Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Fern · 06-19-2005, 05:59 PM

Let's see. I figure in the space of about 25 words (or less) I could break loose and turn into a frothing feminist, lay the smack down about the reality of the feminine condition throughout history, fact-check the preceding messages in excruciating and highly annoying detail (ie - it's spelled Boadicea or Boudicca or Boudica, depending on the source - and she was as likely to knit a tea cozy as I am to win the 2012 Olympics gymnastic gold from my wheelchair).

But I've reached that venerable age where I am allowed to be eccentric (*waves her several-year-old AARP card in the air), and that seems to grant permission to be grumpy if I so choose (or bake cookies for grandkids). However, in lieu of the frothing feminist approach, I'll stick with the simple question, which seems to have been lost someplace along the path of the past few pages: What is your end goal?

Sure, folks like to deal with adversity as a character-building exercise. But from what I've seen over the years, the adversity they enjoy dealing with is -external -: thwart the invading orcs, protect the castle against attack, strengthen a failing economy, keep the wolves at bay while the kids escape, etc etc... I can't recall a single gameplay instance where someone trumpeted about sweet victory over their acne or in-game bad hair day. Triumph over internal adversity seems to fall by the wayside.

I enjoy 'reasonable realism' in games. I've played a few where, my characters being of the female gender, my stats relative to a male character were shifted - they got more STR; I got more WIS or INT. In an RP environment, my characters have been turned away from some social opportunities due to gender. At the end of the day, things work out pretty well all around. Gameplay experience is preserved, and I'm not averse to being smarter than the warrior-guy leading my formation (long as he gets hit first).

But realism does not necessarily translate well to 'reality within gameplay.' I have also played one game where I found my character having to stop combat and find a bush in the wilderness to take a ****. To my thinking, this did not enhance my gameplay experience one whit, and I didn't even bother to type 'save' before 'quit.'

Gamewise, realism starts and gameplay ends. Rarely is realism injected in the game to provide convenience or comfort for the player. Instead, it seems many game designers use realism to thwart progress, diminish performance, degrade stability and interfere with escape. If I -wanted- to squat behind a bush for 5 minutes, furtively glancing from east to west for wandering coyotes and brigands, I'd just go out into my front yard and squat in the oleander out by the highway. By the same token, if I wanted to get close to the less-than-equal conditions medieval life provided for the 'fairer sex' or the peasant class, I'd go read any of Barbara Tuchman's well-written books or grab any of a number of bodice-ripping romances with Fabio on the front. I doubt seriously I would seek out a game based on a built-in 'realistic gender bias.' (Read Tuchman's A Distant Mirror if you want to get up close and personal with the 14th century.)

If your goal is to provide a highly realistic gaming experience, and still have players choose to keep characters there and play it on a regular basis, involve a handful of trusted and more mature players in the design. Gather their thoughts and sense their tolerances to what gets proposed. Want to incorporate blood lines and families with inherited characteristics? Bring it up to your player design council and watch for lightbulbs to pop on over their heads. If they balk, aim that note at the trash bin in the corner.

Propose the gender inequities that have historical validity to your timeframe, and listen to the responses. If it gets shouted down, there's that good ole trash bin.

I would recommend reading Chapter 3 - Players - from Richard Bartle's Designing Virtual Worlds (C 2003 - New Riders Publishing). Read it from start to finish, with an ear for player immersion and tolerance. Actually I'd recommend this read to anyone on the verge of designing a MUD, but for many many more reasons. Highlight the heck out of the section pertaining to Community (unless it's a library book).

Then read Chapter 6, the portion on Gender Studies. You may find his discussion answers some of your underlying concerns, including the 'should we do this' one. If you're a sensitive sort or offended by plain speaking or reference to delicate subjects, skip the above.

Move on to the acquisition of as many books by Frances and Joseph Geis as you can afford. In particular, look for Women in the Middle Ages (Geis and Geis, C 1978 - and reprinted by Barnes and Noble in 1980). Take this in hand along with a few of their other books, Life in a Medieval City, Life in a Medieval Castle, Life in a Medieval Village, The Knight in History - and several more. Each book is small but intense and priceless references for the capture of the essence of the timeframe.

Well, I didn't start out to write a lesson on game module design references -and my apologies if it seems that I have. Bottom line: listen to your players and sense their tolerances. If you don't have players, or don't have very many players with that level of maturity, then barring that, I'd suggest setting up a forum to discuss it off the game with the option of anonymity and a tight rein on the moderator seat. If it is made clear up front that counterproductive thinking, snide remarks, hostility and immaturity are unwelcome, you may find yourself gaining a quite remarkable insight into what your game community members of both genders wish to see.

Best of luck in this - Fern

06-19-2005, 05:59 PM	#25
Fern Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 156	Let's see. I figure in the space of about 25 words (or less) I could break loose and turn into a frothing feminist, lay the smack down about the reality of the feminine condition throughout history, fact-check the preceding messages in excruciating and highly annoying detail (ie - it's spelled Boadicea or Boudicca or Boudica, depending on the source - and she was as likely to knit a tea cozy as I am to win the 2012 Olympics gymnastic gold from my wheelchair). But I've reached that venerable age where I am allowed to be eccentric (waves her several-year-old AARP card in the air), and that seems to grant permission to be grumpy if I so choose (or bake cookies for grandkids). However, in lieu of the frothing feminist approach, I'll stick with the simple question, which seems to have been lost someplace along the path of the past few pages: What is your end goal? Sure, folks like to deal with adversity as a character-building exercise. But from what I've seen over the years, the adversity they enjoy dealing with is -external -: thwart the invading orcs, protect the castle against attack, strengthen a failing economy, keep the wolves at bay while the kids escape, etc etc... I can't recall a single gameplay instance where someone trumpeted about sweet victory over their acne or in-game bad hair day. Triumph over internal adversity seems to fall by the wayside. I enjoy 'reasonable realism' in games. I've played a few where, my characters being of the female gender, my stats relative to a male character were shifted - they got more STR; I got more WIS or INT. In an RP environment, my characters have been turned away from some social opportunities due to gender. At the end of the day, things work out pretty well all around. Gameplay experience is preserved, and I'm not averse to being smarter than the warrior-guy leading my formation (long as he gets hit first). But realism does not necessarily translate well to 'reality within gameplay.' I have also played one game where I found my character having to stop combat and find a bush in the wilderness to take a ***. To my thinking, this did not enhance my gameplay experience one whit, and I didn't even bother to type 'save' before 'quit.' Gamewise, realism starts and gameplay ends. Rarely is realism injected in the game to provide convenience or comfort for the player. Instead, it seems many game designers use realism to thwart progress, diminish performance, degrade stability and interfere with escape. If I -wanted- to squat behind a bush for 5 minutes, furtively glancing from east to west for wandering coyotes and brigands, I'd just go out into my front yard and squat in the oleander out by the highway. By the same token, if I wanted to get close to the less-than-equal conditions medieval life provided for the 'fairer sex' or the peasant class, I'd go read any of Barbara Tuchman's well-written books or grab any of a number of bodice-ripping romances with Fabio on the front. I doubt seriously I would seek out a game based on a built-in 'realistic gender bias.' (Read Tuchman's A Distant Mirror if you want to get up close and personal with the 14th century.) If your goal is to provide a highly realistic gaming experience, and still have players choose to keep characters there and play it on a regular basis, involve a handful of trusted and more mature players in the design. Gather their thoughts and sense their tolerances to what gets proposed. Want to incorporate blood lines and families with inherited characteristics? Bring it up to your player design council and watch for lightbulbs to pop on over their heads. If they balk, aim that note at the trash bin in the corner. Propose the gender inequities that have historical validity to your timeframe, and listen to the responses. If it gets shouted down, there's that good ole trash bin. I would recommend reading Chapter 3 - Players - from Richard Bartle's Designing Virtual Worlds (C 2003 - New Riders Publishing). Read it from start to finish, with an ear for player immersion and tolerance. Actually I'd recommend this read to anyone on the verge of designing a MUD, but for many many more reasons. Highlight the heck out of the section pertaining to Community (unless it's a library book). Then read Chapter 6, the portion on Gender Studies. You may find his discussion answers some of your underlying concerns, including the 'should we do this' one. If you're a sensitive sort or offended by plain speaking or reference to delicate subjects, skip the above. Move on to the acquisition of as many books by Frances and Joseph Geis as you can afford. In particular, look for Women in the Middle Ages (Geis and Geis, C 1978 - and reprinted by Barnes and Noble in 1980). Take this in hand along with a few of their other books, Life in a Medieval City, Life in a Medieval Castle, Life in a Medieval Village, The Knight in History - and several more. Each book is small but intense and priceless references for the capture of the essence of the timeframe. Well, I didn't start out to write a lesson on game module design references -and my apologies if it seems that I have. Bottom line: listen to your players and sense their tolerances. If you don't have players, or don't have very many players with that level of maturity, then barring that, I'd suggest setting up a forum to discuss it off the game with the option of anonymity and a tight rein on the moderator seat. If it is made clear up front that counterproductive thinking, snide remarks, hostility and immaturity are unwelcome, you may find yourself gaining a quite remarkable insight into what your game community members of both genders wish to see. Best of luck in this - Fern