Sorry GVD, but I've got to agree with Otter on this one. I really think it comes down to public perception and the fact that men and women are hard wired differently. I could lay out a huge argument here...but Otter did such a nice job, so I won't even try.
But I must admit that I can't even begin to fathom how D&D would need to be changed in order to make it "more accessible" to women. Last time I checked, D&D really was just a set of rules on how to role play. But there is nothing saying one has to use Greyhawk as the campaign world, or that they even have to follow the rules laid out in the core rulebooks to the exact letter. They can easily be seen as guidelines. So how are a set of rules sexist? There is nothing limiting a female's ability to advance her character. She can avoid combat all together, assuming she has a DM who is willing to put together a campaign light on bloodshed. Or she can hack and slash until she is knee deep in carnage.
I guess what I'm getting to is, without a specific example of how D&D needs to be changed, I just don't see it. The monsters, the fighting, the magic...it is all what makes D&D...well...D&D. And if those things are changed, then it's not D&D anymore.
Going online and bringing up a search of "gender role development" gleans a whole slew of facts and theories about social, psychological, biological, and cultural differences between genders.
One thing I thought was interesting is creative violence and aggression. It's been proven that boys and girls have very different imaginations at an early age (I think the studies I read were between 8-11 years of age). The study classified most males as having violent, or action-oriented imaginations, and the females have fantasies about calm, animals, being loved, and developing a pleasing environment for themselves and others.
Back I college, I had read something like this before, and it always bothered me. I think to understand creative violence, and maybe even D&D, you have to understand the motivations of most males. What these studies never seem to understand is that the inherent violence in men's creative process is not about "liking" the voilence, it's about Heroism (with a capital "H").
Men want to be Heroic, and Heroim requires conflict. Do women, for the most part, see themselves as being heroic? Do they fantasize about swashbuckling, or killing a slew of bad guys, or stopping a ticking bmb before it kills millions? Do they crave conflict so they can prove/explore/act-out their own sense of Heroic fantasy? OR are they kind of turned off by the whole idea, considering the inherent conflict with their own general sense of fantasy/creativity?
Somebody on these posts labeled this remark offensive, but I think it's an interesting point: The Sims. Sitting in front of your computer is a solo operation, so considering the video games that different genders play is a pretty interesting indication of their creative needs. Women play The Sims. Men play Rome: Total War.
Actually, I'll go further and say that most women I know don't play video games at all, and don't really undestand why men do. IMO, it is pretty necessary for men to explore their own sense of Heroic fantasy, even if it's watching sports. I feel it's natural for men to do so. But if women are uninterested in exploring their own Heroic archetypes, then they aren't going to play D&D, video games, etc., and they sure aren't going to invest the kind of time it takes to indulge in the inds of fantasies D&D has to offer.
After all, if you tell someone that they can be a hero, with a sword and armor or a cool spellbook, everyone, both male and female, might say "sure." But if you also add that it requires the reading of the 290 page sourcebook, an investment of $$$, and a weekly committment for 6-8 hours at a stretch. . . well, I think MEN will say "okay, it's worth it," becasue it's something they need/want. Most women won't, at least not without a motivated male somewhere.
What percentage of females do you think play D&D as part of a couple? Hmm. . .?
To the first point, quoted above, there would be then a coalescence around the idea that "women just don't get D&D," in the main.
Actually, I think you missed my last post. Bottom of the first page. It's not just that women don't "get" D&D, it's that they have no reason to learn enough about it to even have a chance of "getting" it. It's not just women, either... Most men don't have any reason to invest the time it would take to learn whether they'd enjoy the hobby or not. The fact is that the majority of the population just doesn't know what D&D is all about, and the information they do have is so ridiculous that they have no interest in learning the truth. My friends are all pretty geeky, and I recently had to explain to a bunch of them that D&D didn't involve dressing up in silly costumes and waving swords around. If even the geeks don't know what D&D is all about, what are the chances that an average member of society will know?
looking at the big picture, over the course of my playing "carreer" about 20% of the people I have played D&D with have been girls (around 1 in 5), although at times up to 50% of the group I was playing with were female. currently my monday night 3.5 greyahwk game has no girls (although one just left the group recently) and it looks like the mid-week 1e game I am going to be starting will have 1 girl (my wife, Alexis) playing in it.
|
I must say, D&D has elements that appeal to both men and women. All you need is a flexible and attuned DM - because the game is incredibly flexible. When I started a campaign at my school, I instantly attracted 7 other women to play, and there were more that I had to turn away. D&D is a game of imagination, made social and given rules. That appeals to both genders, even if the content of their imaginations are often different. It's not even necessarily about the "hero" archetype - it's about an alter ego of any archetype, it's a vicarious experience of the setting and the character and the story.
And I agree that if women are interested enough, they will disregard the social stigma - or more likely, set up an environment that eliminates many of the elements of the stigma (ie, there will be good hygiene, "creeps" will not be allowed, etc.) But - and this is really the big point - very few women have the opportunity to get interested in the first place. D&D has been around for 30 years, yes, and its adherents have considered the question of appealing to women during that time, yes. But the general public has *no clue* about D&D. They may have heard of it on the news as some sort of satanic cult. Fewer still have heard of any other kind of PnP RPG. The social stigma is all that most people *ever* see of the game, and it's not unreasonable that women (and lots of men) don't bother pursuing something that looks icky, from all they've seen.
GVD, I think your error is simply in overestimating D&D's popular exposure. It's more popular now than ever, but that's not saying much when you look at the broader population. I just think that that fundamental premise is flawed. Women haven't actually seen the game.
The advertising on the actual products isn't bad. I don't want to see the PHB get a Vogue cover. But there's a general lack of positive advertising for the game; it's all word-of-mouth and very few of those mouths are female. There's plenty of negative advertising in the stereotypes. The majority of game stores make themselves male domains, like sports bars. There's women in both places, but only the brave few who happen to like male-dominated atmospheres.
It's an advertising problem and a communication problem. Luckily, I think it's also a self-correcting one, though it will take a long time via that route. It's just a matter of more of the word-of-mouth being spread by females or female-friendly people/institutions. Meanwhile, Wizards and Paizo ought to do the research to figure out how to advertise to a female audience. Once women feel welcomed and there's more information available than the stigma - those who are interested will come. You just have to give enough correct information for the interest to develop and catch hold. Truly, that has not happened, even in the 30 years.
|
It's a matter of effective advertising.
How do you sell D&D? A 30-second spot on TV may provide a lot of views, but how can you show what it is?
Look at any commercials on TV. How do they sell their product? Generally it is either sex, lifestyle, or convenience. None of these things are likely to sell anyone on D&D.
People will enjoy playing, but the "game table" doesn't correspond well to a 30 second TV spot.
And Barnes & Noble is not 'overflowing' with D&D materials. Anime is not sold in most stores. D&D can't be found in Target or Wal-Mart. General exposure is rare.
The Christian fundamentalist furor over the “evils of D&D” first increased awareness of D&D, if in a negative way. However, that furor has all but died away as the Christian fundamentalist anti-D&Ders have been revealed as frauds with nothing to back up their sensationalist claims. The negativity has been drained away, leaving only the awareness of D&D and the awareness that the sensationalist claims were nothing more -just like the “backwards masking” flap over music lyrics and the lawsuits brought against Ozzie Osbourne, Judas Priest etc.
I think you underestimate the backlash against D&D in the popular mindset. Here in the Midwest the mention of D&D still evokes mention of its supposely "evil" properties. A friend just opened a game store, and the first thing he had to diffuse was a reporters' question about the perception that D&D is a negative influence because of ties to witchcraft, cults and all that. My wife's parents first thought the game is the work of the devil, right up there with Harry Potter. It took some doing to convince them of it otherwise.
D&D's exposure has broadened, to be sure. But the brand still carries a lot of negative baggage.
And Barnes & Noble is not 'overflowing' with D&D materials. Anime is not sold in most stores. D&D can't be found in Target or Wal-Mart. General exposure is rare.
In recent months, I've seen the local Wal-Mart carry D&D posters. It was a collage of monster pictures from the Monster Manual, I believe.
Hunter
Awareness of D&D is huge.
No, it really isn't.
Let me tell you a little story. I have a good close friend, who's a geek. In fact, he's an artist. A comic-book artist, no less. He also does artwork for D&D-related items, including the magazines. His wife is a geek as well, although in her case she's more of a computer geek. She's an Oracle developer, actually. These are the kinds of people you'd expect to know all about D&D and what it is, right? Or at least have a decent enough idea.
Well, a few months ago, my friend was showing me some artwork he'd recently done for Dragon, and I said, "Hey, neat, I hadn't noticed that you'd done that piece." It blew his mind. "*YOU* play D&D?!" he asked. I could hardly have provoked a stronger reaction had I said that I enjoy eating live chickens. Keeping in mind that I also am a geek, and don't bother to hide it. But my friend just couldn't believe that I played D&D. His wife was in the room (as was my wife) and the two of them started mocking me mercilessly for being such a huge geek, until my wife finally spoke up and said, "Um, I play too." Then we told them that we'd met playing D&D (which they'd heard before but forgotten). So we ended up trying to explain to them what D&D was, and we had to correct a number of misconceptions. Particularly amusing was the idea that while playing, we had to dress up in silly capes and wave swords around. (They've since said that they'd be interested in playing some time, as the game actually sounds a lot more interesting, and a lot less ridiculous, than they'd been led to believe.)
People in the general public are aware of D&D, in the same way that they're aware of computers, or industrial machinery, or sewage treatment. That is, they know that it exists, and are able to recognize basic references to it, but that doesn't mean that they have any real concept of what it actually is or what it involves or how it works. Even people who do artwork for the magazines don't all know what the game is about.
Heck, even my bro -- who played D&D with dad and I when we were kids -- doesn't really understand the game any more, because he stopped playing by the time he was 10 and hasn't played again since. He's got a vague idea of what it's about, but if someone asked him what a game of D&D involved, he really wouldn't be able to answer, other than to say, "Well, there's dice... and... umm... you've got these characters, and you fight monsters..."
GnomeMaiden's right. The vast majority of people don't know what D&D is, and don't have any incentive to learn. Once they do learn, a lot of people (including many women) are very interested. The game system's flexible and adaptable enough now that most people will be able to adapt it to their preferred style of play and enjoy D&D. The problem is just that people don't know what the game is.
|
|
In recent months, I've seen the local Wal-Mart carry D&D posters. It was a collage of monster pictures from the Monster Manual, I believe.
Hunter
I should have made it clear that progress is being made. D&D has more exposure now than at any time in its history, I feel, despite the lack of a cartoon to support it. In any case, this is still not a terribly good example. D&D requires the Core Books. If a place doesn't sell the Core Books, it doesn't support people entering the hobby.
It might be unfair to expect to find it in most stores, but even many bookstores have a very small section featuring a few "new books", and some really old ones. The Barnes & Noble near where I live now sells "The Psionics Handbook" but not the Expanded Psionics Handbook. And by and large, I'd say it is pretty well stocked. It has some WhiteWolf, and some new Warhammer Roleplaying Game, and quite a bit of the WotC line. It has some of the race books, some of the complete books, and all of the core books. Still, it is tucked away in a single small section near the science fiction/fantasy but overwhelmed by the graphic novels.
And all of the covers show their spine only, instead of their covers. You know, if anything the new books simply need more evocative covers. The artwork no longer inspires me. If I hadn't been playing since 1st edition, I don't know that I'd be playing now.
Still, it takes a lot of work to get involved in the game. If you don't know anyone who plays, you have to learn all the rules and then convince your non-playing friends to try it. That isn't easy. Considering the inconvenience invovled it is a wonder that anyone plays. I think that generally it is because the only effective recruitment has been through people who have played the game for a long time. More women are being included (wives & girlfriends for the most part) who then become recruiters as well. So, I think progress is finally being made. I think that women are being recruited into the hobby as a larger percentage of players than at any time in the past. I don't know if the game could be changed to make it more attractive to women, but I would be surprised if there was "one" thing that could be done to make them flood the hobby. I doubt there are even a dozen major changes that could be done to bring them in in droves.
|
|
Also, let's look at those thirty years.
1970's - D&D evolves out of wargaming; Gygax and co have no clue whether it'll catch on or be popular. TSR starts publishing. A few geeks who wargamed get into it, tell some of their friends. The stereotypical D&D player is born. (This is when my parents started playing, including my mother. She was the only female gamer around, and she didn't play nearly as much as the guys.)
1980's - D&D becomes known in popular culture - but as a Satanic, suicide-inducing influence. Most people in the wider culture form a highly negative first impression of the game; the media latches onto the hype. TSR doesn't seem to know how to counteract this message.
1990's - D&D goes underground. Those who are really committed to the game keep playing, but relatively few others can be convinced to start, given the cultural taboo against it. TSR makes poor marketing decisions, goes bankrupt.
2000's - WotC buys D&D. It's been out of the public eye long enough that many people have forgotten its notoriety and there's a fresh generation of players available.
TSR wasn't exactly known for its marketing/advertising acumen. Most of those thirty years were pretty mismanaged in terms of D&D's relation to the world at large. I wouldn't be surprised if the "pretty dumb" mistakes really were made there. TSR's market research was basically nonexistent.
The fact that Hasbro/WotC have committed resources to D&D provides hope that there can be a "fresh slate" and it will now be possible to advertise to a wider audience, including women. WotC has been busy developing the new edition of the game and shoring up its current player base. I don't know if they're waiting for something in particular or just working on the research to start advertising to the popular market. I know that if I were in their shoes, I'd want to be extremely careful about the way I presented D&D to the wider market...I wouldn't want to inflame the old passions and doom the game for another generation. I'd want to come up with an innocuous way to advertise and present it that avoids the hysteria of the 80's. It was just this April that a "D&D for Dummies" came out - I think that's a great start. I really hope that if WotC and the other companies do manage this fresh start, that they are carefully and deliberately figuring out how to change all the negative stereotypes, including the whole "guy thing" unwashed geek image. I hope that they do the research necessary to figure out how to present the game to women.
I don't think that the game itself needs to change, for the simple fact that it can be played in *any* way a person wants. It can be heavy on the RP and personal development, or it can be a rules-lawyer gala...it's a flexible game, and enough variations are published by the third party companies that there will be incarnations that appeal greatly to women. But the advertising has never been there, and too much negative information has gone unchecked. I place much of the blame at TSR's mismanagement. It hasn't been 30 years of serious effort to improve the advertising and image, it's been more like 5 and just getting up to speed. If all goes well, now is a good time for things to start changing.
Excellently put, GnomeMaiden.
|
|
Over 30 years the number of women involved in D&D has increased dramatically. The number of men playing has also increased dramatically. The proportion of women to men has also increased dramatically.
However, defining these changes with concrete numbers isn't easy. A lot of women who play are involved with a boyfriend/husband that is considered the "primary" player - the one who buys the books, subscribes to Dragon, and generally responds to the larger community.
Considering the dramatic improvement in women playing, I have to wonder "What worked?"
Surely something did. Women are playing D&D. I think it would be nice if more played. I personally think gender parity is a goal that can be realized, and should. Now, even though improvements have been made *despite* any direct advertisments etc, there is clearly room for improvement.
But, whether you change the game or not, advertising it in a way that brings new people in is difficult. The game is complicated. If Monopoly came with a rule book 300 pages thick, do you think anyone would play?
Really, the vast majority of new players are ones that can find people already playing. That probably means that more guys have to actively recruit female gamers. Which, judging the guys that play D&D as a group, won't be easy.
I'm a physics major, so I have experience with the "where are all the women?" question, as about three quarters of all my classes are men. Furthermore, I have friends in engineering or comp sci, where less than 15% of the faculties are women.
The best explanation I've heard:
There are things that are deemed socially normal, that everyone does. Everyone owns a car. Everyone understands cars. A fancy car impresses almost everyone. Then there are things that aren't. These are almost always things that take introduction to. Physics is nonsensical to anyone who hasn't taken at least an introductory class to it. And some people don't do well a physics, to exasperate the problem. Engineering employs tons of physics, and computer science requires learning a whole new set of codes. D&D, likewise, requires learning a whole new set of rules.
These things then become topics of discussion between certain groups who are knowledgable of the subjects, and these things become the domain of smaller groups. This is the origin of the "geek" branding.
D&D, because it will never be as easy to start doing as watching TV, will always be the domain of a minority of the population, thus always at least slightly "geeky".
Women feel much more cultural pressure to fit into social molds. Men of all shapes and sizes can be deemed "sexy", but girls almost always have to fit into the big breasted, thin waisted mold to be deemed "sexy" by popular culture. In media, most successful female characters are glamorous. People who wear pretty clothes, go to swanky coffeehouses, and shop for clothes.
Evidence of this is the predominance of female clothing stores in malls, as well as the fact that almost all women wear makeup. There are almost no ugly female actresses. Men can be 'distinguished' looking.
(As a side note, movies and shows that have realistic, falliable female characters tend to do very well.)
The point is that there is strong cultural inertia for women to stick to cultural norms. 90% of the guys at my work watch "family guy", and the grocery store is nearly empty when a new episode is on. However, despite adult content, and the show being hilarious, less than half of the females at my work watch the show because it's a cartoon, and cartoons are for kids. No one would mock them for watching the show, but they'd feel ingrained embarassment for doing so.
By no means is this omnipresent among females, but i'd put good money that girl gamers are much more likely than other females to engage in "unusual" behavior such as watching family guy. I'm just saying girls are more subject to such things than guys.
As a final point to back up what I've been saying:
I'm a Canadian. We like our hockey up here. Sports, like D&D, are generally seen as a "guy" thing. However, I'd say a majority of females in Canada pay at least passing attention to hockey. I believe that is because the cultural love of hockey makes it socially acceptable for girls to enjoy it.
I am currently reading my copy of 333 and just finished reading Scale Mail. At the end of the section Erik asks the question, why aren't there more girl gamers?
I am a girl gamer and have my own take on it but before I say anything I was curious to see what others have to say about this, particularly the guys out there.
My group consists of an almost full medley, so to speak, on the gender and/or sexuality scale. We've got a pair of gay males, a pair of straight males, a straight woman, and a bisexual woman.
Not one of the gaming sessions I've run in the past ... oh my ... nearly fifteen years of gaming now has ever included less than one-third women.
The straight fellas I play with were amazed when they learned the group was nearly half of the ladyfolk (we actually lost a female player earlier in the campaign) and the only thing I can think of as a reason is that they tended to be - at the start - hack'n'slash players, and now are quite thrilled with being plot players. I've always run my games as stories, not gore movies. That always seems to attract women to the game table more.
That said, the most hack-n-slash player I ever had was a young woman who had a barbarian known as "Bloodaxe." So, there's just no generalizing.
Mind you, the fact that I'm the GM, and just as happy to feature the barechested muscular fellows for the ladies (and some gents) to enjoy probably doesn't hurt... ;)
That said, the most hack-n-slash player I ever had was a young woman who had a barbarian known as "Bloodaxe." So, there's just no generalizing.
Actually, your exception to the generality is what proves the generality true. MOST women are not interested in slaughter as much as MOST men are. The violence in RPGs turns off many potential buyers, especially, but not exclusively, female buyers. Any marketing campaign aimed at expanding the hobby has to take this into consideration or the hobby will never expand into new markets...