Yes, you read correctly: the Prince Valiant RPG is returning. Why do I care? Prince Valiant is an AMAZING work of art, first realized by Hal Foster. The artwork is likely some of the best in a newspaper strip, and that even continues today, with Mark Schultz writing and Thomas Yeates drawing. I am a Prince Valiant fanboy, make no mistake. The game is currently undergoing a Kickstarter campaign through August 26, 5pm Central.
So, what's the deal with this RPG? It's made to be played with younger players, or as an introductory RPG. Instead of our beloved polyhedral dice, resolutions are through a series of coin tosses. Less to teach also means you can focus more on the story. And the game is going to come with over 20 "episodes", which I take to mean modules. I don't know if they are set to be single session adventures or multiple sessions, but 20 sessions is a pretty good value right there.
My only qualm is that Monica Valentinelli is listed as one of the designers for a stretch goal episode. But, it's only one, so feel free to back the game and see if hers is any good. If not, you'll have plenty of others. There is also a printing of an update of King Arthur Pendragon available through this if Val is not your cup of tea, but you still want good knights and chivalry.
Take a look, and see if you want to join the wonder and adventure.
When you play Social Justice, the world loses.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
The Killing Joke Movie
I went to see the movie adaptation of Alan Moore's The Killing Joke last night. I had seen the article on io9 of feminists attacking the film, complete with some of the dumbest comments I've ever seen; this gave me hope.
The biggest offender to the SocJustice crowd is the first 30 minutes, which are new to the film version. Batgirl started fighting crime to attract Batman, according to this. No big deal, she has to have a reason; they seem to be fixated on the age difference and the "fact" that she's of an age with Dick Grayson. My response to this is that ages in comics are malleable, and characters have their ages changed almost every major event, and not necessarily with relation to each other. Also, women frequently prefer older men, so what?
What about the relationship with Dick Grayson? They don't get together until well after these events, as she was definitely wheelchair bound at the time. Anyway, it's a Batman story that also happens to be a Joker story, a Jim Gordon story, and a Barbara Gordon story. Honestly, I have more issue with the fact of Batgirl sleeping around; I'd rather question the sex than the romance. In other words, I have bigger issue with the lack of morals they've shown for years.
Also causing big problems for feminists would be the Batman line: "We're partners, but we are not equals." Oh, so Batman is faster, stronger, smarter, and better trained than she is, with better equipment, and they're supposed to be equal? No., She can't help the equipment part, but she can't keep up with him on anything else, either. Really, that's not a big deal. Nightwing is a touch shy on all of it, and he's currently the best successor. Tim Drake will pass him soon, and Damien Wayne might surpass his father IF he gets a moral compass in line. Point is, NONE of the Bat family is equal to Batman.
There's also the interaction after the one night. Batman wanted her off the case, she wouldn't listen, threw herself on him. He doesn't call, she wants to go back to being partners, etc. She gets really emotional and lashes out at men around her; in short, she acts like a woman. That triggered a few, I'm sure.
I really enjoyed the film. I thought the opening 30 minutes gave a good, emotional setup for the known part of the story. The known part was properly faithful, and had an afterword showing Oracle. Conroy, Hamill, and Strong give great performances in their old roles and the music is decent. The musical number was just right.
One of the idiotic comments on io9 was "Why can't we have a feminist origin for Oracle?" Because, you stupid git, Bat-family is forged in tragedy, not entitlement. Heroes come out of that fire. Even Jason Todd has had his with the :Lazarus Pit; until then, he was despicable. Dick, Tim, Cassandra, Barbara, Stephanie, Helena(yes, that's murky but I'll count her as Bat-fam) all suffered and it forged their motivation for fighting.
If you found the original to be worth reading, you should consider this to be worth watching. Yes, it's a dark story. Light shines through, in Jim Gordon, Barbara Gordon, and the Bat. My takeaway was that it is our response to darkness that matters. Now as to Alan Moore's writing, well, Razorfist has a strong opinion, and I'm slowly seeing it; that doesn't change what I think of this story.
When you play Social Justice, the world loses.
The biggest offender to the SocJustice crowd is the first 30 minutes, which are new to the film version. Batgirl started fighting crime to attract Batman, according to this. No big deal, she has to have a reason; they seem to be fixated on the age difference and the "fact" that she's of an age with Dick Grayson. My response to this is that ages in comics are malleable, and characters have their ages changed almost every major event, and not necessarily with relation to each other. Also, women frequently prefer older men, so what?
What about the relationship with Dick Grayson? They don't get together until well after these events, as she was definitely wheelchair bound at the time. Anyway, it's a Batman story that also happens to be a Joker story, a Jim Gordon story, and a Barbara Gordon story. Honestly, I have more issue with the fact of Batgirl sleeping around; I'd rather question the sex than the romance. In other words, I have bigger issue with the lack of morals they've shown for years.
Also causing big problems for feminists would be the Batman line: "We're partners, but we are not equals." Oh, so Batman is faster, stronger, smarter, and better trained than she is, with better equipment, and they're supposed to be equal? No., She can't help the equipment part, but she can't keep up with him on anything else, either. Really, that's not a big deal. Nightwing is a touch shy on all of it, and he's currently the best successor. Tim Drake will pass him soon, and Damien Wayne might surpass his father IF he gets a moral compass in line. Point is, NONE of the Bat family is equal to Batman.
There's also the interaction after the one night. Batman wanted her off the case, she wouldn't listen, threw herself on him. He doesn't call, she wants to go back to being partners, etc. She gets really emotional and lashes out at men around her; in short, she acts like a woman. That triggered a few, I'm sure.
I really enjoyed the film. I thought the opening 30 minutes gave a good, emotional setup for the known part of the story. The known part was properly faithful, and had an afterword showing Oracle. Conroy, Hamill, and Strong give great performances in their old roles and the music is decent. The musical number was just right.
One of the idiotic comments on io9 was "Why can't we have a feminist origin for Oracle?" Because, you stupid git, Bat-family is forged in tragedy, not entitlement. Heroes come out of that fire. Even Jason Todd has had his with the :Lazarus Pit; until then, he was despicable. Dick, Tim, Cassandra, Barbara, Stephanie, Helena(yes, that's murky but I'll count her as Bat-fam) all suffered and it forged their motivation for fighting.
If you found the original to be worth reading, you should consider this to be worth watching. Yes, it's a dark story. Light shines through, in Jim Gordon, Barbara Gordon, and the Bat. My takeaway was that it is our response to darkness that matters. Now as to Alan Moore's writing, well, Razorfist has a strong opinion, and I'm slowly seeing it; that doesn't change what I think of this story.
When you play Social Justice, the world loses.
Sunday, July 24, 2016
SFF and gaming and SDCC
So, firstly: the Dragon Award nominations end tomorrow. Please nominate if you haven't already. My last recommendations list is here.
Second: the voting period for the Hugo Awards ends on July 31. While I differ most notably on semipro zine and graphic story categories, Vox Day has his recommendations here. My dissent: SciPhi Journal for semipro zine, and for graphic story Invisible Republic, then Sandman: Overture. I do take consolation in the fact that a pandering tights book won't get the Hugo this year, but in fact it likely will go to an actual piece of sff that doesn't hate its readers.
Third: GenCon is in two weeks. My list of games to check out is here. Game releases and news tend to slow a bit before the big conventions.
Four: SDCC(otherwise known as Comi-Con) was this weekend. DC showed off trailers for Wonder Woman and Justice League. Both looked good. WW didn't look like a SJW movie, but a proper Nazi fighting movie. JL looks like it might get right what BvS got wrong, and at least more fun. Flash season 3 looks like it might be a good time. Legends of Tomorrow season 2 will see the Legion of Doom. DC has 3 animated film announcements: Justice League Dark, Teen Titans: the Judas Contract, and Batman and Harley Quinn.
Dr. Strange debuted a new trailer, and now looks interesting to me. American Gods, I don't know; it's got good actors, but I've moved on from Mr. Gaiman's work for the most part. Legion gets a meh from me; I don't care for mutants(I'd much rather see Sanderson's Legion). King Arthur looks to be divested of its source material entirely, but Guy Ritchie might have a decent movie despite that. Black Panther-I don't care. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 supposedly will have Kurt Russell. Captain Marvel- I again don't care.
Second: the voting period for the Hugo Awards ends on July 31. While I differ most notably on semipro zine and graphic story categories, Vox Day has his recommendations here. My dissent: SciPhi Journal for semipro zine, and for graphic story Invisible Republic, then Sandman: Overture. I do take consolation in the fact that a pandering tights book won't get the Hugo this year, but in fact it likely will go to an actual piece of sff that doesn't hate its readers.
Third: GenCon is in two weeks. My list of games to check out is here. Game releases and news tend to slow a bit before the big conventions.
Four: SDCC(otherwise known as Comi-Con) was this weekend. DC showed off trailers for Wonder Woman and Justice League. Both looked good. WW didn't look like a SJW movie, but a proper Nazi fighting movie. JL looks like it might get right what BvS got wrong, and at least more fun. Flash season 3 looks like it might be a good time. Legends of Tomorrow season 2 will see the Legion of Doom. DC has 3 animated film announcements: Justice League Dark, Teen Titans: the Judas Contract, and Batman and Harley Quinn.
Dr. Strange debuted a new trailer, and now looks interesting to me. American Gods, I don't know; it's got good actors, but I've moved on from Mr. Gaiman's work for the most part. Legion gets a meh from me; I don't care for mutants(I'd much rather see Sanderson's Legion). King Arthur looks to be divested of its source material entirely, but Guy Ritchie might have a decent movie despite that. Black Panther-I don't care. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 supposedly will have Kurt Russell. Captain Marvel- I again don't care.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Current thoughts on Scythe
I've gotten in three games now, and think I might be getting a handle on this game. Yes, I know that somebody that hates Euros got six plays in five days. I'm dealing with time constraints at my local game store, as I currently don't have a group that meets privately(there's both good and bad to this).
But, I thought that I might at least get some thoughts out on this game.
For the uninitiated, here's a synopsis from the game page:
It is a time of unrest in 1920s Europa. The ashes from the first great war still darken the snow. The capitalistic city-state known simply as “The Factory,” which fueled the war with heavily armored mechs, has closed its doors, drawing the attention of several nearby countries.
Scythe (1-5 players, 115 minutes) is a board game set in an alternate-history 1920s period. It is a time of farming and war, broken hearts and rusted gears, innovation and valor.
Now, let me tell you one thing Stonemaier Games doesn't do: they don't bring out revolutionary mechanics. No, they take established mechanics and tie them to the theme of the game from the start. Viticulture drips with theme(especially with Tuscany), Euphoria has distopian control of placement possibilities, and Between Two Cities give a great combination of drafting and cooperation/competition.
What does Scythe do? There's a world to explore through encounter cards; buildings, recruits, and upgrades to make your actions more efficient; and mechs to wage war and control the world. Resources stay on hexes(can be moved by mechs), so area control is important.What's actually new here? Nothing.
But everything ties together, and the game is always moving toward an endpoint. The play is about 2 hours, and scales up to five players currently. There will be an expansion with pieces for two more players by the end of the year.
Factions and player action boards are both dealt randomly, so you might end up with a combination that seemingly doesn't work together. As there's an achievement sheet, you might try to win the game with no mech, or no additional workers.
Is the game perfect? No game is, we're all flawed. But so far, I have to say wow.
When you play Social Justice, the world loses.
But, I thought that I might at least get some thoughts out on this game.
For the uninitiated, here's a synopsis from the game page:
It is a time of unrest in 1920s Europa. The ashes from the first great war still darken the snow. The capitalistic city-state known simply as “The Factory,” which fueled the war with heavily armored mechs, has closed its doors, drawing the attention of several nearby countries.
Scythe (1-5 players, 115 minutes) is a board game set in an alternate-history 1920s period. It is a time of farming and war, broken hearts and rusted gears, innovation and valor.
Now, let me tell you one thing Stonemaier Games doesn't do: they don't bring out revolutionary mechanics. No, they take established mechanics and tie them to the theme of the game from the start. Viticulture drips with theme(especially with Tuscany), Euphoria has distopian control of placement possibilities, and Between Two Cities give a great combination of drafting and cooperation/competition.
What does Scythe do? There's a world to explore through encounter cards; buildings, recruits, and upgrades to make your actions more efficient; and mechs to wage war and control the world. Resources stay on hexes(can be moved by mechs), so area control is important.What's actually new here? Nothing.
But everything ties together, and the game is always moving toward an endpoint. The play is about 2 hours, and scales up to five players currently. There will be an expansion with pieces for two more players by the end of the year.
Factions and player action boards are both dealt randomly, so you might end up with a combination that seemingly doesn't work together. As there's an achievement sheet, you might try to win the game with no mech, or no additional workers.
Is the game perfect? No game is, we're all flawed. But so far, I have to say wow.
When you play Social Justice, the world loses.
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Injustice Quick Reviews 2
Cower not, fierce reader! We have a fine selection of tomes for your perusal. I've either past my finish date by a while on these, or don't feel that it would be fair to review the book by itself, if you're wondering why there's no full review. I've decided to save Cicero for a separate review.
Souldancer by Brian Neiemier- If you read Nethereal, and haven't read this, honestly, get help. By help, I mean read this. Major crime: being smarter than the SJW readers 8/10 Fell deeds.
Honor at Stake by Declan Finn- This book is why I read the Pius trilogy. There's vampires, Vatican ninjas, and violence. Oh, and the characters have a bit of a complex about their dark sides. Major crime: Catholicism is good. 9/10 Fell deeds.
City of Salt by Robert Kroese- I've seen the "SF noir writer du jour" hype, entered one of his contests, and ended up with this. This feels like A Scanner Darkly, as far as the mindscrew goes. Major crime: distrust of government and corporation. 7/10 Fell deeds.
Beyond the Mist by Ben Zwycky- I actually read this before Nobility Among Us, and it was great. An adventure story about restoration and redemption. Major crime: mercy, and forgiveness 8/10 Fell deeds.
The End of the World as we Knew It by Nick Cole- Nick writes zombie books I want to read. I don't care for zombie stories, as a rule. But the characters are excellent, their journeys great, and there's a good measure of poignancy here. Major crime- That one needs redemption for the past. 8/10 Fell deeds.
Iron Chamber of Memory by John C. Wright- Far from my first read of him. He's honestly moved into the spot of being my favorite living author. This book has faerie tales, lost love, deception, Arthurian knights, and more. Major crime: So many. It doesn't fit into any of the left's hate boxes. 10/10 Fell deeds.
When you play Social Justice, the world loses.
Souldancer by Brian Neiemier- If you read Nethereal, and haven't read this, honestly, get help. By help, I mean read this. Major crime: being smarter than the SJW readers 8/10 Fell deeds.
Honor at Stake by Declan Finn- This book is why I read the Pius trilogy. There's vampires, Vatican ninjas, and violence. Oh, and the characters have a bit of a complex about their dark sides. Major crime: Catholicism is good. 9/10 Fell deeds.
City of Salt by Robert Kroese- I've seen the "SF noir writer du jour" hype, entered one of his contests, and ended up with this. This feels like A Scanner Darkly, as far as the mindscrew goes. Major crime: distrust of government and corporation. 7/10 Fell deeds.
Beyond the Mist by Ben Zwycky- I actually read this before Nobility Among Us, and it was great. An adventure story about restoration and redemption. Major crime: mercy, and forgiveness 8/10 Fell deeds.
The End of the World as we Knew It by Nick Cole- Nick writes zombie books I want to read. I don't care for zombie stories, as a rule. But the characters are excellent, their journeys great, and there's a good measure of poignancy here. Major crime- That one needs redemption for the past. 8/10 Fell deeds.
Iron Chamber of Memory by John C. Wright- Far from my first read of him. He's honestly moved into the spot of being my favorite living author. This book has faerie tales, lost love, deception, Arthurian knights, and more. Major crime: So many. It doesn't fit into any of the left's hate boxes. 10/10 Fell deeds.
When you play Social Justice, the world loses.
Monday, July 18, 2016
Reading slog and the wait to GenCon
I'm sure some folks are wondering why I haven't posted in a few days, and when the next book review will be(I've read they're entertaining.). So, here's my set of excuses and reasons for not being more productive.
1. Cicero's On Duty- I'm working my way through the new translation by Quintus Curtius, and it's very good. However, being a philosophy book, it's also a bit of a slog. I am working on it, and after that, I want to read a few more things, and then we'll likely see another quick review set.
2. Gameplay- Specifically, I've been playing Scythe from Stonemaier Games. It's a lot of fun, and really pretty, but I want enough plays to give a proper perspective. Also, I want to make sure I've gotten all the rules correct first.
3. Journeyman League- I also play Warmachine/Hordes, and my local area is in our first league since the new edition(which makes lots of stuff simpler). I need to do some more painting.
4. Vega Conflict- It's one of those fremium semi-casual games. There was an event this weekend, and I did better than I had in previous events. I like exploding spaceships.
5. Tossing ideas around in my head- I have an idea I need to write Diogenes Games about. I need to develop it a bit beforehand, though. Also, I need to start looking into some fiction publishing ideas I've been thinking about(not necessarily my own).
Anyway, I've got a bit going on in my head, and haven't done enough on most of these fronts recently. These things are in addition to other life factors I'm not going to mention here, as they aren't related to anything on the blog. Just getting these written hopefully will help me get more moving.
Many thanks for all the support.
When you play Social Justice, the world loses.
1. Cicero's On Duty- I'm working my way through the new translation by Quintus Curtius, and it's very good. However, being a philosophy book, it's also a bit of a slog. I am working on it, and after that, I want to read a few more things, and then we'll likely see another quick review set.
2. Gameplay- Specifically, I've been playing Scythe from Stonemaier Games. It's a lot of fun, and really pretty, but I want enough plays to give a proper perspective. Also, I want to make sure I've gotten all the rules correct first.
3. Journeyman League- I also play Warmachine/Hordes, and my local area is in our first league since the new edition(which makes lots of stuff simpler). I need to do some more painting.
4. Vega Conflict- It's one of those fremium semi-casual games. There was an event this weekend, and I did better than I had in previous events. I like exploding spaceships.
5. Tossing ideas around in my head- I have an idea I need to write Diogenes Games about. I need to develop it a bit beforehand, though. Also, I need to start looking into some fiction publishing ideas I've been thinking about(not necessarily my own).
Anyway, I've got a bit going on in my head, and haven't done enough on most of these fronts recently. These things are in addition to other life factors I'm not going to mention here, as they aren't related to anything on the blog. Just getting these written hopefully will help me get more moving.
Many thanks for all the support.
When you play Social Justice, the world loses.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Gamer SJWs: idiocy incarnate
Thanks the the news page on BGG, I've become more aware of Formal Ferret Games and it's resident designer, Gil Hova. Well, I might have to rethink The Networks being on my GenCon list. So now, I'm going to fisk his blog entry, Women in Gaming vs.invisible ropes(This is from 2014, I apologize for my extreme lateness to the party). My comments will be in bold, his original in italics.
I’m almost done with my year-long project to record the genders of all the people I have played with.
Good for you. When did you last do something useful or edifying?
It’s an interesting project, and it gains a new and interesting context with all the awful news going on around the video game world. I guess it’s a good thing that we’re finally talking about women in gaming, although I wish it didn’t have to take death threats against some of our bravest designers in order to start the discussion.
You realize Zoe Quinn's only death threats came from herself at that time? The real ones came from another SJW, and are more recent.
We’re lucky that there isn’t usually such overt sexism on such public display in the board game world.
So now you're going to start importing misandry, because men white men are evil.
Nevertheless, I think we can do better. My gender project has taught me to pay more attention to women in board gaming. There’s more than meets the eye.
Dude, women aren't Transformers. I'm guessing you only pay attention to someone else when it's their turn.
During this time, I’ve been able to see board gaming through my girlfriend’s eyes
You took them out? Or is there an app for that?
She’s a newcomer to gaming, and while my friends try to welcome her into gaming, she doesn’t feel welcome.
That's because she DOESN'T LIKE YOUR FRIENDS. Muh feels! Ditch the controlling bitch.
Through her, I’ve noticed that boardgaming, while not overtly hostile to women, still has a bunch of invisible ropes that keep many women from enjoying the hobby.
What, like rules, turn order, and table etiquette?
Before I go any further, let me be clear: I am a straight white guy, and I’ve led quite a privileged life
Good for you. Some of us have been passed over for jobs and promotions for being white males.
I can’t claim to speak for women. No one can, because there is no monolithic generalization one can make about half of the human population.
Finally, a pair of sentences that make sense!
So please don’t think I’m attempting to speak on behalf of all women everywhere. I’m writing this because I think my perspective can be helpful when we try to figure out why there are so many more men playing board games than women.
What a nice white knight you are. You realize feminists hate you as much as real men, right? They just tolerate you while you might be useful.
Another thing I must make clear: a lot of people usually take this kind of thing to mean offensiveness.
We wouldn't want anyone to be offended, now, would we?
They think there’s a line between “offensive” and “inoffensive”. If you’re on the “inoffensive” side, everything’s fine and peachy, but if you’re on the “offensive” side, then you’ve just insulted every single woman (or whatever non-straight-white-male demographic you’d like), without exception.
I take it back. Your stupidity is offensive. Too bad it hasn't hurt you yet.
But I’m not talking about that line. We in the board game world don’t really have to deal with overtly offensive stuff, thankfully. Instead, I’m going to talk about invisible ropes.
Is your girlfriend more into bondage than game mechanics? Get some cuffs.
An invisible rope is something that most people in gaming don’t notice, but that can turn off someone just entering the hobby.
Rules and mechanics. Gotcha.
They start walking to us, but then they get stopped by one of these invisible ropes. They turn away, and try to approach from another direction, and hit another invisible rope. Then they try another approach, and hit another invisible rope.
Are you sure you aren't talking about a LARP with a maze?
And that’s it; they turn away. All these ropes add together to tell them: Gaming is not for them. They can’t tell us why, because they can’t easily see the ropes that kept them away.
She can't read or comprehend a rulebook. Got it already. Try a Watch it Played video. Or learn to teach games better. It's a skill.
Again, this isn’t about one huge wall keeping people away from gaming. This is death by a thousand tiny cuts. It’s a bunch of tiny actions we perform.
She's supposed to read it, not try cutting herself with the rulebook. I suggest abandoning games and trying S+M. It seems like that's her thing.
And we can have the best of intentions. We can be thinking that we’re all for women in gaming and inclusivity, and still be responsible for keeping these invisible ropes up
Well, the scene has to have boundaries. Try reading some John Ringo.
That’s why I don’t think this is a matter of simple offensiveness; that always winds up with apologies and accusations, sometimes sincere, sometimes insincere, none of which really get to the bottom of what’s going on.
Never apologize in scene. Be aware of her safe words, though.
Here are some examples of invisible ropes in gaming. For these examples, don’t consider a woman already in gaming; she’s already gotten past the ropes. Instead, consider a woman new to gaming
Yeah, you don't jump straight to TI3, moron. Doesn't matter if it's a dude or a chic. Try TTR, instead.
Think of a woman who is going to a game convention for the first time. Maybe she’s never played a modern game before; maybe she’s only got a couple of games of Settlers or Munchkin under her belt. What invisible ropes will she run into?
She's going to have to play something else. The horror. Maybe she'll understand a rule or two by the end of it.
More men than women. Anyone familiar with the craft of game design will recognize a positive feedback mechanism, and we have one here. It’s unfair, but there we are. A woman will notice when she’s the only woman in the environment. And it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.
Some react by disregarding it; others can’t help but notice it. The latter is not a fault of character, of course. And I’m sure it’s an irritating feeling to feel so singled out.
Yeah. Men don't like being nagged. Space apart is good. Women generally don't enjoy direct conflict; real men revel in it.
Representation. Perhaps our hypothetical subject has found a group where she’s not the only woman. Perhaps she’s decided to ignore it. So she goes ahead and plays one of the top 25 games on BoardGameGeek. And it has a guy on the cover.
So? It's a cover. It may or may not be related. Usually not.
I went ahead and checked. The top 25 games on BGG have a total of 58 featured characters. Of those characters, only 10 are clearly women. That’s 17.2%.
Some more stats…
Most of the top 25 aren't gateway games either, but for people that get and like complex mechanics and rules.
Inadvertently condescending strategy help. Let’s chart this one out mathematically: if x is the number of seconds it takes for a man to think about his turn before the other players start pointing out his possible moves, and y a similar number for a woman, then y < x, especially when the woman is new to the group. Sometimes y < x/2. Regardless of how many games the woman owns or plays. I’d need a bunch of gamers and a stopwatch to confirm this mathematically, but look out for it at a game table next time you see a man play a woman he’s never met before. You will notice it.
Have you been timing this? Also, try gateway games with a noob. It takes time to git gud.
The language factor. 20 years ago, I used to think that I could say things like “guys” as a non-gendered word. “Hey guys, what’s going on?” And if we made any significant progress in gender equity in the past two decades, I wouldn’t feel bad using it.
Twenty years ago, I might have thought you had a brain and knew how to use it.
But if Gamergate has taught us anything, it’s that women still aren’t treated as equals. It’s made me re-think how I use language when I communicate.
Gameregate is to blame for your girlfriend hating your friends and hobby? Yep, the Networks is coming off the list.
“Guys” is exclusionary. I can think in my head that it’s not exclusionary when I say it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not exclusionary for the people who are listening. It’s an invisible rope. When I say it, I’m asking women who are listening to re-map the words in their heads from being gendered to being non-gendered. That’s asking a lot, and I don’t think it’s changed in the past 20 years.
Well, it hasn't changed in the last 20 years, and you're wrong. It's a fine collective noun. Alternatively, you can go with Doomtown's use of dude.
Listen, I don’t want to tell you how to speak or write. I hate to sound like the PC police.
You are observably a liar. You're loving this rant, possibly more than I'm enjoying telling you you're crap, and your girlfriend is a controlling bitch that hates your hobby and friends.
I will tell you this: I’ve stopped addressing people as “guys” in writing unless I’m sure the people I’m writing to are all men. The rulebooks I wrote 10 years ago all use “he” as a singular pronoun. I now alternate between “he” and “she”, and I’m trying to get my brain to accept “they” as singular (it’s going to take a while).
Unless your reader is known to be a woman, calling your reader "he" is correct. They is a cop-out. Alternating is a cop-out. Nouns in other languages are gendered. We'd be better if ours were, too.
Also, you’ll notice how I’m writing “women” in this post? Not “females”? I notice a lot of gamers use “female” as a noun
Are you trying to avoid accusations of pedophilia? Way to draw attention to your love of little girls.
This is a really cold and dehumanizing way to write about half of the population
Not really. Females means I could actually be playing a children's game with children.
If you’re writing a scientific study, it might be all right. But in any other setting, use “women”. It comes off much more warmly. (Of course, “female” as an adjective is usually okay: “That female ninja, etc. etc.” Or how I use “female” in the very next sentence.)
Virtue signal. Got it. You want people to like your unlikable self.
And I will urge everyone in earshot to only use “girl” when referring to someone female under the age of 18.
Yep. The feminists will eat you alive for that.
For how I talk? It’s going to take a little longer. I say “guys” all the time. It’s going to be tough to change that behavior. But that seed is in my head. I’m only now understanding how much language matters, and how poorly the status quo is functioning.
Water that seed. Maybe the tree will be useful.
Boys’ locker room mentality. Does your game group meet at a game store? What’s its clientele like? What’s its ambiance like? If it’s anything like the game stores I’ve played at in the past, there are a ton of pubescent boys at the store, shouting taunts like “fag” and “pussy” at each other.
Acting like pubescent boys. That's fine. Avoid FNM like the plague, tool.
Now, if you’re a person who’s obsessed with board games past a certain point, you can let this bounce off you. But not everyone is blessed with thick skin.
You're right. Some of you are whiny over indulged daddy's girls and mommy's boys. Go to your safe space.
And a local gaming environment that’s heavily biased towards teenaged boys is going to alienate a lot of women. No wonder I’ve noticed that I tend to play more women in private rather than in public – 21% of my opponents are women when playing in public, 30% are women when playing in private, at the time of this writing.
More people play at home than in public anyway. They're obsessed with public image, or want to play past closing time.
But if a woman is playing games in private, that means she’s either found a “safe” area to play games, or she’s built one up herself. Not all women get to that point. I’m sure a ton have hit this particular invisible rope and concluded that gaming is not for them.
You sound like the ones that gave up playing a musical instrument after grade or high school. "I used to play X." Didn't care enough to continue? I don't care.
Societal expectations. We live in a society where, by and large, women are expected to tend to home and family while men are allowed to follow their interests.
Women are being pushed to do everything men do by feminism and finding they don't like it. The wife of a friend of mine enjoys games, but not as complex or deeply as he does. By the way, she homeschools their six children, who are happy and intelligent.
This is something I don’t agree with and that I would love to see change significantly in my lifetime, but I think it’s important that we mention it.
Let me tell you something I've observed. Women talk about men. Mothers also talk about their children. These conversations matter to them. Why do you want to ignore their real interests?
I’ve mentioned Dr. Erin C. Davis’ preliminary report on women in boardgaming in some of my other posts. Here are some relevant quotes from women gamers she interviewed…
Other men staying silent. This, out of all of them, is the hardest one.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve sat at a game table and seen an invisible rope get strung up. And I’ve almost always kept my mouth shut. It’s not the right time, I’d tell myself. Don’t make a pest of myself.
Oh, it's not LARPing you're into is miming. Mimes are pests.
If I see someone being unintentionally sexist, I would like to be more vocal. I don’t want to be rude or alienating about it. But I’ve heard from other women that the best thing they can hear is a man tell his friend, “Too much. Back off.”
Yes. You've written way too much. Back off, you virtue signalling cur.
These invisible ropes doesn’t keep all women out of gaming. You might know plenty of women in your gaming groups. But that doesn’t mean that these invisible ropes don’t exist. Some women have thicker skin than others, and they love gaming so much that they’re willing to put up with all the invisible ropes they encounter. Which is awesome for them, but we can’t expect every woman to have that sort of thick skin. It’s just unfair.
You never heard? Life is unfair. Get over it and move on.
I think this is reflected in my gender project numbers, especially the split between public and private gaming. There are fewer invisible ropes when playing in private, hence the 10% swing for women I play with in a private setting.
More women drink in private, too. Your point?
By the way, the correct term for this kind of unconscious, exclusionary activity is “microaggression,” but I’ve found that term turns people off: “What? No! I’m not being aggressive. I’m didn’t mean anything by it! I’m only trying to help!” I think one of the obstacles to this sort of discussion is that people don’t like being called aggressive, or sexist, or privileged. They feel insulted by it and get defensive. I don’t mean to authoritatively set the tone of the discussion here; I just think people are less likely to get defensive when hearing “invisible rope” than if they hear “microaggression.”
Your girlfriend is a triggered special snowflake? Tell her to get over it. We used to have sanitariums for those that couldn't handle life.
So the next time you wonder why there so many more men than women in board gaming, look at these invisible ropes. Even better, try to see if you’re inadvertently setting up an invisible rope yourself.
Maybe men like conflict and women like talking. Get over it.
I’m almost done with my year-long project to record the genders of all the people I have played with.
Good for you. When did you last do something useful or edifying?
It’s an interesting project, and it gains a new and interesting context with all the awful news going on around the video game world. I guess it’s a good thing that we’re finally talking about women in gaming, although I wish it didn’t have to take death threats against some of our bravest designers in order to start the discussion.
You realize Zoe Quinn's only death threats came from herself at that time? The real ones came from another SJW, and are more recent.
We’re lucky that there isn’t usually such overt sexism on such public display in the board game world.
So now you're going to start importing misandry, because men white men are evil.
Nevertheless, I think we can do better. My gender project has taught me to pay more attention to women in board gaming. There’s more than meets the eye.
Dude, women aren't Transformers. I'm guessing you only pay attention to someone else when it's their turn.
During this time, I’ve been able to see board gaming through my girlfriend’s eyes
You took them out? Or is there an app for that?
She’s a newcomer to gaming, and while my friends try to welcome her into gaming, she doesn’t feel welcome.
That's because she DOESN'T LIKE YOUR FRIENDS. Muh feels! Ditch the controlling bitch.
Through her, I’ve noticed that boardgaming, while not overtly hostile to women, still has a bunch of invisible ropes that keep many women from enjoying the hobby.
What, like rules, turn order, and table etiquette?
Before I go any further, let me be clear: I am a straight white guy, and I’ve led quite a privileged life
Good for you. Some of us have been passed over for jobs and promotions for being white males.
I can’t claim to speak for women. No one can, because there is no monolithic generalization one can make about half of the human population.
Finally, a pair of sentences that make sense!
So please don’t think I’m attempting to speak on behalf of all women everywhere. I’m writing this because I think my perspective can be helpful when we try to figure out why there are so many more men playing board games than women.
What a nice white knight you are. You realize feminists hate you as much as real men, right? They just tolerate you while you might be useful.
Another thing I must make clear: a lot of people usually take this kind of thing to mean offensiveness.
We wouldn't want anyone to be offended, now, would we?
They think there’s a line between “offensive” and “inoffensive”. If you’re on the “inoffensive” side, everything’s fine and peachy, but if you’re on the “offensive” side, then you’ve just insulted every single woman (or whatever non-straight-white-male demographic you’d like), without exception.
I take it back. Your stupidity is offensive. Too bad it hasn't hurt you yet.
But I’m not talking about that line. We in the board game world don’t really have to deal with overtly offensive stuff, thankfully. Instead, I’m going to talk about invisible ropes.
Is your girlfriend more into bondage than game mechanics? Get some cuffs.
An invisible rope is something that most people in gaming don’t notice, but that can turn off someone just entering the hobby.
Rules and mechanics. Gotcha.
They start walking to us, but then they get stopped by one of these invisible ropes. They turn away, and try to approach from another direction, and hit another invisible rope. Then they try another approach, and hit another invisible rope.
Are you sure you aren't talking about a LARP with a maze?
And that’s it; they turn away. All these ropes add together to tell them: Gaming is not for them. They can’t tell us why, because they can’t easily see the ropes that kept them away.
She can't read or comprehend a rulebook. Got it already. Try a Watch it Played video. Or learn to teach games better. It's a skill.
Again, this isn’t about one huge wall keeping people away from gaming. This is death by a thousand tiny cuts. It’s a bunch of tiny actions we perform.
She's supposed to read it, not try cutting herself with the rulebook. I suggest abandoning games and trying S+M. It seems like that's her thing.
And we can have the best of intentions. We can be thinking that we’re all for women in gaming and inclusivity, and still be responsible for keeping these invisible ropes up
Well, the scene has to have boundaries. Try reading some John Ringo.
That’s why I don’t think this is a matter of simple offensiveness; that always winds up with apologies and accusations, sometimes sincere, sometimes insincere, none of which really get to the bottom of what’s going on.
Never apologize in scene. Be aware of her safe words, though.
Here are some examples of invisible ropes in gaming. For these examples, don’t consider a woman already in gaming; she’s already gotten past the ropes. Instead, consider a woman new to gaming
Yeah, you don't jump straight to TI3, moron. Doesn't matter if it's a dude or a chic. Try TTR, instead.
Think of a woman who is going to a game convention for the first time. Maybe she’s never played a modern game before; maybe she’s only got a couple of games of Settlers or Munchkin under her belt. What invisible ropes will she run into?
She's going to have to play something else. The horror. Maybe she'll understand a rule or two by the end of it.
More men than women. Anyone familiar with the craft of game design will recognize a positive feedback mechanism, and we have one here. It’s unfair, but there we are. A woman will notice when she’s the only woman in the environment. And it becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.
Some react by disregarding it; others can’t help but notice it. The latter is not a fault of character, of course. And I’m sure it’s an irritating feeling to feel so singled out.
Yeah. Men don't like being nagged. Space apart is good. Women generally don't enjoy direct conflict; real men revel in it.
Representation. Perhaps our hypothetical subject has found a group where she’s not the only woman. Perhaps she’s decided to ignore it. So she goes ahead and plays one of the top 25 games on BoardGameGeek. And it has a guy on the cover.
So? It's a cover. It may or may not be related. Usually not.
I went ahead and checked. The top 25 games on BGG have a total of 58 featured characters. Of those characters, only 10 are clearly women. That’s 17.2%.
Some more stats…
- Of the top 25 games, 22 have featured human characters on their covers. (If you’re curious, Dominant Species, X-Wing Fighter Miniatures, and Race for the Galaxy have no featured human characters.)
- Of these remaining 22 games, only two have women exclusively featured on their covers: Android: Netrunner and Caverna. And only two others have at least as many women featured as men: Agricola and Battlestar: Galactica.
Most of the top 25 aren't gateway games either, but for people that get and like complex mechanics and rules.
Inadvertently condescending strategy help. Let’s chart this one out mathematically: if x is the number of seconds it takes for a man to think about his turn before the other players start pointing out his possible moves, and y a similar number for a woman, then y < x, especially when the woman is new to the group. Sometimes y < x/2. Regardless of how many games the woman owns or plays. I’d need a bunch of gamers and a stopwatch to confirm this mathematically, but look out for it at a game table next time you see a man play a woman he’s never met before. You will notice it.
Have you been timing this? Also, try gateway games with a noob. It takes time to git gud.
The language factor. 20 years ago, I used to think that I could say things like “guys” as a non-gendered word. “Hey guys, what’s going on?” And if we made any significant progress in gender equity in the past two decades, I wouldn’t feel bad using it.
Twenty years ago, I might have thought you had a brain and knew how to use it.
But if Gamergate has taught us anything, it’s that women still aren’t treated as equals. It’s made me re-think how I use language when I communicate.
Gameregate is to blame for your girlfriend hating your friends and hobby? Yep, the Networks is coming off the list.
“Guys” is exclusionary. I can think in my head that it’s not exclusionary when I say it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not exclusionary for the people who are listening. It’s an invisible rope. When I say it, I’m asking women who are listening to re-map the words in their heads from being gendered to being non-gendered. That’s asking a lot, and I don’t think it’s changed in the past 20 years.
Well, it hasn't changed in the last 20 years, and you're wrong. It's a fine collective noun. Alternatively, you can go with Doomtown's use of dude.
Listen, I don’t want to tell you how to speak or write. I hate to sound like the PC police.
You are observably a liar. You're loving this rant, possibly more than I'm enjoying telling you you're crap, and your girlfriend is a controlling bitch that hates your hobby and friends.
I will tell you this: I’ve stopped addressing people as “guys” in writing unless I’m sure the people I’m writing to are all men. The rulebooks I wrote 10 years ago all use “he” as a singular pronoun. I now alternate between “he” and “she”, and I’m trying to get my brain to accept “they” as singular (it’s going to take a while).
Unless your reader is known to be a woman, calling your reader "he" is correct. They is a cop-out. Alternating is a cop-out. Nouns in other languages are gendered. We'd be better if ours were, too.
Also, you’ll notice how I’m writing “women” in this post? Not “females”? I notice a lot of gamers use “female” as a noun
Are you trying to avoid accusations of pedophilia? Way to draw attention to your love of little girls.
This is a really cold and dehumanizing way to write about half of the population
Not really. Females means I could actually be playing a children's game with children.
If you’re writing a scientific study, it might be all right. But in any other setting, use “women”. It comes off much more warmly. (Of course, “female” as an adjective is usually okay: “That female ninja, etc. etc.” Or how I use “female” in the very next sentence.)
Virtue signal. Got it. You want people to like your unlikable self.
And I will urge everyone in earshot to only use “girl” when referring to someone female under the age of 18.
Yep. The feminists will eat you alive for that.
For how I talk? It’s going to take a little longer. I say “guys” all the time. It’s going to be tough to change that behavior. But that seed is in my head. I’m only now understanding how much language matters, and how poorly the status quo is functioning.
Water that seed. Maybe the tree will be useful.
Boys’ locker room mentality. Does your game group meet at a game store? What’s its clientele like? What’s its ambiance like? If it’s anything like the game stores I’ve played at in the past, there are a ton of pubescent boys at the store, shouting taunts like “fag” and “pussy” at each other.
Acting like pubescent boys. That's fine. Avoid FNM like the plague, tool.
Now, if you’re a person who’s obsessed with board games past a certain point, you can let this bounce off you. But not everyone is blessed with thick skin.
You're right. Some of you are whiny over indulged daddy's girls and mommy's boys. Go to your safe space.
And a local gaming environment that’s heavily biased towards teenaged boys is going to alienate a lot of women. No wonder I’ve noticed that I tend to play more women in private rather than in public – 21% of my opponents are women when playing in public, 30% are women when playing in private, at the time of this writing.
More people play at home than in public anyway. They're obsessed with public image, or want to play past closing time.
But if a woman is playing games in private, that means she’s either found a “safe” area to play games, or she’s built one up herself. Not all women get to that point. I’m sure a ton have hit this particular invisible rope and concluded that gaming is not for them.
You sound like the ones that gave up playing a musical instrument after grade or high school. "I used to play X." Didn't care enough to continue? I don't care.
Societal expectations. We live in a society where, by and large, women are expected to tend to home and family while men are allowed to follow their interests.
Women are being pushed to do everything men do by feminism and finding they don't like it. The wife of a friend of mine enjoys games, but not as complex or deeply as he does. By the way, she homeschools their six children, who are happy and intelligent.
This is something I don’t agree with and that I would love to see change significantly in my lifetime, but I think it’s important that we mention it.
Let me tell you something I've observed. Women talk about men. Mothers also talk about their children. These conversations matter to them. Why do you want to ignore their real interests?
I’ve mentioned Dr. Erin C. Davis’ preliminary report on women in boardgaming in some of my other posts. Here are some relevant quotes from women gamers she interviewed…
I can’t play a four hour game. Because I start thinking of everything I should be doing. I should be doing the laundry. I should be taking care of the dishes. I can’t play them. I don’t enjoy them because all I do is sit there and think I’m wasting my time. So any game that’s gonna take more than about two hours I really can’t stand…. (30 year old woman gaming for 1 year).It's not the husbands' fault if their wives won't shut off for a bit and focus on one thing. How much do these husbands make compared to their wives? What's their work stress and fatality level for comparison?
I think that the problem is for me is, when we are playing a game at home, and much to [my husband’s] annoyance sometimes, I am still doing five other things while we’re playing the game. I am making dinner. I’ve got other things I’m finishing up. I think it is just harder for women to detach from all of the other things that they have in their life to take the time out to play a boardgame. Where as men seem to have a much easier time making the time for themselves to go ahead and do that. (42 year old woman with 1 child who has been gaming for over 16 years)
In our group it seems like the women have other responsibilities that the men don’t do. It seems like the guys go to work and they come to the gaming things where women are like, ‘oh I’m off work I have to go home and make dinner or I have to go home and take care of the kids’ (44 year old woman gaming for 3 years)i
Other men staying silent. This, out of all of them, is the hardest one.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve sat at a game table and seen an invisible rope get strung up. And I’ve almost always kept my mouth shut. It’s not the right time, I’d tell myself. Don’t make a pest of myself.
Oh, it's not LARPing you're into is miming. Mimes are pests.
If I see someone being unintentionally sexist, I would like to be more vocal. I don’t want to be rude or alienating about it. But I’ve heard from other women that the best thing they can hear is a man tell his friend, “Too much. Back off.”
Yes. You've written way too much. Back off, you virtue signalling cur.
These invisible ropes doesn’t keep all women out of gaming. You might know plenty of women in your gaming groups. But that doesn’t mean that these invisible ropes don’t exist. Some women have thicker skin than others, and they love gaming so much that they’re willing to put up with all the invisible ropes they encounter. Which is awesome for them, but we can’t expect every woman to have that sort of thick skin. It’s just unfair.
You never heard? Life is unfair. Get over it and move on.
I think this is reflected in my gender project numbers, especially the split between public and private gaming. There are fewer invisible ropes when playing in private, hence the 10% swing for women I play with in a private setting.
More women drink in private, too. Your point?
By the way, the correct term for this kind of unconscious, exclusionary activity is “microaggression,” but I’ve found that term turns people off: “What? No! I’m not being aggressive. I’m didn’t mean anything by it! I’m only trying to help!” I think one of the obstacles to this sort of discussion is that people don’t like being called aggressive, or sexist, or privileged. They feel insulted by it and get defensive. I don’t mean to authoritatively set the tone of the discussion here; I just think people are less likely to get defensive when hearing “invisible rope” than if they hear “microaggression.”
Your girlfriend is a triggered special snowflake? Tell her to get over it. We used to have sanitariums for those that couldn't handle life.
So the next time you wonder why there so many more men than women in board gaming, look at these invisible ropes. Even better, try to see if you’re inadvertently setting up an invisible rope yourself.
Maybe men like conflict and women like talking. Get over it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)