Some final thoughts post-Avatars of Story: Is there a gender divide in the narratology vs. ludology debate? Try this excerpt on for size:
“In a classic paper, the MUD designer Richard Bartle had distinquished four types of players among the denizens of virtual worlds: killers, achievers, socializers, and explorers… Killers and achievers are primarily ludus players, socializers and explorers paidia players. We can expect these four typse of players to display significantly different attitudes toward narrative. Killers and achievers may regard narrative as a quickly forgotten, disposable commodity, good only to provide clues for progressing in the game. Socializers will exchange stories about the game-world, perform small narrative scripts of their own invention, and generally enjoy the enactment through role-playing of the narrative design written into the game. As for explorers, they will view the game-world as a space full of stories awaiting discovery” (Ryan, 199).
Perhaps I’m not the first one to mention it (I’m ready and willing to admit I’m not a regular follower of this issue) but it seemed to me that what Ryan described could also be looked at through the lense of gender. Typically, killers and achievers are “male”; socializers and explorers are “female”. And given Ryan’s explanation of what narrative would mean to these different types of players, it makes sense that we would also see gender trends in the thinkers who side with narratology or ludology.
As far as Avatars of Story is concerned, the narratology=female, ludology=male conjecture seems to hold true(ish). Ryan brings up more women who side with narratology–including herself– and more men who side with ludology. But it could just be coincidence. Is this a setup other people have noticed? If so, why would women be more prone to stand up for/identify with narrative?
September 1st, 2006 at 1:36 pm
“Narratology?” Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ.
September 2nd, 2006 at 11:53 am
In the paper about player types that is cited (read it at http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm) I do actually mention this. To save you looking through, the line is: “A cynic might suggest that the relationship between socialisers and achievers is similar to that between women and men…”.
That doesn’t make it any more or less true, of course, but I thought you might like to know it’s not an isolated or off-the-wall viewpoint.
Richard
PS: Google blog search, if you’re wondering how I found this post!
September 4th, 2006 at 12:11 am
Does wanting to explore and socialise in games make me (a male) less of a man? Effeminate? Have female killers and achievers given up some of their soft womanliness to become hardened and accepted by boys?
The male who plays a female in an MMORPG, for the purposes of socialising, where do they fit in? What if they are mainly socialising with other males, playing females?
September 4th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Hi Richard. Thanks for elaborating. I suppose that makes me a cynic :)? I wonder what makes that cynical though?
September 5th, 2006 at 9:28 am
I think it’s fair to say that women tend to skew towards narratives, men tend to skew towards mechanics - not just in games, but elsewhere in life. Men are more prone to liking conflict and competition, which covers everything from football to action movies.
Now as to why that’s the case is beyond the scope of a humble blog comment such as this… :-)
September 6th, 2006 at 7:38 am
Now as to why that's the case is beyond the scope of a humble blog comment such as this"¦ :-)
Or a humble blog like this. Someone tell me the answer! :)
September 6th, 2006 at 8:01 am
“Someone tell me the answer!”
Girls like stories, boys like winning by blowing up crap?
Hey, I never said I had the right answer…
September 6th, 2006 at 8:03 am
But why? Why?!
September 6th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
42.
September 6th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Thanks for the MUD paper, this made great reading, and helped me find the answer to some problem I’ve had for some time.
I had never really understood where my uneasiness around some “paladin” or self-appointed bodyguard players in MMORPGs is coming from. Simple: they’re killer-socialisers.
September 9th, 2006 at 9:17 am
My intuition is that this is connected to the classic gender-studies “validation by self” / “validation through others” divide. Wanting to win the game, on one hand, and wanting to win in others’ estimation on the other.
September 10th, 2006 at 3:28 am
Bonnie>I suppose that makes me a cynic :)? I wonder what makes that cynical though?
If, in the paper, I had asserted such a tendency for playing styles to partition along gender lines, I’d have been shot down for suggesting that there may be some differences between men and women. Therefore, to record the observation, I had to couch it in terms that would stave off such an assault. This was somewhat cynical of me, therefore the line “A cynic might suggest…”.
Richard
September 10th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
Ah, the old (touchy) inherent difference debate. It certainly does become a fine line when you’re talking about differences in tendencies (or in gender constructions) vs. differences in sexes themselves. Even cynics can get mauled ;).
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:57 am
“My intuition is that this is connected to the classic gender-studies "validation by self" / "validation through others" divide. Wanting to win the game, on one hand, and wanting to win in others' estimation on the other. ”
And this is why it’s dangerous to try to explain the differences with a pat answer.
I get how socializing is validation through others, but how in the world is exploring validation through others? Seems like just plain curiosity to me.
The killers and acheivers being “validation by self” seems a little shaky to me as well, seeing as how the whole point is often to compare yourself to others. It’s not quite on the level of socializing, but peer status plays a role.