Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 4804496" data-attributes="member: 54707">I agree with these set of comments, and in some ways it is a far better expression of some of the ideas I was <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/jack7/1722-my-answer-what-sexist-d-d.html" target="_blank">expressing here</a>. Especially in the idea that women shouldn't have to prove they are men or need to act like men to be equal to men. But the comments expressed here encompass a far wider range of subject matter, and better express what I was driving at. Or one of the things I was driving at. Just as you have people with different physical capacities, you have people with different motivations and interests. And the way they approach problem solving and action will vary according to their natures. But I don't want to restart that discussion here. And that wasn't my point anyway, so I have no intention of arguing it. I'm merely echoing your comments in a different way.However I don't see why the game can't do both things, or many things for that matter. That is I don't see why it can't have elements that appeal to everyone in some way. Build the game big enough to accommodate various impulses and then let the players choose what avenue or avenues they wish to pursue (combat, social interaction, political advancement, religious experimentation, and so forth and so on). That's the way I've tried to manufacture my setting and milieu. In any world, real or imagined, there are many possibilities of what can be built and how. So to me many of these issues could be resolved not so much as by rules restructuring, or even game restructuring (though to some extent that would be necessary in some cases), but by different types of Setting Constructs. My daughters and some girls from church play in the same setting in Byzantium or Samarkand as the guys have, but sometimes they play for different objectives or in different ways. Because over time I learned they liked doing things their own way and had their own interests. With emphasis less military and historical and political and more psychological, sociological, and "architectural" for lack of a better term.I like this EW. And use something very similar.That's a good observation as well, and one I agree with generally speaking, but then again perhaps methods could be developed that are so fine that the "system" effectively disappears in play. It still functions but it is not an "Operating System" that needs constant maintenance or referral, but it operates almost invisibly in the background, or can operate in different ways according to different circumstances or for different users. I though agree with you in that I still think much of D&D is still in the Nerd and Geek stage, where there is a sort of self-interested fascination with the "system itself" as you said, but as with any technology, for the technology to grow it must become so user friendly that only specialists are primarily concerned with the system itself. Many people like using airplanes and flying them, but only a few are aircraft maintenance personnel. If only aircraft "specialists" could make practical use of planes, then flying would be a very small enterprise.To grow everything must outgrow it's own complexity, or outgrow the appearance of necessary complexity (at least) in order to interest and be useful to the masses. A computer that operated without constant maiantence and technical skill would be far more popular that the computer that requires one to be an engineer merely to use it.I'm sure others have brought up interesting points. And that I may have merely echoed others. But I'm pressed for time right now and could only read the first page. I'll try and read the rest of the thread later this evening.</blockquote>

Verification