Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7186898" data-attributes="member: 4937">It does with me.&nbsp; But I think it is important to point out that different people in this thread are arguing entirely different points.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, while I totally agree that - among other things - mechanical limitations of D&amp;D make playing a realistic female warrior largely uninteresting, and that the core gameplay of D&amp;D is promoted more by gender equality than it would be by gender differences, and that the realistic strength cap on women is generally higher than starting characters are allowed to be anyway, and therefore it makes no sense to have a strength cap in D&amp;D, I don't feel that this argument can be applied to every other RPG - real or hypothetical - because it's mostly specific to D&amp;D.&nbsp;&nbsp; And I feel quite strongly that if you apply it to every RPG both real and hypothetical, that both there is something that is fundamentally dismissive in that attitude toward real women, and that it would put an unwanted chill on experimentation in game design.&nbsp; For example, I'm fairly sure that under this standard, Pendragon - one of the most innovative games ever published - would be deemed too sexist to publish.&nbsp; Yet I don't perceive the slightest intention to be sexist in Pendragon's creation or design, nor do I think its creators actually are sexist, nor do I feel the design is the product of unconscious sexism.I'd rather not engage in gossip, but feel free to do the research.That's an attitude I'd be very careful with.&nbsp; If that becomes the standard, it's likely everyone is going to stop thinking anyone deserves a reasoned response.&nbsp; I fully believe in objective good and objective truth, but I don't believe in my objective reasoning so I'm inclined to give others the benefit of the doubt even when they seem like complete idiots.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7186898, member: 4937"] It does with me. But I think it is important to point out that different people in this thread are arguing entirely different points. For example, while I totally agree that - among other things - mechanical limitations of D&D make playing a realistic female warrior largely uninteresting, and that the core gameplay of D&D is promoted more by gender equality than it would be by gender differences, and that the realistic strength cap on women is generally higher than starting characters are allowed to be anyway, and therefore it makes no sense to have a strength cap in D&D, I don't feel that this argument can be applied to every other RPG - real or hypothetical - because it's mostly specific to D&D. And I feel quite strongly that if you apply it to every RPG both real and hypothetical, that both there is something that is fundamentally dismissive in that attitude toward real women, and that it would put an unwanted chill on experimentation in game design. For example, I'm fairly sure that under this standard, Pendragon - one of the most innovative games ever published - would be deemed too sexist to publish. Yet I don't perceive the slightest intention to be sexist in Pendragon's creation or design, nor do I think its creators actually are sexist, nor do I feel the design is the product of unconscious sexism. I'd rather not engage in gossip, but feel free to do the research. That's an attitude I'd be very careful with. If that becomes the standard, it's likely everyone is going to stop thinking anyone deserves a reasoned response. I fully believe in objective good and objective truth, but I don't believe in my objective reasoning so I'm inclined to give others the benefit of the doubt even when they seem like complete idiots. [/QUOTE]

Verification