An Experiment in Single-Gender Gaming #1: Glamour and Strife


It's over. We played through the climactic combat, spent half an hour tying up loose ends and detailing the fates of characters we'd played for the better part of a year, and declared the campaign to have reached its end. Then we picked up our dice, finished off the milkshakes kindly provided by one player, said our goodbyes, and went our separate ways, most likely never to unite as a gaming group again. There was sadness at leaving, true, but also a certain strong sense of pride at having accomplished what our characters set out to do so long ago, when the story had first begun.

It's over. We played through the climactic combat, spent half an hour tying up loose ends and detailing the fates of characters we'd played for the better part of a year, and declared the campaign to have reached its end. Then we picked up our dice, finished off the milkshakes kindly provided by one player, said our goodbyes, and went our separate ways, most likely never to unite as a gaming group again. There was sadness at leaving, true, but also a certain strong sense of pride at having accomplished what our characters set out to do so long ago, when the story had first begun.

An experience like this should be familiar to anyone reading Gamegrene. So what makes me presume my own tale of a gaming group is worth not one but two articles on this site? Quite simply, I believe my experience was unique - while it was probably not the only group of its kind ever to exist, it is certainly the only one I've ever seen (at least the only one that lasted for two years). The group was GMed by me, a female, and consisted of five players, all of whom were also female. After the first session I could see this group would be very different from any other gaming group I'd ever been involved with, and I attribute many of those differences to the group's gender makeup. And what do I want you to take away from these articles? Perhaps an understanding of gender-based differences in styles of play, or an answer to the question of whether such differences exist at all - but more than any of that, a simple interest in a type of roleplaying story you don't hear every day.

The group formed in the spring of 2001, mostly from the players' desire to participate in the specific game I'd chosen to run but also with an eye toward doing something different. The players were, for the most part, inexperienced. One had been playing in a mixed-gender group with me since the previous fall, three had recently been introduced to roleplaying by their boyfriends or male acquaintances, and the fifth had never picked up dice in her life. Their inexperience showed at first, but over the course of the group's first year, I'm glad to say that I saw every one of them grow and develop into a talented roleplayer in her own right.

Since then, they've approached gaming with a confidence I hadn't seen before in female gamers. In many of my previous roleplaying experiences, the females involved had been tagalongs at best and nonentities at worst - peripheral participants who were only there because of the presence of friends or significant others. I believe their participation in this campaign was instrumental in helping them to develop the ability to take their enjoyment of the game into their own hands, instead of allowing it to be dictated by others. This time, they had no one else in the group to move the story forward - and no one else to blame if things went wrong. The absence of more experienced roleplayers contributed to this, but so did the absence of the male gamers who have always dominated the RPG world. We had no one to impress, and because of that I believe we achieved something impressive, indeed.

The game was Changeling: The Dreaming, the group was nicknamed Glamour and Strife for reasons I won't get into here, and the campaign was generally lighthearted and not too serious. After one session, I could already see this campaign was going to be very different from anything I'd run before, and the shared gender of the players had a strong impact on those differences. I won't bore you with story after story from the game, but I will try to use anecdotes to illustrate what I view as the most notable characteristics of an all-female group as opposed to all-male or mixed-gender groups:

Identification with the character. Like many beginning gamers, my players made characters that closely resembled themselves. What I wasn't prepared for was how deeply they cared about these characters, and how quickly it happened. In my previous experiences with male gamers, I had ultimately seen a much stronger tendency to treat the character as statistics on a piece of paper at first, with the player only coming to care and worry about the character after having played him or her for a very long time. The women, on the other hand, thought of their characters as people almost immediately and worried about them as such. I learned this when, in one session, I placed PC Eshu's teenage ward in jeopardy in order to move the plot. I didn't think much of it PC Eshu approached me the next day looking very tired and said, "Damn it, I spent half the night awake wondering what I'm going to do about Jerry and the vampires."

The importance of character over plot. Many of my players seemed to have tunnel vision when it came to their participation in the game. They were very concerned about events as they related to their characters' individual experiences, but not as concerned with the big picture. My players kept track of every detail of their characters' lives and experiences and worked extensively to resolve every one, sometimes to the point of getting bogged down in trivialities. They also seemed to spend a lot of time thinking about their characters outside of gaming sessions - in some cases, at least as much time as I spent planning the weekly sessions. This made for some fascinating (and, I think, more realistic) plot twists as every PC looked out for herself and her friends before all else.

Strong attachments to NPCs. Whereas my previous groups had generally been pretty flippant toward their NPC allies, my female players treated them exactly the same as they would treat another PC - including them at all times, going out of their way to keep them happy, and getting curious about the backgrounds of even the most inconsequential extras. This could be frustrating when I really wanted to move the story along, but also extremely rewarding as it forced me to think about all the human factors in my plot and gave my story a lot of additional depth. Case in point: In the very first session, the PCs were attacked by a few NPCs who had been sent to spy on them and discourage them if need be from getting associated with another group. After defeating the NPCs, they questioned the leader and learned that he was just following orders from the Duke and didn't really want to hurt them. But rather than letting him go as I knew other groups would have done, they felt sorry for him and insisted that he come along with them. He was meant to be a throwaway plot device, but he ended up sticking with them for the rest of the campaign and becoming integral to many of the events that took place.

Significant romantic and sexual overtones. Without any prompting from me, the players made their character's love lives an integral part of the campaign. Whenever I introduced a male NPC and gave a description, one of the players would invariably ask, "Is he hot?" In fact, by the end of the campaign, every PC had paired off with an NPC. It happened even in situations where romantic developments seemed ludicrous to me (such as seven-year-old PC Redcap developing a crush on a child vampire). I actually appreciated this tendency since the PCs' attachments to their significant others meant I would always have a convenient motivating factor to put them on the right track for the plot. Again, this gave the campaign a lot of depth but also crossed over into the realm of soap-opera ridiculousness if I didn't keep a tight leash on the players' frequent desire to roleplay out ever detail of their IC relationships.

A sense of community in and out of the game. The players were always coming up with little ways to make the gaming sessions more fun - bringing snacks, coming up with theme songs for their characters and playing them before the session, even decorating a map that showed the path their characters followed during the campaign. The players also spent a lot of time together outside of normal sessions, and spent more time discussing the ins and outs of the game than any other group I've encountered.

Glamour and Strife continued for almost a year, then came to a natural and satisfying conclusion. Heartened by our positive experience, we decided to start a second game - a Mage: The Ascension campaign using Technocratic PCs. I'll let you know how Technocracy Chronicles turned out in Part Two of this article, when I discovered even further dimensions to the challenge and joy of playing with an all-female group.

Always a pleasure to read your articles, Beth. A minor question to bring your group into sharper focus: what is the age group of these women (e.g., high school, college, post-college)? I don't need specifics, just a general idea to help separate the gender-based differences from those perhaps based on age.

I'm looking forward to the second half of the piece.

I've DM'd 2 all female player groups in Dungeons and Dragons. The first was a bunch of drama majors - and they were quite bloodthirsty combat monsters, surprising me with their eagerness to fight first, ask questions later.

The second became an all-female group when the other sole male player from our long running group was booted. This female group was an excellent group, though I could make no distinction between them and any good all male or mixed group I've been in - in style of play or tabletop banter.

Conclusion? Gender matters little in RPG style.

I've also played both Vampire and Mage from the same Storyteller series that Changeling comes from, and I've read throught the Changeling books. In each case, I played with an all male or mixed group. I also played Vampire LARP.

All Storyteller games strongly push character driven plots, as opposed to externally driven plots that are normal in D&D. Combat and tactics take a backseat to improvisation and soft skills. My experiences, with male and mixed groups with the Storyteller series, have been similar to Gamerchick's with her all-female group.

If the 'joy of playing with an all-female' group can be reasonably summed by a sense of community, romantic and sexual overtones, character over plot, and a stong attachment to characters, then I respectfully submit that these qualities result from the Storyteller game system and World of Darkness source material - not from the gender of those playing it.

If I'm reading it correctly, I'm not sure I care for the subtext of the article, since I perceive it as being rooted in hoary gender stereotypes, where feminism and Victorianism become the strangest bedfellows. If not that, at the very least, it does not account for my own experiences in the game. Sorry Gamerchick.

Woohoo! Glad to see another Gamerchick article.

re: attachment to characters, romantic overtones, &c., I wonder has anybody out there ever run or played in a "play-yourself-as-a-character" type campaign? I was once in an excellent one (using the GURPS system) and found all of the benefits of GC's all-female game. (The players of this play-yourself campaign came and went but were about 60/40 male & female.)

What have been others' experiences with play-yourself games?




I dunno, age and expecially Changelling could account for some of the "results" still, I find your experience to be similar to the Vampire game my friend GM'ed till lately. His all women group turned out quite like your own, but still they were playing a White Wolf game that centers on it.

The thing I really like about your article is when you mentionned that there was nobody to try to impress. I guess it's the same with all women in "male dominated" activities, be them professional or leisurely. That must make a huge difference for you. And I think that is a big part of all your articles pertaining to women in gaming. The pressure to perform (be it perceived or real) is much heavier, hence the discomfort that pops up every so often in women gamers. My girlfriend feels that alot, eventhough we show our appreciation of her gaming talent and her unique contribution to the game, she always tells me that as a gamer she feels... second rate?

That being said.

My experience also differs quite a bit from yours with regards to NPC attatchment. I think it depends more on the GM' style (storyteller) than on the players gender. If you convincingly portray your NPC's as more than plot hooks and plot devices, than you will get similar results (whatever the game, to my experience at least).

I must admit that I can't argue againts the rest of the article, since it seems like what I've experienced with female players myself.

Says Sam:
"I must admit that I can't argue againts the rest of the article, since it seems like what I've experienced with female players myself."

Says Neph: So have I, but I have also experienced that with guys, when playing the same game, so it kind of begs the question: 'does it really have anything to do with gender?'

The interesting part for me, is that different games seem to have different kinds of RPG experiences. I think that the gender is just an easy distraction from that point.

At the same time, Sam raises an interesting point, about 'perceived' performance pressure, the constant awareness of being 'the girl' whether or not the boys in a group really think it matters as a distinction and actually treat her differently. I kind of felt the same way once, when a couple of my male friends backed out at the last minute, and I was the sole guy out for a nite on the town about 8 beautiful women including my wife. THEY were fine, and we had a great time - but I felt a little conspicuous though, and I knew it was all me. Not that it was really a bad thing - it was just a different feeling from the normal night out in NYC.

thecraichead, I have done a 'play yourself' game - Mage, albeit I was outfitted with some superpowers. I didn't care for it really. The DM, while a fairly good friend, didn't really know us intimately enough to capture the reality of our environments and friends etc. A couple friends started trying to munchkinize themselves, which strangely had the added effect of making themselves quite egotistical, since they were trying to approximate their own attributes. Imagine trying to quantify Intelligence and Strength etc in comparison with your friends, to the DM. Hard not to offend people, or not to accidentally amuse them with inflated self views.

About playing yourself:

Actually Neph we once had a few tests we ran to approximate our stats in AD&D. Max benchpress for STR, IQ test score/10 for intelligence, Breath holding time for CON and we had a test with a dart board for DEX. CHA and WIS were rolled.

Still I've always found that if you played your real self in any game, you were better to roll your stats but choose your feats (backgrounds, flaws, etc) according to your real life. You get a character that is close to who you are, but you avoid the effects Neph stated.

All in all, I prefer playing someone else. I get to be me almost 24-7 (if you don't take into account RPG's and theatre).

Ballestra, it's a group of college-age women. Started playing in our first year, wrapped up in our third.

Nephandus, interesting perspective. I've often wondered if it was just the White Wolf over D&D element and not the genders, but I've also played White Wolf games with mixed groups and seen how all-male ones have behaved, and it was radically different. Just a variation in experiences I guess, of course all groups aren't like mine. As always, this is only my opinion as drawn from my experiences. Your mileage may vary, and sorry about the subtext. (c;

Sam said:
"I think it depends more on the GM' style (storyteller) than on the players gender. If you convincingly portray your NPC's as more than plot hooks and plot devices, than you will get similar results"

I think Sam is bang-on here. If you want your NPCs to mean something to the players, develop them. Make them interesting. Make them intriguing. Give them personality. What's more, be prepared to give personality and history to whomever the PCs find interesting. I think this is true regardless of gender.



I was thinking of this article and how Gamerchick described her experience and it hit me.

Imagine, just a minute, that I (a guy) had told you about a very similar experience I had with an all male group.

I can see the reactions now:

RE: The romantic/sexual overtones.
This is where a bunch of guys get judged. Men who behave like this around the gaming table will probably be called immature sex crazed adolescents (I probably exagerate) who should (like William Shatner said in SNL) "get out of their parents' basement and get a life" or something to that effect.

But since Gamerchick told us a story of a bunch of women doing this, it's suddenly OK?

It's like those cofee breaks when a bunch of female co-workers or students are having a blast telling how they partied real hard last weekend and finished the night in a male striper bar, although some might say they don't approve, very few people will pass negative judgement on these ladies.

Switch the genders... oh boy! What a bunch of cromagnons! Male pigs! etc etc.

Want another example? Take "The full monty" (an excellent movie by the way) had the genders been reversed, it would have been called a chauvinistic piece of...

While I'm not saying that Gamerchick or most of the women who visit Gamegreen are using a double-standard for what is socially acceptable for different genders, this article made me think of that.

Am I the only one who feels this way?

Gamerchick, would you have reacted as I described above had the genders been reversed in your story? Would it have made you uncomfortable to play with a bunch of men who were focussing on the romantic and sexual themes of RPG?

Well maybe it's just me and some issues I have about men's place in western society.



After too much time spent steeped in feminist critical theory during my MA, I came to the conclusion that for gender 'issues' to be solved, we must dispense with pre-fab myopic binary neo-marxist rhetoric about gender. It doesn't serve us anymore.

Advocates of so-called 'women's issues' often work as hard as the chauvanists to construct an image of women as delicate, virginal, fragile, infantile creatures through their advocacy, seeing divisions where none exist - at least, none that are directly attributable to gender.

In opposing the sexism that permeates feminist rhetoric, be sure that you do not fall into the same rhetorical trap that the feminists have. If "men's place" in western society concerns you, so should any belief system that discriminates or dismisses human potential and comprehension, based on criteria that are irrelevant to the issue at hand - such as gender, race, eye color, whatever.

In this case Sam, you are implying (correctly - I think) that a double standard may exist (and in fairness, gamerchick may not subscribe to that double standard). Double-standards imply that expectations of behavior for one group of people are different from another, where the distinctions between the groups are irrelevant. This is not just a problem for men though, because in the larger sense, it embraces prescribed roles for BOTH men and women - which in itself is the basis of prejudiced thinking.

No, Sam, I don't believe I would have reacted that way at all. If I heard a story about an all-male group of roleplayers in a game with strong romantic/sexual overtones, I would have congratulated them for finding a style of play that suited them and having fun with their game. Once I would have come down on them pretty hard for objectifying women, but I don't think I'd do that anymore. It was my involvement in this group, and how fun it was to watch the characters run about doing this, that helped change my mind about it. It was fun, stayed in the game, and didn't seem to be hurting anyone. Besides, it's kind of hard to objectify an imaginary character to begin with, don't you think?

As for whether I would have felt comfortable playing with them, I'm not as sure about that. I probably would have opted out of such a group just because I'd feel like I was intruding. Then again, most of the male roleplayers around this group were equally uninterested in joining the women to play, and ended up forming an all-male group that met at the same time as an alternative. I guess I don't see how these behaviors are that different from men going to a bar together or women having brunch and excluding the opposite gender - a sort of bonding activity for both.

And Nephandus, I know there are a lot of problems with the feminist movement as it stands. I apply that label to myself because I want to change what it means through my actions and my beliefs. Tall order I know. But we've had this discussion before, if I remember correctly. (c;

Good questions all, and I'll try to address some of them in my next article.

Thanks for the clarification Gamerchick. I suspect we agree that sometimes the nomenclature of the current movement is divorced from the lived reality, and from its origins in the 60’s Women’s Liberation movement, which was based on specific, redressible issues (rather than being a totalitizing conspiracy theory that sprouted from it, rooted in biology – like any other ‘hate’ rhetoric). There is such a range of opinion of feminist literature (including stances that attack feminism as much as I do), that the only thing common among them is that the authors are women.

Think about that for a moment. The exact same stances, when offered by men, are often categorized in bookstores under sociology or cultural studies. If they are written by female authors, they are stuck in feminism, whether they attack feminism vehemenently or if they support it.

I believe that your articles do not intentionally attack or stereotype masculinity. I don’t see intentional misandry in them, which feminism is so often obsessed with (often more than the plight of women). The problem, if you are examining gender relations (as opposed to simply advocating for women, regardless of context), is in the omission. Just as with 'violence against women' days and statistics, the clear implication of focusing on one gender is that there is a different and unfair reality for the other gender, when the reality is far more complex, and may have nothing to do with gender. Or, as is more often the case, both genders support the reality, and both are limited by it

If, in a beer ad, I say, ‘our bottles are steam cleaned’, the implication is that this is a point of difference. It ain’t though.

The moral and logical flaw of feminism, or if you prefer, women-only advocacy is its myopia. One can’t get even a hazy picture of gender relations, or of any other unfair discriminitory practice (as opposed to the perfectly legitimate ones) if you only examine one gender (ie like the ‘violence against women’ industry). All you can get is propaganda (which, effectively, is what I write for a living). Propaganda gets results in the short run, but it spawns its own opposition, like the various men’s movements, which have replicated the range of feminist rhetoric.

I do think that at this stage, you cannot reclaim the word feminism to stand for something that is good – because it never did. That was the “Women’s Liberation” movement, over 40 years ago, and they aren’t the same thing. Feminism was the sinister biopolitical conspiracy theory that grew out of a reasonable, redressable issue.

Dear ghodz Gamerchick, has it been that long. I had not long found your site when that game started up. I remember you writing about the first session.

Admittedly I have not visited in quite some time. I am glad to hear everything came to a satifactory conclusion :)


I guess I kind of over reacted in my last post.

It's been a rough couple of weeks I'm getting short of temper.

By the way Gamerchick definitely doesn't strike me as a misandrist, far from it. And I know she isn't too prone to double standards.

All in all I guess we are veering (is the right spelling veer or vear?) off topic.

The question/subject is: is there really a difference in the way an all female groupe experiences RPG's?
I would surmise yes, but not to the extent Gamerchick mentionned. But then again, maybe there could also be cultural influences (since she and I are from different cultures) that might emphasise or diminish gender difference in this perticular "social" setting...
I'm grasping at straws aren't I?

In general men are physically stronger than women. In general women are more nurturing than men. These are generalities, but they do hold a grain of truth. Does either apply unilaterally? No.

In my twenty years of gaming I have played with many people of both genders. The experience that Beth describes here seems more to reflect the maturity level of the group than the gender (especially regarding the NPCs).

In a recent campaign I ran one of the PCs Girlfriend (an NPC) was threatened by another PC. The NPC was well liked, and they ended up coming to blows to defend her honor. It was an all male group, but the players were mature and the setting very serious.

Congratulations on running the successful campaign, Beth. I don't know how much of it had to do with gender, but you are the best judge of that. I can say that I am happy to see that more and more women are getting into the hobby these days.

Arkelias said:
"I can say that I am happy to see that more and more women are getting into the hobby these days."

Amen to that folks. The more the merrier.

Wow. This is hands down THE best discussion of an article I've read here. Thumbs up to everyone, especially Beth for writing an article on her great "experiment" (which I put in quotes because it might well have just been a fun game for her, not a great investigation into the nature of gaming: either way, studying it is useful).

Beth obviously had a great roleplaying group put together. And it was all-female. Is this necessarily related? Not really, but sort of. I think it's more sociological than gender difference-based. Well, sort of. I just think that it's easier for girls to just relax and be girls if there aren't lots of guys around: and I know that the opposite is certainly true. Similarly, playing RPG's in a public place isn't as satifying, because it's harder to just relax and be gamers when there are lots of nongamers around wondering why you're rolling dice but not moving your little figurine that many spaces on the board (battle mats, in case my bad joke is too obscure).

Actually, I think that an all-male group made up of close friends would have great romantic/sexual overtones, so long as people don't wind up getting embarassed at describing to each other how they'd have a romance. And they'd be able to work on the lives of their characters. On the other hand, you toss a few girls in and either people pair up with their real partners or you start playing around with sexualities to keep everything from being awkward. I'm sure that this isn't necessarily how it'd happen, but I would kind of hope so, because the only positive in-character romances I've seen are ones where it has been established that there's no sexual tension between the players involved.

Actually, cancel that. The best solution is exactly what Beth did: pair up the PC's with NPC's. This way, so long as the GM can keep everything straight (sorry for the bad pun) and doesn't play favorites more than is required in character, it's just "interacting with the universe." Because I really don't like the pressures a character-to-character prolonged romance can take when one character is trying to actually make it real.

I guess my point has drifted away from Beth's great article...maybe someday I should try running an all-gay game. As an actual experiment. Maybe when I have actual time on my hands...These 'alternative' gaming styles might be interesting...

Okay, I'm just rambling now. Time to submit.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to play with many other female gamers (gaming around my town is still a very male-oriented hobby), so I don't know what it's like. I have seen the results when a boyfriend brings a girlfriend into the hobby. But, I'm also happy to say, I have seen it when a girlfriend plays and gets her boyfriend interested. Gender barriers have always been an interesting topic in gaming, and I wish that there were more female gamers in my area, if nothing else for new blood in rpg'ing.

New players, male or female, bring great diversity to the table. I think a good tip for everyone is to not create double standards - i.e., don't stereotype males OR females.

Interestingly enough, and to the great surprise of every roleplayer I meet, my first roleplaying group was a group of 5 girls. We started back in 7th grade. One of us had gotten started roleplaying with her older brother and his friends, but she introduced it to us, and the 5 of us played together for many years, until moving away for various colleges split us apart. I have since played in several other groups, and currently play in a group in which I am the only female.

As many people have already said, it is likely the people and not necessarily the gender that makes the difference, but in my experience, when I was playing in an all-girl group, storytelling-style play (not White Wolf games, but just that style) and roleplaying based on character interaction was much emphasized over battles. In fact, we rarely rolled any dice at all, unless randomness was absolutely needed. Our enemies tended towards schemes and puzzles then throwing half the army at us.

In contrast, since I have started playing with male-dominated groups, I have noticed a much greated emphasis on combat. Not to say that our enemies are not as clever, or the plots not as deep (in fact, they are much deeper and more political, though probably due more to age and maturity level than anything else). But I never had a character fight entire armies of demons, or half the Russian army (including fighter planes and missiles) until I had played with guys.

In truth I enjoy a mix of the two the best, though if a campaign starts tending towards endless battles with minimal character interaction I get bored extremely quickly. But battles mixed into the interaction give more of a sense of danger and tension then could be acheived without.

Anyway, I'm rambling now, so I will stop. Just wanted to add my 2 cents as a female roleplayer who started in an all-female group.

You articles make me miss the days when NPCs existed soley to provide quests, sell weapons, and heal you. When your biggest worry was that nasty old dragon on level 20, when any game was just Diablo
with Mountain Dew and dick jokes about the Magic - User's "Staff", when " romantic and sexual overtones" was bedding that hawt barmaid with a charisma check, which usually failed because good charisma is about as useful as a slimy turd nunchaku (if your spells don't need it). Identification with the
characters was "Sweet, I rolled 18 for strength", and gender roles were " Whoa dude, your character's a chick, she must have bewbs". Those days were good

Gazgurk:Your articles make me miss the days when NPCs existed soley to provide quests, sell weapons, and heal you. When your biggest worry was that nasty old dragon on level 20, when any game was just Diablo...

This makes it seem like you should feel right at home in 4e, no?

No it doesn't

Oh, that's not 4e, zip. Besides, if it is, then all the old style D&D players should be happy, as those were the "good old days." However, you'll notice most old style D&D players hate it. 4e is just as applicable for roleplaying centric campaigns (actually, moreso) as 3.5.

As for woman in gaming, Gazgurk, I'm very glad I didn't find your group when I first got into gaming. I'm glad I found a group that emphasized roleplaying and storytelling, instead of "bewbs." I've been through high school and have therefore heard enough "bewb" jokes to last the rest of my life. I think we can grow up and move on to more mature entertainment.

Of course grown men pretending to be elves and casting magic spells is the epitome of maturity!

I don't think "pretending to be" anything reflects on someone's level of maturity. Maturity is about respecting others and taking responsibility for yourself. Commenting on body parts is considered inappropriate in many situations because it shows a lack of respect. If I were to "pretend to be" an elf at work that would be immature. In a game setting I don't see anything immature about it.

Honestly though, I'm not sure if I should have bothered commenting on your position.

Gamerchick's article explores the sexual politics of the gaming table. I don't tend to delve into that side of the gaming experience. It does seem that she explores it with a level of maturity. She takes it seriously and respects the players at the table. I think "bewb" comments would do nothing but make people uncomfortable.

Yeah, Gaming tables aren't supposed to have sexual politics. Your just supposed to have fun, kill orcs,
and find loot and pretend to cast a spell or two as a nice escape from the real world. People who care about boring things like sexual politics, or realism (shudder) take the game too seriously and personally weird me out more than all the "Body part comments" in the world.

Well, that's for you. For me, I like realistic games. I play games to entertain myself, yes, but I also view it like I view all entertainment - as a way of growing and learning, experimenting. I ask questions through my characters and then play with DMs I know will help me answer those questions and tell their story. I actually take gaming seriously because I take the questions seriously and because I take the power of stories seriously.

But not too seriously :)

Of course, it's your business what you roleplay for and what I roleplay for. We each have different things we're looking for when we come to the game table. The point of articles like these is to facilitate each of our expectations and those of women who come to the table. That's where "bewb" jokes become inappropriate, even offensive. It makes others uncomfortable. Some of us like to simulate real life in our gameplay. Others like to pwn orcs. There's nothing wrong with either. But we all need to allow others to fulfill their expectations and enjoy themselves at the gaming table.

No we don't, If their expectations involve loot, and experience (which it should). F$%K 'em!