D&D 5E 5e's new gender policy - is it attracting new players?

Rygar said:

I really have to disagree with your assertion.

I suspect that what happens at virtually every table is some brief "As you walk down the street you see children weeping into their parents arms, couples comfort each other in the shadows..." etc. I sincerely doubt anyone bothers describing the exact sexual orientation of every couple they walk past, because honestly it is completely irrelevant to the game and to the narrative. The only purpose of describing it in such detail is to pursue a political agenda, because I suspect almost no-one is playing a game where they're handling a disaster scenario and is focused on determining the sexual orientation of the NPC's.

If we were talking a murder mystery, or a missing person, then sure the sexual orientation might be relevant insofar as the PCs need to know who they're looking for, but beyond that it's almost always going to be irrelevant.

I've been trying to avoid jumping into this topic since its inception, as I really don't have any problem with any kind of relationships, but we're crossing the line between reflecting the realistic relationships when we have to define such relationships in situations where they aren't relevant to the game or narrative, at that point we're no longer pursuing the topic of being X-Phobic and we're starting to pursue the topic of political statements.

Click to expand...

This is a point I'll jump into, why the heck not.

First off, painting the tragic scenes with loved ones can be good storytelling. I still remember seeing a commercial for the "new" (couple years ago) Titanic movie and there was a scene with an elderly couple, lying in their bed on the ship, holding each other in the dark, as the water rose up around them. It was... beautiful and tragic. That connection of seeing people losing hope, of despairing is huge.

Now, sure, if you're quick pacing through a faceless city as it is being ravaged by a Dragon and skimping on the details, you may not find the need to call out specifics. But, assuming a homebrew, what if this is a city your players have spent a significant amount of time in? What if you built these relationships, made your players see these fictional constructs as people? Then it isn't "couples weeping over their loved ones" it can be "Brad cradling George's limp body". The impact will be huge.

And trust me, it does not need to be obvious. I remember rereading the Magic Circle series by Tamora Peirce with my little sister. I'd read the series in Middle School and enjoyed it and wanted to reread it. One of the major characters comes close to death in the fourth book, and after they are saved another major character runs up and hugs them. First time I read it, didn't register. Second time? I realized quite abruptly that these characters were in a same sex relationship. I couldn't believe I had missed it, and even went to the official wiki to check. It was so subtly woven into the story, because it wasn't the focus, but it was there and it helped to add something to that scene to make that realization.

My point is, if you ant to gloss over the details you can, but if you really want your players to go crazy, build these things up. And if you're ding that, no reason not to be more diverse in your representation.

Also, to an earlier point about a lesbian necromancer and assassin, for some reason my first thought was that instead of being an assassin she should be a barmaid or gardener. Someone completely ordinary and starkly not what you would expect.

I'm A Banana said:

Consider: "As you walk down the street, you see Dirk, the town miller, and his husband Rob comforting their children, their flour-covered faces streaked with tears."

Click to expand...

I find it odd that the above sentence can be rewritten as, "As you walk down the street, you see Dirk, the town miller, and his wife Roberta comforting their children, their flour-covered faces streaked with tears," and it would receive nary a sideways glance. However, keeping those two words as is will cause some people to yell, "Hey, don't you force your political agenda on me!" despite how little it differs, as if the mere existence of people who are different from what they find to be normal is a personal affront.

mrm1138 said:

I find it odd that the above sentence can be rewritten as, "As you walk down the street, you see Dirk, the town miller, and his wife Roberta comforting their children, their flour-covered faces streaked with tears," and it would receive nary a sideways glance. However, keeping those three words as is will cause some people to yell, "Hey, don't you force your political agenda on me!" despite how little it differs, as if the mere existence of people who are different from what they find to be normal is a personal affront.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is, people react that way all over the planet to things different to what they consider normal. Even if they have no reason to. It's a symptom of a much larger problem.

I'm A Banana said:

Consider: "As you walk down the street, you see Dirk, the town miller, and his husband Rob comforting their children, their flour-covered faces streaked with tears."

Or: "The Queen has refused to see anyone, spending time alone with her beloved Jenivive. Without her rulership, the servants have abandoned the castle leaving it a barren place, cavernous and dark."

Click to expand...

I hope you realize that these are two very different examples. Same-sex relationships are universal in all human populations. Same-sex marriage is a cultural institution and a relatively rare one. The Genevieve example could happen in any setting. The Dirk and Rob example requires a pretty specific setting.

Also, Dirk and Rob having children makes some further assumptions about cultural institutions like adoption and/or surrogacy. (Or magic, I guess.)

ExploderWizard said:

The point is that focusing on mundane personal crap at the very moment the whole world is crashing is a bit silly. You really need to see the video to get the context.

Click to expand...

I dunno, it seems like when the world is coming down around their heads, action heroes always seem to make time to make goo-goo eyes at their loved ones. So it might not be unreasonable that when the elemental lords of chaos are invading out reality, the Great City crumbling around the people, you take a moment to point out that some people are holding their loved ones, though I don't think the sex of their loved ones needs to be pointed out one way or another. Let people imagine the scene as they might. However, if you do point out the sex of the loved ones, then it's not unreasonable to ask that you mix it up a little, if such a thing is fitting to your world. It's really just fluff to rally the players to save the world. If that's not going to get them moving, then it's not worth mentioning.

Huh. I kept seeing this thread come up, saw that the title was about gender inclusivity and that it had been rated 2 stars. I was really scared what I'd find when I inevitably looked at it out of morbid fascination. But like, this is just a bunch of reasonable people having an interesting and nuanced discussion. I didn't look through all of it, but everything I saw was unexpectedly pleasant. This has been nice. <3

I should prolly actually add something to the discussion, huh?

I thought that page in the PHB was nice. Sure, it's not like anything was keeping people from having gay or androgynous characters beforehand, but there's nothing wrong with a gentle reminder that someone thought you mattered enough to actually make a note of it in the rulebook.

And, I mean, from a strictly mechanical standpoint, it is an important thing to make new players aware of. I don't know of any online RPGs that allow you to be something other than male or female (I'm sure they exist, Second Life probably has that at least). I've even played a couple tabletop games where you couldn't be nonbinary because there were game mechanics that depend on the players just being one sex or the other (although Munchkin is still a very nice game). If someone is completely unfamiliar with a new system, this might be a legitimate question they have, and seeing it acknowledged outright like that is pretty cool, I think.

Is it "trying too hard"? Or "pushing an agenda"? Or "fanservice"? I don't really care, but that seems like kind of an overreaction to me. Like, I guess technically speaking it's a thing that was done to make fans happy, but calling it "fanservice" just seems like a way to dismiss something by changing the word you use for it. Are they "pushing an agenda"? Well, uh, an agenda is just a list of things you plan to do. Using a more sinister-sounding word for a series of actions doesn't make it bad. Are they "pushing political ideals down all our throats"? That's always been a... bizarrely violent way of putting what usually amounts to some variation on "someone wants to do a thing, so we told everybody else that if anybody wanted to do that thing too, they could but it's up to them."

So yeah. It was a pleasant thing to see. Not a huge deal for me, but if it meant a lot to someone else, then I'm happy for them. It wasn't strictly necessary, but it didn't take away anything, either.

Fralex said:

I don't know of any online RPGs that allow you to be something other than male or female (I'm sure they exist, Second Life probably has that at least).

Click to expand...

Only video game I know of isn't an online RPG; it's Saints Row 2. Has a gender slider instead of a toggle. Oddly enough, this option disappeared when they changed the engine in Saints Row 3 and beyond -- although all clothes and fashion options, including facial hair, are still available for both sexes.

Fralex said:

I've even played a couple tabletop games where you couldn't be nonbinary because there were game mechanics that depend on the players just being one sex or the other (although Munchkin is still a very nice game).

Click to expand...

To be fair, in most tabletop games, you're not playing a self-created role like you are in an RPG. Sometimes you're a randomly-drawn race-class combination. Sometimes you're a 16th-Century Bavarian postman. Sometimes you're a capitalist shoe.

TheCosmicKid said:

I hope you realize that these are two very different examples. Same-sex relationships are universal in all human populations. Same-sex marriage is a cultural institution and a relatively rare one.

Click to expand...

Relatively rare? Given that we're discussing fictitious cultures, not historical ones, that's not a given at all. Heck, it could be rather common—D&D already assumes other cultural anachronisms, so why should the buck stop here? What makes this particular issue a bridge too far?

Azzy said:

Relatively rare? Given that we're discussing fictitious cultures, not historical ones, that's not a given at all. Heck, it could be rather common—D&D already assumes other cultural anachronisms, so why should the buck stop here? What makes this particular issue a bridge too far?

Click to expand...

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that "the buck stops here" or that it is "a bridge too far". What I did say in a previous post is that "The D&D game can accommodate a vast range of settings, from optimistic wish-fulfillment ones with modern progressive sexual mores through mythic-historical ones with less enlightened values to exotic and truly fantastical ones where the customs are just plain different. That's okay, and more than okay -- it's wonderful." Gay marriage doesn't make for a bad setting. What it does is make for a specific setting. D&D shouldn't assume it any more than D&D should assume any cultural institutions.

You and I probably agree that the modern cultural institution of constitutional democracy is a very good thing, but that doesn't mean D&D should assume that its setting is full of constitutional democracies -- in fact, it pretty definitely doesn't. It's not wrong to put constitutional democracy in your setting, but it's also not wrong not to put constitutional democracy in your setting, because you're not creating a real world full of real people and you don't have a moral obligation to give fictitious characters the environment that is fairest and most beneficial to them. (If you did, there probably shouldn't be all those hungry dragons and acid-filled pit traps lying around either.) Depending on the tone you want to set and the stories you want to tell, it may suit your purposes to make the cultures in your setting absolutely horrible, to create more conflict that drives adventures. Or it may not. That's up to you. It's not an assumption the game makes one way or the other.

Furthermore, I think it's important to realize when you're making a cultural assumption, because it's so easy just to take aspects of your own culture for granted and graft them into your campaign setting without thinking. It makes you a better DM to notice these things and examine them, look at them as variables that you can play with. I also think it makes you a more well-rounded person, but that's neither here nor there.

TheCosmicKid said:

I hope you realize that these are two very different examples. Same-sex relationships are universal in all human populations. Same-sex marriage is a cultural institution and a relatively rare one. The Genevieve example could happen in any setting. The Dirk and Rob example requires a pretty specific setting.

Also, Dirk and Rob having children makes some further assumptions about cultural institutions like adoption and/or surrogacy. (Or magic, I guess.)

Click to expand...

It's not actually requiring a very specific setting, just a setting - any setting - that embraces a diversity of relationships. It's not like people not living with their biological parents (such as orphans) or "two people live together and love each other and raise a family and so we call 'em married" only happens in narrowly specific contexts. It's pretty much something that happens in any D&D game world, and it'd be weird to posit a world that doesn't allow for those things to happen. And if they happen, they can happen regardless of the genders involved.

mrm1138 said:

I find it odd that the above sentence can be rewritten as, "As you walk down the street, you see Dirk, the town miller, and his wife Roberta comforting their children, their flour-covered faces streaked with tears," and it would receive nary a sideways glance. However, keeping those two words as is will cause some people to yell, "Hey, don't you force your political agenda on me!" despite how little it differs, as if the mere existence of people who are different from what they find to be normal is a personal affront.

Click to expand...

I guess it's gotta be a hard life when you are constantly on-guard from the activities of some nefarious Political Agenda that wants to take your beloved hobby and PUSH GAY SEX on all its players. I know if I thought there was something like that out there, I'd be quite worried about it much of the time when WotC puts out a new book or whatever. Of course, that bogeyman political agenda is no more real than the dragons we slay on a weekly basis. But imaginary political agendas are easier to fight against than social change.