Why Has D&D Been Such an Easy Target for Cultural Marxists?

[Brad]

A biologist will make a statement like, "Male bonobo monkeys like chocolate ice cream, the females prefer vanilla. This is an example of sexual dimorphism, specifically related to the development of the taste buds." Then because of cultural Marxism state, "Men and women have no discernible differences, it's all a product of misogynistic social constructs." Even though we don't even have the same fucking genetics...men and women might as well be different species who just so happen to be able to produce children.

In the context of D&D, RPGs are a male-dominated hobby because it's something that appeals to men. There is nothing magical about that statement. There are women who like RPGs, but their reasons for doing so are almost always different than the dudes. I think once companies like TSR et al realized they could make a lot more money appealing to women with certain aspects of gameplay, that's when it all started going downhill. 50 page backstories for a 1st level character definitely appeal to females; lists of polearms are for dudes. The Marxists just saw this sort of corporate pandering as a doorway to destroying something that dudes like because getting rid of male-only spaces makes male friendships almost impossible which makes taking over a population easier.

[Banjo Destructo]

I would say that probably because marxists are more likely to have less fufilling/involved private lives and careers, and are more likely to keep being angsty baristas, line cooks, and other low level jobs for longer, so they find fufilment in volunteering as mods and admins in online forums and websites and fuel their own ego by exerting their own ideas and beliefs with selective enforcement within online communities.

[Trond]

A biologist will make a statement like, "Male bonobo monkeys like chocolate ice cream, the females prefer vanilla. This is an example of sexual dimorphism, specifically related to the development of the taste buds." Then because of cultural Marxism state, "Men and women have no discernible differences, it's all a product of misogynistic social constructs." Even though we don't even have the same fucking genetics...men and women might as well be different species who just so happen to be able to produce children.

In the context of D&D, RPGs are a male-dominated hobby because it's something that appeals to men. There is nothing magical about that statement. There are women who like RPGs, but their reasons for doing so are almost always different than the dudes. I think once companies like TSR et al realized they could make a lot more money appealing to women with certain aspects of gameplay, that's when it all started going downhill. 50 page backstories for a 1st level character definitely appeal to females; lists of polearms are for dudes. The Marxists just saw this sort of corporate pandering as a doorway to destroying something that dudes like because getting rid of male-only spaces makes male friendships almost impossible which makes taking over a population easier.

There's a key point here " I think once companies like TSR et al realized they could make a lot more money appealing to women with certain aspects of gameplay, that's when it all started going downhill.". I'd just adjust it to say; they THOUGHT they could make a lot more money....
I think this is a key to institutional capture; money-hungry people heard words like "diversity" and thought that they could earn more cash by inviting SJWs in, thinking they would reach more "diverse" parts of the population.

[Armchair Gamer]

I'd call it a combination of O'Sullivan's Law ("Any organization not explicitly right-wing will become left-wing over time") and the production/acquisition of the key brands in the marketplace by companies with explicitly left-wing sympathies. The industry thus drifts left; the hobby remains more diverse, but the less left-wing elements tend to disconnect more from the Official Brands as time goes on.

[Brad]

I'd just adjust it to say; they THOUGHT they could make a lot more money....

Yeah, and it never quite works out because you alienate the main audience to possibly gain an audience who really doesn't care that much. The biggest culprit for this sort of shit is college football. If you watch more than ten seconds of College Game Day, you're going to see multiple stories that have fuckall to do with football. A show literally about football has "human interest" crap to appeal to women. "Jack Smith wanted to be the starting quarterback for the University of Iowa, but when he turned 12 he discovered that his aunt's roommate Sarah's goldfish had cancer and died suddenly. Sarah flushed the goldfish and from that day forward refused to see Jack play because he once remarked at age 3 that the goldfish was 'funny looking'. Today, however, she's in the stands to see him start his very first game at QB for the Hawkeyes." Like WHO GIVES A FUCK? I say that and yet...my wife is a huge college football fan and eats this sort of shit up. She always watches those idiotic segments. But she will ALSO watch the games, too. A lot of the women who are interested in Jack Smith could give one fuck once the game starts, so all ESPN really did is give the dudes time to make a beer run; the audience size is roughly the same overall.

[Ratman_tf]

Pinball is an interesting counterexample. Some of those guys are still thinking that "woke" is a bit of a joke (showing that they are a bit in their own world). When social justice comes up they typically point and laugh. I have seen people bringing up counterpoints like "we should reach out more to women" (which is typically how this starts) but it usually goes nowhere, thankfully. Women can join if they want to, but don't pander to them. Road to hell, and all that.

The intentional irony is that they change a hobby to more fit their ideology until it's no longer appealing to the core audience.

[David Johansen]

I think the first steps on the path were when TSR realized they could make more selling to adolescents if they didn't scare their mothers as much.  I suspect Lorraine Williams was a big source of pressure on this front as 2nd edition was created under her watchful eyes.  But even basic clearly had cleaned up the content to make it family friendly.  But it's a death by a thousand cuts.

And yes, WotC would be quite happy if the old fan base fucked off and died.  I'd swear there was a thread or two about it on the main rpg board this summer.

[jhkim]

In the context of D&D, RPGs are a male-dominated hobby because it's something that appeals to men. There is nothing magical about that statement. There are women who like RPGs, but their reasons for doing so are almost always different than the dudes. I think once companies like TSR et al realized they could make a lot more money appealing to women with certain aspects of gameplay, that's when it all started going downhill. 50 page backstories for a 1st level character definitely appeal to females; lists of polearms are for dudes.

There's a key point here " I think once companies like TSR et al realized they could make a lot more money appealing to women with certain aspects of gameplay, that's when it all started going downhill.". I'd just adjust it to say; they THOUGHT they could make a lot more money....
I think this is a key to institutional capture; money-hungry people heard words like "diversity" and thought that they could earn more cash by inviting SJWs in, thinking they would reach more "diverse" parts of the population.

I don't agree with this zero-sum with respect to women. I started D&D when I was in elementary school in the 70s and girls had cooties, but by the time I was a teenager in the 80s, I liked having women in my gaming group, and I don't think I was alone. D&D has often increased its appeal to men when it increases its appeal to women - as long as it was something fun that they both enjoyed, not niche interests. Most women gamers don't like 50-page backstories, and most men gamers don't like obsessive lists of pole arms, but there is plenty of overlap.

D&D was marketed as a mixed-gender game rather than a guys-only game since the release of AD&D, and I don't think that was a bad thing. By parallel, the board game market in the 1990s started a massive boom when new games started coming out that were of interest to adult couples starting with Settlers of Catan.

I think tabletop RPGs are broad enough that one can have "men only" games as well as mixed-gender games and "women only" games. They don't have to appeal to only one market.

Can changes and marketing be done badly? Of course. There were a lot of D&D trends I didn't like. I didn't like the point-scoring tournament dungeon trend of the 1980s, or the storyline module trend of the 1990s, and a lot since then. But I don't think the whole concept of appealing to new markets like women is a bad idea.

[Ratman_tf]

. But I don't think the whole concept of appealing to new markets like women is a bad idea.

I do think it's a bad idea.

Not women specifically, but the idea of appealing to new markets. This invariably leads to the hobby or fandom in question to dilute and eventually abandon what made it popular in the first place in order to appeal to a gradually expanding sphere of potential new customers who may or may not manifest.

In the case of appealing to women (a very sexist attitude, BTW) we wind up having to define what appeals to women. Is it "lipstick and nylons"? to paraphrase CS Lewis. Should we take all the violence out? Put in more soap opera style drama? The women I've gamed with would likely roll their eyes at that idea.

Here's my opinion. I'll game with anyone of any sex or orientation or ethnicity. So long as they're on board with the idea of having fun adventures. If someone comes along and pitches a fit about how I run my game, they can find another table. I don't owe anyone a game. If they pitch their fit over "colonialization" or "the patriarchy" or "evil races" or whatever topic du jour the lefties are complaining about, they can piss right off a bridge. My game is not your soapbox.

[GeekyBugle]

In the context of D&D, RPGs are a male-dominated hobby because it's something that appeals to men. There is nothing magical about that statement. There are women who like RPGs, but their reasons for doing so are almost always different than the dudes. I think once companies like TSR et al realized they could make a lot more money appealing to women with certain aspects of gameplay, that's when it all started going downhill. 50 page backstories for a 1st level character definitely appeal to females; lists of polearms are for dudes.

There's a key point here " I think once companies like TSR et al realized they could make a lot more money appealing to women with certain aspects of gameplay, that's when it all started going downhill.". I'd just adjust it to say; they THOUGHT they could make a lot more money....
I think this is a key to institutional capture; money-hungry people heard words like "diversity" and thought that they could earn more cash by inviting SJWs in, thinking they would reach more "diverse" parts of the population.

I don't agree with this zero-sum with respect to women. I started D&D when I was in elementary school in the 70s and girls had cooties, but by the time I was a teenager in the 80s, I liked having women in my gaming group, and I don't think I was alone. D&D has often increased its appeal to men when it increases its appeal to women - as long as it was something fun that they both enjoyed, not niche interests. Most women gamers don't like 50-page backstories, and most men gamers don't like obsessive lists of pole arms, but there is plenty of overlap.

D&D was marketed as a mixed-gender game rather than a guys-only game since the release of AD&D, and I don't think that was a bad thing. By parallel, the board game market in the 1990s started a massive boom when new games started coming out that were of interest to adult couples starting with Settlers of Catan.

I think tabletop RPGs are broad enough that one can have "men only" games as well as mixed-gender games and "women only" games. They don't have to appeal to only one market.

Can changes and marketing be done badly? Of course. There were a lot of D&D trends I didn't like. I didn't like the point-scoring tournament dungeon trend of the 1980s, or the storyline module trend of the 1990s, and a lot since then. But I don't think the whole concept of appealing to new markets like women is a bad idea.

Anecdotal "evidence" isn't evidence at all.

Let's see the claims made so far:

A) RPGs attract mainly boys/men
B) There's ALWAYS been some girls/women playing
C) Trying to make D&D appeal to all is a fools errand

Unless you can provide hard evidence (no, your anecdotes don't count) to disprove A or B or to prove there weren't more girls/women because "Teh Patriarchy tm" C follows

Let me put a different example with different market demographics:

A) Pink novels and Bodice Rippers attract mainly girls/women
B) There's ALWAYS been some boys/men readding those
C) Trying to change those novels to appeal to all is a fools errand
D) You'll never see any man, unironically, demanding those be changed to include more explosions, car chases, gun fights and less romance

YES, it is a zero sum game, because to attract more women to a male dominated hobby you need to change the hobby to appeal to them, but men and women don't like (in general, as a trend, the majority, most) the same things; so you need to have less of what boys/men like and more of what girls/women like.

If you could somehow attract ALL women it would be solid business, because not all men like RPGs, but you can't.

So you end up chasing away your core audience while making very small to zero gains in the other markets.

We've seen this play out time and again and it always ends the same:

Comic Books, the main stream American companies are struggling
Superhero movies/tv shows, just look at the disaster that's Marvel phase bore and five and their tv shows
Star Wars, same as the previous

For fucks sake Lego commisioned a study that found that boys want to be Batman and girls want Batman to be them. They were smart and created a line to appeal to girls.

https://twitter.com/kevinbolk/status/1639616653292974085?lang=es

https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/set/assets/blt286410a1ba5b807a/bits_n_bricks_s01e07_lego_friends_a_conversation_feature_and_transcript.pdf

The science backs my assertions, it's something even our closest relatives (cumps and bonobos) have
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210014491

Now stick to the points and the facts you can prove with hard evidence.

[Armchair Gamer]

TSR was able to broaden the market to women without sacrificing the core game, at least to some degree--Dragonlance and Ravenloft were both noted for the above-average levels of women in their audiences.

[Ratman_tf]

TSR was able to broaden the market to women without sacrificing the core game, at least to some degree--Dragonlance and Ravenloft were both noted for the above-average levels of women in their audiences.

I would argue that Dragonlance and Ravenloft stand as RPGs without especially having tried to "appeal to women".
Making an rpg that happens to appeal to more women isn't a bad thing.
Actually aiming to appeal to women is wagging the dog.

This is probably a good time to bring up RPGs that seem to appeal to women out of the gate. Stuff like Vampire the Masquerade. More role play heavy and less combat/loot/power oriented. I don't know for sure, but I suspect such games were made with the goal of being role play heavy and combat lite, and not aimed at a specific sexual demographic.

Make the game you think will be fun. Let the demographics fall where they may.

[jhkim]

But I don't think the whole concept of appealing to new markets like women is a bad idea.

I do think it's a bad idea.

Not women specifically, but the idea of appealing to new markets. This invariably leads to the hobby or fandom in question to dilute and eventually abandon what made it popular in the first place in order to appeal to a gradually expanding sphere of potential new customers who may or may not manifest.

The whole reason why D&D became a phenomenon is by appealing to new markets. Do you really think D&D should have continued to only cater to the market of miniature wargamers who played Chainmail?

I suspect even most of the "old-school" players here on this board didn't get into RPGs via miniature wargaming. Personally, I was in preschool when Chainmail was published, and I never played miniature wargames until much later, briefly trying it as one-shots.

In the case of appealing to women (a very sexist attitude, BTW) we wind up having to define what appeals to women. Is it "lipstick and nylons"? to paraphrase CS Lewis. Should we take all the violence out? Put in more soap opera style drama? The women I've gamed with would likely roll their eyes at that idea.

The idea that D&D was changed to appeal to women came directly from Brad's and Trond's posts which I was replying to, so I'd be curious what changes they were thinking of. I think there is a clear shift from original D&D which had no mention of women PCs, to AD&D that specifically had rules for women characters, and particularly the Basic Set that had many prominent examples of women as players and characters. Also over this time, D&D went from being a wargame option to being more a game of imagination in its own right.

[jeff37923]

And yes, WotC would be quite happy if the old fan base fucked off and died.  I'd swear there was a thread or two about it on the main rpg board this summer.

I think that you REALLY saw that come out with the marketing for DnD4e.

[BadApple]

The whole reason why D&D became a phenomenon is by appealing to new markets. Do you really think D&D should have continued to only cater to the market of miniature wargamers who played Chainmail?

This is an absolute shitty take on it.  No product of any type has universal appeal.  Ever.  A product that has a large following being changed to "broaden it's customer base" always turns the product into shit.  Disney Star Wars, New Coke, and Ford female friendly marketing are examples of this.

D&D wasn't actively trying to appeal to new markets, it was trying to make the best version of a new style of play.  It wasn't twisting itself and compromising to try to bring in customers that weren't interested.

As it grew and more people experimented with a variety of styles of play, some succeeded and others didn't.  Some of the new styles appealed to players that weren't interested in RPGs before.  We ended up with forks in RPG development that catered to different kinds of players.  The idea of having a universal RPG that appeals to the broadest possible audience will in fact turn out a bland product that no one wants.

Is Marvel Comics better now?  Is Sears?  How about Basketball?  It's all shit now due to the over indulgence of trying to appeal to new markets.