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

[seebs]

For what it's worth, I understood where you were trying to go with your questions. I share your concerns, and I was curious to see how people answered as well. I think this is a really important aspect of this sort of discussion.

The most common reason that I see "social justice warrior" used pejoratively is when the so-called SJW takes the opposing side from you on this very issue, something like: dissent must be squelched/criminalized in order to right the injustices the minority faces.

I think that's a very bad road to go down. But I can handle any amount of disagreement.

I use it as a pejorative because I spend a lot of time on tumblr, where the loudest and most vehement advocates for "social justice" are mostly bullies who have no interest at all in social justice, and are just using the language as an excuse to hurt people. So far as I can tell, that's the original sense, and the various other senses (generic use as an attack against anyone who advocates for equality or freedom, for instance) are all corruptions based on people not picking up tone or context.

 

[MostlyDm]

They exist in myths and legends today. That's rather different from one living next door.
"The guards might believe in goblins, elves, and wizards" is quite different from "One of the guards is a goblin, they fought elves yesterday, and they work for a wizard."

You misunderstand. Because those creatures were very commonly believed in at the time, you could have a game that was quite true to the ambience and culture of that time if you wanted... While still including goblins and wizards and such. Probably couldn't include Gricks and Grells, though.

Treating the presence of a minority group, no matter how polite people think they are, as an "issue" may not come off as so "civil" to the people who are members of those groups.

This kind of rhetoric doesn't really do you any favors. We are discussing various issues, most of which are not actually about the mere presence of minorities.

 

[Greg K]

I have no idea if it is attracting new players or not. My gaming experience, having grown up and living in Southern California combined with a few years LARPing, is that LGBT players have always been part of gaming. I have had a few LGBT players in my campaigns on and off since 1983 (which was only a few years after I started gaming).

High School: I had a gay player in the group (initially, in the closet). He was in the closet and the only reason we knew is that he had had it on another good fried of ours in the group. The friend to whom the pass was made casually mentioned what happened, inquired if it happened to anyone else, and blew it off as inconsequential. We all continued to play together for several years and, today, still keep in touch via Facebook

2000s: Had four female friends in my first 3e group. Two are like my nieces- one is bi and one is gender fluid (at the time, identified as FM transgender). At least one of the other two women were also bi.

In my current group that has been together eight years, one of my male players is bi (preference leaning towards women).

Another gamer friend whom I have known since the 1990's came out as gay, publicly, a few years ago. He has been playing D&D since before I have known him.

I have also known players from two group comprised entirely of LGBT players. The impression that I received is that they organized the group to feel comfortable with storylines involving LGBT relationships and issues and didn't want to impose on straight groups by introducing issues that might make such groups uncomfortable

Again, maybe it is just where I have lived and my LARP experience that I have known several LGBT D&D players dating back to AD&D 1e.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I can't help but notice that none of these characters has a stated orientation.

Exactly. They could be asexual or romantically involved with trees for all I know or care. The game works better in my opinion when it's not about romance. Maybe your game is different--maybe your game spends lots of time on the social pillar in a way that I'm frankly not well-equipped to do--but my game benefits from the fact that no one is hitting on NPCs of any persuasion: male, female, or otherwise.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The institution of marriage used to be much stronger than it is now, but the primary attack on it actually consists of trying to replace the creation of enduring family bonds with an animal husbandry permit. Marriage was, for most of human history, much more than a procreation license. The last ten or twenty years of trying to redefine it to be about nothing but "one man, one woman" has been infinitely more destructive to it than anything else that's going on.

... and this is really off-topic, so I think I'll drop this now.

If you're implying that the only unique contribution mothers bring to a family is a uterus, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Mothers and fathers are both invaluable and not interchangeable.

I agree with the sentence in bold. There are a number of factors in the U.S. today that can impede children being born to and retaining a married mother and father. All of them concern me, and some of them hopefully concern you to even if others don't. Even if the only thing we agree on is, "Once you're married, you should spend regular face time with your spouse to build the relationship which is your top priority," you have to admit that there are people who've never been taught how to do that, and that's a problem.

Most people need at least one rolemodel for a good marriage in order to figure out how to be a good spouse. Ideally you'd get that model from your parents, but there are kids out there who don't have anyone at all to learn from.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

They exist in myths and legends today. That's rather different from one living next door.

So what do you think about urban fantasy settings like The Dresden Files? Do the supernatural elements of the setting mean that it doesn't matter how otherwise consistent it is with contemporary American culture? Can the GM declare that, say, because wizards exist, the Communists are a major political party and jai alai is the national sport? I mean, yes, the GM can declare that, but I think it rather undermines the point of the setting, which is to take a particular culture -- ours -- and play out its myths and legends within that context. Now, D&D is a little different, because although it's still very much inspired by myths and legends, it's also far more open-ended and doesn't attach itself to any one setting or theme. Not every group uses the game to play out the myths and legends of past cultures the way The Dresden Files plays out the myths and legends of present culture. That's absolutely fine. But some groups do use the game for that, and that's absolutely fine too.

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm not sure how clearly this has been addressed in this thread, but . . . .

Sexuality and romance =/= gender.

There is nothing wrong with including sexuality and romance in your D&D games, as these things exist in the real world they also exist in whatever fantasy world you play your games in. But if your group wants to downplay sexuality and romance and focus on other human activities, like violence, that's fine of course

But you can't eliminate gender in your games (well, unless you are playing in a really weird fantasy world). You can blissfully ignore that not all humans fit neatly into the gender binary, in the modern day as well as the ancient past (and everything inbetween), and likely in any remotely "realistic" fantasy world (realistic as in the "suspension of disbelief" -- look it up). But you are missing out on something important if you do.

If you are a heterosexual person, and you were playing in a game where all of the characters, PC and NPC, were homosexual (even without any focus on sexuality and romance), that *might* feel a little unwelcoming and jarring to you.

If you are homosexual or transgender, playing a game where it's been acknowledged that your character can be of whatever gender orientation you want, and that certain background characters (NPCs) have varying gender orientations, is very respectful, welcoming, and can make you feel more "safe" participating in that game.

If you, being homo or trans, enter a game where you're told, "We don't discuss "sex" and so we don't want to hear about your homosexual or transgender character", well, then you are NOT being welcomed and something that is core to your personal identity is being dismissed by the other players. You'll be less likely to stick around in an environment like that.

Do ALL homosexual, transgender, or LGBT-friendly folks feel the "need" for this inclusiveness? Of course not, we are all individuals and we all respond to the inequities of society differently. Homo and trans folks have had to learn how to "get along" all their lives in a heteronormative environment, and we all have different priorities and comfort levels.

But I'll never understand the position of, "Well, despite many folks in this minority group telling me that this IS a problem, I've never seen it as such and so I'd just prefer we ignore it rather than deal with it and make something more welcoming to a greater diversity of people." But that is the liberal's conundrum, isn't it? How to be tolerant of the intolerant.

 

[Dire Bare]

Children need contrasting role models and those role models, such as parents, have an obligation to provide instructions and incentives for a method of procreation to perpetuate the species. Children also need at least one good parental figure to act as guardian who has their best interests at heart, and preferably more than one.

The nuclear model is not the only one capable of reaching these goals.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you here, but . . . source?

As a species, yes, the next generation needs to procreate so that humanity doesn't die out. But your hormones handle that pretty well.

As an individual, most certainly have natural drives to procreate, but there is no need to do so. If I never have kids, I'm not doing it wrong, but I hope that not everyone makes the same decision!

You are right though, that the "nuclear family" isn't the only way forward, it isn't even the original way if you go back to our roots as hunter-gatherers before we started complicating things with cities, nations, patriarchy, and all of that.

 

[SuperZero]

So what do you think about urban fantasy settings like The Dresden Files? Do the supernatural elements of the setting mean that it doesn't matter how otherwise consistent it is with contemporary American culture? Can the GM declare that, say, because wizards exist, the Communists are a major political party and jai alai is the national sport? I mean, yes, the GM can declare that, but I think it rather undermines the point of the setting, which is to take a particular culture -- ours -- and play out its myths and legends within that context. Now, D&D is a little different, because although it's still very much inspired by myths and legends, it's also far more open-ended and doesn't attach itself to any one setting or theme. Not every group uses the game to play out the myths and legends of past cultures the way The Dresden Files plays out the myths and legends of present culture. That's absolutely fine. But some groups do use the game for that, and that's absolutely fine too.

Elves are a common race in DnD. That's not at all the same as a modern fantasy setting, where people generally don't know that such things exist--or that they only recently became common knowledge.
If you want to have a setting where all of these fantasy elements openly exist and nothing else about culture is the same... that can be internally consistent, but you've already got something majorly unrealistic. I think it can handle a few female guards. Unlike elves, women actually exist.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you are a heterosexual person, and you were playing in a game where all of the characters, PC and NPC, were homosexual (even without any focus on sexuality and romance), that *might* feel a little unwelcoming and jarring to you.

If you are homosexual or transgender, playing a game where it's been acknowledged that your character can be of whatever gender orientation you want, and that certain background characters (NPCs) have varying gender orientations, is very respectful, welcoming, and can make you feel more "safe" participating in that game.

Do you know who decides that? You do, at your gaming table. 5e said in the PHB that anyone can be any gender or orientation they want. There's your rule and guideline. The NPCs aren't specifically called out as heterosexual or cis. Their orientation and identity is left blank on purpose, because as the PHB tells you, they can be whatever you want them to be.

If you, being homo or trans, enter a game where you're told, "We don't discuss "sex" and so we don't want to hear about your homosexual or transgender character", well, then you are NOT being welcomed and something that is core to your personal identity is being dismissed by the other players. You'll be less likely to stick around in an environment like that.

Gotta call BS on this one. If a game table says they don't want to discuss sex in their games at all, that doesn't target GLBT any more than anyone else. Most of our games don't talk about sexual orientation or identity because it's not relevant to why we play the game. That doesn't mean we're telling GLBT players they are not welcome. No sexual aspect of the game is discussed.

"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others" I suppose.