anyway.

I am looking forward to this game, but I have a reservation that makes me not want to buy or play it at a con.

I'm a butch dyke (i.e. "ambiguous," "concealed" or "transgressive"), and, like most people, I gravitate towards playing characters of roughly my own gender. I also like seeing queer characters in games. So I was at first happy to see some interesting gender options on the character books. But for several classes, there are only the two usual options, which is weird because I see queers filling these roles in fiction. This is kinda worse than just limiting the options to male and female overall, as it implies that the gender-bent are not to be found in these roles. It makes me want to avoid this at a con for fear of some MC saying, "sorry, no dykes on bikes, dapper butch operators, andro-lesbian community matriarchs, etcetera; so femme it up or leave." Why's it written like that? Would you consider opening things up a bit?

If you want examples, I recommend reading Doc and Fluff for a good queer apocalypse.

Fantastic, thank you! Amy!

Your comment shows that I've missed communicating the implications I was shooting for. Without ever thinking very hard about it, I just figured that listing man and woman under "looks" would imply an available baseline of casual transgression. No reason you couldn't choose "looks: man" for a female character, for instance.

But making it explicit will mean that it won't rely upon people reading my mind. Consider it done.

Oh and especially thank you for pointing it out to me while the game's still in pre-publication. You've saved me some grief down the line.

Cheers!

I'm always happy to do a gendery review of things.

Partially off topic: the clear communication around sex-roles was one of the reasons I liked Dogs so much.