoyable for themselves.

That probably came out messy like a flood of incoherent thought, because I'm rushing to get to uni on time. But I hope it makes at least some logical sense.

-Ben

[Callan S.]

Asking for less polemic writing is good, IMO. But I believe you'd need to explain why it's a good idea...and many would be so shocked at the idea that they just wont absorb it.

I do not see this as the point at all.  As i read it the point is not so much a case of writing non- or even low-polemic material so much as it is recognizing that we generate polemic material.  Essentially, recognizing that we are not actually producing "objective" work allows us to make better games...  That's how i see it anyway...

Thomas

Ooops, my missunderstand of the word (even after I looked it up). I was thinking polemic basically meant 'Okay, this is how it is' and by less polemic, I ment you'd write more 'This is how it is...as I see it'

Are we trying not to force opinions down readers throats or are we trying to get writers not to get too wrapped up in their own world view (which perhaps chokes creativity)?

[M. J. Young]

As I mentioned before with the writing example that white people related to but were then shocked when they discovered it was written by a black person, it's not a matter of there actually being a difference between the groups, it is a matter of there being a percieved difference. As long as girls think that guys are the only ones making games, they will have a preconception that the games will be ill-suited to their liking. I know this is a sweeping generalisation, so don't try to pick me up on it.

The fallacy isn't something that gets in the way of solving the problem, it is the problem....

Of course, objectively, the differences between "male games" and "female games" will be practically zero, but that's not what matters. What matters is that outsiders can see that there may be a section of the gaming hobby which they believe will be more oriented towards and enjoyable for themselves.

I think it's been mentioned before that there are (or at least in the past were) male authors of romance novels who always used feminine pen names for their publications, because women (as a market demographic) did not want to believe that a man could understand romance well enough to write something they would enjoy reading.

Ben, the sum of what you've said seems to suggest that what I need to do in future supplements is to indicate that they were written by Becky Simpson, Lyson Mlambo, and Lee Takano, and I'm going to break down the gender and culture barriers because it will be perceived that these works were produced by a woman, a black man, and an Asian. It has nothing to do with the content or structure of the game at all.

Which leads me to wonder whether the fact that Lynette R. W. Cowper is the primary author of GURPS Rogues has had any impact at all on who buys it, reads it, or uses it in their games. I tend to think not. Then again, maybe it's not the impact of the names on the supplements that matter. Maybe I need to save my imaginary author's names for the covers of real games.

In any case, if it's only the perception that design is dominated by white males that makes others think it a white male hobby, then it has nothing to do with design, and we can all move on--there's nothing happening here, just an accident in which we thought something was happening.

I am not one of those who thinks that female designers or black designers or Asian designers would make significantly different games per se; but I don't think it's reasonable to say that there aren't different approaches that would appeal to different groups. I just don't know at this point what they are.

--M. J. Young

[Ben O'Neal]

I think it's been mentioned before that there are (or at least in the past were) male authors of romance novels who always used feminine pen names for their publications, because women (as a market demographic) did not want to believe that a man could understand romance well enough to write something they would enjoy reading.

Yep, that's another great example. I think it's also important to note, as you have, that we are talking about people "as a market demographic", and not making absolute judgement calls on every individual belonging to other groups. Too many times I've seen people get all huffy about how "I'm not like that, so you must be wrong", and this is annoying.

Ben, the sum of what you've said seems to suggest that what I need to do in future supplements is to indicate that they were written by Becky Simpson, Lyson Mlambo, and Lee Takano, and I'm going to break down the gender and culture barriers because it will be perceived that these works were produced by a woman, a black man, and an Asian. It has nothing to do with the content or structure of the game at all.

Almost, but not quite. But here's where I'll ask "would/should there be a difference in the content/structure of games simply because they are written by people of other races/genders/other-groups?" Or are these groups similar enough to the current dominant gaming demographic that their games would be essentially indistinguishable?

I think this question is important, because if we assume that yes, if a girl or member of another race wrote a game, it would inherently have different content and or structure to games that currently exist, then being that it would be different, is there any wonder why there are girls are a minority in gaming? I mean really, if "girl-games" would actually be different to "guy-games", then the obvious and simple conclusion is that the reason girls are a minority is that there aren't any games catering to their tastes. More importantly, I think, is that this probability seems far more plausible to me than the myriad of other theories tossed about by people as to why they are a minority, most of which attribute far too much malice and conspiracy to the white-male majority.

And in addition, if games would be different according to the demographic that wrote them, how can one reasonably place the burden of anti-discrimination on the current majority, when they would sensibly simply be acting in accord with Jonathan's #2: "write the games you want to write", and his overall point of "don't write from the outside unless you are willing to abandon all accuracy".

But what if minority games would not, in fact, be identifiably different in content or structure? If they would plausibly be similar enough to what we currently have, then what possible reason could there be for the current demographic of gamers? It is my suggestion that the most likely reason is the perceptions of individuals as to the suitablility of games written by other groups. I suggest this because the only other possibility I can think of right now: the dominant males make gaming uncomfortable or repugnant to other groups; simply seems to me to be false from the experiences I've had with the community, both here, at other forums, and with people I game with.

Actually, there is one other possibility, which does seem obvious and quite possible to me, but which is probably highly controversial, and that is that gaming simply isn't a hobby that appeals to certain types of people, and that females are more likely to be those types of people. This would be similar to other hobbies where there is a clear gender bias for "no apparent reason", such as; model-making, music, computer-game-programming, violent action movies, collecting guns, hunting, fishing, knitting, cross-stitch, shopping, soap-operas, making clothes, and "doing coffee" to name a few off the top of my head. None of these things are inherently un-enjoyable, quite the opposite, but they simply do not appeal to certain people, and it is quite often the case that these people will be more likely to be one gender than the other.

Finally, if games written by members of other minorities such as girls and other races would actually be different in content and structure, then the question raised is "why?" What is it about these people that would result in their games being inherently different? If their games are inherently different, then they, too, must be, but this conclusion, whilst logical, would most likely be unpalateable/untenable to most people.

So I think it's probably best to consider that any games written by people of other groups would, in fact, be no different than games written now, and so the most plausible problem is false perceptions of group differences ("Those games were written by white men, for white men, so they must not be enjoyable for me, a black woman"), and the most plausible solution is to use this bias to our advantage, and get more girls/minorities to write games, which in turn would lead to more girls playing those games, which would pull more girls into playing those games.

In any case, if it's only the perception that design is dominated by white males that makes others think it a white male hobby, then it has nothing to do with design, and we can all move on--there's nothing happening here, just an accident in which we thought something was happening.

It's not only a perception: there actually is an objectively identifiable male dominance, but it is the perception of this which is problematic, not the fact itself. Because the perception carries with it concepts of how different the dominant group is to the individual, and how the hobby must therefore not appeal much to them. So no, it's not an accident, and yes, there is something happening here, but it's not happening here, it's happening in the minds of others --the minds of those people we are trying to bring into the hobby. But no, it's got pretty much nothing to do with design, because a) it seems that current games are quite good at being made with Jonathan's #2 in mind, and we can't really expect any more than that, and b) it is most likely that no design, regardless of how radical or market-targeted, will actually be able to make any significant difference in the current demographic, because no design can change the perceptions of those outside the current demographic.

I am not one of those who thinks that female designers or black designers or Asian designers would make significantly different games per se; but I don't think it's reasonable to say that there aren't different approaches that would appeal to different groups. I just don't know at this point what they are.

Of course it's reasonable to assume that there are some designs that will appeal to certain groups of people moreso than others... that's the way things currently work with the games and demographic we already have. But how is a non-gamer going to be "pulled in" to the hobby by any design, if they can't know the details of it or it's comparisons to other game designs? The only way is word-of-mouth, but this has always existed and doesn't seem to be too effective at bringing in minorities, which the current gaming demographic can attest to.

But anyways, this post is huge.

-Ben

[contracycle]

It's not only a perception: there actually is an objectively identifiable male dominance, but it is the perception of this which is problematic, not the fact itself. Because the perception carries with it concepts of how different the dominant group is to the individual, and how the hobby must therefore not appeal much to them. So no, it's not an accident, and yes, there is something happening here, but it's not happening here, it's happening in the minds of others --the minds of those people we are trying to bring into the hobby.

How do you know this?

What you are describing is a thought process in your head.  So you THINK that is what they are thinking.  How do you KNOW this is what they are thinking?

It seems like a cheap dodge to me.

[Ben O'Neal]

How do you know this?

I hope it's the psychology degree I'll be paying off for the rest of my life, and the hundreds of hours of my life I've lost reading social cognition and other relevant papers.

What you are describing is a thought process in your head. So you THINK that is what they are thinking. How do you KNOW this is what they are thinking?

If I'm reading this correctly, then I point you here, to the second phrase (in bold, the one with the picture). But in two words, it's called "Machiavallian Intelligence", and in three words, it's called "Theory of Mind".

It seems like a cheap dodge to me.

Ummm, sure, whatever. Care to explain what, exactly, I was dodging?Sounds like a cheap dismissal to me, being that you didn't raise a single counter-argument, and instead, simply stated the obvious --that what I say is simply what I think, and not necessarily the *Objective Truth*-- as if this somehow discredits what I say. Gee, I can't get one by you can I?! [/sarcasm]

Now, if I've simply misinterpreted your post, and what you were trying to ask in a very round-about way was "can you provide references?", then sure, I can. But a)it's a pain in the ass to do so, especially given that this isn't an assessable essay, and it's a pain then too, and b)expecting me to reference everything I say is rather ludicrous, and certianly not something expected of anyone. If you'd like some references, then PM me, and I'll rummage around some online journals, but all I'll be able to give you are the references, you'll have to use your own sources to find the papers (and this is part of the reason referencing what I say is both pointless and annoying).

-Ben

[contracycle]

I hope it's the psychology degree I'll be paying off for the rest of my life, and the hundreds of hours of my life I've lost reading social cognition and other relevant papers.

Which of those papers carried out a systematic study of female roleplayers such that you can assert with confidence you know what the issue is here?  I mean, how do you know its this particular issue and not some other issue.  Please cite.

But in two words, it's called "Machiavallian Intelligence", and in three words, it's called "Theory of Mind".

This tells you that people may not honestly explicate their thinking; how does this support the specific claim you have made?

Ummm, sure, whatever. Care to explain what, exactly, I was dodging?

Actually engaging with the situation.  I suggest you have merely constructed a rationalisation as why you shouldn't, along the same lines as your own argument.

Sounds like a cheap dismissal to me, being that you didn't raise a single counter-argument, and instead, simply stated the obvious --that what I say is simply what I think, and not necessarily the *Objective Truth*-- as if this somehow discredits what I say. Gee, I can't get one by you can I?!

Well, if I can show you have not the slightest evidential basis for your claim, as you admit, yes I can and have dismissed it.

Now, if I've simply misinterpreted your post, and what you were trying to ask in a very round-about way was "can you provide references?", then sure, I can.

Excellent, please do.

But a)it's a pain in the ass to do so, especially given that this isn't an assessable essay, and it's a pain then too, and b)expecting me to reference everything I say is rather ludicrous, and certianly not something expected of anyone.

Not at all; I don't call for supporting evidence for every statement by any means.  But I think your analysis is completely arse-backwards and am trying to determine if you have any reason for advancing this claim other than you find it comforting.

If you'd like some references, then PM me, and I'll rummage around some online journals, but all I'll be able to give you are the references, you'll have to use your own sources to find the papers (and this is part of the reason referencing what I say is both pointless and annoying).

I shall do so right away; I'm very intrigued to discover so much rigorous academic work has been carried out on the psychology of female roleplayers.