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

[SuperZero]

Wow. That's a jump from "may insult" to "beat to a pulp". I wasn't assuming a physically threatening situation.

I did not make such an assumption.

In my entire life, I've witnessed maybe one incident of physical threat based off some form of discrimination and that never manifested actual violence. Even in "adult" life (quotes used because the behavior isn't adult), I've only witnessed insults and/or cold-shoulder type treatment. Those suck, but are in a completely different league than physical danger. My comments should be taken in that context.

Right. The comfort and safety of marginalized people.
(You know that kind of marginalization isn't remotely similar to somebody insulting you, right? It's lethal. Oh, and can very easily become physical violence when you're not there to watch, anyway.)

EDIT: Okay, I waffled on even including this because it's getting kinda off-topic. But I can fix that!
This is never about one single incident. This stuff is pervasive and constant.
Not mentioning a minority group is inoffensive. But when it happens consistently, that exclusion becomes a part of that constant itself.
The explicit mention can then be very very meaningful.

It, uh, can be more subtly done than the 5E PHB did it, though.

He's answering a statement you made to him. The sooner you stop ascribing motivations/arguments to him that he hasn't shown, the better.

Making multiple posts about how little one cares about the topic does show something.

I also happen to agree with him in that there definitely is this attitude that if you don't agree with me as much as I do on something, that means you're actually against it. Which is complete BS.

Great. Are we disagreeing on ice cream flavors or the concept of equality?

To be frank, if you say yes to some, but not to others, that makes you a hypocrite; someone who only wants their special interests included but not others.

First of all, the existence of a minority group and allergies aren't really comparable.
But certain of these things can come up, and others don't. Character sexuality is very often not mentioned--that's true! If only a handful of characters have such details mentioned, maybe none of them are queer.
But if you use that as a reason to never include them, it doesn't take very long before you've excluded them.

And as EW said, not only does that take up too much space when you include everything that a person could be, but it also takes away the time from the game designers to focus on the adventure.

If you really want to specifically spell out every character's orientation, that takes like one word each. Assuming you remember to use paragraph breaks (and if you don't, I kinda doubt anybody got far enough into reading it for any commentary on content to even happen), that doesn't even add lines to the total document.
Of course, that's probably not a very good idea. But sometimes when you mention the fallen hero's lover or the ally's spouse or the fact that two villains are a couple, you don't have to make one a man and one a woman every time. It takes no time at all. Maybe if you have to go back and edit some character descriptions because it never occurred to you not to make them all straight... but that's indicative of the problem, and should take effort to correct.

Also, re: kings vs queens, marriages were almost always a matter of politics, not love or attraction. So just because a king has a queen doesn't mean one of them isn't gay. We have plenty of real life examples of this in history, actually.

If your fiction can handle elves and goblins and wizards, but not gay people, I think you can stop citing history.

(How often does that happen in fiction? I think princes and princesses are more often there for the protagonist to marry.)

5e has done a tremendous job of inclusion, from that paragraph already mentioned, to the description of succubus/incubi, which clearly portrays them as seduction monsters of every possible gender/identity combination. And as I said earlier. Jeremy Crawford is gay, so I trust him to make sure that the game felt inclusive. He knows better than anyone. Especially since he's said those very words himself in interviews.

So... what are you objecting to?

 

[Lanliss]

Saying "people are just people" ignores that issue. It seems like it's neutral, but the world isn't neutral to them. Changes need to be made. Laws need to be altered. How things are presented needs to change. Subtle bias needs to be removed. And that requires more attention and awareness than not actively hating.

That looks a lot like trying to pull politics into the matter, which is not a good idea, I think. I personally have a "live and let live" policy, derived from the fact that I really don't care. I understand that others do, and if that paragraph made them happy, awesome. I however maintain the same stance of several others, of "good for them". Then again, it does not affect me, so my word may not count for much.

 

[Jester David]

That looks a lot like trying to pull politics into the matter, which is not a good idea, I think. I personally have a "live and let live" policy, derived from the fact that I really don't care. I understand that others do, and if that paragraph made them happy, awesome. I however maintain the same stance of several others, of "good for them". Then again, it does not affect me, so my word may not count for much.

Which is fair. No one need give more of a concern than they feel is necessary. Everyone has their own causes they consider worth fighting for. That's cool.

The problem comes when people who do not share the concern - who do not have the same cause - stand in the way, or argue that such things are unnecessary.

 

[Jester David]

double post

 

[Gnarl45]

First of all, the existence of a minority group and allergies aren't really comparable.
But certain of these things can come up, and others aren't. Character sexuality is very often not mentioned--that's true! If only a handful of characters have such details mentioned, maybe none of them are queer.
But if you use that as a reason to never include them, it doesn't take very long before you've excluded them.

How do you know a hairy dwarf isn't gay? Or that Mr X's wife isn't a dude?

What do you mean by including them? A community of dwarves that values the love between a master artisan and his apprentice more than the love between a man and a women?

 

[devincutler]

Disabilities are tricky as they have actual game impact. Exploring a dungeon with crutches is hard, and a couple disabilities are negative conditions.
Sure, the DM is fully able to allow for a handicapable adventurer, but others might opt for a more realistic medieval approach where physical disability is a hindrance to be overcome in the dungeon.

Clearly all dungeons need to have ramps instead of stairs and meet the ADA requirements. Otherwise we are not being inclusive!

 

[SuperZero]

How do you know a hairy dwarf isn't gay?

...huh? That... really doesn't have much to do with what I said. I'm fairly certain I didn't mention hair.

Or that Mr X's wife isn't a dude?

I suggest you look up the word "wife."

What do you mean by including them? A community of dwarves that values the love between a master artisan and his apprentice more than the love between a man and a women?

That is extremely far removed from the topic.
A master artisan and his apprentice could easily be a man and a woman. Whether a community values professional relationships over romantic ones--which isn't at all what you actually said but I'll go with it--has literally nothing to do with whether any of the NPCs in that community are GLBT.

 

[Lanliss]

We live in a world where "woman" no longer just means woman. Why can't his "wife" be a trans or drag queen?

 

[Jester David]

Clearly all dungeons need to have ramps instead of stairs and meet the ADA requirements. Otherwise we are not being inclusive!

The idea of ramps in a dungeon and disabled adventurers is a little silly.

But what about the innkeeper? The mayor? The owner and operator of the general store?
There's lots of people in the game world beyond the adventurers.

 

[Jester David]

We live in a world where "woman" no longer just means woman. Why can't his "wife" be a trans or drag queen?

Wife is a female partner. If Mr. X's wife is a dude then the proper term is husband. The phrasing should have been "Mr X's spouse is a dude".

Yes, that female partner could be a transwoman but then they still wouldn't be a dude.