Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hairfoot" data-source="post: 4808102" data-attributes="member: 23732">This is page 9.  The discussion has covered far more ground than the OP contained, and includes numerous examples of how noncombatants can be included in a compelling campaign.I'm not aiming for the moral high ground, just querying why some posters (not just Teflon Billy) keep reducing non-combat roles to twee, childish stereotypes, even though the thread is packed with alternatives. If I claimed that the entire RPG experience amounted to nothing more than a childish male fantasy of being a wenching, loin-clothed barbarian, the thread would be soon be full of examples which demonstrate the actual depth of the hobby.  Yet some gamers apparently feel that sort of patronising condescension is fine when it comes to different types of players.If you only intended to confirm for the OP that RPGs can only cater to a very specific demographic, then OK.  But it still seems more dismissive than explanatory, and I disagree.As for being a "big feminist", if a post said there's no room for blacks in D&D because there are no rules for drive-by shootings, or spells for fried chicken and bananas, would I be a caricatured race-rights zealot just for saying that it sounds more like knee-jerk bigotry than considered analysis?</blockquote>