|
Post by daeglan on Mar 15, 2012 20:41:29 GMT -8
One thing the article seems to miss that I think is REEEEAAAALLLLYYYYY important. Talk to your fucking GM. Discuss your issues with them. Don't start with an Article on the internet. Because it makes you a douche bag. And don't start by calling your GM not sexist and then when you are called on the fact that a mechanic that has no potential to be sexist can't be sexist with out the GM being sexist, calling the GM sexist.
Oh and how bout not starting with the assumption that anyone is being sexist.
|
|
joegun
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 249
Preferred Game Systems: Savage Worlds
Currently Playing: Just GM'ing right now.
Currently Running: Rippers Resurrected, and Savage RIFTS!
Favorite Species of Monkey: Baboon
|
Post by joegun on Mar 15, 2012 22:07:13 GMT -8
Interesting debate and perspectives. Based on Kimi's initial thought of her being a bad roleplayer it made me think - What can GMs do to help bad roleplayers get better by using bennies. Personally - I dont know Paranoia or her gaming group that well, so it is hard to judge. She only mentions playing with one GM and one group, so it could be that she is playing in a vacuum. I know my perceptions have roleplaying and systems have changed drastically as i have played with different groups and GMs. Hopefully limited experience is her only problem instead of rampant sexism inherent in a congratulatory based system. Funny thing is, that is my primary use of bennies. Getting people out of there shell. Example: When I GM my nieces and nephews, a few of them use voices, always play in character, ect. They will get a benny if they say something witty, but not just for being in character. However if one of the kids that is a bit shy just happens to use an accent, or kinda play their hindrance a little bit. Or even ask if they should do something because of said hindrance. Automatic Benny! And that is why I really like the flexibility of a very broad reward system. It allows you (as a good GM) to help facilitate play. Maybe I'm not "fair" in handing out bennies but at the end of the night everyone had a good time, and that means I did it right in my book. And as for the sexist thing, and treating women as quiet little things in the corner....Maybe growing up in Southern California has spoiled me a bit, but I have never seen that. We have gamed with guys and girls and the girls are just as good RPers as the guys. Down here we only ignore the Hipsters! But lets be honest those guys have it coming!
|
|
joegun
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 249
Preferred Game Systems: Savage Worlds
Currently Playing: Just GM'ing right now.
Currently Running: Rippers Resurrected, and Savage RIFTS!
Favorite Species of Monkey: Baboon
|
Post by joegun on Mar 15, 2012 22:08:13 GMT -8
One thing the article seems to miss that I think is REEEEAAAALLLLYYYYY important. Talk to your fucking GM. Discuss your issues with them. Don't start with an Article on the internet. Because it makes you a douche bag. And don't start by calling your GM not sexist and then when you are called on the fact that a mechanic that has no potential to be sexist can't be sexist with out the GM being sexist, calling the GM sexist. Oh and how bout not starting with the assumption that anyone is being sexist. Talk to your GM? Really? Does anyone actually do that? It's not like this hobby is a social medium!
|
|
|
Post by ironnikki on Mar 16, 2012 6:57:43 GMT -8
One of these days, I'm going to have to get a copy of Ubiquity, hyvemynd. Until I do though, your posts will continue to serve as helpful reminders to do so :-)
While SW's bennies don't necessarily have strict rules as to what merits doling them out, I tend to use PC's flaws as primary methods of determining how and when to distribute them. I actually rarely issue bennies, which is something that I've been meaning to work on, but I feel that my players have a pretty good idea how to earn one, considering that there's basically a list on their character sheet.
We play a lot of nWoD too, in which each character has a Virtue and Vice. When either of these are satisfied, the character recovers some Willpower, which can be used to add dice to any pool. I know that you're familiar with WoD, hyvemynd, so let me know if I'm incorrect, but this sounds pretty similar to the Motivation and Flaw mechanics you described in Ubiquity. All the same, there can be ambiguity in whether or not the Virtue or Vice has actually been satisfied by a character's actions, which makes the reward system, at some point, subjective. I think I also prefer some structure in subjective rewards, so I tend to impose my own structure on rewards anyway. Interestingly enough, my players earn more Willpower refreshes in nWoD than they have Bennies in SW, despite the fact that Bennies should probably be more plentiful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2012 8:55:00 GMT -8
As anyone who knows my ex-wives can attest, I am a confirmed misogynist; I even had to Google how to spell it!! :-)
Here's the misogynist point of view: She needs to shut her yap and just be happy the men folk let her out of the kitchen with her shoes on!!!
Her point is completely contorted out of any sort of logical reality!! If your group doesn't recognize when you do awesome stuff to the same extent as when the "guys" do it, they are assholes! or what you consider "awesome", isn't! I've been at my job for 12 years, survived 4 years of layoffs and bankruptcy, sole survivor of two departments that were purged, was the number one pick for multiple transfers and promotions, and I have NEVER won any sort of recognition award - I have seen new hires rise to senior management and get multiple awards (including international trips) = does that mean the system is unfair? Maybe, but it really means I need to suck it up, move on or take control!
Maybe she needs to try a turn or three behind the screen to see just how "subjective" and "unfair" things are...
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Mar 16, 2012 9:14:27 GMT -8
Sing it, brother.
As a GM, part of me HATES bennies, because I want to make sure I'm fair with them.
I often forget I'm supposed to give them out, and then I worry that someone's awesome role-playing is going to go unnoticed and think I think their lame or somesuch.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Mar 16, 2012 9:28:44 GMT -8
Okay, I finally read the original blog post and all the follow-up discussion, and I actually think the blogger has a point, but it's not the point that some people think she's making. What she's saying is that it's easy for sexism to creep into mechanics like fan mail in Prime Time Adventures or Perversity points in Paranoia, due to their subjective nature. That doesn't make the mechanics themselves inherently sexist, and it doesn't mean that every GM will use them in a sexist way--but it does mean that players and GMs have to pay more attention and watch out to be sure those mechanics aren't being implemented in a sexist way.
|
|
|
Post by The Barney on Mar 16, 2012 9:40:36 GMT -8
Bennies aren’t fair! Bennies aren't fair in the same way that any RPG isn’t fair. That is to say that 99% of the time it’s going to be set up and graded on a curve. The adventures themselves are written for the group. They fit the skills and abilities that they have and all of the obstacles are set where they can achieve them, but only with some thought and work. Bennies need to be on that same curve. It’s all about doing your best regardless of who else is at the table or how much better they are at something then you. Every player that manages to push the envelope beyond what you expect from them as individuals should get some bennies and it’s really that effort that makes it fun. The one thing the bimbo had right was feeling insulted by pity bennies. If my 15 year old son tells a great one liner related to the story, I’ll give him a bennie. But if a professional comedian is sitting there, he’s going to have to do a lot better then that! Just treat your players like you would your kids after a soccer game. They all get ice cream for playing a good game. Not just the one that did the best while the others sit and watch.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Mar 16, 2012 9:40:46 GMT -8
Agreed (w/ Juliet) -- that's one of the reasons Bennies cause me consternation.
I don't want people to think I'm a dick because of the misapplication of a very subjective mechanic. It's far more likely I would misapply the mechanic because I forgot it existed than for any other reason.
My issue with the article is that she goes out of her way to NOT blame her GMs for bias, which really only leaves one other source of bias -- the mechanic.
That's my issue with the essay -- if there was sex bias, the source of that bias needs to be identified.
There's that weird non-sequitur about how women don't get recognized for acting silly when they do because they aren't raised to act silly.
If we assume there is unintentional bias, wouldn't pointing it out to the person doing it (the GM) be the best way to resolve it?
How else can you have a resolution or avoid it in the future?
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Mar 16, 2012 11:04:28 GMT -8
My issue with the article is that she goes out of her way to NOT blame her GMs for bias, which really only leaves one other source of bias -- the mechanic. I don't necessarily want to be placed in the position of her advocate on this one, because this is a general issue I'm still thinking about, but I think I know what she was implying: that even though the GM was consciously a feminist and was trying to treat everyone fairly, his social conditioning was still coming through unconsciously and causing him reward her less often than the guys at the table. And that the mechanic, at minimum, did nothing to discourage him from this behavior. She was interested in whether a mechanic could be designed that would discourage it. (Maybe I'm exposed to this kind of writing more than most people on this board, because in my experience, this is actually pretty mild for quasi-academic blogging on "isms." It's the kind of thing that just makes me shrug and read on to see what point comes next, but I can see how it might catch someone by surprise.) Well--again, it's something I'm still thinking about for myself, but the idea that "women just aren't funny" is wider than her blog. I thought I remembered one of the Monty Python crew saying once that they didn't use more actresses in their sketches because women weren't as funny as men; when I did a web search, I couldn't track down the exact quote, but I did find a bunch of articles about the "humor gap" idea, which confirms to me that it's definitely out there. As in, it exists, not that it's crazy. Which it may also be, but that's another discussion! Anyway, the blogger probably assumes that her readers will already know about the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Mar 16, 2012 11:48:02 GMT -8
I don't disagree that there's definitely a "women aren't funny" bias. I've seen it plenty.
(I read an account of an interview w/ Jerry Lewis, where he was asked what he thought about women comedians, to which he replied "I haven't seen one yet," or something like that.)
But her argument seems counter-intuitive. If you don't expect a woman to do or say something funny -- and she does -- aren't you MORE likely to notice it?
If you are LESS likely to notice (it seems to me) you are most likely trying to affirm your own biases -- in which case that not a case of "unwitting bias," but rather the real conscious thing. That's my opinion anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Mar 16, 2012 13:22:54 GMT -8
Also, I'm recalling Kimi's conversation with Tracy Hurley (SarahDarkMagic on Twitter), and that's where the most ridiculous statements were made.
When Kimi told me about Hurley and her twitter fight, I checked it out, and it's ridiculous. The blog article that spawned the argument is very mild by comparison.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Mar 16, 2012 15:37:16 GMT -8
My issue with the article is that she goes out of her way to NOT blame her GMs for bias, which really only leaves one other source of bias -- the mechanic. What Stu just said is my issue as well. By titling her essay "Game Design and Sexism: Player Feedback Mechanics", by pointing out that her GM "strongly identifies as a feminist", and including a line at the end of her essay that reads "Are there any examples where this kind of mechanic could promote inclusiveness or equality? I can’t think of any." the author is strongly implying that the mechanics are the root cause of the bias she has experienced. Not the players who are adjudicating them. At the top of the essay, she says that the point of the series is to explore "how specific game design decisions affect inclusiveness and gender equality at the gaming table. In this series, we will point out problems, but we will also discuss examples of mechanics which promote equality and inclusion". Again, by saying that the essay series will explore how game design affects gender equality, she's implying that the game mechanics are the cause of the bias. I certainly don't disagree that there are biases affecting our experiences and behaviors at the gaming table. I certainly don't disagree that the gaming community as a whole needs to be less male-oriented and more inclusive of women. But rather than address the cause of the problems (the players) she's blaming the tools.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Mar 16, 2012 16:35:55 GMT -8
But her argument seems counter-intuitive. If you don't expect a woman to do or say something funny -- and she does -- aren't you MORE likely to notice it? Well yes, provided that you (generic you, not you Stu) actually do see whatever the woman does as funny. If she does something which really hits your sense of humor, then you'll almost certainly see it as funny and react accordingly. But if you're not thinking of her as generally a funny person, then it's possible you could miss or dismiss some of her attempts that don't quite hit the bullseye, making it harder for her to get Perversity points from you than if you came in with the attitude that she's funny. Again, I'm not saying this is my own view of the subject, but that's how I interpret her point. Also, I'm recalling Kimi's conversation with Tracy Hurley (SarahDarkMagic on Twitter), and that's where the most ridiculous statements were made. Oh! Is that who Kimi was arguing with? Much is explained to me now. I don't follow Tracy's blog, but I do listen to the Tome Show occasionally, and I get the impression that she likes being a bit of an instigator--do the words "Death to the Dungeon" ring a bell with anyone?
|
|
|
Post by inflatus on Mar 16, 2012 18:56:46 GMT -8
I think the next Happy Jacks Podcast is going to have a female point of view on the subject.
I cannot wait to hear what Kimi and Tappy ;D have to say!
|
|