[UA] She just doesn't get it, does she? (was: UA uninteniona lly sexist?)

[Twist0059 at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/1/00 4:57:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
J.F.Scott at bton.ac.uk writes:

Long.  Really long.  My god I shouldn't read The Hobbit before posting stuff.


> As a final point, my UA group is exclusively male, (The only RPG group I've
>  even been involved in that can claim that) and when the possibility of a
>  woman joining was mooted, we all had reservations.  It would have changed
>  the game we were playing, changed the whole social dynamic of the group. We
>  decided, even though the woman in question was an able roleplayer, not to
>  invite her into the game, because we all enjoyed the game we were playing.

You know, interesting thing about women and roleplaying (there's a column 
about that very topic at Pyramid, btw, why haven't you subscribed?  <thwaps 
list>).  For 17 years of late Friday nights, later Saturday nights, and 
Sunday mornings where I could have sworn I swallowed a die the night before, 
my group never had a woman play.  Ever.  No girlfriends that came to watch 
(this seems some right of passage we missed), no sisters coming in to mock 
with cries of "dork alert"(you try and look cool playing Trav...:-), no wives 
that screamed from rooms away about what the hell are you doing still playing 
that damned thing,  and no ex-wives who came to get her boxes while we were 
playing.  :-)

No, we were a group of virtual cenobites, performing our rituals in secret.  
(Don't get the idea that we were always the same guys in this group, some new 
faces showed, some older ones left.  But the core of it, four of us, stayed 
through it all.)  Sure those of us who went to the summer conventions gamed 
with women at the demos...but generally we treated them like fellow guys, I 
know I did.  

Then by the sheerest coincidence, two years ago a woman moved into our 
general "sphere of RPG influence" and became part of the troupe.  We didn't 
change our content at all (which has always been pretty Pulp Fiction "let's 
see how tight we can zoom in on the blood in his teeth" style; which is to 
say, no sugarcoating).  We *did* change the way we acted, because this woman 
is a pretty hardcore freeformer.  She owned the oldest, most out of date 
versions of the rules, for she truly didn't care whether the modifier was +3 
or +5, or if you needed to roll against your magic rating to keep from 
burning out, and often we were filling her in on what to roll as the game 
progressed.  

This turned the group, which mainly spoke out-of-character before with the 
standard sprinkling of Monty Python tosses and nitpicked about rules, into a 
group that rarely strayed out of character.  And the gaming experience, 
though lessened for camaraderie, grew in intensity and satisfaction.  (It's 
important to note we didn't do this out of some starstruck awe at seeing a 
lady at our gaming table, for by this time we were all either happily 
married, divorced, or seeing someone.  Rather, we did it because she was and 
is an excellent roleplayer, and inspired it in us.) In short, the difference 
between rollplay and roleplay.

This changes the entire way you read an RPG, or a supplement.  Instead of 
obsessing on rule complexities, you look for content, originality, and 
playability.  Games seem to sacrifice content for mechanics and themes often, 
and new ideas are rare and quickly gleamed greedily.

None of which was necessary for UA.  The entire book is a "roleplayer's RPG", 
much more so than the White Wolf games I've learned.  Rules are there to 
facilitate play and style, not rule it.  (I still gag at the WW use of damage 
tracks and soaking damage rules.  Not nearly as bad as Rifts, but clunky and 
disruptive to play.)  If my one experience with a female gamer is indicative 
of all female player's styles and priorities (doubtful, but Jo herself is 
said to be, IIRC, more into the politics of Vamp than comabt), then the 
ironic thing is UA can't be more a game suited to the way women play, not the 
way men or "lads" play (or are supposed to play if all we care about are 
gadgets, sex, and guns; hell, UA doesn't even give us a catalog to buy stuff 
out of).  It's all about roleplay, it's all about character, it's all about 
what drives us.  Unless said women see pornomancy, get angry at the game, and 
see no more.  

I've never met a woman who actively liked pornography (I know they're out 
there...if only I can find their addresses...), but there's a difference 
between liking some nasty, hardcore sex scenes and being comfortable in 
sexuality.

As for what our lone female gamer thinks of UA....she's borrowed all my books 
on the game and is part of our current Saturday night campaign.  She doesn't 
play a pornomancer, or an avatar of the flying woman.  She *is* a body bag, 
and seems to take perverse glee in making us worry she'll blow her brains out 
someday gaining a charge.  (I'm the GM for that game, and I've adopted Greg's 
"you play russian roulette and lose, you die, sucka" theme on charge 
gathering.)  I've never honestly asked her what she thinks of UA's use of 
pornography or "male interests", so I won't claim she has no problem with it. 
 She very well may.  But in general, she loves the system, she loves the 
setting, and so far she's been having a rather good time in my campaign.  
That's about the only demographical information I can offer on this most 
interesting debate.

And thus ends my tale for the night.  I've written way too many posts today, 
as is.  :-)




-Twist

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua