Shelly's back: Confessions of a Full-Time Wizard; This is... well...


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

D&D Resolutions
by Shelly Mazzanoble

It's just a few days before the New Year and I'm about twelve words into a column that's due in … well … now. I credit my procrastination to the fact I am on vacation and if it isn't covered in chocolate or getting a redesign on HGTV, I ain't interested.

What does this have to do with Dungeons & Dragons? Not much, except for the fact that no more procrastinating is going on my New Year's Resolution list. If I'm to follow the recent barrage of television commercials on HGTV, my list of resolutions should include organize my life, lose a bunch of weight, and make this be the year I find that someone special who apparently has been searching this whole time for me. Gee, sorry about that, Mr. Someone Special. Ever hear of Google?

Like 98% of the world, I never keep my resolutions, which is why my list is usually filled with inconsequential tasks like eat organic fruit or be nice to cats or read my horoscope every day.

For Wizards of the Coast, though, the list of resolutions is huge. 2008 is a big year, and essentially D&D's game designers are making several resolutions to the players. 4th Edition will be bigger and better. It's easier to get into for new players, and streamlined and finessed for better game play. The rules are simplified, the game is quicker, the extras are top notch and Dungeon Mastering gets taken to a whole new level. That's a whole lotta resolving for one year. Perhaps R&D should have opted to clean out their closets.

I've only ever played 3rd edition, and not even for that long in comparison to some. Weaning me off the old and into the new is about as tough as switching a four year old from Count Chocula to Coco Puffs. But one thing I like better about 4th Edition is that it makes me feel like a better player. Not better like I know what I'm doing, but better as in more invested. I don't want to think of Astrid as a liability to my 3rd Edition party, but as I've said in the past, my affinity for her might have prevented me from fully throwing myself into the game. Seeing as though New Year's is all about parties and 2008 is all about D&D, I've decided to make all my resolutions be about my D&D party. Sorry Jenny Craig. Maybe next year.

Resolution #1: Shelly-Come-Lately-No-More
Out of the 8 people in my group (including the DM), 35% of us are always on time, 35% are almost always on time, and 25% are seldom on time. The remaining 5%? It's too soon to tell, as he's new to the group. Our rule is that if you don't come three times in a row, we stage an epic battle and use your character as a meat shield. If you survive, you can come back. If you die, we loot you and lose you. Thanks for the memories.

Unfortunately, I'm in the seldom-on time group. By seldom, I mean showing up anywhere between 5 to15 minutes late. Sometimes New DM hasn't even finished setting up the battle grid yet and sometimes the party has moved onto a new adventure.

"You're late," Scott says (on the rare occasions he's there before me).

"Sorry. Tabitha got stuck in traffic," I say.

I'm trying to improve my percentage, learning that I could use that extra 15 minutes to prepare for the day's escapade, which brings me to my next resolution.

Resolution #2: Previously On Dungeons & Dragons
I have short-term memory issues. Big time. Like walking into the kitchen, forgetting why I went in there, and walking all the way back to my desk with a dirty oatmeal bowl in my hand. Or being told as I'm heading to a meeting to tell the organizer Stacy is showing up late. I do. When Stacy walks in 15 minutes later. "Oh yeah! Stacy is coming 15 minutes late."

So how can I be expected to remember everything that happened a week ago? I can't. So, once we're all settled in, I ask New DM to do a complete recap.

There is no such thing as a stupid question, right? Right. But apparently there are such things as annoying and tedious questions. I guess most of the party doesn't have a brain like a sieve because New DM often sighs, looks around the table, and then gives an abridged, monotone version of the peppier review he performed 15 minutes prior.

"You're on the road to the keep to thwart a cult of Orcus."

"Orcas?" I ask. "I would remember whales."

"Yes. A roving pod of killer, zombie whales," New DM says.

"Why do we want to foil the zombie whales?" I ask.

"To get a sense of accomplishment. Now get moving."

All of these questions and more wouldn't have to be asked if I only took the time to write down the details when New DM told us the first time. But not only do I suffer from ADD, my entire group suffers from co-dependency issues due to being coddled by Adam, our secretary, treasurer, and unenthusiastic sherpa. Once, many sessions ago, he took the liberty of writing down the translation of a Draconic poem we found deep within a dungeon. Now, three years later, it's still his job. He keeps track of the vague clues New DM drops that go over the rest of our heads, copies of maps our employers supply us, and the names of townsfolk we've met or are looking for. He monitors our bank accounts and all the treasure we've scored. It's always, "Adam, can I get that masterwork chain shirt we looted? Adam, how many potions do we have left? Adam, can I get 4,000 gold pieces to buy a pony?" The poor guy is like a showbiz manager to six suddenly superstar teenagers. Remind me to get him a pinky ring and lunch reservations at The Ivy.

Regardless of when I show up, I will ask without fail if we've slept yet. Why can't our characters get some shuteye at some point during their six-day sabbatical? I think it's a valid question and an efficient use of the minis' time. New DM will almost always ignore my question, which prompts me to turn to my left and ask Scott the same question. The exchange goes something like this:

ME (To New DM): Have we slept yet? Tabitha wants her daily back.

NEW DM: (silence).

ME (Turning to Scott): Have we slept yet? Tabitha wants her daily back.

SCOTT (To New DM): Have we slept yet?

NEW DM: No. The game picks up where you left off. In battle.

ME: Well Tabitha managed to slip behind a boulder and catch a few Z's.

NEW DM: No, she didn't. She's right here on this square where we left her. In battle.

ME: Yes she did. You don't know what the minis do when we're not looking.

New DM will then ask the group if they'd like to stop fighting the evil band of hobgoblins to rest so that Tabitha, the wonderful Wizard of Wussville, can get her daily spell back. A chorus of "Noooooooooooo's" is heard.

"Fine, suckers," I say. "Don't come crying to me when you need a bugbear put to sleep."

Usually Marty reminds me how much I hate seeing my party coup de grace a helpless bugbear and wouldn't I rather fireblast or magic missile a dumb old human anyway? Of course! And the game resumes. From this I get my third resolution.

Resolution #3: Don't Patronize the Dungeon Master.
Sure he's a fun guy. He likes to talk about his dogs and dish about the Food Network. He even lets me write about his minty smelling hair. But for 2 hours a week he's the Dungeon Master, and I was raised to respect my DM. Well, no, actually I wasn't. But if my mom knew there was such a thing as Dungeon Masters and that I would someday have one, I'm sure she would have told me to hold him or her in high regard. So this I will try, even if he does call me a "squishy" wizard, sacrifices my hit points, and makes up rules that work against us just so he'll have something cool to put in his playtest report. So what if he's all about the TPK and pretends R&D "just changed how that spell works" right before I was about to blow up a pack of kobolds, or makes homemade sugar-laden treats and looks at me all sad and rejected as I move them aside to make way for my stupid yogurt and granola bar. All right, this one will be a toughie, but it does lead into my next pledge.

Resolution #4: Don't Judge the Fudge
Or the pumpkin pie or the brownies or the smoked salmon, brie, or any other delicacy that shows up at the gaming table. Let's be clear here. I don't judge other people's food choices. And while I appreciate that snacks are an essential part of the game, I just choose to not indulge in what other people bring. This is not a personal attack on my fellow party members, people! I'm perfectly content with my dime bag of Kashi cereal and baby carrots. If it makes everyone feel better I will gladly take one of your Aunt Crystal's secret once-in-a-lifetime-oatmeal-cherry-chocolate-chunk cookies off the plate, wrap it in a paper towel, bring it back to my desk and pawn it off on my cube mate. Hilary loves your baking! And next week I'll bring a whole box of Kashi for us all to share.

Resolution #5: Assist Others Before Helping Myself
I'm no good in a crisis, so if you want a ride to the hospital or someone to dislodge the piece of General Tso's chicken from your throat, don't put me down as your person to contact in case of emergency. But I really want to be that person. At least in the world of D&D. Thank you, 4th Edition for providing every player with essentially their own personal copy of Worst Case Dungeon Survival Handbook. This delights me to no end, as I've always been a believer of the airline school of crisis management -- make sure you take care of yourself before assisting others.

Before 4th Edition, a Heal check meant looking down at your shoe to see what the heck you just stepped in. Now it's something I can actually do to help my fellow party members, such as Adam's wee halfing warlock, Atticus. The poor guy was knocked unconscious by a goblin on the high school javelin team. With the roll of a die and some simple addition, Tabitha gave Atticus the ability to use one of his healing reserves. He was back on his feet in no time. At least I think he was on his feet. With a halfling it's kind of hard to tell. I was filled with warm fuzzies from having saved a life, making my resolve even stronger to learn the equivalent of the Heimlich maneuver in the wizard's spellbook.

Resolution #6: Get a Change of Scenery
Does where you play affect how you play? Maybe we could game in a different conference room or at the Panda Express down the street. Or maybe it's as simple as sitting in another player's chair. No one assigned us seats, but we all seem to gravitate to the same chairs we started the campaign in. Maybe it's good luck. Maybe we're creatures of habit. All I know is that when someone else is sitting where you usually sit, it messes with everyone's feng shui.

I read somewhere that in business meetings you should always try to sit to the right of the highest-ranking person in the room. I sit to the left of New DM because I'm not that much of a goody goodie and because that's just were I planted myself on day one. But maybe there is an advantage to sitting where Marty usually sits (roughly 17 feet from the play mat) or having a warlock next to me instead of a snobby old eladrin. Maybe if I saw the game from the cleric's point of view I'd appreciate the role in the party he plays, and maybe if Scott sat in my seat he'd quit calling me things like "cream puff" and "kobold cottontail" and pretending he's speaking into a intercom system calling, "Attention shoppers. Will the wizard please join her party in the dungeon?"

Resolution #7: Get to Know Thyself
Sounds like something from a Zen-practice-a-day calendar, but in this case "thyself" is thy character. Sure, New DM has encouraged us to delve a bit into our characters' backstories, and it has added a personal touch to our game. Knowing Marty's character has a stronger than average distaste for orcs after they roasted his family's homeland makes the possibility of running into some all the more enticing. I like to think of Tabitha as a middle ages version of the game Katamari Damacy -- something that rolls through town, collecting a past, a bit of the present, and hopefully a future. Adding in these little nuggets of personality can only enhance Tabitha's game and hopefully that of her fellow adventurers. For instance, Scott might find out what happened to the last guy who called Tabitha a cream puff.

Resolution #8: Get a Little (More) Culture
I've got a membership card to the library, art museum, and Costco. How much more culture does a girl need? I also have a Netflix subscription, and I try to go to movies at least twice a month, but I'm ashamed to say there are some films out there easily considered classics that I haven't gotten around to seeing. In fact, I could probably get fired for admitting to a few of them, so I won't. But there have been several occasions where my fellow players have gleefully prattled off 10 minutes of dialog from one of these classics only to find me wondering what the heck is so funny about the word inconceivable? (And for the record, I get it now. Rather than break up our friendship, Adam lent me the DVD.) I guess I should save the Mommie Dearest quotes for Thanksgiving dinner with the family.

This is proving to be an ambitious year for someone who was content to just smile at cats. I can hardly wait for my next game to put all this pledging and vowing into action. I'll get on it as soon as I finish this "House Hunters" marathon on TV. And this can of double chocolate frosting. And maybe giving this Jenny person a call. It's always good to have back up, right?

About the Author

Shelly Mazzanoble sat in Scott Rouse’s chair during their last D&D session and had the game of her life. Keeping up with the momentum, she has taken to sitting at other people’s desks, driving other people’s cars, and walking other people’s dogs. She is often shocked and amazed at the possessiveness of some people.

She's a freak super twitty...

Scarab Sages

Hm. Well, while I must say she seems like one of the most literate people to publish anything bloggy for WotC these days, she sounds incredibly irritating - especially at the gaming table.

I like her writing style, though - very clever. :)

The Exchange

Well-written, though a tad dull. It rather reads as a not-especially-subtle plug for 4e. As she is new to the game, I suspect that anyone with a bit of D&D history behind them will have a different perspective to her's. Plus, of course, she is hardly an unbiased reviewer.


Read that last paragraph again.... The one about the author. She's doing what hundreds of people out there who aren't currently fans of 4th Edition might like to do. She's annoying Scott Rouse [Senior Brand Manager, D & D, Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro] , and stealing his chair.

That priceless thought has me cracking up with laughter.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
Read that last paragraph again.... The one about the author. She's doing what hundreds of people out there who aren't currently fans of 4th Edition might like to do. She's annoying Scott Rouse, and stealing his chair.

She might be "annoying" Scott, but I can't believe he minds. I've seen the man stick up for her in a similar fashion that a person would stick up for a friend they cared about that got insulted.


I'm rather entertained by her stuff. And since it diverts none of WotC resources, it's not like we'd get something more crunchy in its place. Yes, indeed -- online delivery does have an advantage. That's the only one, so far.

Plus, I suspect her style (and gender) may do a fair job at generating more interest from women.

My two cents.


Tatterdemalion wrote:

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.


This is bad. Hello?Wotc Damage control!!!I wonder if there are
Mockumentaries on Youtube showing this level of Twit!
Really D&D is not for everyone.

Dark Archive

GentleGiant wrote:
Tatterdemalion wrote:

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.


GentleGiant wrote:
Tatterdemalion wrote:

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.

I really agree. She doesnt pay attention to whats going on is seems incredibly annoying to have at the table. Im very thankful shes not in my gaming group.

PS - Did you notice how she wanted to rest to get her Once-per-day spells back.
"Can I rest to get my Dailys? she asks."
The grognard in me already hates this new term...."Resting to get my dailys."....BAH!

Dark Archive

Jason Grubiak wrote:

PS - Did you notice how she wanted to rest to get her Once-per-day spells back.

"Can I rest to get my Dailys? she asks."
The grognard in me already hates this new term...."Resting to get my dailys."....BAH!

Hmmm, seems these Once-per-day spells are so good that you just have to have them.

I wonder if this is only her or if it is a general feature of 4th.
If yes, what did change compared to 3rd?
Spell-users still have to rest to get the must-have spells back...
This does either not bode well for Shelly as a new gamer or for 4th as a game.
But, 4th claims to be soooooooooooooooooo good that everybody can play it.
So, what should I think of this?


GentleGiant wrote:
Tatterdemalion wrote:

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.

My wife is a social gamer and likes Shelly's posts (and book). She is neither ditzy nor annoying. To her, playing D&D is about having fun with friends, which is what is should be about.

I really think Shelly is not as shallow as she portrays herself. To me, she just looking at the situation from a certain perspective and writing on it to entertain her audience.

Dark Archive

GentleGiant wrote:
Tatterdemalion wrote:

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.

I agree. Did anyone catch the horrible comment about heal checks? Either she doesn't have a clue how heal works in 3.5, or she's making a not so subtle attack on 3.5 by implying the heal skill in 3.5 is nearly useless, but it rocks in 4th. I guess she never saw a PC saved by a heal check while they were bleeding out. I've seen it lots of times, and I'm sure many of you have as well. Ugh. WotC's bad PR strikes again!

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Raevhen wrote:
I really think Shelly is not as shallow as she portrays herself. To me, she just looking at the situation from a certain perspective and writing on it to entertain her audience.

I am also making this assumption. I am making it in a very loud voice in the tone of one trying very hard to belive oneself in the probably vain hope that doing so makes it true, regardless of whether it actually does not or if it's in fact necessary.

I believe her DM(s) must have the patience of saints.

Not that I don't have players nearly or actually as bad as that myself, but, being a psychotic Lich with a rocket launcher, I'm in a better position to...encourage...the players to remember plots and wait their fracking turn or whittle about background options or not getting their renewable resources back immediately or whatever freakin' thing they won't shut up about now! Ahem.

Doesn't actually work, mind, but at least repeatedly panneling someone over the head with an SK Snake-series Aotrs issue Guided Missile Launcher makes me feel better.

Jason Grubiak wrote:

PS - Did you notice how she wanted to rest to get her Once-per-day spells back.

"Can I rest to get my Dailys? she asks."
The grognard in me already hates this new term...."Resting to get my dailys."....BAH!

'Dailys?'

*Twitch*twitch*

Excuse me, I have an urgent need to got hurt some Elven prisoners in the brig now.

Scarab Sages

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I'm going to have to say that Shelly is probably exaggerating her annoying quirks at the table, and believes that it helps her write a more comedic situation. That being said, she really really shouldn't use this writing method.

While I appreciate the style, it reminds me of why I didn't like Will Wheaton's writing. He would write his exact thoughts about how he misses playing DnD, and it reminded me of those negative times. Oh, and he was annoying. Shelly, on the other hand, over plays her problems and attempts to plays it off as cute. While they are different styles, they still centre on a negative part of the game, rather than fun times.

I think her intent was to explain to people who do the things she writes about that they aren't appreciated. Unfortunately, it got lost in a post that was written by the kid-sister you never wanted to bring, and demanded to play.

Her intent may also have been a subtle point that while 4.0 solves your problems, there's still the problems at the table caused by players. Perhaps it was both.

Either way, in my opinion, she lost me. The 4.0 chatter seemed hollow and shoved in. Her resolutions, like I said, went from cute to "I never ever want to play DnD with this person." And finally, I don't really care if she's a she, a he or a goat. Her post didn't work for me, a DnD player.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Raevhen wrote:


I really think Shelly is not as shallow as she portrays herself. To me, she just looking at the situation from a certain perspective and writing on it to entertain her audience.

That's worse.

No really.

I like smart women. So I really, really don't like it when a smart woman tries to make herself look dumb and/or ditzy because she thinks it makes her more likeable. It's insulting to everyone involved. (As opposed to when dumb people try to look smart, which fails because, to quote Ron White, "You can't fix stupid.")

Dark Archive

Ross Byers wrote:
I like smart women. So I really, really don't like it when a smart woman tries to make herself look dumb and/or ditzy because she thinks it makes her more likeable. It's insulting to everyone involved. (As opposed to when dumb people try to look smart, which fails because, to quote Ron White, "You can't fix stupid.")

It's a technique used by some comedians successfully. If you can't laugh at yourself, who can you laugh at? :)

I don't know. Her writing really doesn't bother me too much. I just take it as pure entertainment value. Kind of like supermarket tabloids: they may be an entertaining read, but I certainly don't take them as news. :)

Scarab Sages

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
It rather reads as a not-especially-subtle plug for 4e.

If you go back and *shudder* read all her work (Except that damn book. I draw the line at that.), You'll see that everything she does has a plug for 4E in it. Personally, I think she'd do better writing for something like Cosmo (the magazine, not the Paizonian, I'm not THAT cruel).

Dark Archive

I may not be the demographic they are trying to reach with these types of articles but I fail to note anything particularly thread inducing in it.

A thread decrying WotC for insulting English teachers by making grammatical errors in a column somewhere wouldn't suprise me at this point.


shelly wrote:
...one thing I like better about 4th Edition is that it makes me feel like a better player. Not better like I know what I'm doing, but better as in more invested.

Don't feel like a better player; be a better player. This obsession with feelings is a pet peeve of mine, so I will avoid a massive rant on it. I will merely state that actuality is preferable to the illusion of reality.


Didn't move me.

She comes across as annoying and I am very glad I don't have her at my table. But that is my thoughts on the impression of herself she is trying to give.

The article itself? Bland. Nothing horrible, just bland.

Dark Archive

Aberzombie wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
It rather reads as a not-especially-subtle plug for 4e.
If you go back and *shudder* read all her work (Except that damn book. I draw the line at that.), You'll see that everything she does has a plug for 4E in it. Personally, I think she'd do better writing for something like Cosmo (the magazine, not the Paizonian, I'm not THAT cruel).

I've thought the same thing myself. It seems she's just around to try to make D&D appealing to women, but portraying herself as a ditzy, incompetent, whiny gamer, isn't doing anyone any favors. She really needs to write for Cosmo or Better Homes and Gardens, not anything D&D related.

Dark Archive

Ross Byers wrote:
I like smart women. So I really, really don't like it when a smart woman tries to make herself look dumb and/or ditzy because she thinks it makes her more likeable. It's insulting to everyone involved.

The perception is that men are 'threatened' by smart, confident, self-assured women. This perception seems to come from the fact that the women who espouse it tend to date lowbrow bullies who *are* threatened by a woman who is smarter than they are (which is to say, most of them, as well as some housepets).

This being gamer-geek territory, where men are *attracted* to smart, strong, confident women (Aeryn Sun? Seven of Nine? Buffy?), the 'logic' that a girl being smart would intimidate us tends to fall down, as we are more likely to get really, really bored by a potentially smart and interesting woman playing the dumb bimbo card and talking like 'whacky ditzy fun-loving' Shelly here.

But hey, if Shelly thinks that acting like Paris Hilton or Pam Anderson is 'cute,' more power to her. It's just the wrong dog to bring to this hunt, IMO. The game should be marketed to the job-having computer-geek demographic, not the juvie-hall-veteran high-school-dropout demographic.


Raevhen wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

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.
My wife is a social gamer and likes Shelly's posts (and book). She is neither ditzy nor annoying. To her, playing D&D is about having fun with friends, which is what is should be about.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with being a social gamer and mostly being there to hang out with friends, I've had players like that too. But I draw the line with people being as annoying as Shelly portrays herself while at the game table.

It might be a reflection of the fact that nowadays I get to game so seldom (once a month if we're lucky), what with people having jobs, finishing college, family and kids that take up a lot of their time. So when we're gathered to play, I want to make the most of the few hours we have and not waste it on inane questions like hers (that's not to say that there isn't off-topic chatter at our table, I just have to draw the line somewhere).

Raevhen wrote:
I really think Shelly is not as shallow as she portrays herself. To me, she just looking at the situation from a certain perspective and writing on it to entertain her audience.

As others have already said, she's really doing a disservice to herself and her fellow female gamers.

To repeat myself, if the women she seems to be catering to is the kind of women WotC wants to draw in, I'd rather be without.


Speaking on behalf of my wife - who is strong, smart, self-assured, an excellent mother, an accomplished professional, and a darn good gamer (yes, I'm proud of her. I can't help it) - and on behalf of every other female player in each of my 4 running campaigns, this sort of stuff is drivel. I'm glad some people like it, and I even suspect it might work to attract a different kind of woman to the game table, but in my experience it just ain't working for today's gamer ladies.

To quote my wife: "People like her are the reason the men of some cultures feel justified in keeping their women at home and out of sight."

The Exchange

Raevhen wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Tatterdemalion wrote:

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.

My wife is a social gamer and likes Shelly's posts (and book). She is neither ditzy nor annoying. To her, playing D&D is about having fun with friends, which is what is should be about.

I really think Shelly is not as shallow as she portrays herself. To me, she just looking at the situation from a certain perspective and writing on it to entertain her audience.

Agreed. My wife has the same opinion of Shelly's writing, and I agree with her. Look, the grognard crowd (of which I claim some membership) is not the target of their marketing push for 4e. Surely we all get this by now. If they're trying to get new gamers to the table, her writing is an interesting way to do it. I think it's probably missing the demographic and ending up being read more by a hostile crowd than they would like, but it does represent a 'stepping out' to find new gamers. They need to get her column into Cosmo or something. Otherwise they're probably just missing the intended audience.

But having women - any and all kinds of women at the table definitely makes the game better. New perspectives, better snacks, and they tend to smell better.

Dark Archive

Gamer elitism rocks....

Of my current two groups not a single one went to college (we do have one guy who would qualify as a computer geek though). We're all blue-collar schmoes, two of my players are high school drop-outs (neither are proud of it, but it is fact) and none of the guys (or one of the women) would kick Paris Hilton or Pam Anderson out of bed.

RPG's aren't just for Mensa members.

And wow, the women who find her articles interesting are somehow degrading to women or aren't welcome at your gaming tables?

Ah, the enlightenment.

EDIT: And I also find it amusing that while many gamers seem to like discussing the "ever shrinking" market for RPG's wondering how the hobby will survive, there is also a percentage of gamers who decry WotC for reaching out to other demographics. "We want more players....just not those ones....".


DangerDwarf wrote:

Gamer elitism rocks....

Of my current two groups not a single one went to college (we do have one guy who would qualify as a computer geek though). We're all blue-collar schmoes, two of my players are high school drop-outs (neither are proud of it, but it is fact) and none of the guys (or one of the women) would kick Paris Hilton or Pam Anderson out of bed.

RPG's aren't just for Mensa members.

And wow, the women who find her articles interesting are somehow degrading to women or aren't welcome at your gaming tables?

Ah, the enlightenment.

Now who's reading too much into things?

Nobody said that if you like Shelly's writing you're not welcome at anyone's gaming table. Acting like she's apparently doing (whether it's hyperbole or not), however, is an all together different thing.
Noone said that you had to be a college grad to play either, or even that people without college degrees aren't smart. I don't have one and I, very humbly, of course, consider myself fairly smart. :-D
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't kick Pam Anderson out of bed either, but for the life of me I can't see what people find so fascinating about Paris Hilton (to me she's unattractive (also way, way too skinny), annoying ("that's hot") and generally doesn't deserve the attention she's getting - seriously, what has she ever done besides being a spoiled brat?).


porn


Shelly wrote:
Before 4th Edition, a Heal check meant looking down at your shoe to see what the heck you just stepped in.

Paging ORLY owl, paging ORLY owl... you're needed at the 4e messageboards.

(Again.)

Dark Archive

GentleGiant wrote:
DangerDwarf wrote:

Gamer elitism rocks....

Of my current two groups not a single one went to college (we do have one guy who would qualify as a computer geek though). We're all blue-collar schmoes, two of my players are high school drop-outs (neither are proud of it, but it is fact) and none of the guys (or one of the women) would kick Paris Hilton or Pam Anderson out of bed.

RPG's aren't just for Mensa members.

And wow, the women who find her articles interesting are somehow degrading to women or aren't welcome at your gaming tables?

Ah, the enlightenment.

Now who's reading too much into things?

Nobody said that if you like Shelly's writing you're not welcome at anyone's gaming table. Acting like she's apparently doing (whether it's hyperbole or not), however, is an all together different thing.
Noone said that you had to be a college grad to play either, or even that people without college degrees aren't smart. I don't have one and I, very humbly, of course, consider myself fairly smart. :-D
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't kick Pam Anderson out of bed either, but for the life of me I can't see what people find so fascinating about Paris Hilton (to me she's unattractive (also way, way too skinny), annoying ("that's hot") and generally doesn't deserve the attention she's getting - seriously, what has she ever done besides being a spoiled brat?).

Yeah, no one said that you had to have a college degree to play. We're just saying that if she is as annoying at the table to the degree she portrays herself, it would probably interfere with many player's enjoyment of the game. If one person is interfering with everyone else's fun, then they should think seriously about changing their behavior. Shelly's article almost makes it seem like it's expected of women to be ditzy, whiny, and annoying at the gaming table. I don't think that anyone really needs to encourage that kind of behavior.


If she is anything like she portrays in her writing....I wouldn't ask her back to the next game because of her disruptive behavior. I'm guessing it's just a writing style she's developed in order to attract attention. Kinda like her consistency with talking about adult oriented issues...Honestly, I can't even get through reading her articles because of the writing style. Say what you are going to say and be on with it. I don't want to hear about your family etc. If I do, I'll ask. I'm not into the whole WOTC celebrity thing. I mentioned that before elsewhere.

Dark Archive

DangerDwarf wrote:

Gamer elitism rocks....

Of my current two groups not a single one went to college (we do have one guy who would qualify as a computer geek though). We're all blue-collar schmoes, two of my players are high school drop-outs (neither are proud of it, but it is fact) and none of the guys (or one of the women) would kick Paris Hilton or Pam Anderson out of bed.

Who on earth are you responding to, or are you just arguing with that straw man you built there? Did I mention college anywhere? Good grief, is that what my statement about gamer-geeks not being afraid of / intimidated by strong, confident women like Zoe from Serenity or Sarah Conner from T2 translates to? Wow.

Of my gaming group, only one is a college grad (and the others have higher-paying jobs, which is hardly a surprise in todays economy). We've only had one high-school dropout as a regular, but he's a great player and we love when he has time to play as well. (Since one gaming group met at Boston College, I've actually played a lot of games *at* a college, but primarily with non-college students, bizarrely...)

As for taking Paris Hilton or Pam Anderson to bed, well, duh. What the heck else would you do with them? There's only so much conversation one can have about fur being murder and eating meat being evil that one can stand, after all.

The only time elitism has come up in this thread is when you brought it. Which is hardly a shock, that, once again, the people crying wolf are in fact the ones engaged in the name-calling.

"Fire! Fire! Oh wait, I set it, my bad."

Dark Archive

GentleGiant wrote:
Now who's reading too much into things?

You are perhaps 100% correct. I've just been finding myself growing increasingly agitated by the elitism that can be seen on some RPG boards or threads and perhaps allowing them to color my perceptions here.

Some comments just rub me the wrong way (justly or unjustly). I see a lot of comments about how her articles or books are somehow insulting to intelligent women. What about the women who enjoy her stuff? Are they not intelligent too? My wife (also a gamer) is not interested in this woman's work but she's far from insulted by it.

Maybe I'm just having an off day, I find myself more agitated than is normal for me. Most of my agitation didn't spring from this thread, it was some others (here and elsewhere) and this thread happened to be the trigger for my rant I guess.

Guess I'll go get a beer or something.

Dark Archive

Set wrote:

Which is hardly a shock, that, once again, the people crying wolf are in fact the ones engaged in the name-calling.

K dude, sure.

Dark Archive

No problem. I've had those days to. I went absolutely ballistic after reading Richard Baker's article on the Spellplauge. It happens.


DangerDwarf wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
Now who's reading too much into things?

You are perhaps 100% correct. I've just been finding myself growing increasingly agitated by the elitism that can be seen on some RPG boards or threads and perhaps allowing them to color my perceptions here.

Some comments just rub me the wrong way (justly or unjustly). I see a lot of comments about how her articles or books are somehow insulting to intelligent women. What about the women who enjoy her stuff? Are they not intelligent too? My wife (also a gamer) is not interested in this woman's work but she's far from insulted by it.

Maybe I'm just having an off day, I find myself more agitated than is normal for me. Most of my agitation didn't spring from this thread, it was some others (here and elsewhere) and this thread happened to be the trigger for my rant I guess.

Guess I'll go get a beer or something.

No worries, if you feel up to it have an extra on my behalf. :-)

Sovereign Court

Tobus Neth wrote:

D&D Resolutions

by Shelly Mazzanoble

***YAWnnnnnn****

Dark Archive

GentleGiant wrote:
No worries, if you feel up to it have an extra on my behalf. :-)

As a true token of no ill will, I had two for you. ;)

Dark Archive

DangerDwarf wrote:
Guess I'll go get a beer or something.

Beer. The great equalizer. Is there anything it can't fix?


Stereofm wrote:
Tobus Neth wrote:

D&D Resolutions

by Shelly Mazzanoble
***YAWnnnnnn****

***YAWnnnnnn***contagious it is... here have a coffee,its 4free


Set wrote:
DangerDwarf wrote:
Guess I'll go get a beer or something.

Beer. The great equalizer. Is there anything it can't fix?

A strong thirst that can only be quenched by Bourbon.


DangerDwarf wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
No worries, if you feel up to it have an extra on my behalf. :-)
As a true token of no ill will, I had two for you. ;)

That's the spirit! :-D

The Exchange

Its amazing how elitist and insular gamers can be. I think folks should read through the posts on this thread and look at all of the examples of name calling, derogatory attributions, and exclusionary declarations.

It may be due to the fact that I play quite a few times per year with people i do not know but no gamer should feel excluded, looked down upon, and unwanted the way many here have expressed towards Shelly.


Heh. Shelly's blog posts are great. I was looking at "Confessions" at the local book store. But flipping through it and seeing all the pink and stuff, I laughed and asked my buddy, "What would you say if I bought this?"

"For yourself?"

"Yeah."

"Gaaaaaaay..."

"Yup, my thoughts exactly."

It's a shame they did such a great job "girly"-ing it up (not trying to insult women there; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if more than a few women found the look of the book distasteful).


hmarcbower wrote:

Hm. Well, while I must say she seems like one of the most literate people to publish anything bloggy for WotC these days, she sounds incredibly irritating - especially at the gaming table.

I like her writing style, though - very clever. :)

I enjoy her writing style, too. She does seem to shake things up at the table, but then she's definitely coming from at outsiders perspective. I read her book, enjoyed it, and shared it with both my wife and some other female gamers in my group. I didn't learn new things about D&D from it, but that's because I've been playing for decades. I did see D&D from a new perspective, though, which has been quite helpful for helping other new gamers feel included.

Strange as it seems, I also enjoy reading descriptions of weird behavior at other people's gaming tables (or watching, ala "Gamers"). I was just trying to remember this hilarious series of stories that I read a few years back on rpg.net about a group of dysfunctional gamers playing a wide variety of systems.


I bought her book for my decidedly non-gamer girlfriend and she loves it. It's actually generated a kernel of interest in her playin the game, something that I thought would never happen, as she has always playfully mocked my hobby and hates going to gaming stores (because of the way the men in the store treat her, what with all the staring like they've never seen a girl before).

Dark Archive

crosswiredmind wrote:
Its amazing how elitist and insular gamers can be. I think folks should read through the posts on this thread and look at all of the examples of name calling, derogatory attributions, and exclusionary declarations.

The irony of that second sentence following that first sentence is beautiful.

The Exchange

Set wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Its amazing how elitist and insular gamers can be. I think folks should read through the posts on this thread and look at all of the examples of name calling, derogatory attributions, and exclusionary declarations.

The irony of that second sentence following that first sentence is beautiful.

I know - I chuckled to myself after writing it.

But my point is why do we look down on those that "don't play right" or "annoy us" because they act different.

Come on people.

Scarab Sages

bubbagump wrote:
To quote my wife: "People like her are the reason the men of some cultures feel justified in keeping their women at home and out of sight."

Ouch! Kudos to your wife though. That comment is awesome.

1 to 50 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Shelly's back: Confessions of a Full-Time Wizard; This is... well... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.