> It seemed to me that the comments about not having "viable female
> characters" was specifically addressing "no female fighters"
No - it was addressing a perceived imbalance. On a first run through the range of female characters is limited. Even after re-reading the occupation and ernalda keywords last night there is still a strong imbalance.
Women get three specific occupations (entertainer, healer, steadwife) while men get eight or nine (admittedly half are variants on "food provider"). Some are open to both, but aren't listed. You need to read more closely to find them.
Women get less than half a page on 'heroic options', many of which are only any use for advanced games - ambassadors and leaders require more preperation time and commitment on the part of both players and GMs in my experience. Men get two pages.
Low entertainers are normally female, high male. Given that low entertainer has been historically used as a euphemism for prostitute this is very unfortunate for those of us who made that connection - I am convinced now its a coincidence.
> I have yet to hear any women join the debate about "gender bias" and how
> *they* feel about it. Until I do, this whole damn "Women are portrayed in a
> lesser light/Women have nothing to do" argument is moot.
>
I have quoted (as far as politeness will allow) my wife's initial reaction. It was rather stronger than my 'a bit disappointing that we have to wait for two or three months.'
There is, I'm afraid, a real perception - especially on first reading - that women are much less well catered for by thunder rebels than men. Its not a major problem. Thunder Rebels is still one of the finest products to come out for any rpg in years and years. I still recommend everyone to buy a copy, not to keep Issaries afloat, but because they will enjoy it.
And anyway, I'm still more disappointed at not getting a map of Heortland...
Cheers,
Graham
-- Graham Robinson The Stableyard - Internet Solutions gjr_at_... http://www.thestableyard.net
Powered by hypermail