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

[jonesy]

Is Briene (from Game of Thrones) a completely unrealistic character?

It's probably good to mention here that Gwendoline Christie got in shape for the role by taking up kickboxing and other martial arts, and didn't use a stunt double for anything (I'm sure they had one just in case, but she did all the scenes herself). She could kick quite a lot of ass herself if she took up fighting as a profession.

 

[NewJeffCT]

It's probably good to mention here that Gwendoline Christie got in shape for the role by taking up kickboxing and other martial arts, and didn't use a stunt double for anything (I'm sure they had one just in case, but she did all the scenes herself). She could kick quite a lot of ass herself if she took up fighting as a profession.

But, she still differs a bit from the book Brienne. Several times in the book, Jamie refers to her as a "cow" - implying that's she's bulky as well as tall. Gwendolyn Christie certainly isn't waifish, but I doubt anybody would call her a cow, either. I consider her to be more of a "freak of nature" in terms of her size & strength, like Gregor Clegane is a male freak of nature in the books.

I had pictured Brienne more like Gabrielle Garcia 6'5" and somewhere around 250 pounds - http://thefightworkspodcast.com/images/ana-carolina-vidal-gabriell.jpg

That said, I think for most of Westeros - similar to Earth - women are not encouraged to be warriors most of the time, and that small/petite women are often considered more desirable and more feminine by society. If there were a fantasy society that was the opposite - women & men both valued for size & strength (or just women, if you wanted an Amazon-like society) - you could see women that were large and strong like men, though the largest women would still be (on average) smaller than largest men. (Unless it's one of those Amazon societies where only large/strong women were valued.)

 

[Alzrius]

If you are a class which eschews heavy or highly durable armor, then reasonably, there's no real need to wear anything at all. The basis for most magic is some kind of connection and mastery of the magical forces of the world. Wearing anything particularly heavy interferes with that mastery and connection, to an extent this stems from classical mythology where the oracles and servants of various gods wore little to no clothing. It ties into why a lot of the "occult" is portrayed as doing what they do naked, or sexually.

Hm, I hadn't thought of that. I suspect you're right, but that this particular set of reasoning is fairly diffuse, e.g. it influenced the people who influenced the people who influenced game design (e.g. it's why you never see Merlin as wearing armor).

If there was no, or minimal magical enhancement bonuses to armor then we'd have removed any mechanical reason for a character who can only wear light or no armor, to wear anything at all.

Well, they can still wear other magic items (particularly ones that boost AC), which is what most of those characters do.

In short, you're explaining as to how it's okay to say humans can have magic powers and cast magic missile spells, but not okay to say humans can be equally strong, because everything is supposed to work the way it does in the real world unless there is a good storytelling reason to say differently.

I'm saying that the presence of fantastic elements is not, unto itself, a credible reason for waiving all elements of realism.

This says that you think there is no in-game reason for there to be any such thing as a female fighter who is as good as a man. And you're still good with the psionics and dragons and magic missile stuff, even though none of that is true in the real world.

Again, this is from a simulationist standpoint; there's no ideological argument in this particular aspect of the discussion (which, if I'm understanding you correctly, seems to be your position). If you want to include fantastic elements as a part of the game world, there's no innate reason for that to undercut the realistic assumptions of how much of the world still works (short of the game deliberately and obviously doing just that).

It's also worth noting that the quote above is an incorrect restatement of my argument. There is, in this scenario, an in-game reason for a female fighter who is as good, or better, than a male fighter. Even leaving aside the idea that she can be of a higher level, the issue of a Strength cap that's slightly lower for her than for men wouldn't mean that she can't still have a higher Strength than a male character (presuming that no one gets near the cap). This is also true for the idea of a Strength penalty, though it'd be slightly more intrusive than a cap.

Not finding this argument credible even when it uses more words.

Perhaps you could explain why you don't find the argument credible, from a simulationist standpoint? I understand you don't like the ideological message contained therein - I don't either - but nobody's debating that.

It's worth noting again that I'm not speaking to any sort of personal ideology about the depiction of women in the game world, nor marketability of the game to a female audience. This is purely a debate regarding levels of simulationism in the game world.

I find that really interesting, why do you think it leads to bad places?

I personally believe that holding artwork to the same moral dimensions as reality is the first step towards the justification of censorship (e.g. "we need to suppress this because it could corrupt the youth"). I believe that, if you find some artwork to be personally distasteful, it's enough to simply ignore it, as it's not hurting anyone.

The same can be said of any medium or mode of expression that passively or actively condones racism/sexism or pretty much any -ism. And it pretty much has been. Most forms of effective -isming that I've seen hides behind good intentions, or portends be free of responsibility in the name of art, fun, or I'm kidding.

Art is free of responsibility. The question of whether it's a moral duty to have artwork promote positive social values is one that was dealt with a great deal earlier in the thread, but I believe that doing so is a good thing, but not a requirement. Art that does not promote the general welfare is not in-and-of itself immoral.

I respectfully disagree here. Mostly because I'm not sure it's possible. What aspects of your personality is engaging with the fiction/game or whatever? Really, I'm curious.

Presumably the same part that can play a violent video game, or watch a violent movie, without feeling horrified or guilty that the "bad guys" are being killed. I believe that people recognize a strong dividing line between fantasy and reality, and that it's healthy (in a cathartic sense) to use fantasy to indulge in the things we know would be unacceptable in reality.

Though the intention is to not upset other players at the table, I think what the OP is asking about is - Are the designers not excluding the participation of under represented groups in order to avoid this possibility by drawing a particular picture of heroism, that does not include them. Which, if this type of question is asked enough, may help move us towards a more inclusive perspective and thereby strengthen the industry, financially and morally.

I'll eat the fact that DnD and Pen and paper RPGs is dominated by hetero white males, but I think this line of questioning should be seriously engaged unless you are completely okay with that. I think it's one of the reason I don't publicly admit to being and DnD gamer, which sucks (because I would like to). Meaning, that even if you are racist and sexist (not meaning you at all, because I think your coming from a good perspective) there is a lot of self interest possibly by solving this.

I also think that the question is one that should be seriously engaged, hence why I've been posting so much in this thread.

I agree that including elements of inclusiveness in the game is a moral virtue, even without getting into the question of trying to court wider market demographics. The issue I have is with people who tried to say that the reverse was true, that not including such elements was a moral fault. I believe that it goes too far to say that creative works could potentially be held as immoral, and wanted to speak out against that idea.

 

[Ratskinner]

In other words, I find it hard to fault the pictures for not closely adhering to standards of equipage when there isn't a standard to begin with.

That's fair enough, and context does matter to me. If you are in the section about social encounters and illustrating a formal ball, I don't have any problem with non-adventure-functional gear. If you're just illustrating an adventurer of a given type, then they should look like they are ready to adventure (for my taste anyway). Too many female characters are portrayed are portrayed in such illustrations wearing outfits and gear which is, even if not sexualized, eminently impractical for digging around tombs and fighting off orc hordes.

There's a persistent argument that because there are a large number of fantastic elements in the game world, rules that seek to enforce any real-world condition or situation that doesn't have broad applicability is somehow "missing the point." In other words, that because clearly fantastic elements have been introduced, any assumption that any aspect of the game world follows how we would expect things to function in the real world is faulty.

Which makes you wish that that had anything to do with my thought.

Others have already argued that gender-discriminatory rules may not even be real-world accurate.

However, I'm not making a simulationist or even anti-simulationist argument.

Obviously, we choose to add unreal things to our games. We choose to add non-human races, magic, and other elements which cannot be simulated because they are not real. Even if you say "We are trying to simulate the genre" We must choose what sources and elements and which tropes of the genre and those elements we wish to include. In addition, we ignore or eliminate many elements of reality for the sake of our heroic fantasy. Disease, fatigue, languages, injury, etc. are all routinely downgraded or ignored so that we can avoid simulating Conan die of diarrhea or similar ignominy. Ron Edwards says that simulation is about "living the dream". For a fantasy game, gender-biased (and many other) rules aren't a choice about how well you can "live the dream" they are a choice about "what dream you want to live". As such, their purveyors bear whatever responsibilty (however meager) comes with it. "I'm Simulationist" isn't some sort of sexism "Get Out of Jail Free" card. The answer to my question "Why bother?" is, and must be, simply "Because I want women to be weaker than men in my game."

In the broader context of the OP for this thread. I would say that including gender-bias limits (in a minor way, to be sure) the fantasy that D&D can portray OotB, and thus should be avoided. I feel similarly about adding too much cosmological lore to monster descriptions.

 

[Alzrius]

That's fair enough, and context does matter to me. If you are in the section about social encounters and illustrating a formal ball, I don't have any problem with non-adventure-functional gear. If you're just illustrating an adventurer of a given type, then they should look like they are ready to adventure (for my taste anyway). Too many female characters are portrayed are portrayed in such illustrations wearing outfits and gear which is, even if not sexualized, eminently impractical for digging around tombs and fighting off orc hordes.

Fair enough, but the problem with "fighting off orc hordes" or "digging around tombs" is that that's presuming a context to the pictures that is impossible to ascertain, either against or in favor of. The artists don't have the ability to make the characters look like they're adventuring for your tastes, so the best they can do is make them to their own.

To put it another way, illustrations virtually never have any sort of unambiguous context to the scenes they depict (short us being told, or otherwise having it clearly indicated, that they're meant to represent a specific scene from a specific narrative). Given that, why not presume that, if the characters depicted are part of a larger world, how they're equipped is sufficient for a scenario that they're either heading for or returning from?

Which makes you wish that that had anything to do with my thought.

It has more to do with than you might think; see below.

Others have already argued that gender-discriminatory rules may not even be real-world accurate.

Which is sort of the point to this discussion; notwithstanding any issues of ideology or marketability, what sort of rules in that regard would be accurate?

However, I'm not making a simulationist or even anti-simulationist argument.

Obviously, we choose to add unreal things to our games. We choose to add non-human races, magic, and other elements which cannot be simulated because they are not real. Even if you say "We are trying to simulate the genre" We must choose what sources and elements and which tropes of the genre and those elements we wish to include. In addition, we ignore or eliminate many elements of reality for the sake of our heroic fantasy. Disease, fatigue, languages, injury, etc. are all routinely downgraded or ignored so that we can avoid simulating Conan die of diarrhea or similar ignominy.

It's worth noting that this does seem to be shaping up as an anti-simulationist argument.

Ron Edwards says that simulation is about "living the dream". For a fantasy game, gender-biased (and many other) rules aren't a choice about how well you can "live the dream" they are a choice about "what dream you want to live".

It's worth noting that when Edwards said that he was referring to making the dream as realistic as possible. He wasn't talking about the ideological quality (or morality) of what that dream was.

As such, their purveyors bear whatever responsibilty (however meager) comes with it. "I'm Simulationist" isn't some sort of sexism "Get Out of Jail Free" card. The answer to my question "Why bother?" is, and must be, simply "Because I want women to be weaker than men in my game."

And this is where you wish this had anything to do with my argument.

All kidding aside though, I understand your point, but it's essentially saying that you want to focus on the ideology of sex-based mechanics. That's fine - and for what it's worth I would like to point out (again) that I find them distasteful, to say nothing of how nobody is advocating that they actually be added to the game - but that's not the discussion I'm having.

(This is leaving aside the discussion of the moral responsibility - or, as I see it, the lack thereof - in making a game that puts forward positive social mores. In that regard, the only tangible responsibility one has ("responsibility" here meaning "duty") is in regards to its marketability.)

In the broader context of the OP for this thread. I would say that including gender-bias limits (in a minor way, to be sure) the fantasy that D&D can portray OotB, and thus should be avoided. I feel similarly about adding too much cosmological lore to monster descriptions.

That's a different discussion, largely about the degree to which the rules and written materials can, or should, be ignored/modified.

 

[Umbran]

I'm saying that the presence of fantastic elements is not, unto itself, a credible reason for waiving all elements of realism.

"Realism" is not, unto itself, a credible reason to cheese people off.

We aren't talking about waiving *ALL* elements of realism. We're really only talking about one. One that has a rather tenuous claim on "reality" to begin with, given the rather vague general definitions for the stats at hand and the usual cherry-picking of data that happens on this particular topic.

If, for example, you wanted to start talking about inserting some more realistic predator-prey population dynamics into the world, or a more realistic economy, or having monster sizes actually limited by a square-cube law, we'd be having a different discussion. So, it isn't *ALL*. Don't overstate the positions, please.

 

[Alzrius]

"Realism" is not, unto itself, a credible reason to cheese people off.

Once again, I'm not suggesting that it is.

We aren't talking about waiving *ALL* elements of realism. We're really only talking about one. One that has a rather tenuous claim on "reality" to begin with, given the rather vague general definitions for the stats at hand and the usual cherry-picking of data that happens on this particular topic.

If, for example, you wanted to start talking about inserting some more realistic predator-prey population dynamics into the world, or a more realistic economy, or having monster sizes actually limited by a square-cube law, we'd be having a different discussion. So, it isn't *ALL*. Don't overstate the positions, please.

Fair enough; I amend my previous statement to "any particular element of realism."

 

[JonWake]

Lewis's Law:
The comment thread on any discussion about feminism justifies the existence of feminism.

This thread, for example...

 

[NewJeffCT]

Lewis's Law:
The comment thread on any discussion about feminism justifies the existence of feminism.

This thread, for example...

At least we haven't had anybody call somebody else "Hitler" in this thread.

Isn't that another internet rule - the longer a thread goes, the more likely it is that somebody is called "Hitler" by another poster?

 

[Alzrius]

Isn't that another internet rule - the longer a thread goes, the more likely it is that somebody is called "Hitler" by another poster?

It's Godwin's Law.