Women and Gaming

[shadzar]

Shadzar, your knowledge (or the lack thereof) of the early editions of AD&D never cease to amaze me. D&D was not, per se "Beginner" (that only occured after AD&D and attempts to reprint the original D&D material that the word "Basic" was incorporated.

~~~~~

The biggest reason for 2nd edition was to kick Gygax's name off of the game.

The biggest reason for 3rd edition was to kick TSR's name off of the game.

The biggest reason for 4th edition was that WoTC had been staffed by morons who couldn't manage a game to save their own jobs and 4E has proved that beyond all doubt. Therefore they made their own moron edition.

Lets track it down.. Prior to AD&D in 1977, there was 3 years with the limited supply of the 3-volume set Men & Magic, etc.

AD&D was called AD&D because it was an Advanced game. To clearly note that it was the original 3 volume set, and to get away from Arneson...as your rest of the post shows D&D has been apt to throw out the old with each new edition.

Basic also came out in 1978 when the AD&D PHB came out to update it a bit with art and such to make a more "professional" looking game, as well give more people a chance to play D&D as well as AD&D. Both were different games, but could work together.

You are combining what I said into one thing.

AD&D was an advanced game, and expected you had played D&D before... I didn't say expected you had played Basic before. My years may be off, because I have Mentzer Basic from the red box set, not the blue version.

3rd like AD&D, which was built on AD&D with the A removed, did NOT have a "Basic" to go on such as those could have done with the original 3 volume set (OD&D), or the BD&D game.

Many people DID come into 3rd from zero TTRPG backgrounds. 3rd however, like its predecessors, built upon assumption that people have played before...ergo 3rd was written like shit.

OD&D, would have been the basic game...the original.. another problem of naming conventions...that AD&D players had.

3rd had nothing for MANY of the people it introduced into the game, while AD&D also had BD&D out at the same time to give people something to go on. Not another game like Vampire, Rifts, Boot Hill, but a similar D&D that people could compare to.

3rd cut off D&D roots, and propped itself up as the only D&D and failed, as well 4th still does even in its rewriting of the entire purpose of the game, to give an overview of what the purpose of the game is.

These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and DRAGONS to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!
E. Gary Gygax
Tactical Studies Rules Editor
1 November 1973
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin

While not the full intent, OD&D is the one that set up the story component of the game, and gives suggestions of which stories are the ones the ideas are based around. It even states that CHAINMAIL is no more. While still using the term campaign, and relates a lot to wargamers, the campaign was made into something else when directing that wargamers lacking the imagination to use Conan or Gray Mouser, wouldn't enjoy it.

So my point remains. D&D was about story, 3rd had no basic version and just tried to throw people into a game they had no idea what was, because it assumed things existed prior that gave people a point of reference, but for many they did not.

3rd edition players were left to the wolves without even being ofered rope to hang themselves with if they chose that over the wolves.

[tzor]

Nonsense, AD&D did not in any shape for form require knowledge of D&D

The whole of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS was a project which involved varying degrees of my thought, imagination, and actual working time over a period of more than a year and one-half. Because of other demands. the project was preforce set aside for a day or week or even longer, making it hard to get back to. Knowing that this would be the case before I began, the MONSTER MANUAL was selected as the first of three volumes in the advanced game to work on - hundreds of different creatures lend themselves to segmental treatment. Only after that book was finished did I begin to put the sheaved realms of notes for the Players and Dungeon Masters books into order, and that was only the bare bones - tables, charts and matrices - for rough typing and careful rechecking before a final manuscript was built around them.

As an aside, I doubt that any other edition was written in this manner. It goes on and on and on, typical of all Gygax's writings ...

After the PREFACE, there is the INTRODUCTION followed by an explanation of THE GAME. This is followed by CREATING THE PLAYER CHARACTER which then goes from the notion of ABILITIES to RACES to CLASSES to ALIGNMENT to HIT POINTS and the EQUIPPING THE CHARACTER. At no point does anyone have to make reference to a notion that requires a D&D understanding; all the terms are explained as they are used.

This same approach is used in the DMG, providing a lot of explanation for why things are as they are; things that apparently were forgotten by later editions. Gygax's game is not the best game ever created but it was stand alone. It was not meant to be understandable by D&D players only.

[shadzar]

Yes it claims to be a complete game, but how often in life do you thake things you know of for granted, when speaking to someone else, and blindly assume they know what you know. This is what the editions have gone trough over and over with each one. The newest assuems prior knowledge of how to play and general concepts.

The problem is that what Maj, and others, are looking for is left out in current editions, that do not explicit, or even very well imply that the story is the goal of the game.

AD&D does set out to be a hole game and does, but MUCH benefit could be had form playing OD&D or even BD&D before jumping into AD&D.

OD&D mentions directly the stories, and even includes, in some cases, things form them such as hobbits and nazgul pulling heavil;y on those stories and making it seen and known to those people who knew of them. AD&D and others move away from story related, because Gygax didnt like thespianism. HE realized the mistake for taking Arneson's game and trying to marry it with his single unit miniature game. He realized that people wouldn't just want to play the single-unit wargame. People would better want to play out the stories, that inspired him.

Ceratin editions tell of the importance of the story, while others do not.

So what I was asking Maj was what more can it offer, for any edition that it did not already, to see what the game could do to focus more on the story, without trying to force a type of story, but allow all stories to be told within the same game-space of D&D.

[Maj]

The problem is that what Maj, and others, are looking for is left out in current editions, that do not explicit, or even very well imply that the story is the goal of the game.

No. This is not what I am saying.

I'm looking at the PHB as a text book and talking about the ability to learn the rules - to assimilate the information presented. If you approach the subject from the perspective of math and graphs, then the people who will be most likely to play the game are ones who more easily learn from math and graphs. But most people don't learn that way - they learn in a more storied and experiential format.

I understand that the writers of the 3.0 PHB set up the book like you would the rulebook for a board game, but D&D is far too complicated a subject to teach that way. As a result, they created their own idiot filter, in a manner of speaking, and they don't recognize that's what they did.

[shadzar]

The problem is that what Maj, and others, are looking for is left out in current editions, that do not explicit, or even very well imply that the story is the goal of the game.

No. This is not what I am saying.

I'm looking at the PHB as a text book and talking about the ability to learn the rules - to assimilate the information presented. If you approach the subject from the perspective of math and graphs, then the people who will be most likely to play the game are ones who more easily learn from math and graphs. But most people don't learn that way - they learn in a more storied and experiential format.

I understand that the writers of the 3.0 PHB set up the book like you would the rulebook for a board game, but D&D is far too complicated a subject to teach that way. As a result, they created their own idiot filter, in a manner of speaking, and they don't recognize that's what they did.

Thought you were saying the book needs to tell more how to HAVE a story, not give its information in the FORM of a story.

You want to look at a PHB as a textbook, then even illegible to me in the way that made it, 3rd edition is a LOT better than 1st. !st was practically written like a college textbook.

The problem found in 2nd and fixed in part with the book format, was organization into chapters of similar topics, so information being needed didnt require looking for the index or just loose TOC.

3rd followed a nice organized format, but sadly offered less in the way that previous editions did of whats the point, and just got down to raw data, like 4th.

I thought you started prior to 3rd....

Stripping out the images, and aligning the paragraphs and text in 3rd I am able to read it better, but it still reads poorly. Take Warhammer 40,000 rulesbooks, and they give you LOTS of fluff on things and then almost as an aside and hidden, the game rules are thrown in in charts and such.

3rds approach to have everything with a rule and a chart to look it up on goes back to 1st but with good organization. Except of course in the case of starting presentation, that a character sheet it NOT what you want to focus on first as it puts the greatest importance on that.

I am guessing then, that you mean 3rd has too munch crunch and not enough fluff, that it makes your mind wander off because you stop caring about what you are reading because the lists of charts and numbers don't really relate to anything?

3rd says a little about the mechanics of playing a wizard, then gets into the specifics, without giving you a reason to CARE how to play one, because it doesnt make you WANT to play one. Correct?

[Maj]

Ish...

Learning is a cool thing, but in order for it to happen well, the subject that you're learning needs to be hooked to something else you already know. Brains are networks, so if you pick up a new subject and it doesn't connect to anything familiar, it won't stick. You essentially gain an island of knowledge with no boat to access it.

School subjects that welcome students with memorization and math tend to find a narrower and less persistent audience because the equations and charts and vocabulary don't relate to anything the student already knows (the quote I used was applying this principle to university-level economics courses).

If the makers of D&D want to appeal to women (or a wider audience in general), they need to apply this principle to the rule books. My example before was Strength.

Instead of starting with this description:

STRENGTH (Str)
Strength measures your character’s muscle and physical power. This ability is especially important for fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, and monks because it helps them prevail in combat.
You apply your character’s Strength modifier to:
[*]Melee attack rolls.
[*]Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the Strength modifier, while two-handed attacks receive one and a half times the Strength modifier. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow or a sling.)
[*]Climb, Jump, and Swim checks. These are the skills that have Strength as their key ability.
[*]Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like).

Oh, hey. Another chart comparing strength modifiers... With creatures on it I don't know!

They need to start more with something like this:

Strong characters hit better and harder in close combat; they can break down doors; and perform physical activities like climbing, swimming, and jumping better than weak characters.

For a person who's new to roleplaying, things like "fighter" or "ranger" are islands. The player doesn't understand class structure. They don't understand "check" or "skill" or "roll." So the rulebook is essentially asking new players to make some of the most important decisions about their character without the player having any clue what their decisions mean.

It would be like handing my two year old a piece of paper with 2x + 6 = 10 on it and asking him to solve the equation. He'd point at it and say "two" and "x" and "six" and "ten" (and maybe "T" for the plus), but he wouldn't get anywhere, and he certainly wouldn't be inspired to learn algebra.

[shadzar]

So for Strength something like this is better?

Strength
Strength (Str) measures a character's muscle, endurance, and stamina. This ability is the prime requisite of warriors because they must be physically powerful in order to wear armor and wield heavy weapons. A fighter with a score of 16 or more in Strength gains a 10% bonus to the experience points he earns.
Furthermore, any warrior with a Strength score of 18 is entitled to roll percentile dice (see Glossary) to determine exceptional Strength; exceptional Strength improves the character's chance to hit an enemy, increases the damage he causes with each hit, increases the weight the character is able to carry without a penalty for encumbrance (see below), and increases the character's ability to force open doors and similar portals.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

[Maj]

It's a little better, but not really that great.

I would divorce the mechanics entirely from the ability description and keep the charts, but I'd put all the mechanics in one place [so the "fluff" can be easily skipped over] after the initial overview.

Strength

Strength (Str) measures a character's muscle, endurance, and stamina. This ability is the primary attribute for warriors because they must be physically powerful in order to wear armor and wield heavy weapons. The greater the Strength score, the better the character's chance to hit an enemy, and the harder the character hits. More Strength increases the weight the character is able to carry and allows them to act unhindered (see encumbrance), and increases the character's ability to force open doors and similar portals.

Really high Strength scores can have special effects for certain characters (reference).

[shadzar]

It's a little better, but not really that great.

I would divorce the mechanics entirely from the ability description and keep the charts, but I'd put all the mechanics in one place [so the "fluff" can be easily skipped over] after the initial overview.

Strength

Strength (Str) measures a character's muscle, endurance, and stamina. This ability is the primary attribute for warriors because they must be physically powerful in order to wear armor and wield heavy weapons. The greater the Strength score, the better the character's chance to hit an enemy, and the harder the character hits. More Strength increases the weight the character is able to carry and allows them to act unhindered (see encumbrance), and increases the character's ability to force open doors and similar portals.

Really high Strength scores can have special effects for certain characters (reference).

That is what Warhammer does. Gives you several paragraphs about a race, then says know that you know about them, here is the rules to play them. In the master rules book, as well the individual race books.

D&D of course relies on the past and follows the example. Ability scores were rolled first to tell what race or class you were allowed to play with what you got. Newer versions then adjusted that to where you could pick the race and class, and applied your stats. Either way the stats offer little outside of a mechanic.

Many levy the complaint against 3rd that it is too fluff light in many ways, and 4th even worse. There is MUCH more in 2nd and 1st towards the fluff to get you interested if you are a new player.

Look at any race in 2nd edition PHB, and the mechanics were found in the text descriptions of the race for the most part. You then had charts and tables for the things not having to be pulled form the text. From what I understand confusion came from reading the text for the crunch mixed in with the fluff.

I think that can work, so long as all the crunch is then bundled outside of the casual inline text model like you describe.

Give the description and fluff, then after that give the charts and mechanics separate.

The books however would still work towards the same structure of scores first, then race, then class just for the sake of those that actually still want the scores to be able to determine class and race.

3rd jumped in with a VCR manual for the character sheet. 2nd did the same near the front for ease of finding and sort of as part of the table of contents or some such as it was before Chapter 1.

As long as a strong emphasis is placed on the character sheet, or the ability cores exist, I think they will be the thing up front because it is the most used device to access your character.

Probably best for the book to actually explain why this is, and tell new players to skip the character sheet explanation until they are ready to make a character, but to read Chapter 2: Races and Chapter 3: Classes first to get an idea of the game, and come back to Chapter one, when ready to make a character.

Just the nature I fear wont allow it to change the order of the chapters as some people will find a race and want to start making a character right away, so the scores being before it will make that easier for them.

A better preface or intro to the game could help with that as well as general overview of the abilities.

Chapter 1:
Player Character Ability Scores

To venture into the worlds of the AD&D game, you first need to create a character. The character you create is your alter ego in the fantasy realms of this game, a make-believe person who is under your control and through whom you vicariously explore the world the Dungeon Master (DM) has created.
Each character in the AD&D game has six abilities: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. The first three abilities represent the physical nature of the character, while the second three quantify his mental and personality traits.

In various places throughout these rules, the following abbreviations are used for the ability names: Strength--Str; Dexterity--Dex; Constitution--Con; Intelligence--Int; Wisdom--Wis; Charisma--Cha.

Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.

I always thought this was a bit lacking myself, but was short enough to not try to do the job twice since each ability is explained again as I gave with the STR listing in part.

Curiously have you contacted WotC to try to tell them that, if they still have their female correspondent as part of the team? Shelley something was her name. It might serve better than jsut to females as well, since it would mean the designers become better writers, rather than just writers of a technical manual.

Hope I am understanding you know.

[Almaz]

Shelly Mazzanoble served mostly as a really trite, token-female presence than anything useful. She was a marketing gimmick. If I wanted a female WotC writer, I would rather take a person such as Gwendolyn Kestrel. Yes, you also have to realize that she has a writing credit on the Book of Erotic Fantasy, and well, you take the good with the bad... but at least there is good to be had, there.

Shelly by comparison had boobs and the willingness to sell her career based on them. She did not do a single day of design work for D&D. Her claim to fame was marketing a book about how she played D&D, which was mostly an autobiography of her gamer history.

[shadzar]

Yeah, I know she was part of Affirmative Action in work, but she still used to write a column. Does she no longer write anything the public sees? Im sure Erik would put something with pathfinder, but there seem to be many women gamers on that site already... At least it would be something in the gamer public, not that any of the current players would care about adding many new different gamers that look for a change to the way things are done.

Not that any company really cares or listens. They just give a squeaky wheel some grease, not paying attention to the fact it is squeaking because it is about to fall off.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I question if we should even really do anything to "attract" female gamers. I do feel that we should always endeavor to reduce material that would blatantly offend people, but I also don't see the point of changing the game to people who wouldn't want to play it will want to.

Here's an idea. Let's change D&D to Fantasy Football. That way, we'll have players that would never play D&D playing it!

[tzor]

OD&D mentions directly the stories, and even includes, in some cases, things form them such as hobbits and nazgul ...

The only reason "Hobbit" was removed from AD&D was that the Tolkien estate threatened to sue the pants off of Gygax. Having learned that lesson it was only a matter of time before Chaosium (who had exclusive rights to the Lovecraft estate for role playing purposes) sued him to remove all Cthulhu Mythos entries in Deities and Demigods in 1980 (which he did so, requiring a complete reprinting of the book and making the now illegal coppies extreemely valuable).

[sabs]

There's no need to change the game. I will say this though, I'm a guy, and I wouldn't want to play with the people I see playing 4E in the local gaming store.

[tzor]

Here's an idea. Let's change D&D to Fantasy Football. That way, we'll have players that would never play D&D playing it!

Count, that's been done, rather successfully I might add.

I believe it's called "Blood Bowl."