Mark—Well, I can’t pretend that the question of gender neutral language isn’t an open debate; I just know that I strongly prefer so-called gender-neutral or non-sexist language. Authorities advocating for of the use of “he” for “he or she” dates back only to the 19th century.

I prefer to try to write for an inclusive audience, and I know for a fact that some women find the exclusive use of “he” alienating. To take an example from withing the tabletop gaming community, Lisa Steele, author of the oustanding GURPS Mysteries, has gone on record as finding SJ Games’ policy of using “he” as neuter uncomfortable. (This hasn’t stopped her from writing for them and abiding by this restriction, of course.) Bill Stoddard, another great GURPS author, agrees, pointing out that the fact that generation after generation of children reinvent “they” as a neuter pronoun—despite the efforts of teachers and parents to correct them—means there’s something about using the masculine pronoun to include people of unknown gender that upsets our inherent sense of grammar. (Alas, I can’t quote these people directly. They said these things on the subscriber-only Pyramid boards. And even if the boards were publicly accessible, they don’t archive posts for more than a few months.)

In any case, the debate rages on. Heck, some men are far more bothered by the use of “he or she” than many women are bothered by a neuter “he.” But I opt for gender neutral language. I may use “he or she”; in longer works I may use “he” in one paragraph and “she” in the next. And despite my preference, I’ll still pick up the next GURPS book when it comes out. But for an niche industry that specifically wants to attract more customers, and in particular more women, a few minor editorial efforts that make a book more welcoming to women seem in order.

And that leads to your next question, of how I might go about marketing RPGs to a broader audience. It’s a big question, and one I’m sure I’ll be posting about again, so I’ll be brief here in the comments.

I could babble (and no doubt someday will) about avoiding sexist language and certain horrible covers, but I think the real key is to focus on making games that are genuinely fun and accessible. These games grew out of a geeky niche subgenre of literature, but science fiction and fantasy literature aren’t niche anymore! WoW, too, is hardly niche, in part because the core game is very accessible. (Note: I’m not saying “women need easy games”; I’m saying “non-gamers may become gamers if they can start having fun right away.”)

The same applies to tabletop games. Sell D&D 4th edition as a set of three fairly expensive core books, an almost required subscription to a game site, a separate computer program, and one supplement after another designed to capture the dollars of your passionate core, and you’ll make good money off your passionate core . . . and no one else. Make a roleplaying game that anyone can start playing half an hour after getting it home, and although you may take in only a tenth of the money from each person who busy it, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you get twenty times the number of people paying to play.

In other words, I think the tabletop game market is designing games for Pareto’s 20% and only accidentally and occasionally tapping into the 80%—who would never identify themselves as “gamers” but might well delight in a rollicking game of “grown up make-believe with rules.”

Of course, I haven’t really addressed your question, which was about marketing, not design. That’s in part because I think most of what we have isn’t marketable to a broader audience, even though the genre itself might be. I don’t claim to be any sort of marketing guru, but I do think that games have a stigma that has to be overcome. The lurid covers, insular community, and high bar of entry perpetuate this. Breaking out, the dream of many, requires some fundamental rethinking and probably a lateral attack on the market.

The key, though, is not to develop and market just for a demographic niche, but to consider the needs of everyone. This goes well beyond a question of what women want versus what men want. I’d like to see roleplaying games developed explicitly with an “everyone can join” attitude, instead of ones designed to grab more interest from already existing fans.

Anyway, those are my current thoughts on your two questions, probably too much to include just in a comment here. As I said, I’ll be posting more, and I’ll probably prioritize posts addressing the questions you raised. ‘Cause they’re great and interesting ones.

Yehuda—Yes, your post is definitely worth a read. A great resource for anyone interested in the topic. The gem, for me, is the image you have of the 1967 Battleship box. Funny and sad and absolutely fascinating.

Highly relevant link on my personal blog:

http://jergames.blogspot.com/2007/09/disconnect-between-casual-game-sites.html

Yehuda

(I delved into this debate once before and I have little conclusions tbh)

Most developers still market to the passionate minority. As soon as they start developing for people, not for “Men aged 18 to 35″ or “Women with $50,000 median income,” they’ll really start seeing a profit.

How would you propose marketing roleplaying games to “everyone” rather than “passionate minority”?