But note, this is the Op's first and only post here ever. Perhaps he's just having us on.
Just to make a point it has only been what 8-10 hours since their first post. They might have a life and don't wait breathlessly by their computers waiting for a response. Lets atleast wait a couple of days before we write off the person.
@OP: If you exist.
I think you and the group should talk to this person one last time. That is if the group agreeds with you.
As to your in game solution...I unlike everyone else agrees with it. Sometimes with this type of player you got to show them how group dynamics really work. Since most of these problems stem from IG...I am perectly fine with the solution being in game.
Examples of this...
A player kept making jerk characters because he found them funny...when approached by the group of about this he response was "What? It is funny." So when the rest of the group in game left him at the last inn...his next character was not a jerk.
Another situration is a character that attacked everything. When he charged a group of 'monsters' and no one backed him up...he got the point.
My general philosphy is if you are not there for the group than the group won't be there for you.
Now the examples above are with people I have been gaming for a long time. And it was not harsh...and we left it in game. This situration you face has a real chance of being explosive. Which is why I think the group should discuss it before hand and be willing to part ways before it get to this point.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOL, as usual the political correctness debate overtakes the substantive issue.
If the OP had said "we have this girl at our gaming table and she's doing OK but there's something she needs some help with" the question "who is she dating" probably never would have come up.
The "who is she dating" question came up because the OP said something like "there's this girl at our gaming table that we are SICK and TIRED of, we've tried EVERYTHING we can THINK of to get her to work with the group and yet we've all but given up but we really, really, really don't want to kick her from the table."
That sort of message begs the question "why in the world have you put up with what you've put up with so far, and why do you want so much to keep her at the table?"
And by far the most common, reasonable, rational, logical inference that one can draw from that is "she's probably socially engaged with someone at the table they don't want to lose."
But, of course, it's a thought-crime to SAY that in today's world.
But I too admit that the only real question I have about this situation now is "Is she in a relationship with someone else at the table? Because that would explain a LOT."
So chalk me up as a thought criminal. :P
And why any female gamers would think to try and 'legitimize' this girl as the kind of female gamer they themselves represent is choosing gender bias of 'girl power' over the game. Pretending that the 'girlfriend gamer' doesnt exist is just as biased as presuming that a girl cant be at a game table any other way.
To put it another way:
I know that you are a legitimate empowered self actualized non-girlfriend girl gamer. You love the hobby as much as men do and you're great at it. Assume this girl is the same kind of 'legitimate empowered self actualized non-girlfriend girl gamer' you are. She's not gaming because she's dating a gamer. She really enjoys the hobby... Just like you...
Now do you really want me to think that 'showing up to the table for weeks on end and being a total pain in the butt that nobody can stand' is something you should be allowed to get away with because you're a girl? That sounds like gender bias to me. Is this something you would do as someone who loves the hobby? I sure hope not! When you talk about a table full of legitimate gamers and all of them are women are you really describing a table with 6 women knitting, ruining each others fun and maybe rolling some dice every now and then?
My only substantive suggestion to the op is that in every situation there comes a time to cut the cord, and she's had more than enough rope for more than enough time. Cut it loose. Even legitimate empowered self actualized non-girlfriend girl gamers would have done it by now.
Unless she's dating a guy at the table they want to steal and date instead! Just KIDDING! DOH!
Maybe I'm just intimidated by female gamers and i'm just worried that 'showing up to ruin every game session I show up to" is a market traditionally cornered by men and I have a hard time adjusting to women proving once again that they're superior to us at it.
It is anything but "innocuous" - it perpetuates the stereotype that we are only in games if we're dating another player. It suggests we're not legitimate gamers, it sexualizes us in a non-sexual context, and it defines us solely by our relationships to male gamers. In short, it doesn't treat us like full participants or human beings.
I disagree with this premise. Yes, words have meanings.
In context. The context here is not one of putting down females.
I think Adamantine hit the nail on the head here. It's a safe assumption that there is SOME reason they haven't kicked her out by now.
1.) They're too timid/afraid of angering her to do so. The "grow a pair" (note that this is gender neutral) argument has already been thrown out, and is pretty much the only reasonable advice to give.
2.) She's friends with everyone and they have to deal with her OUTSIDE of the game. Can't help him with that. Point 1 still stands, but is a less palatable option.
3.) She's just there and they haven't thought of kicking her out yet. So now they've thought of it. No more problem.
4.) She's romantically involved with someone at the table that they like and wish to keep around/avoid angering. This one constitutes a problem that point 1 cannot solve. Easy logical conclusion to come to.
And it in no way marginalizes female gamers or implies that all female gamers are only gamers because they have no interests of their own and just do what their boyfriend does. It just implies that it is quite likely the main issue lies in that direction. It happens in every group setting with the regularity you'd expect.
Assuming she were there because she likes the game and wants to play it does not exclude her from having a boyfriend at the same table either. As I said earlier, any mixed gender group has an increasing likelihood of some of the single parties getting together at some point. And some same gender groups if you're really pushing for political correctness.
And this is what I'm talking about. It's "watch every word you say or you're insulting/marginalizing/belittling group X" with some people that's a problem.
If someone does not mean to be offensive, and uses no overtly offensive wording, there is no need to be offended. Especially when the assumption is one that follows fairly logically.
Didn't read the OP did you?
What we know is the group is tired of a player to the point they are planning an intervention, the player isn't adapting to the group.
Bye bye person who is making the game not fun for everyone else and isn't willing to change behaviors when asked.
We *know* nothing of the sort. We know the OP, who has posted here once and only once, has CLAIMED this. A "seagull" posting renders the veracity rating rather low, I think.
Ooh. I like the new options you have there Rynjin...
So to my first 3 buttons we get to add
and for good measure I'll add the possibility of
I wonder if it would be more politically correct to presume that instead of the player in question being tolerated beyond reason because she's dating someone at the table, the speculation had instead been that she is being tolerated because she's smokin' hot?
But note, this is the Op's first and only post here ever. Perhaps he's just having us on.Just to make a point it has only been what 8-10 hours since their first post. They might have a life and don't wait breathlessly by their computers waiting for a response. Lets atleast wait a couple of days before we write off the person.
I am not writing them off. They may be 100% legit and sincere. BUT, if we got this sort of post for a established member of this community, then it'd be different, wouldn't it? We'd know what sort of poster they are, etc. If it was a certain well known poster, we'd think it was one of his interesting hypotheticals, if it was another we'd have sympathy, and so forth. This sort of post doesn't often come from a newbie....
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure is semantic in here.
I wasn't going to get involved in the popcorn thread, but it seems that the discussion is loosing track of something important in it's efforts to decide what kind of disapproval is acceptable to dish out towards a problem player.
Let's be clear, this-
So, whose girlfriend is she? I'm assuming somebody's dating her to make it worth your group's time to put up with this kind of behavior.....
- is scornful. That's pretty clear. It's also not really undeserved given the example behaviors.
The problem isn't the scorn. The problem is that the implied cause of the behavior is the player's gender.
It isn't bashing on a woman for being a bad player. That wouldn't neccisarily be sexist. This is bashing on a bad player for being a woman.
When you do things like this, or defend people who do things like this, you are perpetuating the culture of non-acceptance that makes many women feel our hobby is hostile to them.
So stop it.
I wonder if it would be more politically correct to presume that instead of the player in question being tolerated beyond reason because she's dating someone at the table, the speculation had instead been that she is being tolerated because she's smokin' hot?
Now that would be the most biased option yet. But worth a bullet!
Sure is semantic in here.
I wasn't going to get involved in the popcorn thread, but it seems that the discussion is loosing track of something important in it's efforts to decide what kind of disapproval is acceptable to dish out towards a problem player.
Let's be clear, this-
So, whose girlfriend is she? I'm assuming somebody's dating her to make it worth your group's time to put up with this kind of behavior.....
- is scornful. It is intended to make it clear that the example behavior is unacceptable.
The problem isn't the scorn. Given the example, a certain amount of scorn is warranted. The problem is that the implied cause of the behavior is the player's gender.
It isn't bashing on a woman for being a bad player. It's bashing on a bad player for being a woman.
When you do things like this, or defend people who do things like this, you are perpetuating the culture of non-acceptance that makes many women feel our hobby is hostile to them.
So stop it.
Thats sort of the opposite of whats going on. Its not bashing on her for being a woman. Like I said. Being a crappy session ruining 'bad player' isnt a gender issue. Keeping one around can only be a really really tolerant table, or an issue with an attatchment to a player they prefer to keep around, or fear, or lasciviousness... it may even be gender that keeps her at this table even when they shouldnt. But the fact that she's female isnt the reason she needs to leave the table. The reason she needs to leave the table is because she's disruptive and that can't be resolved.
A female gamer who respects the hobby wouldnt defend the actions of this player, is honest enough to realize that not every girl at a gaming table is there for the same reason they are, or for the right reasons, and honest enough to admit that a constantly disruptive player getting the boot should have happened by now and that the fact that she hasn't means 'something fishy is going on'
Doomed, why do you somehow infer that there is some implication that the cause of the behavior is gender based? Are you suggesting that male players are more inclined to tolerate bad behavior from a woman? Is that your point? Because nobody has even remotely implied that women are bad players. The only implication is that if a bad player happens to be a woman, the reason the group might tolerate it is because she might be socially engaged with another member of the table.
How you get to some belief that all women are under attack is beyond my capacity to fathom.
You know, there have been a number of posts I've read on this forum that essentially say "there's this guy who's an ass, but he's best friends (or roomies) with the GM so we can't boot him." Does that mean all men have been attacked?
I think there's a post with that scenario going on right now in fact.
|
We *know* nothing of the sort. We know the OP, who has posted here once and only once, has CLAIMED this. A "seagull" posting renders the veracity rating rather low, I think.
Didn't read the OP did you?
What we know is the group is tired of a player to the point they are planning an intervention, the player isn't adapting to the group.
Bye bye person who is making the game not fun for everyone else and isn't willing to change behaviors when asked.
We don't even know if the OP exists, Sartre...
If you have to reject the premise of the OP to make your point, you have nothing to say about the OP.
As to the other issue, AD more or less nailed it, but I would also like note that IMHO posters were much "nicer" about solutions because she was female relative to what most people would have said if the person described was a male. Again, IMHO the "attack" (and it was an attack to ask if she was a girlfriend, because you are basically saying she should go, so why aren't you, because there is a male who you value to the point you would accept her behavior) was more backhanded than for most people than you normally see in these types of threads toward men.
In most of these threads, kick them to the curb (or worse) is the norm answer when dealing with men who exhibit this type of behavior, with fairly pejorative additions.
Here, it was "Can't you find a way to accommodate". Even when the girlfriend shot came (and again, it was a shot) chivalry charged to the rescue.
At the end of the day, (assuming the info is correct, which we must if we want to discuss the info) this player sounds like a jerk, and the normal suggestion of having the GM talk to them didn't work, yet...
Yet what? Be truly gender neutral, kick them to the curb.
It is exactly what is going on here.
The comment implies that the player, regardless of skill level, really only has a place at the table because of who she is dating.
See the problem?
I am not writing them off. They may be 100% legit and sincere. BUT, if we got this sort of post for a established member of this community, then it'd be different, wouldn't it? We'd know what sort of poster they are, etc. If it was a certain well known poster, we'd think it was one of his interesting hypotheticals, if it was another we'd have sympathy, and so forth. This sort of post doesn't often come from a newbie....But note, this is the Op's first and only post here ever. Perhaps he's just having us on.Just to make a point it has only been what 8-10 hours since their first post. They might have a life and don't wait breathlessly by their computers waiting for a response. Lets atleast wait a couple of days before we write off the person.
I agree...though there is a recent(?) trend here of the newbie posting this and nothing else. My general attidue is take posters at face value till proven otherwise.
Though it is curious of why these recent threads(about 'jerk GMs or players) have been growing of late by new posters. I don't get what the 'joke' is if it is not serious. I just don't see a motive here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the reasonable and probably less offensive question would have been, "Why does the table not get rid of her?"
One could also have asked, "Hey, is there some kind social commitment beyond gaming?" or something along those lines. When you go the girlfriend route you do make a certain presumption and that presumption aligns with certain negative stereotypes that get perpetuated. That isn't good for our hobby.
It is exactly what is going on here.
The comment implies that the player, regardless of skill level, really only has a place at the table because of who she is dating.
See the problem?
The comment does not imply that at all.
The fact that you INFER that is pretty suggestive though Doomy.
No, the reasonable and probably less offensive question would have been, "Why does the table not get rid of her?"
One could also have asked, "Hey, is there some kind social commitment beyond gaming?" or something along those lines. When you go the girlfriend route you do make a certain presumption and that presumption aligns with certain negative stereotypes that get perpetuated. That isn't good for our hobby.
LOL, so now this off-the-cuff half-joking (3/4 joking?) comment has become an existential threat to bi-gender participation in our hobby. Oh lordy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only implication is that if a bad player happens to be a woman, the reason the group might tolerate it is because she might be socially engaged with another member of the table.
This is the problem, right here.
It might be the case. We've all seen it before. The problem is that this is one of the first conclusions jumped to.
You don't see that when examples of male problem players are sited.
It's a safe assumption that there is SOME reason they haven't kicked her out by now.
1.) They're too timid/afraid of angering her to do so. The "grow a pair" (note that this is gender neutral) argument has already been thrown out, and is pretty much the only reasonable advice to give.
2.) She's friends with everyone and they have to deal with her OUTSIDE of the game. Can't help him with that. Point 1 still stands, but is a less palatable option.
3.) She's just there and they haven't thought of kicking her out yet. So now they've thought of it. No more problem.
4.) She's romantically involved with someone at the table that they like and wish to keep around/avoid angering. This one constitutes a problem that point 1 cannot solve. Easy logical conclusion to come to.
5. It's her house and they have no where to go if they didn't game with her.
6. She's the only one with rulebooks, figures, etc.7. It's only the Op, everyone else actually likes her...but doesn't care for the OP
8. The Op is making the whole thing up.
9. She buys pizza & Mtn Dew, and no one else has a job
10. She does the art for everyone's PC, or paints their figure.
11. She drives Bob & Joe and they can't get to the game without her, they don't have a car.
etc, etc, etc.
Honestly the thing about "she must be someones GF" is rather a sexist assumption. Jessica is right. It's possible sure, but there are dozens of other possibilities. Would we assume that a male player isn't being kicked out 'cause he's someones BF? If that was the problem, I am sure the Op would have flat out said it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if it would be more politically correct to presume that instead of the player in question being tolerated beyond reason because she's dating someone at the table, the speculation had instead been that she is being tolerated because she's smokin' hot?
I think that would have been a worse insult, IMHO. At this point the girlfriend comment was a shot at her, saying her value is only because she is someone else's girlfriend.
Which considering the OP is basically saying she is ruining the game, one has to wonder why she isn't kicked to the curb already. But in that scenario, at least one person at the table likes her.
Saying it is because she is hot, and not dating anyone, implies she is there as eye candy, but has no real value beyond that, and now the eye candy angle isn't cutting it.
Which to me seems worse.
Either way, as I said, in the forum of insults it is far less than what I normally see around here, yet we seem to now be shifting from dealing with a jackass player to defending a jackass players honor.
I've never seen that in a thread with a similar example who was male.
We *know* nothing of the sort. We know the OP, who has posted here once and only once, has CLAIMED this. A "seagull" posting renders the veracity rating rather low, I think.
Didn't read the OP did you?
What we know is the group is tired of a player to the point they are planning an intervention, the player isn't adapting to the group.
Bye bye person who is making the game not fun for everyone else and isn't willing to change behaviors when asked.
We don't even know if the OP exists, Sartre...
If you have to reject the premise of the OP to make your point, you have nothing to say about the OP.
As to the other issue, AD more or less nailed it, but I would also like note that IMHO posters were much "nicer" about solutions because she was female relative to what most people would have said if the person described was a male. Again, IMHO the "attack" (and it was an attack to ask if she was a girlfriend, because you are basically saying she should go, so why aren't you, because there is a male who you value to the point you would accept her behavior) was more backhanded than for most people than you normally see in these types of threads toward men.
In most of these threads, kick them to the curb (or worse) is the norm answer when dealing with men who exhibit this type of behavior, with fairly pejorative additions.
Here, it was "Can't you find a way to accommodate". Even when the girlfriend shot came (and again, it was a shot) chivalry charged to the rescue.
At the end of the day, (assuming the info is correct, which we must if we want to discuss the info) this player sounds like a jerk, and the normal suggestion of having the GM talk to them didn't work, yet...
Yet what? Be truly gender neutral, kick them to the curb.
I was the first response on this thread and my response is pretty consistent with whoever was in that situation, feel free to look through my previous posts.
You are projecting a lot here and while I normally agree with what you post, I think you are stretching in this circumstance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where the hell is Death Quaker when you need her?
I wonder if it would be more politically correct to presume that instead of the player in question being tolerated beyond reason because she's dating someone at the table, the speculation had instead been that she is being tolerated because she's smokin' hot?I think that would have been a worse insult, IMHO. At this point the girlfriend comment was a shot at her, saying her value is only because she is someone else's girlfriend.
Which considering the OP is basically saying she is ruining the game, one has to wonder why she isn't kicked to the curb already. But in that scenario, at least one person at the table likes her.
Saying it is because she is hot, and not dating anyone, implies she is there as eye candy, but has no real value beyond that, and now the eye candy angle isn't cutting it.
Which to me seems worse.
Either way, as I said, in the forum of insults it is far less than what I normally see around here, yet we seem to now be shifting from dealing with a jackass player to defending a jackass players honor.
I've never seen that in a thread with a similar example who was male.
Bingo Ciretose. The truly misogynist attack would have been to say "so, I guess the GM or other players want to bed this chick." And more to the point, the knee-jerk defense of this player is more gender based than any "attack" on her has been.
|
|
The only implication is that if a bad player happens to be a woman, the reason the group might tolerate it is because she might be socially engaged with another member of the table.This is the problem, right here.
It might be the case. We've all seen it before. The problem is that this is one of the first conclusions jumped to.
You don't see that when examples of male problem players are sited.
Instead you see people going directly to "Kick the bum out".
Again, the OP had a GM intervention prior to this little planned Coup d'etat that had no effect on changing the players behavior.
I'm kind of curious as to how the OP would read gender-flipped. Let's give it a try. Honestly, is your impression of the player different?
I am a player in a group of 6. We've had a "problem player" for a while now. Our GM has talked to him, but he has ignored him almost completely. We have a roleplay planned that is harsh towards him (he's been warned though) to hopefully make him see how untrustworthy and hostile his characters acts. It's a last ditch attempt really. I'm looking for any suggestions that we haven't come up with.
These are his complaints:
- he doesn't get to roleplay enough.
- we don't listen to his ideas.
- characters in game are mean to him.
- he thinks we're impatient and too obsessive with the gameHere is why these things happen:
- He won't step up and roleplay without being hostile towards players or "making out" with random NPCs.
- His actions have gotten us into fights (i.e. he's the only one who can speak elven and upon reaching our known enemies, he yells "We're with -insert out faction here-" and we get attacked)
- He refuses to learn to play his character. He's a druid and doesn't know how to plan his spells. He also doesn't know any other of his abilities. (we've been playing once a week for about 5-6 months now) I have written up sheets that give "spell sets", how to battle, his animal companion's stats, and tricks his pet can learn/know.
- He's hostile towards other players especially new players. He's told one that he won't protect him and that he doesn't trust him. He has basically decided he's an enemy.
- His ideas are usually dangerous and other options are much more reliable. (i.e. he wanted to hand himself over the bad guy who would have probably killed us all anyway in an attempt to keep us from doing him a favor - he'd have lost his character and ended up having to fight us in pvp)
- He currently has a magic item that he is refusing to tell anyone about in game, because he believes we will take it and he will lose his "advantage". (We won't, but we will tell him to give it to the person who needs it the most which is an NPC who is SUPPOSED to get it for plot reasons.)
- And in our last game, he got annoyed with us when we became impatient. He had a roleplay solely with the GM that lasted over 2 hours (which included him saying he approved his fellow elves putting one of our PCs to sleep for eternity). He claimed it was his right, because he doesn't get to roleplay that much.
- He thinks we're obsessive, because we come to play. He brings his knitting and knits through the whole game.
- Amongst other things....Please, don't write that we can't problem solve well or bash us. We've been trying to help him so we don't have to kick him out, but nothing seem to be working.
Reading this over, I actually do get a different impression of the "male" player than I did of the female one. Which is probably just due to my own stereotypes. But it's interesting. Thoughts?
The only implication is that if a bad player happens to be a woman, the reason the group might tolerate it is because she might be socially engaged with another member of the table.This is the problem, right here.
It might be the case. We've all seen it before. The problem is that this is one of the first conclusions jumped to.
You don't see that when examples of male problem players are sited.
Actually, you do. There was a thread last week (and the week before that, and the week before that, and probably the week after this one) about something along the lines of "We all hate this player but he's friends with the GM, what do we do!"
Granted, you don't usually see the "This guy is dating another guy at our table and we like the other guy" scenario, but that's because frankly homosexual relations are pretty rare in the grand scheme, and even rarer when taken form the smaller subset of the population that is Tabletop Gamers.
Also, I'd like to clarify this bit, since it occurred to me while I was in the shower it was worded poorly:
Assuming she were there because she likes the game and wants to play it does not exclude her from having a boyfriend at the same table either. As I said earlier, any mixed gender group has an increasing likelihood of some of the single parties getting together at some point. And some same gender groups if you're really pushing for political correctness.
Basically what I mean is, just because she has a boyfriend doesn't mean she's not there for her own enjoyment, just as a boyfriend going to a largely female group activity with his girlfriend does not mean he's not there for HIS own enjoyment. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
Also, I don't think DeathQuaker frequents the main boards as much as she does the Gamer Life section.
Reading this over, I actually do get a different impression of the "male" player than I did of the female one. Which is probably just due to my own stereotypes. But it's interesting. Thoughts?
Well if we're being quite honest I HAVE never met a man who knits so that bit stuck out as odd to me. Sewing, yes, but never knitting.
Well if we're being quite honest I HAVE never met a man who knits so that bit stuck out as odd to me. Sewing, yes, but never knitting.
Hah, yes. It jarred for me a bit as well, but I figured changing it would be way worse than just leaving it as is. To be fair, I'm a guy and we were all taught to knit in primary school.
I know two guys who knit. One has a compulsion where he always has to be doing something with his hands, so he cranks out a whole lot of scarves and hats. The other, I don't know. He just knits.
|
|
You are projecting...
That wasn't a specific call out of you or anyone Guy, but it is to me remarkable how little call for kicking this person out there was in the initial comments, considering the described circumstances. You are correct that you are fairly consistent in these things, but generally in these threads once the "GM talk to them" card is out, it isn't as civil toward the offender.
In my experience on the boards (and in most places) there is a fairly patronizing low level misogynistic chivalry at play. "Women" on the board have to work harder to earn actual respect, but they are defended more vigorously by the chivalry patrol if anyone starts treating them like...well, other people on the board.
At least until, again, the get the respect they don't initially get for having a female handle. Which is why I put "Women" in quotes, as there has been a history of "surprise" when actual gender is discovered...and an interesting shift in interactions following.
I think the OP is fairly clear cut, there is a player who is causing problems, the GM has spoken to them and they will not change. The table is planning a passive aggressive mutiny...which begs the question of why they aren't confronting her directly?
Was the girlfriend question an insult? Yes.
Is my calling her a jackass an insult? Yes.
Which is more dismissive of her?
Well if we're being quite honest I HAVE never met a man who knits so that bit stuck out as odd to me. Sewing, yes, but never knitting.Hah, yes. It jarred for me a bit as well, but I figured changing it would be way worse than just leaving it as is. To be fair, I'm a guy and we were all taught to knit in primary school.
I like to knit. But then I've always enjoyed lots of traditional non-male hobbies.
What caught my eye in the OP wasn't the knitting though. It was the random makeout sessions with NPCs.
I've never played with a guy OR a girl who does that.
Was the girlfriend question an insult? Yes.Is my calling her a jackass an insult? Yes.
Which is more dismissive of her?
Well, technically suggesting she is a girlfriend isn't necessarily a direct insult of her. As I pointed out, it could just as easily be interpreted as an insult to the guys at the table who won't treat a girl the way they would treat a guy.
Calling her a jackass is a direct insult.
So depending on interpretation, your insult could well be more dismissive of her.
|
|
Well if we're being quite honest I HAVE never met a man who knits so that bit stuck out as odd to me. Sewing, yes, but never knitting.Hah, yes. It jarred for me a bit as well, but I figured changing it would be way worse than just leaving it as is. To be fair, I'm a guy and we were all taught to knit in primary school.
We have a male player who knits, but never at the table. That would to me be the equivalent of saying "I've got better things to do than pay attention".
The problem is that for some reason
.
In Doomed's case the trouble is the mere suggestion that:
-every girl at the gaming table being a great girl gamer and should be coveted, respected, nurtured and cherished at all times ever]
-suggesting that "occasionally a gamer's girlfriend shows up and games anyway, and due to not actually giving a crap about the hobby isnt very good at it and in fact is measurably bad at it"
is either
-[a horrible lie by girl-haters] that makes the hobby unwelcoming to the gender as a whole, or is the indistinguishable equivalent to
-[us, as hobbyists, saying 'girls suck at gaming because they're girls']
What caught my eye in the OP wasn't the knitting though. It was the random makeout sessions with NPCs.
I've never played with a guy OR a girl who does that.
Are you being sarcastic here? (That's Roberta's job!) This is a D&D trope, so much so it's part of the Dead Alewives skit.
"Okay, but if there's are any girls there, I wanna DO them!"
Would we assume that a male player isn't being kicked out 'cause he's someones BF? If that was the problem, I am sure the Op would have flat out said it.
If you dont then perhaps you dont allow enough bisexual males at your gaming table... Because you should.
I mean I know for a fact that everyone at my current table is a heterosexual male, but if they start causing trouble my first thought is.... hey. Are you only here because you wanna 'get busy' with some other dude at the table?
Why are some people assuming that because she might be in a relationship with someone at the table, she's somehow not as "into the hobby" as other players?
I'm not even sure who or what gender that assumption is insulting.
I assume if she's there it's because she wants to play, not because she was dragged there by her SO. I would say that suggesting she's there only BECAUSE she's a "girlfriend" is insulting someone, but I'd have to spend time working out who.
That's a whole different issue than whether or not she's being tolerated because she's in a relationship with someone else at the table. That scenario doesn't imply any lack of gaming interest or passion at all. Only that if she goes, someone else goes too, and that someone else is someone that the group doesn't want to lose.
And yes, I have seen that very scenario played out with same sex best friends, roommates or siblings. Many times.
Well if we're being quite honest I HAVE never met a man who knits so that bit stuck out as odd to me. Sewing, yes, but never knitting.Hah, yes. It jarred for me a bit as well, but I figured changing it would be way worse than just leaving it as is. To be fair, I'm a guy and we were all taught to knit in primary school.
Funny related story. I played with a group where everybody except me and the GM were knitting...and it was mostly guys with one woman. It was knitting chain mail though.
If you dont then perhaps you dont allow enough bisexual males at your gaming table... Because you should.Would we assume that a male player isn't being kicked out 'cause he's someones BF? If that was the problem, I am sure the Op would have flat out said it.
Why assume that? Why not assume that the problem male player is being kept in because he's BF with a great gamer, the one everyone wants to keep (who happens to be female)? We had that in our group.
|
|
Was the girlfriend question an insult? Yes.Is my calling her a jackass an insult? Yes.
Which is more dismissive of her?
Well, technically suggesting she is a girlfriend isn't necessarily a direct insult of her. As I pointed out, it could just as easily be interpreted as an insult to the guys at the table who won't treat a girl the way they would treat a guy.
Calling her a jackass is a direct insult.
So depending on interpretation, your insult could well be more dismissive of her.
I think it is both, as it is definitely implicit she is only being allowed to stay because of her connection to a male at the table, and subtly implicit that that that guy likes her because she is having sexual relations with him (Not "Is she a friend of X" but "Boyfriend")
But I agree, Jackass is worse, as I am literally dehumanizing her to equal value to a donkey with my statement.
And yet I don't think anyone blinked at that, vs the uproar over the boyfriend thing.
Both are mean and degrading, but only one needs "defending". And it is the lesser insult of the two, I think.
Which is interesting to me.
ciretose I think you and I are reacting to exactly the same thing, but with different approaches. I am scratching my head too.
|
|
What caught my eye in the OP wasn't the knitting though. It was the random makeout sessions with NPCs.
I've never played with a guy OR a girl who does that.
Are you being sarcastic here? (That's Roberta's job!) This is a D&D trope, so much so it's part of the Dead Alewives skit.
"Okay, but if there's are any girls there, I wanna DO them!"
Many of us view Dead Alewives as a parody and would never want to game with someone who actually did that at a table, in any kind of serious way.
We would view that guy as an asshat.
|
I'm kind of curious as to how the OP would read gender-flipped. Let's give it a try. Honestly, is your impression of the player different?
...
The problem with this is that you're leaving out the real world stereotype - the game is predominately played by males, and that it's far less likely for a guy to be there because he's never heard of the game before but his girlfriend has always been a keen gamer that wanted to introduce him to the game.
If the game was predominately played by women, and this was one of the few guys who'd shown up and had the same reactions, then I think you'd agree you'd be asking the same question. Correct me if you think I'm wrong.
|
|
Funny related story. I played with a group where everybody except me and the GM were knitting...and it was mostly guys with one woman. It was knitting chain mail though.Well if we're being quite honest I HAVE never met a man who knits so that bit stuck out as odd to me. Sewing, yes, but never knitting.Hah, yes. It jarred for me a bit as well, but I figured changing it would be way worse than just leaving it as is. To be fair, I'm a guy and we were all taught to knit in primary school.
The knitting guy did that at the table a few time, but it is very different since what he was doing could be put down more or less at any time, while knitting you have to get to a point to stop, or you have problems.
We have a male player who knits, but never at the table. That would to me be the equivalent of saying "I've got better things to do than pay attention".Well if we're being quite honest I HAVE never met a man who knits so that bit stuck out as odd to me. Sewing, yes, but never knitting.Hah, yes. It jarred for me a bit as well, but I figured changing it would be way worse than just leaving it as is. To be fair, I'm a guy and we were all taught to knit in primary school.
In defense of knitting...my grandmother used to knit...you could have fully in depth conversation with her while she knitted. It is just something to do to keep your hands busy.
Just because someone knitting does not mean they are not paying attention.
What caught my eye in the OP wasn't the knitting though. It was the random makeout sessions with NPCs.
I've never played with a guy OR a girl who does that.
Are you being sarcastic here? (That's Roberta's job!) This is a D&D trope, so much so it's part of the Dead Alewives skit.
"Okay, but if there's are any girls there, I wanna DO them!"
Many of us view Dead Alewives as a parody and would never want to game with someone who actually did that at a table, in any kind of serious way.
We would view that guy as an asshat.
Seriously, I've played this game for over 35 years now. The ONLY TIME any player has ever made any sort of overt "I wanna DO 'em" reference is when they are parodying a parody of D&D.
Now, I and other players have had characters who were roguish in a Rhett Butler sort of way and we have role played certain scenarios with mixed genders, but there has never been any "random makeout sessions" with NPCs. It's all been quite G rated and the focus has been the in game results of the relationship, not the prurient details of the interaction. I have to think most games are like that, not "I wanna DO 'em!" games.
We have a male player who knits, but never at the table. That would to me be the equivalent of saying "I've got better things to do than pay attention".Well if we're being quite honest I HAVE never met a man who knits so that bit stuck out as odd to me. Sewing, yes, but never knitting.Hah, yes. It jarred for me a bit as well, but I figured changing it would be way worse than just leaving it as is. To be fair, I'm a guy and we were all taught to knit in primary school.In defense of knitting...my grandmother used to knit...you could have fully in depth conversation with her while she knitted. It is just something to do to keep your hands busy.
Just because someone knitting does not mean they are not paying attention.
In fact it has been shown that repetitive activities like knitting can actually make you more attentive, not less. It keeps me awake. I also fold origami and do so in meetings. When someone asks why, I tell them that it helps keep me focused on the meeting by keeping my mind from wandering.
In fact it has been shown that repetitive activities like knitting can actually make you more attentive, not less. It keeps me awake. I also fold origami and do so in meetings. When someone asks why, I tell them that it helps keep me focused on the meeting by keeping my mind from wandering.We have a male player who knits, but never at the table. That would to me be the equivalent of saying "I've got better things to do than pay attention".Well if we're being quite honest I HAVE never met a man who knits so that bit stuck out as odd to me. Sewing, yes, but never knitting.Hah, yes. It jarred for me a bit as well, but I figured changing it would be way worse than just leaving it as is. To be fair, I'm a guy and we were all taught to knit in primary school.In defense of knitting...my grandmother used to knit...you could have fully in depth conversation with her while she knitted. It is just something to do to keep your hands busy.
Just because someone knitting does not mean they are not paying attention.
I doodle to do the same thing...my character sheets are so filled with doodles it is joked by my gaming group if it was ever discover by aliens they would think the doodles are a language.