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

[seebs]

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 also don't think that the only unique contribution fathers bring is testes. On the other hand, I don't think that it particularly matters which kinds of parents you have; there's been pretty solid study on this, and there's ample evidence that parents of any variety appear to be able to raise healthy kids.

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.

At this point, I think the evidence is that more-than-one parent is beneficial (although there's some statistics suggesting that widows do just fine, so the family-role issues may be more a matter of expectations and education than number of people present), but that you are just as well off with two moms or two dads as with one of each, and that marriage-per-se is not the thing that makes the big difference.

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.

You need role models for healthy relationships, but I don't think it matters at all whether it's your parents or someone else. I know lots of kids from abusive families who have ended up using me and my spouse as role models for their relationships and are doing pretty well with it.

 

[MostlyDm]

But that is the liberal's conundrum, isn't it? How to be tolerant of the intolerant.

It's not that hard if the principles of tolerance and free speech are of major importantance to you. It also helps if you're more interested in leaving others free to do as they choose, and doing what you want for yourself, rather than wanting to control people into fitting whatever you see as the ideal.

 

[seebs]

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.

There's a very noticeable pattern to this, which I've seen happen occasionally in D&D and quite often in MMO communities, where people say "we don't discuss sex or relationships", but only say it when the relationships don't come across as straight. So they'll say nothing of the innkeeper and his wife, and the barmaid and her husband, but when the stableboy's boyfriend is mentioned, they suddenly declare that they don't want to talk about sexuality in the game.

That's a pretty consistent pattern of behavior that a lot of people show. And yeah, "some animals are more equal than others."

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

Disclaimer: This thread's going in all crazy directions, so I'm trying to respond to ideas and not specific posters, and using posts as springboards to further discussion rather than to refute or agree with specific statements. So, please don't respond with "That's not what I/he/she said!"

D&D fantasy, as a subset of literary fantasy, is VERY LOOSELY based on medieval European culture with many, many varied influences from other times, other continents, and other cultures. D&D is a huge mishmash of mythic and literary influences that grows and shifts every year as we get new fantasy novels and movies added to the background noise that feeds into the game. D&D also incorporates our very modern ideas of politics, gender, and, well, everything.

And, as has been pointed out earlier, homosexual and transgender characters most certainly existed in medieval Europe. So to argue it's okay to ignore them to be more "true" to D&D roots is a bit silly, to put it nicely.

My fantasy game can handle creatures of myth becoming my next-door neighbors. My fantasy game can handle women holding positions of authority, power, and respect. My fantasy game can handle peasant farmers actually having an okay time of things before they begin their adventuring career due to marauding orcs. My fantasy game can handle a "Norse" culture living right next door to an "Arabian" culture. My fantasy game can handle characters, both PC and NPC, being explicitly homosexual or transgender and also enjoy positions of authority, power, and respect as the heterosexual male and female characters.

Take away that last one, and your game is no more closer to the roots of D&D's genre than mine.

 

[SuperZero]

Their orientation and identity is left blank on purpose, because as the PHB tells you, they can be whatever you want them to be.

And that's fine when they're left blank. But they aren't always. People don't often notice references to heterosexuality, but they are always there when you look for them.
Maybe, on occasion, one of those references doesn't have to be straight.

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.

That sentence doesn't, no. If that's your response to the potential existence of a gay character, it obviously does. Because...

No sexual aspect of the game is discussed.

...gay people existing is not more of a "sexual aspect" than straight people existing.

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

Uh, exactly?

 

[the Jester]

You want to do something interesting, play a male homosexual.

Sorry, I just had to get back to this for a second. Does it count if I have played male homosexual npcs when I DM? Because I am almost always the DM; I can count the number of pcs I have played in the last decade on my fingers, and that includes some one-shots I was in at cons and things like that. But I've had several gay NPCs, one of whom was with the party for many months of real time (and we were playing about 2-3 times a week) and whose sexuality became a plot point (arranged political marriage stuff).

There have been quite a few gay or bisexual npcs in the background where it never came up. There have been a couple of trans npcs, too, some of whom the pcs realized were trans and some who they didn't. Not a lot compared to the straight npcs; and the number and type and social acceptability really varies from culture to culture. But they're there. Not to be any more 'interesting' than a straight npc, but because they are a part of my setting. There are probably more gay npcs than coin collector npcs, but fewer than there are people with blond hair.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There's a very noticeable pattern to this, which I've seen happen occasionally in D&D and quite often in MMO communities, where people say "we don't discuss sex or relationships", but only say it when the relationships don't come across as straight. So they'll say nothing of the innkeeper and his wife, and the barmaid and her husband, but when the stableboy's boyfriend is mentioned, they suddenly declare that they don't want to talk about sexuality in the game.

That's a pretty consistent pattern of behavior that a lot of people show. And yeah, "some animals are more equal than others."

Do you know what's a consistent pattern? People like yourself, dire Bare, and SuperZero making up strawmen arguments of other people's positions. Like this. I said it doesn't come up, straight or GLBT. That means it never comes up, not "let's just ignore the the straight examples" like you're alluding to. In our games, there is no barkeeps wife, or any of that unless there's a significant reason for the plot to be so. There are gay players in our games, and none of them seem to have these issues you do, demanding to have X amount of call outs, even when it's not relevant at all. They don't play the game to talk about their sexuality any more than anyone else. They're there to kill things and take their stuff. I know it must be shocking, but most of the gay people I know (which is a lot, like I said I'm a member of my PRIDE group and live in Portland) are regular people no different than anyone else. And most people in general don't play D&D to place an emphasis on their sexuality.

When I made that Animal Farm quote, I made it because Dire Bare is making a double standard, saying that by saying a group that doesn't talk about sex at all only is detrimental to GLBT by telling them they're not welcome. Which is bull, and fits that quote perfectly.

 

[Campbell]

Respectful representation and inclusion of minority groups is important in media even if no one from groups watches a given show, goes to a given movie, or plays a particular game. There is social value in the inclusion of characters who see the world differently, who have different types of relationships, and who operate at the margins of society. What we gain is encouraging people to see people with different life experiences as real people who go through much of the same struggles as we do. It helps influence cultural change and inclusion outside of the scope of the media we consume. It will not set the world on fire over night, but it helps.

 

[seebs]

Do you know what's a consistent pattern? People like yourself, dire Bare, and SuperZero making up strawmen arguments of other people's positions. Like this. I said it doesn't come up, straight or GLBT. That means it never comes up, not "let's just ignore the the straight examples" like you're alluding to.

I didn't say it did in your case specifically. The reason I talked about the pattern is that I so often encounter people who say that, but when we look at their actual behavior, it turns out to be the pattern I described.

In our games, there is no barkeeps wife, or any of that unless there's a significant reason for the plot to be so.

... Which is to say, sometimes there is a barkeep's significant other, which means that either (1) that doesn't count as sexuality being in the game, or (2) there is sometimes sexuality in the game. That sounds suspiciously similar to what I was describing.

There are gay players in our games, and none of them seem to have these issues you do, demanding to have X amount of call outs, even when it's not relevant at all.

When did I demand callouts? Hint: I didn't. Who's straw-manning now?

But I think you miss a key point here, with the "when it's not relevant at all". As you observe, sometimes romantic relationships can be plot-relevant. If you play for a really long time, there will be hundreds of relationships which show up enough to be recognizable as existing in the game, one way or another. My theory is that if the proportion of those relationships that are straight is noticably dissimilar from what we see in our world, that merits some kind of explanation or justification, or else it goes against verisimilitude.

They don't play the game to talk about their sexuality any more than anyone else. They're there to kill things and take their stuff. I know it must be shocking, but most of the gay people I know (which is a lot, like I said I'm a member of my PRIDE group and live in Portland) are regular people no different than anyone else. And most people in general don't play D&D to place an emphasis on their sexuality.

Of course not. But that's sort of the point I'm getting at. If I play a character who is married, and it's an opposite-sex marriage, no one perceives "an emphasis on my sexuality". If I play a character who is married, and it's a same-sex marriage, people suddenly think I am playing D&D to "place an emphasis on my sexuality".

When I made that Animal Farm quote, I made it because Dire Bare is making a double standard, saying that by saying a group that doesn't talk about sex at all only is detrimental to GLBT by telling them they're not welcome. Which is bull, and fits that quote perfectly.

I think you've sort of supported their point, though, because you say you never talk about sexuality at all, and that there is no barkeep's wife... except when the plot calls for it. Which is to say, not "never", but "only occasionally".

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

Sure, nowhere in the D&D rulebooks does it say that a certain percentage of your NPC characters must be homosexual, transgender, of "African" culture, or of "Asian" culture, or be of anything really. And? But the rulebooks do (now) make it clear that the official game is an inclusive and welcoming one. If your table doesn't buy into that, well, as long as you are all happy no one's really going to notice or care.

However, increasingly, NPCs in published game products ARE having their gender orientations being explicitly called out, alongside their fantasy race, cultural background, and other personality characteristics. WotC is doing it, Paizo is doing it, and I'm sure other RPG companies are doing it as well. Because they don't want to be insensitive or exclusive to anyone who might want to play D&D and find themselves mirrored in the fantasy world. They also want to do what's right, for the sake of doing what's right, increased sales be damned. I've noticed that Seattle game designers tend to be a fairly progressive bunch, on the average.

If your table doesn't swing that way, well, okay. My table? We're confronting changing societal views on those who are "different", both in our games, in our workplaces, and in our communities. And we're slowly crawling towards being better people for it.

I'm white, male, and hetero, as are most of my gaming friends. Most of our PCs have also been white, male and hetero. As have most of our NPCs. Acknowledging non-binary gender in our games is a relatively new thing for us, and we still don't do a lot of it because our norms are, well, white, male, and hetero. Most of my non-white, non-male, and non-hetero gaming friends have been quite used to our old-fashioned norms and don't let it bother them over much. But as we see increased focus on giving legal rights, tolerance, and respect to those who are "different" in the mainstream media, we also see it in our games, and we've embraced it. We feel that we are better people for it, and that we are viewing the world more clearly and without the tainted lenses of discrimination, fear, and hate (or "uncomfortableness" if "hate" is too strong a word). We've got a long way to go, as it is still to easy to fall back on assumptions we grew up with, but we're making progress.

Don't care to include that kind of growth in your games, or in your life? Okay. I hope you continue to play and enjoy D&D and participate in the hobby. But I'm glad the "gatekeepers" of our hobby, the large (relatively) RPG publishers, don't see things your way.

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.

Sigh. I'll repeat. SEX =/= GENDER.

My table's games don't get all that sexy. We generally don't roleplay sexual encounters and romance plots, at least not very overtly. But we acknowledge that GENDER has always been a part of our games, in the sense that most of our characters are heterosexual (and male to boot). ALL of our NPCs have had GENDER, as in the heterosexual "norm". We don't fool ourselves that GENDER has never been a part of our games.

We're not "social justice warriors" or crusaders at my table (gods, I *hate* the misuse of that term as a pejorative, alongside the canard of "politically correct", but I digress) and we're not designing our PCs or our games at large to fill some affirmative action quota mandated by WotC. We are acknowledging that in reality, many folks don't identify as heterosexual and/or cis-gendered, many of those folks are our friends, our family members, and our community members. We are acknowledging that if our fantasy games are going to mirror our modern world, especially in an aspirational sense, that to ignore the truth of nonbinary gender is a negative thing.

Again, if your table doesn't swing that way, that's fine. Well, as long as you don't have anyone playing with you who is homosexual, transgendered, or has a homosexual or transgendered family member, friend, or co-worker and isn't quietly put off by ignoring that facet of reality.