Alweth wrote:What I had said was that that's what the gaming industry has generally done, for understandable reasons, and so while it might be an understandable move on QCF's part it's not in any way a non-sexist innovation. (In fact there are reasons to view it as another expression of industry sexist portrayal of women.)
Sorry, but I don't understand this either. What we did was take a significant financial and development time hit in order to make the gender of any particular adventurer irrelevant. There is literally no sexual discrimination possible in DD, because adventurers are functionally identical - the whole point of random gender is to make it obvious to anyone that might have a problem with this that the actual problem lies in their own perceptions.
I'm really not sure where your argument is coming from, to me it sounds like you're saying that we should keep labels like "female doctor" around because somehow a doctor's gender is more important than their training. A Rogue or Paladin's abilities are what define them, can you imagine what it would have been like if we'd allowed gender differences? Firstly, that would have been twice as much
design and balance work, then we would have had to allow gender selection, and finally we'd have had all sorts of gendered debates all over the forum as people complained that their preferred gender wasn't the "best" incarnation of a particular class or that gender X of class Y was too weak, etc. That doesn't feel progressive to me...
Futhermore, that blog post talks mostly about the problems we had with artistic representation. It took a lot of work to simply have women that weren't default sexually attractive/available, much more than we expected. Saying that it's a bad thing that female adventurers are copies of male adventurers because their looks are dictated by functional concerns
doesn't make sense to me either. What should we have done otherwise? It's not like we didn't implement sexual dimorphism in species where it made sense - female orcs/halflings/gnomes/humans are very different to male orcs/halflings/gnomes/humans - we put in a lot of work to make that dimorphism display as wide range of appearances as we could (and we're still not 100% happy with the end result).
Yes, there are settings in which gender does present as noticeable differences, fighting monsters shouldn't be one of them. Now I suspect I'm not understanding you correctly, so could you try to provide more examples of what you're saying is standard industry sexism that DD did too?