How often do people get the nontraditional gaming group


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Jessica Price wrote:
Hama wrote:
I had negative experience with female players that played in my group. I GM-ed for a few and I played with a few. And, universally, they treated the game as a dumb game where there was no point and purpose, and were there just to mess around. So I'm a little biased towards women. I know it's not nice, but hey.
And yet, the male GMs I know who had bad experiences with male players somehow avoid becoming prejudiced against men.

Every male player i had a bad experience with, I have never played with again, and refuse to bring them to the game or go to a game they play in. It's just my experience thus far. Maybe i just had female players that were annoying brats. Once i have one that behaves like a player, i will treasure her as i treasure every male player ho plays well.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've never treated a game seriously. Not once in my whole life have I approached a game with seriousness.

@Wrong John Silver: You're right there might be a gap here, but I'm not sure it's generational. Has she never played games with you, or did she stop playing at a certain point? My argument is that time you enjoyed wasting isn't time wasted at all. What else are you going to do with a Wednesday night? Watch TV? I'm sure there are heavy responsibilities that come with adulthood. I'm 28, so I have no idea what they are yet. My recommendations for a board game night is Resistance, and Cards Against Humanity. They're the easiest things to learn, but make gamers of anyone. I guarantee it.

Sovereign Court

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I've never treated a game seriously. Not once in my whole life have I approached a game with seriousness.

IMO that is a bad attitude for being in my group.

We devote time to this, time we could spend in other ways. We want to have fun, but we also must approach this with seriousness it deserves. And when I mean seriousness I mean responsibility, respect and care.
If someone is always late and brushes it off, he is not called back.
If someone treats this as just a game, he is not called back.
If someone treats this as just a boardgame, he is not called back.

I love boardgames, and they are an awesome way to pass the time. Tabletop RPGs, however, are not boardgames.


Hama wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I've never treated a game seriously. Not once in my whole life have I approached a game with seriousness.

IMO that is a bad attitude for being in my group.

We devote time to this, time we could spend in other ways. We want to have fun, but we also must approach this with seriousness it deserves. And when I mean seriousness I mean responsibility, respect and care.
If someone is always late and brushes it off, he is not called back.
If someone treats this as just a game, he is not called back.
If someone treats this as just a boardgame, he is not called back.

I love boardgames, and they are an awesome way to pass the time. Tabletop RPGs, however, are not boardgames.

Playing for laughs (I'm guessing the lack of seriousness means he likes to play comedic characters/games) is still a perfectly fine way to play, though.

EDIT: If he was the type to not get invested in games I doubt he'd also be the type to post on messageboards for it.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I've never treated a game seriously. Not once in my whole life have I approached a game with seriousness.

@Wrong John Silver: You're right there might be a gap here, but I'm not sure it's generational. Has she never played games with you, or did she stop playing at a certain point? My argument is that time you enjoyed wasting isn't time wasted at all. What else are you going to do with a Wednesday night? Watch TV? I'm sure there are heavy responsibilities that come with adulthood. I'm 28, so I have no idea what they are yet. My recommendations for a board game night is Resistance, and Cards Against Humanity. They're the easiest things to learn, but make gamers of anyone. I guarantee it.

Nope, she never played with me. I've invited her many times, and she hasn't shown any interest. And as for what we're going to do on a Wednesday night, well, it's home from work between 6 and 7, making dinner, and then having maybe half an hour before it's time to get ready for bed (my wife is a complete morning person and cannot stay awake at night). I've got far more energy in the evenings and could definitely get in a couple hours of play with friends, but she couldn't.

And I think there is more of a generational component, because if you were to compare the number of women participating in any game 20 years ago to the number of women participating today, you'd see that there were far fewer back then. I think this is a good shift, and I love seeing gaming becoming more inclusive. But it really hasn't always been this way.


I'm thinking more about what things were like back in my teenage years, and one thing I remember was that not only were there few women in gaming, women in gaming were practically stigmatized by the non-gaming crowd. Invite a woman to gaming, and the answer, half the time, was an impulsive, fear-laden "No!"

Part of that was rampant misogyny in the "guys' club" culture that was prevalent during the time. The more that part disappears, the better, and good riddance. However, outside gaming circles there was still a very strong idea that a girl who games was less of a girl--a ridiculous social structure I despised and still do to this day. I can remember that one or two women showed interest in finding out what the game is all about--as long as knowledge of her attendance didn't get back to her friends.

Now, my wife grew up in a different culture (East Germany) and in her case, games were just not how she had fun. Heck, she had no experience with the concept of fantasy outside of fairy tales until I introduced her to it. She also used to be very much against me playing computer games, and would always ask me to do some business whenever she saw me play. She stopped when I pointed out that she would rather see me watch TV instead of play computer games--a position that she had to agree was both true, and indefensible.

Ultimately, my point is that there is a large cohort for which games are not an option for entertainment. There are a few reasons why this happened, reasons that have been lessened in power over the years, thankfully, but they existed and they shaped a generation of minds.

(And because of the large differences in culture, a game like Cards Against Humanity does not go over well for her. She definitely would do better with Settlers of Catan, which I have the German version of. Still hasn't worked.)


Ellis Mirari wrote:
Hama wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I've never treated a game seriously. Not once in my whole life have I approached a game with seriousness.

IMO that is a bad attitude for being in my group.
Playing for laughs (I'm guessing the lack of seriousness means he likes to play comedic characters/games) is still a perfectly fine way to play, though.

This is another example of differing expectations. Some groups enjoy a 1-off gag session every now and then (for my group, it was We Be Goblins), for other groups, an entire campaign might be slapstick. As long as everyone knows what they are getting into at the outset then anything can work.

The problem is that unless someone has been exposed to multiple different playstyles, whether in-person or reading about them online, then it often never occurs to them that a new group's or new player's playstyle might be different from what they are used to.

As for the topic of seriousness, I like to see humor and lightheartedness injected into the game too, but I'd not be able to muster the will to GM if none of my players took the game seriously. I've had (and played with) complete jokers before, and it ultimately was an exercise in frustration mixed with resentment — no one on either side of the screen should be made to feel like a punching-bag.

Sovereign Court

Man do i hate joker players who play pun characters. There is almost nothing worse.


For me, it's like any other type of comedy: I enjoy it if it's good. One of my friends is a genuinely funny guy who usually plays characters in a humorous way and it's never bothered me because he was always genuinely amusing. Every group of characters needs their comic relief guy, who still got his serious emotional moments now and again.

I have had people who were less... apt with their jokes, and they can be grating.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I always make sure there are women in my group.

May I ask how you do that? Case in point: My present group has six people, four white men and two Hispanic men. We are all cisgendered and heterosexual (unless there's a dynamic happening that nobody cares about). Four of us are married, two of us have children.

We've had three other people in the group over time. One white man (whose sexuality I don't actually know), one black man (heterosexual and married), and one white woman (again of unknown sexuality). The woman only attended the meet & greet, though, and never rolled up a character. I believe she didn't like the premise of the game; it was going to be a pirate adventure with the chance to be more bloodthirsty than she wanted.

No other women have even reached out to the group. None of our wives play, or even ever show an interest in playing or learning how to play. So... how would you make sure there are women in the group in a case like this?

Gaming groups are social groups.

That said, your wives might also view it as a time you get to take with you and your buddies. A "guy's night out." I'd ask outright. They may not be aware of your interest in them playing.

Or they may be, I'm going on supposition, here.

Alternately, look at Meetup.com, work in other areas to widen your social circles. Involve your wives in this effort, also. As silly as it sounds, if it was a "guy's evening out" and you start inviting women...hey, nothing bad. Just make sure they're onboard with it/aware, AND that you'd love to have them attend at any time.

More generally speaking, make sure the place you play is clean and that no one's consistently making inappropriate jokes about women or other groups (this can be seen as creating an unwelcoming atmosphere).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
Hama wrote:
I had negative experience with female players that played in my group. I GM-ed for a few and I played with a few. And, universally, they treated the game as a dumb game where there was no point and purpose, and were there just to mess around. So I'm a little biased towards women. I know it's not nice, but hey.
And yet, the male GMs I know who had bad experiences with male players somehow avoid becoming prejudiced against men.
Every male player i had a bad experience with, I have never played with again, and refuse to bring them to the game or go to a game they play in. It's just my experience thus far. Maybe i just had female players that were annoying brats. Once i have one that behaves like a player, i will treasure her as i treasure every male player ho plays well.

It's an an old trap, you know?

Scarab Sages

My last serious gaming group consisted of white college student (sexuality unknown) An asian dude and his son, (going to assume hetero for the father, and his son was only 13 so preference unknown as well)
A couple female was samoan, her hubby was white. (i would imagine them being a couple it plays out) a lass whom i thought was white at first (was actually from portugal, which makes her of a spanish-lole descent i suppose?) whom was bi, and myself. (white straight, though i suppose if the right man came along who knows, i dont limit myself)Our Gm was white heterosexual as well (at least i assume married with three kids) we also scaled different ages all the way from late 40's to early teens.
Before then i gamed when i was in the army, and that was by nature varied ethnic groups, though almost all male (infantry so no females in the unit) except for the occasional wife. As for my army groups sexuality, well that was still back in dont ask dont tell days so i have no idea.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
I have two Canadians in my group, does that count?

My current playgroup is all Canadian since we live here.

Viva LA canada ! Viva le Pathfinder!
For the record I don't do French. At all. Unless poutine eating counts.

Grand Lodge

Eternia wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I have two Canadians in my group, does that count?

My current playgroup is all Canadian since we live here.

Viva LA canada ! Viva le Pathfinder!
For the record I don't do French. At all. Unless poutine eating counts.

Its weird; all the Canadian military guys I work with HATE poutine. I though it was a law or something to love that stuff.


I had some with a friend of mine from the boards interestingly enough, I love it.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hama wrote:
Man do i hate joker players who play pun characters. There is almost nothing worse.

My favorite character to play and among my friends is a necromancer named Hollow Graves. He married an elf named Rosalina, and he's trying to find a non-abhorrent path to immortality.

In Legacy of Fire I play a character named Ash Q'Asheem and my Eidolon is a genie named Sharumander. My GM loved the reference. He's a man of deep faith, trusting in Sarenrae, his Eidolon is a larger than life genie with GREAT FLAAAAAMING EYEBROWS. He was bound to a lamp as punishment for destroying and pillaging a temple of Sarenrae centuries ago. The pair have been working towards Sharumander's redemption ever since.

Shadow Lodge

Ruggs wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I always make sure there are women in my group.

May I ask how you do that? Case in point: My present group has six people, four white men and two Hispanic men. We are all cisgendered and heterosexual (unless there's a dynamic happening that nobody cares about). Four of us are married, two of us have children.

We've had three other people in the group over time. One white man (whose sexuality I don't actually know), one black man (heterosexual and married), and one white woman (again of unknown sexuality). The woman only attended the meet & greet, though, and never rolled up a character. I believe she didn't like the premise of the game; it was going to be a pirate adventure with the chance to be more bloodthirsty than she wanted.

No other women have even reached out to the group. None of our wives play, or even ever show an interest in playing or learning how to play. So... how would you make sure there are women in the group in a case like this?

Gaming groups are social groups.

That said, your wives might also view it as a time you get to take with you and your buddies. A "guy's night out." I'd ask outright. They may not be aware of your interest in them playing.

Or they may be, I'm going on supposition, here.

Alternately, look at Meetup.com, work in other areas to widen your social circles. Involve your wives in this effort, also. As silly as it sounds, if it was a "guy's evening out" and you start inviting women...hey, nothing bad. Just make sure they're onboard with it/aware, AND that you'd love to have them attend at any time.

More generally speaking, make sure the place you play is clean and that no one's consistently making inappropriate jokes about women or other groups (this can be seen as creating an unwelcoming atmosphere).

Yeah the whole "Sunday night Pathfinder" idea is something new I've just ran into with this group where wives treat it as football for their spouses. I have to say coming from a sports family who have little background in tabletop rp it's kind of wonderfully surreal. I never would have called a decade ago the idea of a dynamic where "football night" experiences could both become things like pf and that they would be looked at as normal by non gaming spouses. Very cool.

Also people have mentioned bad experiences with players based on gender and I've found them pretty split down the middle. Players who don't take the story, theme, and style that I or the GM is trying to run seriously or players who have social, emotional, or mental issues that get in the way of them or the rest of the group having fun.


Wrong John Silver wrote:
I'm thinking more about what things were like back in my teenage years, and one thing I remember was that not only were there few women in gaming, women in gaming were practically stigmatized by the non-gaming crowd. Invite a woman to gaming, and the answer, half the time, was an impulsive, fear-laden "No!"

I remember these times. I was often the person thinking "No!" At that time it was mostly because the game completely changed when a woman would be added to the group. All of the guys' (teenagers at that time) behavior would change dramatically.

There was guaranteed to be several arguments as no one would back down or admit they were wrong around the young woman. It was absolutely a nightmare.

Then of course there was the "my girlfriend really wants to play," but when she showed up, she didn't at all. She just didn't want to disappoint her boyfriend.

In more recent times, we had a guest woman gamer at our table (my good friend & his girlfriend came in from out of town), and she was an absolute pleasure to have at the table. She immediately picked up the core rulebook and started reading through, asking for clarifications on rules and such.


Note that altho "cis" started out as a neutral term, it has devolved into a derogatory term. It's pretty tasteless to use it now.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Note that altho "cis" started out as a neutral term, it has devolved into a derogatory term. It's pretty tasteless to use it now.

No, that's wrong. I mean, yeah sure, there are people who don't like the word "cis" being applied to them. But there were (and are) people who didn't like the word "straight" being applied to them. People don't like it when what was previously unlabeled and "normal" gets named. It has the effect of making the contours of privilege visible.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Note that altho "cis" started out as a neutral term, it has devolved into a derogatory term. It's pretty tasteless to use it now.

As a cisgendered dude, kindly speak for yourself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I will agree that it's often used in a accusatory context but that doesnt make the term itself derogatory.

At least this cisgendered man thinks so. There really isn't any other way express that concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Note that altho "cis" started out as a neutral term, it has devolved into a derogatory term. It's pretty tasteless to use it now.

(Barely NSFW)What is a "Cisgender" Person?

"A cisgender person is someone who believes their gender identity matches the one they were assigned at birth. They were born like this and did not choose it!"


Annabel wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Note that altho "cis" started out as a neutral term, it has devolved into a derogatory term. It's pretty tasteless to use it now.

What is a "Cisgender" Person?

"A cisgender person is someone who believes their gender identity matches the one they were assigned at birth. They were born like this and did not choose it!"

:D I'm not sure what part of that infographic is my favorite part.

You might want to mention it's slightly NSFW though, in case anyone works somewhere that would get them in trouble for having a couple depictions of naked cis people. I mean, it's certainly helpful for understanding the anatomy of cis people, but it's probably best to mention.


DrDeth wrote:
Note that altho "cis" started out as a neutral term, it has devolved into a derogatory term. It's pretty tasteless to use it now.

I haven't seen it used in a derogatory fashion, but most of the sites I visit are basically LGBT-friendly (gaming, art, movies, etc.)

I don't know anyone in "real life" that uses the term (that is to say, offline.) I wouldn't use the term to describe anyone as it isn't mainstream and I wouldn't want to offend anyone. It doesn't bother me that other people use the term, but I would prefer they not use it when speaking of me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Note that altho "cis" started out as a neutral term, it has devolved into a derogatory term. It's pretty tasteless to use it now.
No, that's wrong. I mean, yeah sure, there are people who don't like the word "cis" being applied to them. But there were (and are) people who didn't like the word "straight" being applied to them. People don't like it when what was previously unlabeled and "normal" gets named. It has the effect of making the contours of privilege visible.

Less privilege and more likely a reaction to being called something they do not recognize. Believe it or not, even with the Internet, there are many times many people who do not keep up with what new terms people use to label others.


DrDeth wrote:
Note that altho "cis" started out as a neutral term, it has devolved into a derogatory term. It's pretty tasteless to use it now.

Are you certain you're not confusing "cis" with "heteronormative" on this one? I know the second one is used primarily derogatorily in the circles I frequent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:
Less privilege and more likely a reaction to being called something they do not recognize. Believe it or not, even with the Internet, there are many times many people who do not keep up with what new terms people use to label others.

The problem with your suggestion here is that most of the time I have seen people take umbrage at the word cis being applied to them, they aren't ignorant of the word. It's not a case of not liking an unknown word being applied to them, because it isn't unknown. Anyway, I have a hard time believing that it would be the word being unknown that's the issue, at least on the internet. If I referred to you as a bibliophile and you didn't know what that meant, you could easily google it and learn what it means. Same with cisgender. It's only unknown for the length of time it takes to do a google search, so that is a poor explanation for people not liking the word.

But you're right that a lot of people don't know what cisgender means. Even though the word has been is use for at least about a decade, not everyone knows what it means. But, there was a time when a lot of people didn't know what straight or heterosexual mean. One way to make the unmarked category of cisgender visible is, well, using the word cisgender.


Tormsskull wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Note that altho "cis" started out as a neutral term, it has devolved into a derogatory term. It's pretty tasteless to use it now.

I haven't seen it used in a derogatory fashion, but most of the sites I visit are basically LGBT-friendly (gaming, art, movies, etc.)

I don't know anyone in "real life" that uses the term (that is to say, offline.) I wouldn't use the term to describe anyone as it isn't mainstream and I wouldn't want to offend anyone. It doesn't bother me that other people use the term, but I would prefer they not use it when speaking of me.

I can completely understand this feeling. It really irks me something awful when people mistake me for being straight. It burns me because it reminds me that to "pass" as straight is to let the dominance of heterosexuality envelope my everyday life. I can understand how being called for cis might have a similar effect, erasing your experiences as a trans person while enforcing a norm that demands "passing" of trans folk.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Annabel wrote:
I can completely understand this feeling. It really irks me something awful when people mistake me for being straight.

Why? It hasn't bothered me when people mistook me for gay. Nor when people assumed I followed a particular religion when I don't. The people who are close to me know the truth, the rest, I'm not concerned with.


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
knightnday wrote:
Less privilege and more likely a reaction to being called something they do not recognize. Believe it or not, even with the Internet, there are many times many people who do not keep up with what new terms people use to label others.

The problem with your suggestion here is that most of the time I have seen people take umbrage at the word cis being applied to them, they aren't ignorant of the word. It's not a case of not liking an unknown word being applied to them, because it isn't unknown. Anyway, I have a hard time believing that it would be the word being unknown that's the issue, at least on the internet. If I referred to you as a bibliophile and you didn't know what that meant, you could easily google it and learn what it means. Same with cisgender. It's only unknown for the length of time it takes to do a google search, so that is a poor explanation for people not liking the word.

But you're right that a lot of people don't know what cisgender means. Even though the word has been is use for at least about a decade, not everyone knows what it means. But, there was a time when a lot of people didn't know what straight or heterosexual mean. One way to make the unmarked category of cisgender visible is, well, using the word cisgender.

Perhaps it is a poor reason -- I was speaking more of offline communications, although I've run across people online that dislike googling things. They have reasons, I think -- Google did bad things to them at band camp or something,

In any case, people don't like or like all sorts of things. Heck, Billy Jean King was talking on Colbert last night about how she preferred being called gay over lesbian because it sounded more fun. It could be as simple as that, or just a negative experience with the term. Or disliking it because they think it sounds like 'sissy'.


I will throw in that I don't find Cis- to be insulting, but I will also throw in that the first time I ever heard of the term was this site, and I am willing to bet that a large chunk of people in the USA have never heard the term.


Google used to give some, ah, very "interesting" results. I still won't use it for some topics because of that, but it has become much better in recent years.

So, really, I don't think saying people can google it is necessarily that legitimate. Some of us still bear the mental scars of googling things.

Liberty's Edge

To put this slightly on topic...

I normally play with groups that are more male heavy. Mostly white, but I believe that is more coincidence than anything as those are the one who usually approach me. I also might not have noticed as I usually concern myself more with how well the group is working together or a plan.

I just started on Roll20 and I can't say fully on those what they all identify as or even always know what race. I think I have someone with hispanic heritage due to his accent, which he mentioned was mexican. Generally I don't ask people about the religion, sexual orientation, or how they identify. If I say he and the actually identify as she I will shift if I am corrected on the matter.

I generally feel how they identify will be taken care of if I get it wrong, but generally I use their names to avoid confusion. I only use gender pronouns when I am certain of gender. When it comes to religion and sexual orientation I feel that is their business and not mine, so I don't go asking about it.

If they show up on time, have fun, and respect everyone at the table I don't really care beyond that. And that was long-winded way to say though all of the previous factors play into games and should be addressed to me part of that is hitting a point where you have to ask "What is a traditional gaming group?"

When we get to the point we have to clarify that statement it likely will have become a non-issue. That would be a very good thing in my mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Annabel wrote:
I can completely understand this feeling. It really irks me something awful when people mistake me for being straight.
Why? It hasn't bothered me when people mistook me for gay. Nor when people assumed I followed a particular religion when I don't. The people who are close to me know the truth, the rest, I'm not concerned with.

Because it marginalize being not-straight. When people take heterosexuality and cisgender to be the "default," it is evidence of the broader heterosexist and cissexist social structures and marginalizes queer people. We lack a shared cultural language to capture being gay (among other things) as a positive: as adding something to life that is greater than the "default." Within the broader social context, being gay is analogue to being straight: gay marriage, gay family, gay kids. We are placed slightly to the left of straight—straight in every way except gay about it. Being mistaken for straight is to feel that tiny thread of freedom being pulled away, as if I slips one step backward towards the default.

It is exhausting being queer, being able to express oneself, and navigating through people's conceptions of the "normal" person. To live my life as if being queer isn't already politicized and marginalized would be a ridiculous task. Even to communicate "the truth" to the people I love is a challenge, because unlike straight cis people, I am not offered a whole repertoire of cultural and historical signs to make myself intelligible. For queer folk, we have to make it up out of whole cloth, or else beholden to a language tailored by heterosexism and cissexism.

Of the trans men and women I know, many of them experience a great deal of stress from the societal pressures that demand them to pass as cis. Finding the language to express themselves without having to reference the seemingly "naturalness" of cis life is difficult, because the larger social context makes anything other than cis or cis passing unlivable.

There are a great many risks queer people take when not conforming, but it can become doubly hard when we do conform because the social structures that produce these risks go unchallenged. Reaching a place where we can assert ourselves without the backdrop of cisgender heterosexual dominance is an important part of queer thought and action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You complain about being to the side of what is considered normal.

At least you're on the spectrum. I'm not. Your issues are at least enough a part of society to be discussed. So, trust me, you could be in far worse a scenario.

Want to know the solution of an outsider to both sides? If you want to stop feeling like cis standards are in control of your life... then stop letting yourself be bothered by it. You'll find CIS issues control you a lot less then. That is how it is I don't let myself get bothered by the fact the issues I face on this matter, as well as others like me, are not even part of the discussion... and, potentially, not even capable of being discussed in this language.


MagusJanus wrote:

You complain about being to the side of what is considered normal.

At least you're on the spectrum. I'm not. Your issues are at least enough a part of society to be discussed. So, trust me, you could be in far worse a scenario.

Want to know the solution of an outsider to both sides? If you want to stop feeling like cis standards are in control of your life... then stop letting yourself be bothered by it. You'll find CIS issues control you a lot less then. That is how it is I don't let myself get bothered by the fact the issues I face on this matter, as well as others like me, are not even part of the discussion... and, potentially, not even capable of being discussed in this language.

But that is exactly the problem: being to the side of "normal" isn't what it means to be queer. Rather, "to the side" is where a number of social forces work to place queer people, despite their wants and needs.

That is why I was saying about how "gay" is used to amend straight culture: gay marriage, gay prom, gay family, etc. Many gay people struggle because they themselves resist the normalization of queer life.

And suggesting that we ought to "stop letting yourself be bothered by it" is patently unhelpful. We are social creatures, and we depend on the social world for sustenance. Even straight cisgender people need it, the only difference is that they don't even know how much of a luxury possibility is.

If you can make it by without the social stuff that makes up life for queer folk, then that is fine. But you are mistaken if you believe that there is already present an accessible language for queer people to make themselves intelligible to themselves and others. Part of queer discourse is the generation of these kinds of things, so that we may extend the livable realm for each other.

...which is why I prefer to play in groups with queer (or queer-friendly) folk.


MMCJawa wrote:
I will throw in that I don't find Cis- to be insulting, but I will also throw in that the first time I ever heard of the term was this site, and I am willing to bet that a large chunk of people in the USA have never heard the term.

Nationality is less of an issue than the extent that they are online. It is primarily used on the internet simply because that's generally where these sorts of conversations happen outside of gender studies classrooms.


Annabel wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

You complain about being to the side of what is considered normal.

At least you're on the spectrum. I'm not. Your issues are at least enough a part of society to be discussed. So, trust me, you could be in far worse a scenario.

Want to know the solution of an outsider to both sides? If you want to stop feeling like cis standards are in control of your life... then stop letting yourself be bothered by it. You'll find CIS issues control you a lot less then. That is how it is I don't let myself get bothered by the fact the issues I face on this matter, as well as others like me, are not even part of the discussion... and, potentially, not even capable of being discussed in this language.

But that is exactly the problem: being to the side of "normal" isn't what it means to be queer. Rather, "to the side" is where a number of social forces work to place queer people, despite their wants and needs.

That is why I was saying about how "gay" is used to amend straight culture: gay marriage, gay prom, gay family, etc. Many gay people struggle because they themselves resist the normalization of queer life.

And suggesting that we ought to "stop letting yourself be bothered by it" is patently unhelpful. We are social creatures, and we depend on the social world for sustenance. Even straight cisgender people need it, the only difference is that they don't even know how much of a luxury possibility is.

If you can make it by without the social stuff that makes up life for queer folk, then that is fine. But you are mistaken if you believe that there is already present an accessible language for queer people to make themselves intelligible to themselves and others. Part of queer discourse is the generation of these kinds of things, so that we may extend the livable realm for each other.

...which is why I prefer to play in groups with queer (of queer-friendly) folk.

*sighs*

I put forth that my own gender issues are even more afield than your own. That mine are potentially not even possible to discuss at all in this language. You complain about the language itself having terms and the suggestion I gave to stop letting it bother you, completely missing that I never said to stop trying to change things for the better. I was giving you advice in how to stop letting it rule you.

The social aspect? I found my social life improved once I stopped letting being an outsider on this bother me. People will assume what they will; not my fault if their assumptions turn out to be wrong. Interesting enough, I got the advice to do it from someone who was transgendered. Happiest person I ever knew. So, I kinda know that it is possible to just let it go and live your life happily.

Also, for all of your complaining about issues of gender identity equality... why did you completely ignore the chance to offer someone who is outside of both situations a chance to join the conversation?


MagusJanus wrote:
Annabel wrote:
MagusJanus wrote:

You complain about being to the side of what is considered normal.

At least you're on the spectrum. I'm not. Your issues are at least enough a part of society to be discussed. So, trust me, you could be in far worse a scenario.

Want to know the solution of an outsider to both sides? If you want to stop feeling like cis standards are in control of your life... then stop letting yourself be bothered by it. You'll find CIS issues control you a lot less then. That is how it is I don't let myself get bothered by the fact the issues I face on this matter, as well as others like me, are not even part of the discussion... and, potentially, not even capable of being discussed in this language.

But that is exactly the problem: being to the side of "normal" isn't what it means to be queer. Rather, "to the side" is where a number of social forces work to place queer people, despite their wants and needs.

That is why I was saying about how "gay" is used to amend straight culture: gay marriage, gay prom, gay family, etc. Many gay people struggle because they themselves resist the normalization of queer life.

And suggesting that we ought to "stop letting yourself be bothered by it" is patently unhelpful. We are social creatures, and we depend on the social world for sustenance. Even straight cisgender people need it, the only difference is that they don't even know how much of a luxury possibility is.

If you can make it by without the social stuff that makes up life for queer folk, then that is fine. But you are mistaken if you believe that there is already present an accessible language for queer people to make themselves intelligible to themselves and others. Part of queer discourse is the generation of these kinds of things, so that we may extend the livable realm for each other.

...which is why I prefer to play in groups with queer (of queer-friendly) folk.

*sighs*

I put forth that my own gender issues are even more afield than your own. That mine are potentially not even possible to discuss at all in this language. You complain about the language itself having terms and the suggestion I gave to stop letting it bother you, completely missing that I never said to stop trying to change things for the better. I was giving you advice in how to stop letting it rule you.

The social aspect? I found my social life improved once I stopped letting being an outsider on this bother me. People will assume what they will; not my fault if their assumptions turn out to be wrong. Interesting enough, I got the advice to do it from someone who was transgendered. Happiest person I ever knew. So, I kinda know that it is possible to just let it go and live your life happily.

Also, for all of your complaining about issues of gender identity equality... why did you completely ignore the chance to offer someone who is outside of both situations a chance to join the conversation?

I didn't ignore the chance to "offer" you the chance to join the conversation. You presented your understanding of what I said as "complain about being to the side of what is considered normal," and I responded to make clear that wasn't what I was doing/saying.

If it seems like I haven't responded with wholly acceptance to your post, it's because I did ignore some parts out of courtesy. I ignored how you characterized my post as "complaining," and how stated (and restated) the assertion that your "gender issues are even more afield" than my own. You have presumed to know the details of my queer life. You've informed me that I'm "on the spectrum," despite my explanations otherwise. And it is on the grounds of these assumptions that you've transformed and diminished my concerns over heterosexism and cissexism into "letting it rule over" me: individualizing me as the problem.

The queer discussion isn't closed, your welcome to join in whatever way you want. I am not the gatekeeper of queer discourse, it's an open project. But I'm not interested in detaching the struggles queer people face from the larger social structures that create them. I think advising people to "not let it bother" them is unhelpful: that advice only works if you already have other means to get by. For those people who depend on queer language to live, it isn't that these things "bother" them, it's that these things make life literally unlivable.

...which is why I prefer to play in groups with queer (of queer-friendly) folk.


Annabel wrote:

I didn't ignore the chance to "offer" you the chance to join the conversation. You presented your understanding of what I said as "complain about being to the side of what is considered normal," and I responded to make clear that wasn't what I was doing/saying.

If it seems like I haven't responded with wholly acceptance to your post, it's because I did ignore some parts out of courtesy. I ignored how you characterized my post as "complaining," and how stated (and restated) the assertion that your "gender issues are even more afield" than my own. You have presumed to know the details of my queer life. You've informed me that I'm "on the spectrum," despite my explanations otherwise. And it is on the grounds of these assumptions that you've transformed and diminished my concerns over heterosexism and cissexism into "letting it rule over" me: individualizing me as the problem.

The queer discussion isn't closed, your welcome to join in whatever way you want. I am not the gatekeeper of queer discourse, it's an open project. But I'm not interested in detaching the struggles queer people face from the larger social structures that create them. I think don't advising people to "not let it bother" them is helpful: that advice only works if you already have other means to get by. For those people who depend on queer language to live, it isn't that these things "bother" them, it's that these things make life literally unlivable.

...which is why I prefer to play in groups with queer (of queer-friendly) folk.

And why is complaining a bad thing? If it were not for people complaining about taxes, the U.S. would not exist. If it were not for people complaining about mistreated, modern equality movements would not exist. I find it odd that stating you are stating dissatisfaction would be received so negatively and be viewed by you as a characterization you do not like. If we are to the state where we cannot discuss things as they are using language most people can easily understand, then your cause is already lost... simply because most people will not understand what you are saying, and thus you cannot affect the lingual changes you wish for because the lingual shifts will simply be sidelined as too alien to bother with.

As for knowing nothing of your life: I do not pretend to know your life. But I know the words you say on here and how you present yourself on here. It is from that which I must judge. Though, it would have helped if you had asked what I meant by "on the spectrum" instead of assuming a meaning. I'll go ahead and explain it...

There is pretty much a spectrum of normality that exists within language for discussion. That lingual spectrum covers terms that exist to describe various items, with specific terms cropping up as needed as the language expands. Usage of terms tends to indicate, when it comes to humans, the normative vs. the unusual. Some terms carry with them the assumption they are the default; those are the center of the spectrum. Others carry with them an inherent meaning that they are outside of the spectrum and are sometimes adaptations of existing terms; the term "queer," which originally meant "strange," is a primary example of this. So is the term "gay," which originally meant "happy."

Terms such as "queer," "transsexual," "transgender," "homosexual," and the like are on-spectrum; each one has a set of inherent definitions that label how they relate to the assumed norm. They are "on spectrum" because they exist within the understandable boundaries of what the language can discuss through having had terms assigned to them. The fact they have terms means that such terms can be refined, or even replaced, as further conversation alters perceptions and further defines understanding of them. A lot of what you are discussing is further refining the existing terms or changing the existing terms to other terms to create greater capacity to more accurately discuss the ongoing gender identity issues and more fully make people capable of discussing the topic without inherent assumptions about what is and what is not normal.

Not being on-spectrum means that there's no term. People typically tell me the closest for me is genderqueer, but agree that even that term is inaccurate. Explanation is long; I'll go into it sometime on the other topic.

For letting it rule over you: Well, aside from the fact I could point out one of the terms you are using ("queer") is actually a term intended to marginalize and isolate those who are outside the norm... All I have to do is point to your own words. You speak of language being such of an issue, of queer folk relying upon it to live... You speak of constant struggles you have just because of language, all the while using language that is part of the social structures that define you as separate. You speak of life as a queer; have you tried life as being, simply, a human who happens to be different? Labels create definition, categorization, and separation; they exist to allow the human mind to stick everything in its own little box, and by using such, especially identifying with a label that was originally applied to keep you as separate, you fall into the trap of identifying yourself within the same social structures that define you as not being the norm. After all, how many heteronormative people do you see talking about life as a heteronormative?

Advising you to not let it bother you is not an unhelpful step; it is the first step towards divorcing you from the very labels that help reinforce the societal structures which keep you as abnormal. Not letting them bother you also means you are not letting them define you; you are you, regardless of what level people want to place on you, and people see that. Some try to force you back into the box... but if you don't let what they say bother you, they fail. You will find the language itself also shifting in response if enough people do this; language will be forced to shift to adapt to the simple fact that, by all appearances, all of these people who were defined as outside the norm are not defining themselves in a way that sets themselves apart. Language is reactive, not proactive. So not letting the language bother you is the first step to taking control of the language in that it changes what stimulus the language has to react to.

As for those who rely on queer language to live? I've never met one. I've met plenty of people who thought they did, though. And met plenty of people who were queer, but didn't live by the language at all and were just themselves. The second group was always the happier one. The second group also did not lack for social interaction, whether with those similar to them or others.

Finally: Did it ever occur to you that inviting people like me may be necessary? Though, I think you can guess why such are not popular in these conversations; viewpoints that tend not to be popular.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Annabel wrote:
We lack a shared cultural language to capture being gay (among other things) as a positive:

Personally, I don't consider it to be a positive. Neither is being straight. It's just who you're attracted to.

Annabel wrote:
Finding the language to express themselves without having to reference the seemingly "naturalness" of cis life is difficult, because the larger social context makes anything other than cis or cis passing unlivable.

Any time you try to change a society, it is going to be a very difficult and incredibly slow task.

Annabel wrote:
There are a great many risks queer people take when not conforming, but it can become doubly hard when we do conform because the social structures that produce these risks go unchallenged. Reaching a place where we can assert ourselves without the backdrop of cisgender heterosexual dominance is an important part of queer thought and action.

I'm not really understanding what your goal is. In your opinion, what is the perfect end game here? Is it that all non-straight people are immediately recognized on sight as non-straight and that all members of society are educated to recognize & accept these individuals?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Something gnawed at me as I went to sleep last night.

Annabel wrote:
It is exhausting being queer, being able to express oneself, and navigating through people's conceptions of the "normal" person.

While I have no doubt that this is true, it might be equally true to state It is exhausting being alive.

No one's experiences and lives, even among those with similar identities, is always easy or without strife. Just existing in this world is a trial for many of us, and day to day can be an issue.

Before people roll their eyes and reach for the keyboard to chastise me for marginalizing someone's problems, go back and reread what I've said. There are many of us that may not be LGBTQ or QUILTBAG (I believe that is the new term?) and have difficulties for other reasons. Even those that you believe are "normal" and do not appear to have issues may have things going on that you aren't aware of. It's something to keep in mind.

Lastly, on the issue of derogatory terms that come up: "privilege". At the very best, it's akin to an Austin Powers spoof of "The Man" keeping you down. At average and at worst, it's being used as an insult against an entire group or groups of people. It isn't something that would be tolerated against another group or identity, right?

If you want people to listen to you (the generic you, not pointing at particular people at the moment), then I might suggest that term leave your fingers and lips. There are people that aren't LGBTQ that are on your side and supportive, and insulting them over and over can lose you an ally. You don't want or like insults about you, right?


knightnday wrote:

Lastly, on the issue of derogatory terms that come up: "privilege". At the very best, it's akin to an Austin Powers spoof of "The Man" keeping you down. At average and at worst, it's being used as an insult against an entire group or groups of people. It isn't something that would be tolerated against another group or identity, right?

If you want people to listen to you (the generic you, not pointing at particular people at the moment), then I might suggest that term leave your fingers and lips. There are people that aren't LGBTQ that are on your side and supportive, and insulting them over and over can lose you an ally. You don't want or like insults about you, right?

Anyone who misunderstands the concept of privilege to the point of thinking it's an insult is no ally of mine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MagusJanus wrote:

...If we are to the state where we cannot discuss things as they are using language most people can easily understand, then your cause is already lost... simply because most people will not understand what you are saying, and thus you cannot affect the lingual changes you wish for because the lingual shifts will simply be sidelined as too alien to bother with....

...Though, it would have helped if you had asked what I meant by "on the spectrum" instead of assuming a meaning.

Even with your explanation (which seems "far afield" the typical meaning of the word spectrum), it isn't something I think you have grounds to assert an understanding of me. In fact, if other people believe genderqueer suits you, but you don't feel that way, then it calls into question the validity to asserting that other queer people "suit" the terms they are called. It undermines your basic judgment that I am "on the spectrum," or your feeling that you're not "on the spectrum." I am going going to go with the former.

MagusJanus wrote:
For letting it rule over you: Well, aside from the fact I could point out one of the terms you are using ("queer") is actually a term intended to marginalize and isolate those who are outside the norm... All I have to do is point to your own words. You speak of language being such of an issue, of queer folk relying upon it to live... You speak of constant struggles you have just because of language, all the while using language that is part of the social structures that define you as separate. You speak of life as a queer; have you tried life as being, simply, a human who happens to be different? Labels create definition, categorization, and separation; they exist to allow the human mind to stick everything in its own little box, and by using such, especially identifying with a label that was originally applied to keep you as separate, you fall into the trap of identifying yourself within the same social structures that define you as not being the norm. After all, how many heteronormative people do you see talking about life as a heteronormative?

Okay... maybe you're right... you do need to be invited to the queer conversation: Queer Reappropriation.

You speak of language like it is a flimsy thing, like it doesn't really matter. You treat the category of "human" as if it is not already deeply embedded with cissexist, heterosexist social norms, which implicitly marginalize queer people. You speak of your ambivalence of it like it is some sort of strength queer people are lacking. Here is conversation invite number two: Judith Butler, Undoing Gender, Chapter 1: Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy.

MagusJanus wrote:
As for those who rely on queer language to live? I've never met one. I've met plenty of people who thought they did, though. And met plenty of people who were queer, but didn't live by the language at all and were just themselves. The second group was always the happier one. The second group also did not lack for social interaction, whether with those similar to them or others.

Well, I've known a few, but they're not really around anymore. Their unhappiness and eventual death wasn't something they inflicted on themselves, and simply "not letting it bother" them wasn't an option.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Why are we doing this? Isn't this thread about gaming groups?


^^^^^^^ Yes, please. Thank you.


doc the grey wrote:
How often do gm's and players find themselves in gaming groups that are composed in large part or entirely of players who are not the traditionally thought of players of tabletop games (i.e. hetero, white, cis, male players)?

I think it matters more that you like the people that you play with (or at least like playing with them), regardless of gender or race.

I successfully introduced 2 women (out of 6 players) to Pathfinder who had never played RPGs before, so it feels non-traditional to me in the sense that they don't bring any pre-conceptions to the game (unlike the other players), which makes it better imo (less metagaming, treating the situations like they were real). And they're great roleplayers. (I don't say this just because they are women, I'm sure I'd find the same thing if they were male as well. At this stage of life however, I find women to be more open-minded to RPGs than men for whatever reason.).


Tormsskull wrote:
Wrong John Silver wrote:
I'm thinking more about what things were like back in my teenage years, and one thing I remember was that not only were there few women in gaming, women in gaming were practically stigmatized by the non-gaming crowd. Invite a woman to gaming, and the answer, half the time, was an impulsive, fear-laden "No!"

I remember these times. I was often the person thinking "No!" At that time it was mostly because the game completely changed when a woman would be added to the group. All of the guys' (teenagers at that time) behavior would change dramatically.

Oh! That's an important point. Back then, the "No!" was said by the women. And a good chunk of it was simply how RPGs were so heavily stigmatized in the late 80s. It was generally thought that the game was played by rejects. It was vitally important, socially, never to be seen being a part of that.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wrong John Silver wrote:

Why are we doing this? Isn't this thread about gaming groups?

Because conversations evolve and do not remain on a single topic without moderation.

101 to 150 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How often do people get the nontraditional gaming group All Messageboards