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

[EthanSental]

Yet another category we've apparently created to separate people for some underlying reason that I dont know what it means, CIS male?

 

[MostlyDm]

Not a problem. However, since we were discussing the setting appropriate nature of gender and sexuality choices, I would like to ask if you think any of D&D's settings (FR, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Planescape, Eberron, etc.) are characterized such that LGBT characters would be inappropriate (and if you think one of those settings would be inappropriate, what is it about that setting that makes you think that would be the case).

Oh definitely not. All the main D&D settings are sufficiently generic to allow for any amount of QUILTBAG identities to fit. And races aren't even notable... they cram in a dozen primary different species for chrissake.

Ravenloft has gothic vampires, so there's plenty of room for gay and lesbian overtones. Greyhawk toys with a sort of Lankhmar-esque sword-and-sorcery crapsack quality to its world, so I wouldnt be surprised if non-standard identities drew some NPC heat... but by the same token it lends itself to some damn good murderhoboing, so you have a ready-made answer to any prejudice you encounter. Most of the others are so out-there that I don't even see it being an issue.

I think a gay or bisexual character in that campaign would have been interesting, especially as a PC for a straight player to run. The culture would likely (I know significantly less about the Incas than other cultures) frown on expressing that sexuality, which would mean the character would have to find ways to hide and constructively deal with feelings his culture wouldn't allow them to express. It creates an interesting internal struggle for the character.

Yeah, being gay would have been interesting in that one, whereas being a woman (except maybe a Mulan type woman?) would have been inappropriate. ...And it was a very story driven game, and I suspect a Mulan figure would be liable to totally derail all other aspects of the story. So yeah. Probably best to avoid.

 

[MostlyDm]

Yet another category we've apparently created to separate people for some underlying reason that I dont know what it means, CIS male?

A person whose biological sex and gender identity match. Opposite of trans.

It actually comes up in chemistry, too.

 

[MechaPilot]

Yet another category we've apparently created to separate people for some underlying reason that I dont know what it means, CIS male?

If you're asking what the term cis-male means, it means a person who is biologically male and whose gender identity is male; the prefix cis has the opposite meaning of the prefix trans.

 

[MostlyDm]

I think a gay or bisexual character in that campaign would have been interesting, especially as a PC for a straight player to run. The culture would likely (I know significantly less about the Incas than other cultures) frown on expressing that sexuality, which would mean the character would have to find ways to hide and constructively deal with feelings his culture wouldn't allow them to express. It creates an interesting internal struggle for the character.

Yeah, being gay would have been interesting in that one, whereas being a woman (except maybe a Mulan type woman?) would have been inappropriate. ...And it was a very story driven game, and I suspect a Mulan figure would be liable to totally derail all other aspects of the story. So yeah. Probably best to avoid.

Oh, I had another thought on this. I alluded to this several pages back...

I'm generally inclined to allow LGBT/female/etc. characters even in games where such things are not normally accepted. With occasional exceptions, perhaps... but the issue then is, how much does the player want to deal with possible negative consequences?

Most of the time it seems like inclusivity advocates want for there to be no negative consequences. They want the fantasy world to be free of prejudice... which is fine for some settings, but not for others IMO. This is what I was getting at a while ago when I said it seems like people simultaneously want for there to be lots of LGBT characters, and make a big deal out of it, while simultaneously wanting it to not be a big deal or notable or difficult in any way.

It's a contradiction, I think.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This mindset is just totally alien to me. When I create fiction I don't gravitate towards creating people just like me. When I consume fiction, I don't prefer that the protagonist mimic me.

I'm suspicious of this. How many novels have you read that are told from the perspective of someone of a different sexual orientation or gender identity than you? (And: where are you finding these, because it is hard to find these!)

I'd say we could let everyone make the kind of fiction that resonates with them. If more LGBT fiction is desired, then it can be made by LGBT people or by people for whom such a thing is actually interesting. Actively requesting such a thing for inclusivity reasons is just... well... shoehorning.

If the majority doesn't make explicit space for a minority voice, it just gets silenced. From an American perspective, there's WAY more cis/het/middle-aged/middle-class/straight/euro/white/men then there are "others," so if everyone just does what they want, we'll see less of those "others." I think that's a problem - those others have interesting stories, too!

America is predominantly white, but by no means exclusively white. So goes our fiction. In Mexico, their fiction features a lot of Mexicans. Korean fiction starts mostly Koreans. It's a non-issue.

You'd think that's the case, but America's white population is < 50%, so by this logic, our fiction should be less than 50% white, but that is not the case. Also, women should outnumber men in storytelling the world over. This also does not seem to be the case.

I didn't say I don't care, I said it doesn't matter. And I explained what I meant. If it matters to someone, they should take steps to change things... by creating things that they care about. Not by trying to push others to conform to their desires.

From what I can tell, the PHB language is pretty much following you here - create a character you care about, whatever that character might be. The presumption often is that you can't just create any character you care about (not without unpleasant consequences, anyway).

Nobody needs to be in everything. Men don't, women don't, straight people don't, gay people don't... etc.

"Representation" as an ideal, instead of stuff like character, plot, etc... it's really damaging to fiction.

I've found the opposite to be true - homogenization is damaging to fiction. A push for representation is a reminder that interesting stories don't neatly fit into one box.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Frankly, I could do with a little less sexuality in published modules. I'm glad the Erinyes in the MM is fully clothed, and chainmail bikinis are mostly gone, but I didn't particularly care for the drow romance in Out of the Abyss. I would just as soon not see an uptick in that kind of thing. It's not really what onscreen D&D is or should be "about", from my subjective perspective. D&D is better for exploring platonic relationships between comrades for whom one would give one's life, because giving one's life is a real possibility (and dilemma) in the D&D ruleset. But there just isn't any space for exploring romantic relationships (domestic or otherwise) which is why love stories like the drow always come off as bathetic and pedestrian. Real-life relationships have more to do with little sacrifices like "do you put down the TV remote in order to ask me how my day went" and "who's getting up in the middle of the night to feed the baby", and those decisions, while interesting in real life, can't be modelled well in D&D and shouldn't be attempted, IMO. Leave those activities offscreen.

But then, I don't usually run published modules, so if WotC offends my sensibilities here they're not missing out on much--I probably wasn't going to buy many of their modules anyway.

 

[SuperZero]

Yes. And? Are you saying that dissent from your world view that X is a problem and needs to be addressed with actions to make things more equal and inclusive is to be labelled as a problem?

..are you suggesting that being wrong and being right are equally valid?
We can't have inclusion of GLBT people because that wouldn't be inclusive of people who don't like GLBT people?

I guess this is the main issue. This mindset is just totally alien to me. When I create fiction I don't gravitate towards creating people just like me.

Good for you. If that were universal, inclusion would reflect reality 100%. That does not seem to be the case.

When I consume fiction, I don't prefer that the protagonist mimic me.

That's easy enough to say when they all do.
Do you think that people who aren't white straight men don't consume media with protagonists that are? I assure you, we do. We have to, because that's what exists. Which is what makes that rare example so very special.
You want us to stop? When fiction reflects reality, we won't have to.

But most people feel the same as you... so they create fiction that resonates with them. Do you want them to create fiction that doesn't resonate with them, to satisfy inclusivity needs?

Do you think we don't?
A small minority creates fiction where that small minority is proportionally represented; nobody else does. That's not going to create proportional inclusion, somehow.

I'd say we could let everyone make the kind of fiction that resonates with them.

First of all, nobody is being prevented from making anything.
Second of all, "Gay People Don't Exist In This Story and Only Like Two Percent of the World is Female" is not actually a kind of fiction.
We all already exist in every part of reality. We are not the unrealistic part of a story where heroes superficially resembling us also help beat up dragons.

If more LGBT fiction is desired, then it can be made by LGBT people or by people for whom such a thing is actually interesting. Actively requesting such a thing for inclusivity reasons is just... well... shoehorning.

Proportional representation is proportional.
"Straight white boys only" is shoehorning.

America is predominantly white, but by no means exclusively white. So goes our fiction. In Mexico, their fiction features a lot of Mexicans. Korean fiction starts mostly Koreans. It's a non-issue.

If the difference was proportional, sure.

I didn't say I don't care, I said it doesn't matter.

Than why does its existence matter so much to you?
If it doesn't matter, than there's no reason not to remedy the imbalance!

Nobody needs to be in everything. Men don't, women don't, straight people don't, gay people don't... etc.

There is a vast gulf between being in everything and being in nothing.
Although honestly, the complete absence of any one of those will make very very little sense in essentially any setting in anything but the shortest fiction.

"Representation" as an ideal, instead of stuff like character, plot, etc... it's really damaging to fiction.

Okay, why? Why do you think a character being gay is damaging to fiction?
I thought you said it didn't matter?

Also, it's interesting that your main tactic here is denying that anyone who fits any of these criteria could possibly disagree with you. Everyone who disagrees with you is a cishet white male, and all LGBT folks are clamoring for representation, right?

I don't have a tactic. Inclusion helps all LGBT folks, and those who say they don't care often have a... more significant reaction than we anticipated upon finding some and realizing how little of it we've had.

But I literally never said anything like that.

Personally, I think that's a bit of a loss - love and relationships and questions of identity cut deep grooves into the stories we enjoy. They should be present - in all their diversity and weirdness - in the storytelling games we enjoy, too. Star Wars would be less epic without the Han/Leia thing. Harry Potter would be a paler world without the Ron/Hermoine thing. Avatar would be much less amusing without the Aang/Kitara thing.

Eh, that all involves protagonists/party members, though.
NPC romance that's actually mentioned in a published adventure will tend to be background. I mean, sure, that can be important information about characters' connections to each other, but it's not going to be an "on-screen" romance story.
And I tend to worry that PC romance will draw focus to one or two players too much (also, I don't think playing or writing it is my strong suit; I'm not very good at it in real life, either ).

Most of the time it seems like inclusivity advocates want for there to be no negative consequences. They want the fantasy world to be free of prejudice...

Yeah, I can't imagine why somebody might want to play a fantasy where there isn't a negative consequence for being a woman.

This is what I was getting at a while ago when I said it seems like people simultaneously want for there to be lots of LGBT characters, and make a big deal out of it, while simultaneously wanting it to not be a big deal or notable or difficult in any way.

Inclusion is a big deal because it is uncommon, which is why there was a blurb in the PHB about it in the first place.
I already live in a world where being a member of that minority group is difficult to the point where the idea of fictional characters who superficially resemble me is controversial; maybe I'd enjoy, on occasion, being able to just kill some orcs without it mattering.

It's a contradiction, I think.

Why do you think that's a contradiction?

 

[MechaPilot]

Oh, I had another thought on this. I alluded to this several pages back...

I'm generally inclined to allow LGBT/female/etc. characters even in games where such things are not normally accepted. With occasional exceptions, perhaps... but the issue then is, how much does the player want to deal with possible negative consequences?

Most of the time it seems like inclusivity advocates want for there to be no negative consequences. They want the fantasy world to be free of prejudice... which is fine for some settings, but not for others IMO. This is what I was getting at a while ago when I said it seems like people simultaneously want for there to be lots of LGBT characters, and make a big deal out of it, while simultaneously wanting it to not be a big deal or notable or difficult in any way.

It's a contradiction, I think.

I have a slightly different perspective. As I see it, I think the people you are talking about see the inclusion of LGBT characters as a big deal to themselves, and they don't necessarily want the game itself to make a big deal of the existence of LGBT characters. I think what they want from the game is the same apathetic acceptance that the traditional genders get, but I think that apathetic acceptance (by which I mean an attitude of "yeah, she's married to a woman. So are you. What's the big deal about that?") means more to people who aren't accepted that way in the real world.

I also don't think that people who want the inclusion of LGBT characters require universal acceptance (I mentioned something about this in a previous post). I think that acceptance as the default makes sense, just as the default of gender equality makes sense. However, some cultures within the established D&D settings may stray from the default. Some cultures may be accepting, but may establish differing gender roles for 3+ genders. Others may be accepting of only traditional genders and sexualities. And still others may venerate one gender as being blessed by or connected to the gods.

Naturally, for homebrew campaigns the DM will decide whatever restrictions are in place and what any repercussions of being a given gender, sexuality, or race will carry (and the DM will communicate those things to players before the game begins, hopefully).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Eh, that all involves protagonists/party members, though.
NPC romance that's actually mentioned in a published adventure will tend to be background. I mean, sure, that can be important information about characters' connections to each other, but it's not going to be an "on-screen" romance story.
And I tend to worry that PC romance will draw focus to one or two players too much (also, I don't think playing or writing it is my strong suit; I'm not very good at it in real life, either ).

NPC romances can affect the narrative powerfully, too. Snape/Lily, or Anikin/Padme, or whatever.

My main point was that romances occur as part of most stories, and those that occur, I think, should span the range of human romance, rather than be basically the same straight thing over and over again.