Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 7176626" data-attributes="member: 6688858">I think in a discussion where [MENTION=6814449]tuxedoraptor[/MENTION] and [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] can freely express their desire for those with different elfgame preferences to be rendered infertile with a blunt instrument, those who want to say something to the effect of &quot;screw you, SJW&quot; probably feel free to do so.I certainly don't think Gygax set out to offend women in AD&amp;D with the female strength cap. He just didn't care about whether women liked the rules. Golden age D&amp;D was a boys club where women were not oppressed or shunned, but simply ignored.I can't think of any &quot;save the princess&quot; narratives in early D&amp;D adventure modules* and hardly any female major characters. In both T1 and B1 two male adventurers live together in the same stronghold. There's almost an implication of ancient Greece-style heroic homosexuality.*Except of course the execrable introductory adventure in Mentzer Basic. That text seems way more insidiously sexist to me than the Golden Age texts, with Elmore's blank-eyed bimbos and that weird line about going to the market being the high point of a woman's day.Because some people think &quot;longitudinal balance&quot; is interesting? Good&nbsp; game design is about giving the players stimulating decisions to make.&nbsp; Balance only matters insofar as it affects this; it shouldn't be&nbsp; fetishized in itself. The imbalance in power between the classes at low&nbsp; and high levels in old D&amp;D is not so severe that it ruins the&nbsp; playing experience of any particular class. 3.x is way worse in this&nbsp; regard.Class balance generally became more&nbsp; &quot;longitudinal&quot; all the way from original D&amp;D through AD&amp;D and&nbsp; 3.x. Then this was pared way back in 4e. 5e moves slightly towards LF/QW&nbsp; again. So your historical interpretation is completely wrong. For the vast&nbsp; majority of the game's history, longitudinal balance was apparently&nbsp; considered a good thing that should be emphasized.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Libramarian, post: 7176626, member: 6688858"] I think in a discussion where [MENTION=6814449]tuxedoraptor[/MENTION] and [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] can freely express their desire for those with different elfgame preferences to be rendered infertile with a blunt instrument, those who want to say something to the effect of "screw you, SJW" probably feel free to do so. I certainly don't think Gygax set out to offend women in AD&D with the female strength cap. He just didn't care about whether women liked the rules. Golden age D&D was a boys club where women were not oppressed or shunned, but simply ignored. I can't think of any "save the princess" narratives in early D&D adventure modules* and hardly any female major characters. In both T1 and B1 two male adventurers live together in the same stronghold. There's almost an implication of ancient Greece-style heroic homosexuality. *Except of course the execrable introductory adventure in Mentzer Basic. That text seems way more insidiously sexist to me than the Golden Age texts, with Elmore's blank-eyed bimbos and that weird line about going to the market being the high point of a woman's day. Because some people think "longitudinal balance" is interesting? Good game design is about giving the players stimulating decisions to make. Balance only matters insofar as it affects this; it shouldn't be fetishized in itself. The imbalance in power between the classes at low and high levels in old D&D is not so severe that it ruins the playing experience of any particular class. 3.x is way worse in this regard. Class balance generally became [I]more[/I] "longitudinal" all the way from original D&D through AD&D and 3.x. Then this was pared way back in 4e. 5e moves slightly towards LF/QW again. So your historical interpretation is completely wrong. For the vast majority of the game's history, longitudinal balance was apparently considered a good thing that should be emphasized. [/QUOTE]

Verification