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

shidaku said:

Is "a space shuttle" one of those pieces of proper equipment?

Click to expand...

No.

Wik said:

I'm sorry, but that "Hey, they COULD be gay. Make 'em gay if you want. Or maybe they are, but the module doesn't mention it!" argument is kind of flawed. We've heard it a bunch in this thread before, and it doesn't fly. If something doesn't exist in the module's write-up, that means it's in the air. In other words, there is no fact in regards to it. So, if a module is vague about an NPC's gender, race, class, alignment, or whatever - the GM figures it out. That's cool.

Click to expand...

Come on, now, [MENTION=40177]Wik[/MENTION] - you're asking an awful lot here. I mean, I'm still waiting for most published modules to stop being vague about how many monsters are in the room, or which way is north, or how far one town is from another...

Once they get those important details figured out (and as it's 40 years in and the same errors keep happening I'm not holding my breath on that) then they can start working on being less vague about other things.

Lan-"complaining about module editing since 1984"-efan

ddaley said:

Go right ahead and do that with your gaming sessions then. Don't tell me what I need to include in my gaming sessions.

Click to expand...

So what's your reaction, then, if I-as-player have my character* develop a roaring crush on one of the other PCs* and then role-play it accordingly?

* - of whatever gender and-or race and-or orientation it might happen to be

Lsn-"if you want to give yourself a headache sometime, sit down with a PH and a monster manual and try to figure out exactly what could in theory breed with what"-efan

pemerton said:

Which is my point. I can't choose whether or not I'm fluent in English, but my English fluency is not genetically determined.

Of course not. My point is that I can't voluntarily choose not to be fluent in English. Yet my fluency in English is not genetically determined.

Click to expand...

Your fluency in a language is genetically determined. Your fluency in english is culturally determined. Make sense? Pretty easy stuff.

By the same extension, sexuality in regards to homosexuality/heterosexuality is (according to recent science at least) genetically determined. How it is expressed, and the particulars, are culturally determined.

Mirtek said:

That is only a problem if you define different from standard as bad or inferior. A vast majority is a standard and that in no way judges that which is not standard.

I phones/pads are not standard as android devices dominate each market. Yet they are seen as high quality ahove standard

Click to expand...

Let's take a look at how the American Heritage Dictionary (online) defines standard:

American Heritage Dictionary said:

stan·dard
Share:
adj.
1. Serving as or conforming to an established or accepted measurement or value: a standard unit of volume.
2. Widely recognized or employed as a model of authority or excellence: a standard reference work.
3. Acceptable but of less than top quality: a standard grade of beef.
4. Normal, familiar, or usual: the standard excuse.
5. Commonly used or supplied: standard car equipment.
6. Linguistics Conforming to models or norms of usage admired by educated speakers and writers: standard pronunciation.
n.
1.
a. An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion. See Synonyms at ideal.
b. An object that under specified conditions defines, represents, or records the magnitude of a unit.
2.
a. The commodity or commodities used to back a monetary system.
b. The set proportion by weight of gold or silver to alloy metal prescribed for use in coinage.
3.
a. A degree or level of requirement, excellence, or attainment: Their quality of work exceeds the standards set for the field.
b. Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence.
c. A set of specifications that are adopted within an industry to allow compatibility between products.
d. A requirement of moral conduct: the standards of polite society.

Click to expand...

Awful lot of value-laden definitions there. Now imagine you're not heterosexual and you live in a society in which you are called abnormal, deviant, immoral, or aberrant and that there are people out there who claim that your non-heterosexuality can be cured. If you hear someone refer to heterosexuals as 'standard', are you going to interpret it in the particular way you think it should be interpreted in the post I quoted above? Without any sort of implication of value, rightness, or other moral judgment - just a numeric definition?
Frankly, I think any claim that it takes a special interpretation to see 'standard' as anything other than recognition of a majority of people being heterosexual is a very obtuse claim.

CaptainGemini said:

NASA has performed experiments which suggests that humans actually can survive reentry with the proper equipment. So, this one isn't necessarily true

Click to expand...

Nitpicker. You know what I meant.

ddaley said:

Go right ahead and do that with your gaming sessions then. Don't tell me what I need to include in my gaming sessions.

Click to expand...

No one in this thread did so. WotC didn't do so. So, what exactly is the problem?

Lanliss said:

If a child has a mother and father, and everyone he knows has a mother and a father, wouldn't he find it strange when someone in a game has two fathers?

Click to expand...

In that magical situation the child not only does not know anyone who is gay but also does knows no one who is divorced, no one who has remarried, no one that has had a parent die, etc.
That's pretty darn rare.

Lanliss said:

The reason it is awkward is because it would not just be a discussion of the fact that some men love men over women. Just about any child I can think of would want to know everything about a new subject, and would not be satisfied with a simple answer.

Click to expand...

Again, it's only awkward for you. You don't need to go into details. You don't need to explain homosexual coupling. Just that they love each other. "Those men love each other like daddy loves mommy" or "some families have a mommy and a daddy, some have just a mommy, some have just a daddy, some have two daddies, and some have two mommies."
It really isn't complicated. Most of the time it will be followed by an "oh." I've had no problems explaining the concept to my son.
Kids are remarkably flexible and just accept what they're told.

And, again, what age are you playing with your kids? Seriously, if they're still asking questions like that they must be super young. Kudos for getting your kids to play at such a young age. I'm still toying with Dungeon and Castle Ravenloft with fewer rules.

Lanliss said:

Once again, I was only responding to that single part of the post, and not talking for or against any of the arguments happening. I am only saying that if you are playing a game with your child I would not imagine it the best time to introduce him/her to new horizons. Should you at some point? Yes. During game night, where the only goal is some simple orc bashing? Not so much. I know this looks similar to many of the arguments already up, but I am speaking EXCLUSIVELY when children are involved, and you don't feel like discussing sex with your eight year old. Games with adults are a different story, but I am not wading into that argument.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Strongly. Play is one of the BEST times to introduce new concepts to children. Children learn through play.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_through_play

There's no better time to introduce those concepts. Sitting kids down and explaining concepts is too much like a lecture. That makes them feel like they're being scolded or talked at. It doesn't engage them. The school structure doesn't work with young children. There's a reason playschool and kindergarten are so focused on play. Introducing a new concept to children through play is a great way to make it subtle and less like a lecture, make it less likely to be tuned out.
Roleplaying games are a fantastic learning tool. They're used for both education and even therapy. They can teach problem solving skills, storytelling skills, relationship skills, math, and so much more. They're a great way to introduce children to different concepts and ideas without making them seem like they're being lectured.

MostlyDm said:

I'm actually very skeptical of genetic determinism in general. So I have no problem accepting that heterosexuality may not always be the standard; I don't really give a crap. Though I'd be careful in this area: some of your ideological allies have noted already that rejecting genetic determinism would also indirectly threaten a common LGBT defense mechanism (I can't control it, so stop trying to force me to be different.)

Click to expand...

Things in life are rarely clear cut, almost never one thing or another. Human sexuality likely has both a genetic and asocial component.

Sexuality is also not binary. The Kinsey Scale rates people from 0 to 6 but it probably be even more granular. There's a lot of people who identify as straight who might be comfortable having a homosexual experience: look at how many people "experiment" in college. Remove the social and cultural stigma (and risk of STDs) and there'd be more people having sex with each other because they want to have sex at that moment and someone is willing. A lot more instances of "well, I'm not gay, but I'm horny and it's been a while, and they're into me... so why not?"

MostlyDm said:

None of that is really germane to what I was saying though. For now, heterosexuality is the norm. The situation I was citing had to do with kids asking about gay relationships from a place of ignorance; such ignorance would only exist in a heteronormative society, so that's the one I was commenting on.

Click to expand...

It's not the norm. It's just the majority. Norm implies something is expected or acceptable. There are lots of things in the world that are common, but I would NOT call "acceptable", that should not be "the norm".

MostlyDm said:

Also it is fascinating to me that you lump heterosexuality being the norm in with racism and sexism. What the heck is that about? As I said in my post, I wasn't discussing homophobia, I was just observing that heterosexuality is the norm. Is heterosexuality *inherently* oppressive and offensive to you, the way sexism and racism are? What's going on here?

Click to expand...

I lumped assuming heteronormativity - discriminating against sexual orientation - in with racism and sexism.

ddaley said:

Go right ahead and do that with your gaming sessions then. Don't tell me what I need to include in my gaming sessions.

Click to expand...

Where were you told this exactly?