D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[TanithT]

So throw out legitimate world building and add in sexuality where it hasn't been before to promote a sociological movement? Seriously?

Er, that IS legitimate world building and not a sociological movement. It makes the plot and world setting richer and more interesting if characters are genuinely diverse, and I can think of some awesome plot hooks to hang on pretty much everything [MENTION=98772]Ichneumon[/MENTION] talked about. Not because it's political, though political plot hooks can be fun, too. Because it's rich, and diverse, and has the potential to be really excellent storytelling and world building material.

Generally speaking, you impoverish stories and worlds by limiting them, and enrich them by making them more interestingly diverse.

 

[variant]

Er, that IS legitimate world building and not a sociological movement. It makes the plot and world setting richer and more interesting if characters are genuinely diverse, and I can think of some awesome plot hooks to hang on pretty much everything @Ichneumon talked about. Not because it's political, though political plot hooks can be fun, too. Because it's rich, and diverse, and has the potential to be really excellent storytelling and world building material.

Generally speaking, you impoverish stories and worlds by limiting them, and enrich them by making them more interestingly diverse.

Changing the campaign world for the sake of making it politically correct is not legitimate world building, nor does it make the plot or world setting richer and more interesting.

 

[TanithT]

Changing the campaign world for the sake of making it politically correct is not legitimate world building, nor does it make the plot or world setting richer and more interesting.

The point. You are missing it.

The reason I enjoy being able to tell stories in a setting with diverse characters that I personally find interesting and inspirational is not political. It's personal. I want to tell stories that are rich and deep and fascinating, gritty and real and heartwrenching, and I can't do that nearly as well if I am limited to depicting characters of (essentially) one race and one sexual orientation. Particularly if none of these viewpoints are mine, and I feel alienated and excluded by the material.

Yes, it absolutely does make my world setting richer and more interesting to be able to depict a wide range of genders and relationships. If you don't want to take advantage of a full range of diversity in your own campaign, no one is forcing you to. But there are plenty of people who do want it, and we have as much right to see ourselves reflected and represented in the material as you do. We want to be the heroes, not the eternal sidekicks, and certainly not relegated to shameful invisibility in our own game.

That's not political. It's personal. And that's the point I think you're completely missing.

 

[variant]

The point. You are missing it.

The reason I enjoy being able to tell stories in a setting with diverse characters that I personally find interesting and inspirational is not political. It's personal. I want to tell stories that are rich and deep and fascinating, gritty and real and heartwrenching, and I can't do that nearly as well if I am limited to depicting characters of (essentially) one race and one sexual orientation. Particularly if none of these viewpoints are mine, and I feel alienated and excluded by the material.

Yes, it absolutely does make my world setting richer and more interesting to be able to depict a wide range of genders and relationships. If you don't want to take advantage of a full range of diversity in your own campaign, no one is forcing you to. But there are plenty of people who do want it, and we have as much right to see ourselves reflected and represented in the material as you do. We want to be the heroes, not the eternal sidekicks, and certainly not relegated to shameful invisibility in our own game.

That's not political. It's personal. And that's the point I think you're completely missing.

Except all that you want should be done by you in your campaign. After all, as you say, it's personal.

 

[TanithT]

Except all that you want should be done by you in your campaign. After all, as you say, it's personal.

So your argument is that the game material should only cater to white heterosexual males, and anyone who wants any more diversity than that in their representation should just write it themselves, because heaven forbid any diverse material or characters should be an option in the canon material that everyone can use?

Oh wait. Folks already did, and they called it Pathfinder. Nice market share they have, too.

Still think it's an economically winning strategy not to provide a solid range of gender, race and orientation diversity in the canon? The dollars and demographics right now say otherwise.

 

[Li Shenron]

Except all that you want should be done by you in your campaign. After all, as you say, it's personal.

That depends on how many people want it. But sure it does not only depend on that.

For example, WotC is free to decide to put more nudity in their books because nudity sells, but they could also decide they want their game to be educational even if sells less (assuming that it does sell less, which some people take it for granted).

 

[Ichneumon]

You, I, and everyone else can do what they wish in their own campaigns. But, what if you added a gay NPC to one of your towns? For example, a wizard.
Right away, there's questions to answer. Does the wizard try to hide that he's gay, or is he open about it? If he tries to keep it secret, why? What's the attitude of the townspeople towards homosexuals? Perhaps they're cool with it. Or maybe they treat homosexuality as an abomination. NPC groups aren't obliged to depict perfect acceptance. Just considering those questions brings plenty of story possibilities to mind.

 

[variant]

So your argument is that the game material should only cater to white heterosexual males, and anyone who wants any more diversity than that in their representation should just write it themselves, because heaven forbid any diverse material or characters should be an option in the canon material that everyone can use?

Oh wait. Folks already did, and they called it Pathfinder. Nice market share they have, too.

Still think it's an economically winning strategy not to provide a solid range of gender, race and orientation diversity in the canon? The dollars and demographics right now say otherwise.

The absence of having having any content such as sexual orientation in a game where it doesn't belong isn't catering to anyone. Last I checked under NPCs and monster descriptions it doesn't identify them as being heterosexual or any sexual orientation for that matter.

If you want to talk 'economically winning strategy', throwing controversy in the mix isn't the way to do it. Those 'solid range of genders and orientations' aren't exactly selling points outside of an extreme minority of whom most don't play such games and is extremely controversial to a large enough of the potential market that it could end up being the thing that finally throws the D&D brand on the sword. The only reason for them to do it would be to push forward a sociological movement because it would in absolutely no way be of any benefit from a marketing standpoint. It could only hurt them.

 

[Ichneumon]

Last I checked, the heterosexual orientation was referenced very commonly in D&D products. NPCs often have consorts, love interests or spouses, who are always the opposite sex.

 

[CroBob]

That's not really the case or the context.

If you're looking historically - and you can even look at toys like He-Man - shirtless guys with huge muscles are there to appeal to men (or in He-Man's case, boys), not women. If you check the poses, they're not sexualized - they're dominant, powerful, etc. Shirtless Conan isn't shirtless to sell more Conan books to women.

The blog The Choice was talking about earlier was one both @TanithT and I linked to, upthread. The Hawkeye Initiative. It takes poses of over-sexualized women in comic book art and replaces them with Hawkeye. It's pretty brilliant and makes its point almost instantly, IMO.

It's not about who's attractive, who finds whom sexy, etc. It's a simple question - who is the art meant to appeal to?

-O

I agree it's not the case. I never said it was. I was including equal sexualization within a hypothetical scenario in order to examine what effect the perception of people has on the situation outside of what or whether art were actually done that way. Also, I can't think of any pose in a D&D book I've had in which a woman's sexualized pose would look too silly if it were a man instead, like that Hawkeye site. I'm not saying they don't exist, but they're certainly not nearly as bad as comic books. Comic books are incredibly guilty of it.

On that question of who the art is supposed to appeal to, though, it's certainly something to consider when you have to actually sell your product. What percentage of sales do you attribute to sex appeal? Granted, it's mostly to draw attention in the first place, but why would it happen so much if it didn't work or wasn't appreciated by those who bought it? How and why would we encourage a company to do something that may ensure a loss in sales? While I'm for equal sexualization, appealing to the sexual tastes of women is 1) not thoroughly understood by the predominantly male designers/artists, 2) More difficult to make effective due to women simply not being as sexually stimulated via visual stimuli. For boys and men, big boobies in your face gets attention, hands down, unambiguously, every time. That's easy. Women require more subtlety that, frankly, we guys simply don't understand. Drawing a dude with skin-tight shorts so you can see his camel knee simply doesn't work on women the way giant breasts works for men.