amazon: Confessions of a Part-time Sorceress: A Hip Girl's Guide to the D&D Game

eh, i don't know what the fuss is about, it seems like the book has promise.

my girlfriend is a witch/sorceries, and she is also my dm at the moment.

Those words, while at one time were used to put women in their place are now being used as words of power, just like a black man calls another black man nigga (albeit changed), but what he means is friend or fellow black man.

In my opinion sorceries is a strong and powerful word for women, but if that word is used in away to demean their sexuality, then it can be a derogatory word, but even used in that way, its not nearly as derogatory as it once was. However, that word (party because of d&d and fantasy culture) has changed into a good word imho.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I guess if the book is good, it'll be good. If it's bad, well then, I guess it won't be so good.

Pretty hard to tell, just at the moment. But I hope it's good. I like the title.
 

hmm

Does anyone ever think that - by making the game "gender-neutral" - D&D actually contributed to a bit of RPG sexism? By removing such words as "sorceress" and "mermaid" and all that, could one not argue that there exists a veiled thought/concept/slant that says females of those races or classes are somehow inferior to men?

We've tried desperately to move toward a gender-neutral society, which I guess is a positive. I just don't like the idea of a gender-less society. Men and women are different. It seems that when we try to hide that fact or constantly worry about offending someone somewhere somehow, we cheapen the very benefits of diversity that we claim we're supporting.

I have yet to get over the mish-mash of "he" and "she" pronouns in the PHB. It just rings badly in my ear. Since when did "he" ever lose its neutral connotation? Hell, make them all "she" if that helps.

We've seen where art imitates political correctness, now, wherein there are no longer gender-exclusive adventuring groups running around on the covers of magazines and between the covers of our books. No, no - we'll have two females, two males, a couple will be exotic-looking, etc. This predeliction also shows itself in modules and adventures, wherein you'd be hard-pressed to find dramatis personae of all one gender.

I think our efforts of inclusion have only muddled the imaginative, and now diversity is stressed only so one can point to pictures, or pronouns, or iconics, and say - "Look mom-dad, I'm diverse!"

W.P.
 

heirodule said:
I just find it interesting that an actual female writer-writer (not game-designer writer) decides to communicate the D&D experience to other women and chooses to emphasize [puts it in the title] the term that makes the sex of the character obvious.

I don't mind the title one way or the other. I'd be surprised though if the writer had much or anything to do with the title. I don't think new writers at WotC get much say in regard to the title of a book. Even if she suggested it, it still had to go through committee.
 




step1: go to a anime/comicbook/scifi/fantasy convention and find yourself a (smart) fan girl. make sure she is a avid reader of fantasy already. make sure she is with other girl friends and not with a boyfriand

step2: proceed to introduce fangirl to d&d

step3: "roleplay"


go get em tiger.
 
Last edited:


<gigantic frakkin' nerd rant>
My whole issue with Sorceress is, why not Druidess or Paladiness (Paladinette?)? Why is it that only one class gets changed thusly?

Barbarianess, Bardess, Clericette, Druidess, Fighteress, Monkette, Paladiness, Rangerette, Roguess, Sorceress, Wizardette...

It's an either/or situation; either make them all have female variants, OR drop the sorceress pretentiousness.
</gigantic frakkin' nerd rant>


That aside, I hope it does open the door to new female roleplayers, and also helps to get rid of the "gamers are debased nerds with no lives or social skills" stigma.

-TRRW
 

Remove ads

Top