The Game Political

Heh heh, well we all know internet forum discussions are 70% taking the piss, 25% didn't read the OP, and 5% earnest concern. If we all just replied "ditto" then it wouldn't be very fun, right?

Well, despite jackwraith dismissing your anecdotal experience, I think this is a real part of male psychology. We want and probably even need male bonding time. Men go out fishing, hunting, golfing, etc and I don't hear much from women about trying to 'invade' those spaces. Same with board games. You can label it 'toxic masculinity' as a way to trivialize or dismiss it, but it is still there. I just had a beer in a brewery where I could watch a dozen men play Warhammer. They probably wouldn't exclude a woman who wanted to play but at the same time they had a male bonding moment because it was just men. This is important and I think most men want this at least some times.

But I also want to share my hobby with my wife and my daughter, so I certainly acknowledge the need for games that serve all of humanity, even while I cherish the handful of games that speak to me as a man (mayhap an adolescent one!) that I might not share with the women in my life.

ubarose wrote: I don’t want some little token cardboard woman shoe horned into a WWII paratrooper game. That’s small potatoes bullshit. We are beyond that.

I want a game about the WASPs where ALL the characters are women. I want them all to be realistically illustrated, with no male gaze in evidence. And I want a couple of those characters to be lesbian coded.

See, this illustrates my point about token representation. If there was a WW2 paratrooper games that just checkboxed in Hispanic, black, Indian, Arabic, and Aboriginal chracters and half were women and a quarter were LGBT+, it wouldn't satisfy you. You want a game about YOU, and WW2 paratroopers ain't it. and you SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SETTLE!!

So games have to speak from a place of authenticity. Some will be for you, some won't, and the vast majority are so abstracted that it doesn't really matter. I'd rather have games that absolutely aren't for me but strike to the core of others (and vice versa) than all games get focus tested into homogenous mediocrity like a Netflix original.

I have spoken.

I feel like I've seen and been in this argument so many times it's rote, so it feels pretty circular, but I don't want to leave uba to have to make this point by herself as I think this is what she's getting at, and she can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I find your continued examples using historical wargames, *in this conversation,* to be a straw man. Maybe there's someone out there making this argument (these people want a trans woman with pink hair in my non-fantasy historical game with the 101st airborne division), I can't speak to it. But in general, I see people making this argument around non-historical games. Alt-history, fantasy, sci-fi, etc. So in the context where we've allowed for lion people or some alt-history world 1920s with squid people, we're in a context where you as a designer can choose to diversify. And many people would welcome being able to play someone who looks like themselves. But we often see fantasy games that don't really do this or do this in only a token fashion. So that's one area of contention.

If I'm engaging specifically your point about historical wargames, since I play a lot of them, the experience can still be weirdly white male focused. It isn't typical that we see POC colonial French or UK forces even though they were a huge portion of the troops---1.5+ million of Indian troops fought in the Commonwealth armies in heavy fighting in main theaters. How often do you see a US civil war game where the Union is using freedmen either directly fighting or even featured extensively in the background images around the game? I do not, typically, yet by the end of the war 200k union soldiers were black, around 10% of the union troops that fought.

On the other subject, I just read it again. I don't know what you're trying to say about male bonding and boardgames or maybe we just fiercely disagree. I categorically reject the idea that the reason women don't play WH40k or whatever is because of any particular characteristic of the subject matter or that they wouldn't like it as "one of the boys." In my experience, it's because those spaces are weird and uncomfortable for women. My spouse loves gaming but has talked to me about how uncomfortable walking into games stores is re: the people there staring at her and how she is treated differently. The idea from my perspective is to wipe that sort of stuff out of the hobby so a woman can come into a game store and feel pretty cool about playing some WH40k with whomever is there. And having armies of characters that look like her or someone that she can think of herself as could really help that. But if you yourself want to play WH40k with your boys, that's great! I don't think the discourse around this is about trying to figure out how to get someone else into your group of male friends who bond and have beers during a game. My read is that it's to create an environment around the hobby where women feel more comfortable getting together and doing the same thing if they choose to as well---and feel welcomed to try the aspects of the hobby that they may have been put off from due to the culture around gaming. Maybe where you live the environment around gaming isn't pretty intimidating re: gender and race. Great, I have no idea! But around where I am, and I hear this from people I know, this is not a hobby that is very welcoming.

Also, to your other more off topic point, just my personal experience growing up in the midwest US and having rural, gun-toting in-laws from the great plains, there are a lot of women who love hunting and fishing in the US but are completely alienated by the macho, toxic masculinity of the hobby and actual comments and harassment they get when they do engage in those activities.

To ubarose, I'm not quite certain that you are being serious, but if you are, then thanks and I agree.

To Sax, I use historical based games just to prove a point. Those games usually bank on at least some level of historical accuracy so you are correct, if a Civil War game is modeling a specific battle where a colored unit was present, then I would expect that unit to be depicted, at least to the same degree as other units (lots of these games use generic unit icons so the ethnicity of the combatants is largely invisible). And if it uses minis, like Battlecry for example, well, there are only so many molds and I'd understand if they went with an image representing 90% (95% if you count the rebels) of the soldiers. But by all means, call out a game that ignores prominent BIPOCs that ought to be there.

But this criticism isn't just levelled at wargames. It is about box art representation like the OP mentions. So games like Caylus, Carcassonne, Viticulture, etc. These games are thematically placed in an era of white presenting europeans and the box art usually represents that. But the GAME ITSELF often has no gender or ethnicity. This is true for virtually every game I can think of. Toss out the box and the game is just the game. The tokens are red, green, blue, and yellow. Or they are minis and quite frankly, those are often just grey or the same primary colors as meeples. It is only the card art that shows a level of detail to really determine a tokens ethnicity (and even then, that can be a stretch for a fantasy race), much less their sexual orientation.

So why are folks clamoring for specific representation in games? Do they want an ethnic themed monopoly (those exist I believe) or just a game with a theme that resonates with their specific group? If so, then I agree that games have largely stagnated on the same couple of safe themes that folks seem to buy over and over.

I'm still waiting to see examples that illustrates that this is a problem beyond artwork however. This isn't really an issue with GAME MECHANICS. I can think of only a few games that expressly force heteronormative behavior. Stone Age, like I've already mentioned, maybe Life if they still use blue and pink plastic sticks, and Village, which IIRC had lineage as a main gameplay component. I'm sure there are some strategic conflict games that have dynasty matchmaking and whatnot as well. But virtually every other game I can think of has no sex whatsoever and I don't think artwork alone can depict LGBT+ without some pretty egregious stereotypic artwork (or a lore blurb I suppose). Same with ethnicity. I don't know of many games that specifically highlight ethnic differences between players or game tokens other than in a specific conflict (A US versus Japan WW2 game or Puerto Rico for example) if you take the art out of consideration. So prove me wrong on that point.

Ethnicity in games is mostly just a matter of artwork. And I think that has largely been rectified in the past 10 years. A lot of games have a very limited budget so they can only depict so much variety but the 2 games I've played most recently, Tiny Epic Tactics and Dungeon Mayhem, still manage to have a diverse cast within the limitations of what they can do. I think the message of diversity has been received. So again, show me that this is a CURRENT problem with game art.

Folks will bitch when something they are used to gets changed in a seemingly arbitrary way. This is true across all pop culture, not just games. Diversity is best introduced via new, original, and exciting characters rather than altering an existing IP just to adhere to a checklist (though in my experience when done really well no one complains).

I'm all for games from new and innovative sources. I just think that effort is better spent finding and boosting those types of games rather than decrying the state of current game offerings from the Asmodee monolith.

If you open a bar that exclusively serves gin you’re going to attract gin drinkers. If somebody suggests adding beer, it’s very safe to say, “but everybody here likes gin.”

I think the big majority of the hobby game industry is only selling gin.

jason10mm wrote: Even your own link (as much as a wiki is an authoritative source) uses an adjusted pay 'gap' of 5%. Hardly an amount that ought to suppress women from creating or playing any games they want. I don't think that is a valid excuse for a lack of female game content. Nor do I think police activity somehow suppresses black would be gamers. I just don't think board games in general appeal universally, particularly relatively expensive hobby games, it is more of an economic disparity than an ethnic one I think (I doubt you will find many copies of gloomhaven in a rural West Virginia trailer park either).

Even at 5% this is a huge amount of money over the course of a working lifetime. It is not only money that stops women being more involved in the hobby as well. If women see the hobby as dominated by white, male gamers then it doesn't seem very inviting does it? There are loads of societal reasons that women have less free time as well, but that is a debate for another forum.

Board games don't appeal universally? Maybe not all but they absolutely can. See families buying copies of scrabble, or trivial pursuit or more mainstream games to play at christmas. The hobby side of board games often forgets that side of tabletop gaming and surely some companies must want a piece of that action. This appeal can come down to different themes, see the success of something like Wingspan.

jason10mm wrote: Diversity should be organic from the start. It will fill a demand if the audience is asking for it. I think almost every game is already there unless you just want to ban European themed games entirely.

No one's asking to ban games here. However, most euro games have white men on the cover. There are more animals on covers than women or people of colour. Try to think for a moment how you would feel if you couldn't see yourself in the hobby. If you didn't feel represented in the art or design decisions of a game. The call for diversity isn't one that calls for the banning of games, it calls for the inclusion of people. People are asking to be included in our hobby, and it is so simple to include women and people of colour by making different choices in art, in actively welcoming them into our gaming groups, and encouraging them to take part. Alongside this comes the need to criticise games that should go further, or have questionable stereotypes portrayed. Every form of art needs this, and boardgaming feels like it is just realising this. As I say in the article, it will be difficult and there are hard questions to be asked, but I believe they are worth asking so that the hobby can continue to grow and welcome everyone to the table.

I have been back in the hobby for about 10 years now, and have played game or set up groups in Europe, West Africa (where I was working), and New Zealand where I am from. Playing board games in West Africa was a wonderful and enlightening experience. I was working in Abidjan, and with a Belgium colleague we set up regular board game Saturdays. Most of the participants were expats from other parts of Africa or Europe, and many had never played modern board games before. My own observation was that most people really enjoyed the games, and that it was a lack of exposure (and resources) rather than a lack of interest in gaming that is generally the barrier.

Generally speaking, playing board games requires either discretionary income or discretionary time or preferably both. Whilst a lot of modern board gamers mention playing games with families in their youth, those families had discretionary time and resources. BIPOC families probably had lack of discretionary income whereas women often had a lack of discretionary time as well as gendered role expectations. These conditions led to an overwhelming predominance of white males in the hobby, which, in turn, led to many more white male designers designing on themes that appealed to this target market. But, with changing social conditions, expectations, and exposure, boardgaming has the potential to be much more accessible. But this requires much more in the way of representativeness in games. If you can identify with the theme or a character, it is much easier to enter the magic theater. If you have a bigger pool of players that are women or BIPOC, then it is likely that there will be more designers with these backgrounds as well. After all, most designers were gamers once. Bigger pool of players, bigger pool of designers, bigger choice of themes, better hobby. (A wee bit simplisitic perhaps).

Sagrilarus wrote: If you open a bar that exclusively serves gin you’re going to attract gin drinkers. If somebody suggests adding beer, it’s very safe to say, “but everybody here likes gin.”

I think the big majority of the hobby game industry is only selling gin.

That's a very succinct way of putting it.

And what I hear from a lot of other posters is that new people won't try gin because there is a picture of a dour white guy picking juniper berries on the label.

Anyway, I'll just leave this link here. It gives a lot to think about on this topic and what people are saying about it.

I have more or less nothing new to say on this subject but im going to run my mouth anyway.

I would appreciate greater diversity of characters and stories in games. Not particularly to include me, I am about as middle class, male white and English as they come but because having a half a century of games out their available to me I am a little bored of the standardised settings and narratives.

My wargaming credentials are pretty solid. I mostly play operational / strategic games where all units are depicted with nato symbols so beyond box art, sex and ethnicity is not really given. However in a tactical game I wouldn't have an issue with female paratroopers. Unless the game is explicitly shooting for painful realism and a specific engagement. Most games compromise heavily on the history for play-ability and accessibility. Many lighter games like say Memoir 44 really just waft the idea of history generally about. You are not going to learn much about Market Garden from a M44 scenario, so why decide the sex of the plastic bits or card art is sacrosanct. Also I echo Gary Sax, it continues to amaze me that you never see Indian or non european dudes in WW2 African or middle eastern theatre games. This is partly a general history bias. I've read a thick history book and some smaller ones on the Burma campaign and played OCS burma. You could be forgiven for thinking the entire force was from Sussex or something as only brits get mentioned by name. I don't know the exact numbers by i'm not sure the UK even fielded 50% british force in the theatre.

As others have said we are in this position as consumers largely because the market is more interested in exclusively white guy entertainment. Not only is there a serious issue of prejudice but this is also profoundly dull. There is a desert of blandness in the imagination of much of the boardgame industry and its consumers.

ubarose wrote: Yes, this is exactly it. If publishers start marketing to women and BIPOC now, we'll get a bigger pool of players now, which means a bigger pool of designers in the future.

I completely agree. So how to go about doing it? Retheme game art aesthetic to something that has a broader appeal? Develop game art for specific audiences with multiple versions of the same game?

I notice that you guys just put up a review of a BTTF dice game. In this game that plays 4, they just reuse Doc and Marty! Would it be preferable to have 2 or more new characters to broaden the character pool beyond 2 white guys? Or does the IP alone make it justifiably exempt? Could the high visibility of a feature review have been better spent in a game with more diversity?

I'm not just being snooty. If there is a call for developers to widen their game appeal, I think it needs to apply to game review/discussion sites as well. Or at least give a consistent standard of what is and isn't deemed acceptably diverse. I think that has already been achieved for most game publishers where it makes sense though.