The NFL is also a predominantly male hobby, yet I found no examples of them trying to reach a female audience...Don't they have Kelly Clarkson doing part of their 'kickoff' thing this year?
Sean Mahoney
And Kelly Clarkson is the same as directly answering a question like -- "Dear Mr. Goddell, How does the NFL plan on bringing female fans to the game?"
Hell, a dolled up Clarkson is probably more for the guys anways.
|
Scott Rouse made it quite clear in a reply on the WotC forums that "cool" is the first priorty with their internet material, with any user perceptions of quality or relevance being so far down the list as to place any criticism of such materials in the category of "whining."
Sam, is that for real or are you being sarcastic?
Do you have a link? I'd love to check that out myself. :)Thanks!
-J
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Methinks people are being a bit oversensitive. If you watch the videos they are fairly forthright.
Perkins mentions he believes that there are female gamers, and that WoTC has made at least one attempt to reach out to more (via Confessions)
I am not being sexist but honest . . .D&D is a predominantly male hobby . . .the fact that WoTC is attempting to broaden its fanbase (by offering Confessions [regardless what you think of it]) or by trying to tackle these questions honestly is A GOOD THING.
Companies have been trying to expand the hobby to non-gaming females for years, with little to no success. 'Confessions' is just another failed attempt to reach this market. It's one woman's viewpoint, and can come across as condescending. It also makes some assumptions about non-gaming females that just don't always ring true. Basically, it stereotypes women (unintentionally, I'm sure) which can have the opposite effect WotC intended.
What I'd like to see is a survey conducted of non-gaming women to determine what appeals to them from a role-playing perspective. Does anyone know if this has ever been done? If so, I'd love to know the details (where it was conducted, what questions were asked, how participants responded, etc.).
The NFL is also a predominantly male hobby, yet I found no examples of them trying to reach a female audience . . .
You should check their merchandising. The line of NFL women's merchandise is quite expansive. The teams even sell official merchandise in colors (black, pink, red, etc.) other than their official team colors due to the demand of their female fans.
Scott Rouse made it quite clear in a reply on the WotC forums that "cool" is the first priorty with their internet material, with any user perceptions of quality or relevance being so far down the list as to place any criticism of such materials in the category of "whining."
Video replies are cool. That is all that matters. Embrace their coolness, and do not bother them with irrelevant details.
Well then I want to officially announce that I am a whiner. Good to know where I fit in, thanks Scott.
Eh, they're big girls, if they want to get offended, they can do so without a big strong man to get all offended on their behalf. Patriarchy is dead.
The female gamers I've played with, even going back 20 years to college, have been very heavily biased towards playing fighters (rangers, barbarians, archers) and killing the holy hell out of anything that looks at them funny. Role-playing occurs sometimes in the process, but they sure don't play Bards or Druids or fruity Toreador!
The only female gamer I've played with who played a Bard was into girls, if yanno what I mean.
All of the Druid players have been dudes.
On the other hand, it seems like only the girls want to play Rogues. In a couple decades of D&D/GURPS/etc. I can count the number of guys playing Rogues on one finger, while we've had a couple of the girls try one out.
As for the logic that 4E is 'reaching out to girl gamers' and then specifically saying that they are removing the classes 'traditionally played by girls' from the 4E launch? Yeah. That takes some flexibility.
Me likes Fighter. Me hack & slash. *chuckles*
My brother used to be our DM, and he hated me for playing the thief or fighter back in 2ed.! (wizards were too frail for me. I used to kill myself several times if I played one).All in all, those questions are only offensive because they seem to think of us as tiny and fragile, poor girls lost in that big bad world of D&D, with all those dribling guys ready to kill your fragile pink-wearing druid/bard (clutching a teddy bear, of course. For protection only). ¬¬
Scott Rouse made it quite clear in a reply on the WotC forums that "cool" is the first priorty with their internet material, with any user perceptions of quality or relevance being so far down the list as to place any criticism of such materials in the category of "whining."Sam, is that for real or are you being sarcastic?
Do you have a link? I'd love to check that out myself. :)
Thanks!-J
This is the post I think he was referencing.
I believe that Samuel Weiss is a bit off with his comment if this what he is refencing. The thread Scott was posting to was very heated and although I'm not supporting comment, I do think I understand why he made it.
While I'm at it.
Link to the transcripts I took from the video questions. The ones relating to female gamers should be at the bottom currently.
|
|
Hah! Thanks for the link Zynete.
Oh damn they are seriously lacking in the PR department on the boards, but it is entertaining.
My favorite was: THIS POST
Bad PR but good post.
Bad PR but good post.
Agreed, very amusing.
Honestly, I think mockery is to be expected if you ever use the phrase "I'm calling you out" to anyone. Also, if I recall correctly (really not sure if my mind is just making things up), even the employees from Paizo react in similar ways when pushed so that is another reason I forgive some of these outbursts.
In general, though I think some of the criticism amounts to little more than trolling for something to complain about, I have to admit I'm less than pleased with WotC's attitude toward women in general. BTW, I never thought much about this until my wife pointed out what she found objectionable.
Why is it that women have to be singled out at all? My feeling is that female gamers are being stereotyped far too much. I'm well aware that women are different from men (I did take sex-ed, after all), but are female gamers so different that they have to be enticed into the game with chocolates and teddy bears? I'm tempted to suggest that perhaps another stereotype - you know, the one about male gamers being unable to get a date - is in play here, and WotC's male employees don't really know much about women at all due to lack of experience.
The truly funny part (or sad, depending on your POV) is that all my female players are more than a little insulted by WotC's attempts at marketing to women. Since "Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress" came out, not one game session has gone by without at least one of them saying something derogatory about the situation.
I wonder if women were offended by Blue Rose?
It had better marketting.
This was an "Ask Wizards" as opposend to an "Ask the SageMy bad. I fixed the OP.
OMG! I've got bewbs, what do we do with her?!?!*chuckle*
Invite her to the game?
As a female, I don't know that the questions are all that insulting. I've played with a lot of other female gamers (esp. in college), but can't find any these days (living in middle Tennessee). I'd be interested to know what WotC plans to try to bring more females into gaming.
In middle Tennessee? Wow, not much, I think. That's a tough demographic. But I wish you luck.
...hmm, bards are nice, never really cared for druids even if I might nod my head in generic agreement of it having a pull for women...
But indeed, there are plenty of women whose first characters are huge fighters who make things go splat with their big axes :) There is something deeply satisfying about that.
Oh well, the issue is old and much discussed, and we'll see what WotC really has to offer in PHB (yes, those iconics do have relevance). Other than that, I won't bother to be annoyed (probably because I haven't read that Confessions book...).
And without bards and druids, there are always sorceresses, rogues and barbarians :)
Now to the question which has been addressed considerably less over the years: what about pulling in other ethnicities than the regular WASPs?
And without bards and druids, there are always sorceresses, rogues and barbarians :)
Of these, Rogue is the only one confirmed to be in the PHB. Infact I believe that all the rest are confirmed to not be in the PHB.
I'm a woman, and while not fully insulted by the two ridiculous video clips, I am annoyed. But I'm more annoyed from a business angle than a female one. They post a question, and then don't answer it, but instead plug a book? Yet another example of stupid marketing tricks.
If you want to attract women, use the damn research that is ALREADY AVAILABLE from the game console industry. Obviously there are exceptions, and plenty of them, but much of the research shows that women prefer story-based "constructive" games. Men prefer "action, destructive" games.
Men prefer changes to game systems that allow more power, "kewler" abilities, and more chances to blow crap up (figuritively and literally). Female gamers prefer systems that allow them to build their characters the way they want, to interact with the story, and maybe have an impact.
Many of the changes wizard has made are more geared toward the "power, kewler" angle. Get rid of the bard, and you eliminate a damn good class when used as a good support character in a party. Good bards often make it possible to get the job done without hack-slash-kill. A good druid, while obviously equiped with some firepower, can have the same impact in a wilderness setting. Both classes give you a lot of non-combat options that allow for roleplaying, not roll-playing.
And without bards and druids, there are always sorceresses, rogues and barbarians :)Of these, Rogue is the only one confirmed to be in the PHB. Infact I believe that all the rest are confirmed to not be in the PHB.
Maan, that 4th edition sucks.
Plus, I suspect her style (and gender) may do a fair job at generating more interest from women.
My two cents.
I sincerely hope not... no, I mean it. Because, if the women she attracts to the hobby are just as ditzy-headed, clueless, juvenile and generally annoying as she portrays herself as, then I don't want any of them at my gaming table.
Argh, I'm ashamed of her and of how much WotC is pushing her and her insulting book on behalf of all the thoughtful and smart women gamers out there.
Well said. I appreciate the fact that you guys know the difference. I've heard of guys not wanting any female gamers at their table for fear of getting females that act "ditzy-headed, clueless, juvenile and generally annoying..."
I've been playing D&D since 2004 and had the privilege of gaming with not one, not two, but four other chicks at the same table. I bought the book out of curiosity and tried to read through it. Seriously, I gave that book every effort and more time than it was worth. As a gamer, I found it incredibly annoying and insulting. However, the girl in me could relate to some of the things she discussed and found some things amusing. I showed it to my boyfriend and who was not impressed at all. His thoughts and feelings are similar to those on this thread. We have a friend who bought it for his girlfriend.
As much as I would like to see the population of female gamers increase, I don't want it to increase with this type of female (I've played with pink wearing, giggling blond hair flipping type and don't care to repeat that experience again. I might kill someone). However, I can think of several females I would loan this book to so they can get a feel of D&D from a chick's perspective. However, I could explain it just as well, and of course, the only real way to learn D&D is to roll up a character and jump in.
Oh, and there are other ways to get females interested in D&D that do not include throwing books at them.
There were a couple of threads recently on the 3Ed parts of these boards about women gamers' character class selections (seems to be just as varied as males, especially among non-first-timers) and about the "Confessions" book (some hate it, some like it, most don't care/haven't read it).
I haven't watched the Wizards videos, but I've got to agree that any attempt on their part to actively promote gaming among new people is good for business and good for gamers. Yeah, it's much better to be introduced to D&D from friends than from a silly chick-lit book (which is all the Confessions book was, folks, not a girl-gamers' manifesto). But how many gamers proselytize about the wonders of RPG's to their non-gaming friends, neighbors, and colleagues?
The reality is that there are many people out there who have never even considered the possibility of playing a tabletop RPG, and don't know someone who can/will teach them. Those are the people that Wizards apparently hopes to reach with their non-traditional methods, not people who frequent online gaming forums, conventions, and/or their friendly local gaming shop.
If Wizards' attempts are awkward or off-the-mark (or insulting), then why not send in some comments telling them how to improve, or better yet, support the underlying effort by talking to some non-gamers yourself. It's sort of annoying to see/read obviously knowledgeable people complain about how the company "doesn't get it right" without trying to do something about it.
Oh, and there are other ways to get females interested in D&D that do not include throwing books at them.
But, but but then we would have to talk to them and stuff.
*GULP*:P
|
|
If you want to attract women, use the damn research that is ALREADY AVAILABLE from the game console industry. Obviously there are exceptions, and plenty of them, but much of the research shows that women prefer story-based "constructive" games. Men prefer "action, destructive" games.
*If* console gaming demographics extend to tabletop gaming (and that's not a given), it seems that men want the Dungeon Delve and women want the Adventure Path. (With enough exceptions and anecdotal evidence being trotted out to hopelessly muddle any attempt at objective testing and guarantee endless profiling / gender bias snipe-age on both sides. 'Cause that's just a given. Say 'gender difference' and it's like, '1, 2, 3, Battle of the Sexes!')
Looks like 4E is gonna be all about the male-centric 'more powerz!' playstyle anyway, and almost all the classes touted as being 'popular with females' won't be in the initial sampling. 'Confessions' therefore seems to be a throwaway sop to pacify what what is seen as a small and unimportant part of their customerbase, while the vast, vast majority of the new edition is geared towards guys.
Which is probably a good point. If girl gamers are attracted to the gaming table, boy gamers might discover their existence, become distracted from buying WotC product and be skipping games all the time to have teh sex (and, eventually, to stay home and watch the kids and fondly reminisce about the pre-home-ownership days when their paycheck wasn't spent before they got it).
It's vital to market success that male gamers remain single, with disposable income and no social life to interfere with their gaming! We must introduce saltpeter into the ink for the new edition, to stifle their sex drives!
Also addictive drugs. Because it's past time that D&D served as the 'gateway' for fickle people to leap over to GURPS or World of Darkness or True20 or whatever. Making the ink on the pages addictive will help ensure that once someone starts playing D&D, they won't just wantonly hare off and lick the pages of some competitors books! (The page licking is a good thing. It will increase wear and tear on the books, and bring the customers back to buy more copies of the same books!)
Or perhaps some sort of chip that causes them physical pain when they hear the words 'Steve Jackson' or 'White Wolf?' So many avenues to increase market share, so few willing test subjects...
'Confessions' therefore seems to be a throwaway sop to pacify what what is seen as a small and unimportant part of their customerbase, while the vast, vast majority of the new edition is geared towards guys.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic on this particular point. But if you're serious, nobody spends the considerable money to publish a small-niche-market book for the benefit of a "small and unimportant" consumer group. Well, they don't if they like making money... And I still haven't seen any of these rule changes that are gonna reach through the book and force my group to change its gaming style. (Maybe they're only visible to "special" gamers. *grin*)
It's vital to market success that male gamers remain single, with disposable income and no social life to interfere with their gaming! We must introduce saltpeter into the ink for the new edition, to stifle their sex drives! ... Also addictive drugs.
Too late. Wizards already implemented these strategies in their CCG lines. I know of at least 5-6 examples of guys who dropped Magic, et al. as soon as girls (or wives) forcibly entered their lives. Strangely, the special ink doesn't seem to work on women, since the girls I knew who played Magic back in HS/College had boyfriends and managed to make money playing the game. *heh*
Which is probably a good point. If girl gamers are attracted to the gaming table, boy gamers might discover their existence, become distracted from buying WotC product and be skipping games all the time to have teh sex (and, eventually, to stay home and watch the kids and fondly reminisce about the pre-home-ownership days when their paycheck wasn't spent before they got it).
Now see, you are mistaken. We buy more books because I am much better and budgeting and controlling our finances than by boyfriend was on his own. Left to his own devices, Mike would spend all of his free money on Comics, not game books. And whereas before one of us might have not bought something because there was only a passing interest, if we are both interested in it we often decide to buy.
My friend Julie and her husband have clearly made a decision to raise gamers (they have three boys). So when gamers mate, they are likely to reproduce more gamers. It's easier to breed your own than to try and convert.
WoTC should be doing everything in their power to attract female gamers.
|
Oh, and there are other ways to get females interested in D&D that do not include throwing books at them.
But, but but then we would have to talk to them and stuff.*GULP*
Just make sure you talk to their face, and not their boobs...
Even when they deliberately wear a T-shirt with a on it, to trap you into leaning WAAAAAYYYYY over, so they can pretend to be offended....
|
|
I'm a guy but I think folks are looking for things to find insulting in this.
I was more annoyed with the questions than the answers. Of all the questions that could have been answered they pick these?
If you ask such a loaded question, it's difficult for WOTC to answer, in a way that doesn't give someone offense.
Question: "What are you doing to attract female gamers?"
Answer 1:"We're doing X"
Answer 2:"Nothing at all"
It's the questioner who is making the implication that male & female gamers play differently, and maybe the only diplomatic response would be for the WOTC spokesperson to call them on that assumption...?
It's the questioner who is making the implication that male & female gamers play differently,
I'd disagree with that assessment. To me, the question reads: Its no secret that RPGs are a male dominated hobby. What are you doing to attract more females into the game?
It's the questioner who is making the implication that male & female gamers play differently, and maybe the only diplomatic response would be for the WOTC spokesperson to call them on that assumption...?
I don't know if I'd buy into claims that men and women play differently, but marketing differently to different groups (whether based on gender or other qualities) is a well-validated practice. That Mazzanoble was hired to do what she does indicates that WotC has already bought into the underlying assumptions of such methods.
The fact is, no deliberate efforts have been made in the past to market D&D to women; at the same time, most players were "snotty teenage boyz." Coincidence? Probably not entirely.
For what it's worth.
This thread got me thinking - what is Paizo doing to make its adventures appeal to more female players?
- Female characters on the covers of Pathfinder (and not a chainmail bikini in sight).
- Major plot elements that are most applicable and fun if there is at least one female in the group (e.g. Aldern Foxglove).
- Female NPCs filling a wide variety of roles, including competent heroes/allies (Shalelu, Ameiko), notable villains (Mammy Graul, Xanesha, Nualia), and a variety of other roles (Shayliss Vinder); basically, including the whole range of roles, not just the positive ones, so that all of them are that much more believable.
- Providing a large number of named NPCs (male and female) with complex and interesting back-stories; and doing the same for locations and communities. (E.g. the "late unpleasantness" in the intro to Sandpoint - very useful in describing the game to a prospective new player). (Story depth instead of stereotypes carries over into how the players perceive everything else in the game.)
- And in general, treating men and women matter-of-factly as part of the setting, as equally likely to be in postitions of authority, rather than having women clearly be second class citizens (Calimshan) or rarely mentioned (my general impression of Greyhawk), or having powerful women always mentioned as sex-symbols in addition to being whatever else they might be (Seven Sisters)
...use the damn research that is ALREADY AVAILABLE from the game console industry.... much of the research shows that women prefer story-based "constructive" games. Men prefer "action, destructive" games.
For discussion's sake:
4/e is (supposedly) simplifying and streamlining a lot of the mechanics. In theory, that should allow more time and attention to be given to the roleplaying/storytelling side of the game.
At the same time, I think WotC isn't quite on the mark. Consider White Wolf's Storyteller system: fairly little time is spent mechanics -- that sends a powerful message that dice aren't what the game is about. D&D sends an equally powerful message -- for example, all the races and classes are being painstakingly tailored to be equally useful in combat. That really sets a tone from the get-go.
WotC tells us the game isn't about combat, but that's all they build it for.
Just a thought :)
This thread got me thinking - what is Paizo doing to make its adventures appeal to more female players? ....
No doubt about it -- Paizo has consistently produced the best support D&D has ever had, on every level.
IMHO :)
For discussion's sake:
4/e is (supposedly) simplifying and streamlining a lot of the mechanics. In theory, that should allow more time and attention to be given to the roleplaying/storytelling side of the game.
At the same time, I think WotC isn't quite on the mark. Consider White Wolf's Storyteller system: fairly little time is spent mechanics -- that sends a powerful message that dice aren't what the game is about. D&D sends an equally powerful message -- for example, all the races and classes are being painstakingly tailored to be equally useful in combat. That really sets a tone from the get-go.
WotC tells us the game isn't about combat, but that's all they build it for.
Just a thought :)
The flaw in your argument, as I see it, is that "more time and attention to be given to the roleplaying/storytelling side of the game" does not equal "the game isn't about combat". The first sentence is a relative statement. The second statement is an absolute one. Just because WotC claims they want to increase emphasis on roleplaying, doesn't mean the end result will outstrip combat.
D&D rules (note I'm saying the rules, not the game) have always been combat-centric. One can argue, in fact, that you don't need rules to roleplay, you only need rules for combat.
So the rules, as I see it, will alway emphasize combat. What they seem to be saying is that they are creating room in the rules to allow roleplaying to "interject".
So the two are not mutually exclusive.
Greg
Greg
This thread got me thinking - what is Paizo doing to make its adventures appeal to more female players?
- Female characters on the covers of Pathfinder (and not a chainmail bikini in sight).
- Major plot elements that are most applicable and fun if there is at least one female in the group (e.g. Aldern Foxglove).
- Female NPCs filling a wide variety of roles, including competent heroes/allies (Shalelu, Ameiko), notable villains (Mammy Graul, Xanesha, Nualia), and a variety of other roles (Shayliss Vinder); basically, including the whole range of roles, not just the positive ones, so that all of them are that much more believable.
- Providing a large number of named NPCs (male and female) with complex and interesting back-stories; and doing the same for locations and communities. (E.g. the "late unpleasantness" in the intro to Sandpoint - very useful in describing the game to a prospective new player). (Story depth instead of stereotypes carries over into how the players perceive everything else in the game.)
- And in general, treating men and women matter-of-factly as part of the setting, as equally likely to be in postitions of authority, rather than having women clearly be second class citizens (Calimshan) or rarely mentioned (my general impression of Greyhawk), or having powerful women always mentioned as sex-symbols in addition to being whatever else they might be (Seven Sisters)
I wonder if WotC just did this, how many new female gamers would they attract?
I'm a woman - wait!...let me check, um...yeah, I'm a woman (whew!) and I'm not particularly insulted by the questions nor, really, by their lame answers. I am annoyed, but only mildly so, at their continued philosophy regarding female players. Like has already been stated in earlier posts, it seems odd that they aren't equally concerned about other minorities. But my opinion of WOTC's handling of this issue has long been poor. I find it insulting that they changed from using all male pronouns in the core books with their lovely little disclaimer to a confusing mix of male/female pronouns with the female overwhelming & purposefully used in typically male roles and vice versa. A male witch, a female pirate? Such obvious pandering is what I find insulting. I've played DnD pretty much from the beginning so I guess I'm not the best person to judge what it takes to draw a woman/girl into gaming in the first place; but I still find it insulting to think that changing a pronoun would suddenly cause thousands (millions?) of women to say, "Ahh, NOW I can finally play this game 'cause, you know, I've just been waiting for those female pronouns!". Now, I haven't read this Confessions book, which is fine since it wasn't marketed to me, but it seems like just another example in a long line of lame attempts to appeal to an audience that, bottomline, RPGs simply don't appeal to across a wide margin.
BTW, Last Rogue, you need to get out more...
The NFL is equally insulting in their attempts to draw in a female audience with their ever-increasing use of unqualified female on-the-field commentators (which they further emphasize by putting their name on the bottom of the tv screen everytime they utter a word) as if this is going to make a largely male-oriented game more appealing to the female audience. I should've prefaced this by saying I personally love football. I just don't need NASCAR or the NFL or WOTC, for that matter, to shameless pander to what they (wrongly) perceive are "girly" interests.
This thread got me thinking - what is Paizo doing to make its adventures appeal to more female players?
- Female characters on the covers of Pathfinder (and not a chainmail bikini in sight).
- Major plot elements that are most applicable and fun if there is at least one female in the group (e.g. Aldern Foxglove).
- Female NPCs filling a wide variety of roles, including competent heroes/allies (Shalelu, Ameiko), notable villains (Mammy Graul, Xanesha, Nualia), and a variety of other roles (Shayliss Vinder); basically, including the whole range of roles, not just the positive ones, so that all of them are that much more believable.
- Providing a large number of named NPCs (male and female) with complex and interesting back-stories; and doing the same for locations and communities. (E.g. the "late unpleasantness" in the intro to Sandpoint - very useful in describing the game to a prospective new player). (Story depth instead of stereotypes carries over into how the players perceive everything else in the game.)
- And in general, treating men and women matter-of-factly as part of the setting, as equally likely to be in postitions of authority, rather than having women clearly be second class citizens (Calimshan) or rarely mentioned (my general impression of Greyhawk), or having powerful women always mentioned as sex-symbols in addition to being whatever else they might be (Seven Sisters)
This is an awesome post, Cintra. Well said.
I think that what makes Paizo's methods so appealing and nonoffensive is that they present their female characters, roles, artwork, etc as if it's the natural course of things (which it should be) instead of as some blatant marketing ploy. If WOTC was to attempt this, they'd put a non-bikini clad woman on the cover of some book/module and then follow it up with an inside page that said "Hey, look, our cover model's not wearing a bikini! Get in line, ladies, and sign up for our wonderful game!"