Jump to content

Female model representation in Age of Sigmar


Enoby

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Orsino said:

Saying that a group is underrepresented requires you to  know what you think the correct level of representation is.

That's...literally the point of this thread. We're discussing our views on the (under)representation of women in wargaming. The research Enoby presented as a basis for this thread pointed to there being a gross imbalance in the ratio of male to female models, and how it ties into women having much less presence in the hobby than men as opposed to other hobbies like video gaming or trading card gaming.

There is no specific ratio or number we're all advocating, because everyone will have a different perspective on that. As for how this ties into your tired, continued argument that women are actually over-represented in AoS when using ancient history as a reference point, what you're failing to grasp here is the underlying problem that GW has exclusive control over what they produce and sell, and until recently, they've historically not catered to an entire gender (read, half the worlds' population) much, and combined with other contributing factors like toxicity and established male-centric social stigmas, there's a gross lack of women playing AoS compared to men.

To boil it down for you in laymans terms, women are drastically underrepresented in miniature form compared to men - and that statement doesn't require 'historical context' to be accurate, because when I walk into my local GW store, I know that 80% or more of the gendered miniatures are male and not female. Representation means having representatives of who you are. Men have much, much more to choose from if they want representation compared to women. It's really as simple as that. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EccentricCircle said:

Wizards 2 is one of the best model kits I've ever had the pleasure to build. There is so much variety in it, the only down side is that it has relatively few bodies. Its very easy to kit bash it with all the other frostgrave kits though.

To steer to conversation in a more productive direction (maybe...) why don't we unite behind something we all love* Wishliting!

What would be good female heros (or troops) for the various armies that are lacking in them? What models would fill nice gaps in the ranges, or compliment what's already there. And then how could we go about kitbashing them?

For me I'd love a female version of the battlemages kit. The frostgrave wizards are great, but they are not geared towards the Warhammer colours of Magic system. I've thought in the past about which 3rd party wizard models best represent the classic looks of the different colleges, and have painted up a few reaper figures. However, and official kit would be great.

I'd also like to see more female chaos stuff. The gender balance in warcry leaves me wanting female marauders, and figures for the god specific armies. It would be great to have a male and female version of each of those troop kits like frostgrave is moving towards, or just newer versions of the older kits with a mix of genders in them.

 

 

* Maybe not everyone loves wishlisting, terms and conditions apply.

I'd also really love to see some female chaos stuff :) I really like chaos as a faction and I think they have the coolest lore imo (I like the idea of corruption and the road to Hell being paved with good intentions). I'd love to see new marauder models with women in; not just because new marauders are welcome over what we have now, but because it'd be nice to have female marauders as we have female chaos warriors (and I would assume knights, unless sitting on a horse turns you into a man).

In addition to this though, I'd love it if all future chaos lord (or any big armoured chaos people) models came with three head options - male, female, and armoured. 

In order, I'd like to see a female witch hunter; they have an iconic design and I like the Greyfax model a lot. 

Destruction's a bit weird, but those female orks look cool - to be honest, it'd be fun if female orks were about ogre sized.

Death usually does quite well, and I'd like to see mixed vampire options continue - perhaps even be more likely thanks to Neferata. 

  • Like 3
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Enoby said:

I'd also really love to see some female chaos stuff :) I really like chaos as a faction and I think they have the coolest lore imo (I like the idea of corruption and the road to Hell being paved with good intentions). I'd love to see new marauder models with women in; not just because new marauders are welcome over what we have now, but because it'd be nice to have female marauders as we have female chaos warriors (and I would assume knights, unless sitting on a horse turns you into a man).

In addition to this though, I'd love it if all future chaos lord (or any big armoured chaos people) models came with three head options - male, female, and armoured. 

In order, I'd like to see a female witch hunter; they have an iconic design and I like the Greyfax model a lot. 

Destruction's a bit weird, but those female orks look cool - to be honest, it'd be fun if female orks were about ogre sized.

Death usually does quite well, and I'd like to see mixed vampire options continue - perhaps even be more likely thanks to Neferata. 

6JF_aV-rBEU.jpg.01833dcdbbbcec657d3f593d0712001b.jpg

Darkoath Warqueen approved :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanted to largely avoid this discussion but here's my view. Instead of worrying about the ratio between men and women, GW should just focus on making interesting factions. Since according to my sphere the armies that people in this thread consider "problamatic" like daughters of Khaine is the army most females in my store buy. Idoneth is a second contender and then nighthaunt. I haven't seen a female buy a sisters of battle box, actually they tend not to like that. Also I find it that strange that some people feel that all females want armies of butch women or "brutal" women that are almost like men, that may appeal to some people but according to my anecdote that doesn't seem to be the case. 

Hell, before the lockdown I bought my models over to my little siblings, showed them website and guess what? My two sisters didn't want to paint any of the female models, the older one enjoys painting khorne bloodreavers and the younger one seems absolutely fascinated with my genestealer cultists. 

I showed her my acolyte hybrid, for those who don't know these guys. 

99120117003_GenestealerAcolyteHybrids01.

I asked her why she liked them and she said "They are creepy and cool." I was surprised, but that further solidified my stance and in my store the little girls i've seen actually do Nurgle, Beastmen and Idoneth. 

So, in the end my opinion is this. Make interesting factions instead of focusing on gender parity, that will grab people's interest more. Instead I feel if you try to design something just to tick boxes you will most likely lose the essence that will make the faction interesting or draw the eye of the individual. Some may disagree with me, but that's my perspective after my anecdote. 

Edited by shinros
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, shinros said:

So, in the end my opinion is this. Make interesting factions instead of focusing on gender parity, that will grab people's interest more. Instead I feel if you try to design something just to tick boxes you will most likely lose the essence that will make the faction interesting or draw the eye of the individual. Some may disagree with me, but that's my perspective after my anecdote. 

There's nothing saying you can't do both at the same time, though. Sylvaneth were one of the more popular early AoS armies because their range is cool and unique. This is also anecdotal, but Sylvaneth apparently are hugely popular among women compared to most other AoS factions - and I can say this is definitely true of my local scene - which would no doubt be helped by the fact they are a strong example of female miniature representation compared to most every other faction. I think everyone agrees that doing both at the same time is both highly feasible and bound to improve the popularity of the hobby; a win-win for everyone. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, shinros said:

 Since according to my sphere the armies that people in this thread consider "problamatic" like daughters of Khaine is the army most females in my store buy. Idoneth is a second contender and then nighthaunt.

Those three are actually the AoS armies with the most female models in them. May be a coincidence. Or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Orsino said:

At no point have I suggested people can't want or shouldn't have more female models, my problem is with the presentation of personal preference as some sort of moral issue or failure on the part of GW. You demonstrate this in your phrasing that GW need to "do better at representing women in its games" which presents the subjective preference of how many female miniatures you want to have as a failure to meet some standard of representation by GW, a standard which you've admitted is entirely arbitrary. 

Yes, your problems with specific phrasing are well-documented in this thread. What we're trying to get you to do is get over the semantics and engage with the sentiment.

All standards are arbitrary. All meaning is subjective. However it's phrased, what people generally on this thread are saying is that they would feel happier if GW added more women to their games. If you choose to see that as a moral judgement, that's on you.

I'll try a different phrasing, see if that works for you: Which armies (if any) would you be happy to have women added to, and in what roles? Which armies or roles would you be angry or sad to see women added? I'm not talking about "people", I'm asking about you personally, and your own feelings on representation. That's where the interesting conversations happen, not in semantics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Jaskier said:

There's nothing saying you can't do both at the same time, though. Sylvaneth were one of the more popular early AoS armies because their range is cool and unique. This is also anecdotal, but Sylvaneth apparently are hugely popular among women compared to most other AoS factions - and I can say this is definitely true of my local scene - which would no doubt be helped by the fact they are a strong example of female miniature representation compared to most every other faction. I think everyone agrees that doing both at the same time is both highly feasible and bound to improve the popularity of the hobby; a win-win for everyone. 

How do you measure that? You're not wrong but you have several people in this thread who consider Daughters of Khaine to be problematic because of the skimpy clothes trope, but low and behold some females want that. The only thing I'm concerned about is that some people in the thread are veering into checkbox territory. If we start equalizing the parity across factions just because, you might lose the essence of what they are. Here's an example Daughters of Khaine, I don't want to see a large male presence in the army, they're a matriarchal cult they should be predominately female. 

Now the other end of the spectrum, Space Marines(I don't even like this faction), they should remain all male. Now to move to your slyvaneth example, some in this very thread don't like the female sylvaneth models because the elf part looks either too pretty and they have breast hanging out or that spite revenants are too monstrous, but they're fey spirits. It makes sense for them to be that way. So should these people have the right to change the faction that appealed to females and males for whatever reason because they feel they don't represent females well? 

Hence my opinion, forget parity, just make interesting factions. People buy factions for whatever appeals to them.

Edited by shinros
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Beastmaster said:

Those three are actually the AoS armies with the most female models in them. May be a coincidence. Or not.

And you're missing my point with Daughters of Khaine, I see what you are trying to do and you are not reading the rest of my post in context just to get a gotcha moment. In the very thread the people who want more female parity in the game DON'T like daughters of khaine because they fall into the skimpy trope naked girl trope. The point I'm making is to create interesting factions that appeal to people. 

Edited by shinros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, shinros said:

And you're missing my point with Daughters of Khaine, I see what you are trying to do and you are not reading the rest of my post in context just to get a gotcha moment. In the very thread the people who want more female parity in the game DON'T like daughters of khaine because they fall into the skimpy trope naked girl trope. The point I'm making is to create interesting factions that appeal to people. 

What IS your point? I can want more female stormcast models and not like the DoK for there bikini look, these arn't mutually exlusive. And trying to lazily side-step the issue by saying GW should focus 'interesting factions' means creating factions that are neither male of female presenting, which is cool but the huminod factions of both 40K and AOS are popular for a reason. It's especially laughable given your example of Geanstealer Cult, as the lack of female representation is adressed slighlty with their recent update adding female chracters and androgynes foot soldier to the roster.

99070117005_GSCMagus01.jpg

99120117013_GSCJackalAlphus01.jpg

Edited by BrownDog
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, shinros said:

 Here's an example Daughters of Khaine, I don't want to see a large male presence in the army, they're a matriarchal cult they should be predominately female. 

Now the other end of the spectrum, Space Marines, they should remain all male.

1. No one said that they should change - the whole thread is about increasing the number of female miniatures in other factions. Why CoS or Khorne  etc.,etc., should be all male? There is no in-lore justification for that. More female miniatures in other ranges do not impact DoK.

2. My I know why? What's the point of that?

3. And last thing - you're using as argument something you observed in your FLGS. Why do you think it's really representative of larger community? Anecdotal evidences are just that - anecdotal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Orsino said:

But no one is complaining that lizards are underepresented. Again,  my point is not that there shouldn't be female models, it's that you can't say female models are underepresnted when, by the only available standard you could judge it on, they would be overepresented. You can choose not to use reality as a standard to measure, but you can't then argue women are underrepresented. 

You argued that according to the reality of miltary history, women are over represented. This is an issue because you claim the inspiration of military history within AOS is significant.

I have argued that is not true, and that further to that AOS is founded and even dependent on fantastical concepts to such a degree that the imposition of anything as "over represented" is likewise a nonsense because the basis on why things do or dont exist in AOS is not "representation" it is stylistic choice, preference and creative license.

The argument is not that women should be more present in AOS "to be represented", as though it were some form of government census. The argument is that women should be more present because there is no reason for them not to be, and there isnt.

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Yes, your problems with specific phrasing are well-documented in this thread. What we're trying to get you to do is get over the semantics and engage with the sentiment.

All standards are arbitrary. All meaning is subjective. However it's phrased, what people generally on this thread are saying is that they would feel happier if GW added more women to their games. If you choose to see that as a moral judgement, that's on you.

I'll try a different phrasing, see if that works for you: Which armies (if any) would you be happy to have women added to, and in what roles? Which armies or roles would you be angry or sad to see women added? I'm not talking about "people", I'm asking about you personally, and your own feelings on representation. That's where the interesting conversations happen, not in semantics.

Saying that all standards are arbitrary and all meaning subjective is the last refuge of someone  without an argument.  You claimed that the number of female miniatures is purely personal preference and there is no right or wrong, this is incompatible with your other claim that GW needs to "do better" at female representation. So which is it?

Incidentally this is why it's necessary to examine premises, even though you find it boring, because otherwise you end up making arguments that aren't even consistent with themselves, let alone consistent with reality. 

As to my personal preferences on female miniatures, I've stated it a number of times. Accusing me of not engaging because you can't be bothered to read my answer is a little silly. I'll state it again for you: I enjoy my nearly all female CoS army (kitbashed Nomad Princess below), more models are always nice, I don't think there's any inherent limit on how many female minis you can have. 20191213_235421.jpg.2d9801614eb436d84387242e205c6400.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, shinros said:

So should these people have the right to change the faction that appealed to females and males for whatever reason because they feel they don't represent females well?

There is no such "right". Nobody in this discussion has the power or the responsibility to make GW's decisions for them. All they're doing is voicing their opinions.

Other people's opinions, even if they're different from your own, are not threats to your wellbeing. They shouldn't scare you, and if they do, you should make the effort to figure out why. You don't need to shout them down, especially in a thread which is for the express purpose of voicing those opinions. If you want to make another thread on the topic of "Cheesecake Khainites are awesome and I want them to wear even fewer clothes", then you're free to do so, and you'd probably find people who agree with you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BrownDog said:

What IS your point? I can want more female stormcast models and not like the DoK for there bikini look, these arn't mutually exlusive. And trying to lazily side-step the issue by saying GW should focus 'interesting factions' means creating factions that are neither male of female presenting, which is cool but the huminod factions of both 40K and AOS are popular for a reason. It's especially laughable given your example of Geanstealer Cult as the lack of female representation as adressed slighlty with their recent update adding female chracters and andrygones foot soldier to the roster.

99070117005_GSCMagus01.jpg

99120117013_GSCJackalAlphus01.jpg

So are you trying to say that I don't want female models? The point I'm making is designing something just tick something off the list stifiles creativity. I went through a large episode in the past trying to make sure I have xyz in my own stories. Until one day thanks to my job I get to talk with a lot of people and the females literally had to whisper to me that they are tired of reading about the "mordern day woman."

Soon as I put aside my concerns and I was more honest with myself I saw an improvement. The problem I have is how do you quantify, what is the image of the "strong" female? According to some DOK don't count, neither does the female stormcast or the sylvaneth. 

I don't know what goes through the heads of the people who make the models. But I think they put their creativity first over whatever label people make in this thread and I see that in those two female GSC models. Hence why they are so good. Heck, I actually think GW misses the mark sometimes with female models, but that's my opinion.

My problem in the thread is thus, the designers don't have to do anything. Because their creativity decides what we get. And its up to us whether we buy it or not. And I'm concerned that people want certain factions changed because it doesn't fit their image of what a woman should be.

I don't decide it, you don't, the designers do. 

Edited by shinros
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Orsino said:

Saying that all standards are arbitrary and all meaning subjective is the last refuge of someone  without an argument.

Nah, just a fact.

7 minutes ago, Orsino said:

You claimed that the number of female miniatures is purely personal preference and there is no right or wrong, this is incompatible with your other claim that GW needs to "do better" at female representation. So which is it?

My "claim" was that the thread was an open question on the topic. "Better" is completely subjective too, subject to personal preference. I think tea is better than coffee. You might think coffee is better than tea. Those are both opinions, and neither is right or wrong. If you get upset about people stating their opinions as objective facts then you're just failing to understand context, and how casual conversation works.

7 minutes ago, Orsino said:

Incidentally this is why it's necessary to examine premises, even though you find it boring, because otherwise you end up making arguments that aren't even consistent with themselves, let alone consistent with reality.

Making "arguments" is for high school debating. This is the real world, none of that stuff actually matters. People don't have to be consistent, or even coherent, in order for you or I to respect their opinions. We're having a conversation here, not a debate.

7 minutes ago, Orsino said:

As to my personal preferences on female miniatures, I've stated it a number of times. Accusing me of not engaging because you can't be bothered to read my answer is a little silly. I'll state it again for you: I enjoy my nearly all female CoS army (kitbashed Nomad Princess below), more models are always nice, I don't think there's any inherent limit on how many female minis you can have.

That's a super cool model. Why not lead with that, rather than going off about semantics? That's a perfect example of the kind of thing that would enhance the game for me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, shinros said:

So are you trying to say that I don't want female models? The point I'm making is designing something just tick something off the list stifiles creativity. I went through a large episode in the past trying to make sure I have xyz in my own stories. Until one day thanks to my job I get to talk with a lot of people and the females literally had to whisper to me that they are tired of reading about the "mordern day woman."

Soon as I put aside my concerns and I was more honest with myself I saw an improvement. The problem I have is how do you quantify, what is the image of the "strong" female? According to some DOK don't count, neither does the female stormcast or the sylvaneth. 

I don't know what goes through the heads of the people who make the models. But I think they put their creativity first over whatever label people make in this thread and I see that in those two GSC models. Hence why they are so good. Heck, I actually think GW misses the mark sometimes with female models, but that's my opinion.

My problem in the thread is thus, the designers don't have to do anything. Because their creativity decides what we get. And its up to us whether we buy it or not. And I'm concerned that people want certain factions changed because it doesn't fit their image of what a woman should be.

I don't decide it, you don't, the designers do. That's my problem. If you don't like a faction don't buy it, find somethig that appeals or convert. 

Yes it's up to the designers. And we can ask the designers to add some more female reprasentation to the factions. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

Making "arguments" is for high school debating. This is the real world, none of that stuff actually matters. People don't have to be consistent, or even coherent, in order for you or I to respect their opinions. We're having a conversation here, not a debate.

As someone else has noted previously this argument is usually used as a last resort when someone is forced into a position they can no longer defend. Yes people do not have to be consistent to have an opinion, but in order for someone to respect is quite another thing. Same thing with "this is a conversation here, not a debate". The entire thread was supposed to be about saying if you want more female representation, and if so, or if not, why. Obviously with differing opinions the only thing logical is a debate, and so we have in fact been having a civil debate. I personally do not want to weigh in on either side, but I do not want to leave such a specious argument on the table. 

Indeed saying everything is arbitrary can be true, and in this case with make believe lore back by models really anyone can make, you can definitely credibly support that argument. However when you use it you should be careful lest you sound like a nihilist, or worse, sound like a person without a real argument.

and finally remember some people aren't amazingly complimented when you accuse them of not engaging properly, so they might have taken a slight offense. On top of that , remember that they did say that the female CoS kitbashes were good, and so a better answer would have been pointing out the semantics after you addressed the fact that more female CoS miniatures would enhance the game for you, exactly as you recommended to them. Don't take too much offense, all in the good nature of a debate :)

 

Edited by Sttufe
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, shinros said:

So are you trying to say that I don't want female models? The point I'm making is designing something just tick something off the list stifiles creativity. I went through a large episode in the past trying to make sure I have xyz in my own stories. Until one day thanks to my job I get to talk with a lot of people and the females literally had to whisper to me that they are tired of reading about the "mordern day woman."

Soon as I put aside my concerns and I was more honest with myself I saw an improvement. The problem I have is how do you quantify, what is the image of the "strong" female? According to some DOK don't count, neither does the female stormcast or the sylvaneth. 

I don't know what goes through the heads of the people who make the models. But I think they put their creativity first over whatever label people make in this thread and I see that in those two GSC models. Hence why they are so good. Heck, I actually think GW misses the mark sometimes with female models, but that's my opinion.

My problem in the thread is thus, the designers don't have to do anything. Because their creativity decides what we get. And its up to us whether we buy it or not. And I'm concerned that people want certain factions changed because it doesn't fit their image of what a woman should be.

I don't decide it, you don't, the designers do. That's my problem.

Nobody ever has any issue with narratives and stories with which they identify.

The issue with the concept of "Modern Day Woman" and I suspect the reason that women asked hated it as they identified it is that its utter garbage to suggest that stereotypes and generalisations are representative of an entire gender and that any woman should see themselves as represented in an natural composite archetype. Ditto the notion of The Strong Woman.

Creatives should focus on creating characters, with personalities. People are drawn to people and people are unique. Creatives who want to add a Strong Woman to a story without knowing who that person is or why are just ticking boxes.

That is not an excuse to write poor female characters, or have none at all. It is a reason for the author to do their work and research and invest in learning how to perform their craft better. The prime place to find out more about how to better represent women is, unsurprisingly, women. 

If a creator sees accurate representation of whatever it is they are trying to portray as somehow an impediment to creativity or they're vision, they're either lazy or just not very creative.

Knowing what I do about the GW creative team, I imagine most would be excited by the creative challenges of creating a Female Warrior et al, of the places where the need to research and educate a concept and play with it might take them, not intimidated or see it as a HR exercise requiring the addition of XYZ.

The irony is that women and racial minorities are so poorly realised or considered in Western Media that the most basic attempt to thoughtfully create such a character Is almost universally loved by said audiences because a morsel is a banquet if you're starved. It's an open goal more or less. The bar is *low*.

  • Like 6
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A wargame in 1950 could reasonably start off with a gender split based on the 1950 understanding of real-world gender breakdowns in historical armies (keeping in mind that the reporting from ancient times is not necessarily always photographical in detail, and researchers motivated by ideology, either deliberate or subconscious, can interpret dodgy data in dodgy ways), ie. 99% male.  And then you would have to justify any deviation from that initial starting place.  Which you could easily do.  But it means the default is all-dudes.

A wargame in 2020 could reasonably start off with a gender split based on the general population breakdown, ie. 50/50 for humans.  And then you would have to justify any deviation from that initial starting place.  Which you could do.  But it means the default is half and half.

I don't insist that all armies have a 50/50 gender split.  I'm happy enough with Daughters of Khaine being mono-gendered, and I'm happy enough with Orruks being mono-gendered.  But I'd like the default to be 50/50.

Edited by amysrevenge
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding representation I would say roughly 50/50 across the entire range, with individual armies having different mixes from all male to all female (including indeterminate).

Why do I think that’s the proper level of representation? Because half the world (roughly) is female, which means half of GWs potential customers are female.

I would also like to see all sort of different woman warriors. Scantily clad to heavily armoured. Human through to completely fantastic/alien.* It’s the choice that matters. Some women really like Daughters of Khaine, others feel that the scantily clad female warrior trope has been done to death, and some of them want an army of scantily clad male warriors to play with.

In practical terms I know it is going to take a long time to get to that point, but I can see progress is being made and that makes me happy.

Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see more progress!

Going back to the original topic, which was female leader/command models. Husband has now persuaded daughter to try 40k again on the sole basis of Commander Shadowsun. So yes, a single female leader can make all the difference.

* I’ve always felt that Tyranids should be mostly female, as they are loosely, based on eusocial insects, or rather they are based on the Alien franchise, which was loosely based on eusocial insects. But every named Tyranid has male pronouns.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a way of trying to ascertain people's opinions, let's try a hypothetical scenario:

John Blanche as creative director says that he feels there is a narrative and creative shortfall in AOS as it exists due to the fiction being primarily formed and depicted from a male perspective. He says that as a means of creating a fuller, better realised and even more exciting universe the creative teams should focus a considerable amount of their time and resources into fleshing this out and creating more lore and models which reflect amd explore other parts of the Universe as other genders encounter it.

It will not touch upon any of GWs scheduled flagship releases or other areas such as rules etc. It will simply provide more of everything to everything in AOS. More units, lore, models etc.

There is no ratio determining this, some factions might end up 70/30 male, or 50/50, or 65/35 female, or non binary etc, but this ratio will be arrived upon as a result of the existing creative process, not a pre determined criteria of representation:

If you think this would not be appropriate, *bearing in mind this instance is purely creative and will have guaranteed no bearing whatever on your ability to play and enjoy what you already enjoy in the hobby*, why is that?

 

Edited by Nos
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Kadeton said:

Nah, just a fact.

So it's a fact...that everything is subjective. Think about that and tell me if you can see the problem.

 

2 hours ago, Kadeton said:

My "claim" was that the thread was an open question on the topic. "Better" is completely subjective too, subject to personal preference. I think tea is better than coffee. You might think coffee is better than tea. Those are both opinions, and neither is right or wrong. If you get upset about people stating their opinions as objective facts then you're just failing to understand context, and how casual conversation works.

Making "arguments" is for high school debating. This is the real world, none of that stuff actually matters. People don't have to be consistent, or even coherent, in order for you or I to respect their opinions. We're having a conversation here, not a debate.

Tbh I'm not really interested in a dead-end epistemological discussion about subjectivity with someone who thinks consistency and coherence are just for high-schoolers. So I'll confine myself to saying the fact that you've so vociferously challenged the things I've said indicates you do believe that statements can be more or less true/valid, and your resort to "everything is subjective, I don't have to make sense" when the things you say are questioned is just self-serving. It also doesn't really leave any room for meaningful discussion so I think I'm done.

Quote

That's a super cool model. Why not lead with that, rather than going off about semantics? That's a perfect example of the kind of thing that would enhance the game for me.

Thanks!

Edited by Orsino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...