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

[Gnarl45]

Medieval Europe Lite? Does that have 99%, 50%, or 2% of the calories of the original?


That sounds like a joke (and it partly was), but it's also a metaphor. Just as there are varying degrees of pseudo, there are also varying degrees of light. So, while I'm willing to agree that the standard D&D setting is Medieval Europe Lite, you'd probably find both of us granting different percentages to how Medieval Europe the standard D&D settings are.

I do think that most people who play D&D (not just players, but DM's as well) have not studied medieval society. They may well look to fiction and the culture they come from to at least fill the gaps in their own knowledge. I also think that some people simply take medieval to refer to the tech level and/or to the feudal structure of lords and vassals.

It's very close to 0%. D&D worlds are modern USA with knights in shining armor. There's nothing medieval about them. They don't even have feudalism.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It's very close to 0%. D&D worlds are modern USA with knights in shining armor. There's nothing medieval about them. They don't even have feudalism.

There are many different D&D worlds, and not all of them fit the description you have just provided.

Some have feudalism.

Some don't have any knights, nor shining armor.

 

[SuperZero]

But your claim was that it is there when its not written to be there, so you're implying it's there.

I said people don't notice it.

It's the difference between say:
Bobbi asked Jenny to join him at the movies for a date and she agreed.
and
Bobbi and Jenny went to the movies for a date.

The former explicitly states the heterosexual nature of the relationship. The last one only does if you assume that they are opposite sex based on their names.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I see two characters stated to be in a relationship without either of them having their gender stated.
And even if that happens even once ever... we're still at the same point. Those characters didn't have their orientations stated or implied, and thus they're not the ones I was talking about.

Besides that, the brain looks for patterns, it does this to aid in information categorization. That's why we often read things to say something they aren't actually saying.

Yeah okay. I'm talking about background noise that people don't even notice. Like the opposite phenomenon.

I said some groups use the game to "play out the myths and legends of past cultures". As [MENTION=18182]Dire Bare[/MENTION] pointed out, "realism" in the context of this conversation means something different than complete historical accuracy; it means maintaining the suspension of disbelief.

I would use words like "plausible" or "verisimilitude" here in place of "realism", but that's neither here nor there.
Why is "women aren't allowed to do things" (which, incidentally, has never successfully prevented women from doing things) the breaking point of your suspension of disbelief. Women actually existed, and having them show up in important roles slightly more often doesn't seem like it should be so much harder to embrace than the goblins.

Eowyn's story arc would not work in an egalitarian culture; much of the drama arises from challenging implicit assumptions made by the male characters (and perhaps the audience). The sexism is a part of the narrative, even though the narrative obviously isn't endorsing it.

Sure, if overcoming sexism is an important part of a narrative, sexism must exist in the setting. That's true.

Bad example: Robin Hobb. In Assassin's Apprentice, there are female characters who, like Eowyn, chafe at being confined to their chambers and not allowed to lead lives of action. But there are also female guards, including the guard captain. The juxtaposition is jarring and inconsistent. It doesn't work for the story.

That's also true.
Although given that both of those could describe modern women, it's not necessarily contradictory.
Still, if important military characters are evenly split male and female, but common soldiers are all male... I've seen that, and it makes no sense. Here's how you fix it: Make some of the common soldiers female.

I'm not interested in an IRL political debate at the gaming table.

See, as an actual member of the minority group in question, the idea that my existence is a political debate is something I don't want.

I think, in all this talk of tolerance, acceptance and so on, people forget that one of the easiest solutions to the problem is to just treat everyone like an equal human being. We don't need to analyze the appropriate solutions to IRL problems in a TTRPG.

So no exclusion in the first place, then.

I don't recall modules pointing out that certain characters are heterosexual either.

Possible. Unlikely.

I play with my kids and don't really want to be having to have those discussions during our game nights.

Don't treat gay people as some special thing that requires a discussion. Done.

I would rather keep sexual orientation out of the game as much as possible.

Really? Never had a married NPC? A nation with a king and queen?
Straight people have an orientation too, y'know.

Even though my wife plays D&D with us, she is much less likely to say, go see Lord of the Rings or similar movies. The setting just isn't as interesting to her.

The setting with a conspicuous absence of women?

 

[Lanliss]

Don't treat gay people as some special thing that requires a discussion.

So you have never seen a kid ask, out the blue, "why?" When something is different from what they are used to? "Why are there two daddys?" Would likely lead to a discussion, unless they stop asking questions the second you say "Because some men love other men instead of women.". I think if you are playing with children, and want to avoid an awkward conversation, it is best to stick to things as they know them. Note, I am not advocating complete removal of LGBT from all dnd games or settings, just thinking that, unless they already know about the whole homosexual/transexual situation some people have, it may be best to avoid that topic. Unless of course you are trying specifically to spark that topic with them, for lack of a less awkward way to explain sex and sexuality to them.

 

[Gnarl45]

There are many different D&D worlds, and not all of them fit the description you have just provided.

Some have feudalism.

Some don't have any knights, nor shining armor.

I'm sure some fan creations have feudalism but are there any examples that have been published by WoTC or TSR?

Normally the D&D worlds (or parts of them) without knights in shining armor don't try to look like medieval Europe. They're the Shinning South in the Forgotten Realms or Al Quadim.

 

[SuperZero]

So you have never seen a kid ask, out the blue, "why?" When something is different from what they are used to? "Why are there two daddys?" Would likely lead to a discussion, unless they stop asking questions the second you say "Because some men love other men instead of women.". I think if you are playing with children, and want to avoid an awkward conversation, it is best to stick to things as they know them.

Imagine for a second that the kid asked the same question about straight people. There's your answer.
Not only is that the correct answer, there are kids that are hurt when you don't. They're the ones the representation is particularly important for.

 

[Mercule]

I see Social Justice Warrior bandied about on the internet, and it's always sad and funny to me. The last I knew, justice and the pursuit thereof were good things. It's interesting how a term that by the casual definitions of each element could easily be applied to Ghandi, MLK, and Susan B. Anthony has been twisted into a pejorative.

Unfortunately, most of the paladins that I've seen have acted as if they were powered by self-righteousness instead of actual righteousness. At least a quarter of them take on a whole Judge Dredd "I am the law" mantle by asserting that they are right because they are holy warriors who are better people than the rest.

You have pretty much answered your own musing.

I won't name names, mainly because I don't want to truly cross the line into politics. I'm sure you can think of at least of couple of folks that my have crossed the line into turning social justice into either a business or a platform for self-promotion. Even giving everyone the benefit of every doubt, there are a few that have not avoided "even the appearance of impropriety". Even one turd is enough to call the whole pool dirty.

 

[pemerton]

So you have never seen a kid ask, out the blue, "why?" When something is different from what they are used to? "Why are there two daddys?" Would likely lead to a discussion, unless they stop asking questions the second you say "Because some men love other men instead of women.". I think if you are playing with children, and want to avoid an awkward conversation, it is best to stick to things as they know them.

Imagine for a second that the kid asked the same question about straight people. There's your answer.

I would also add - what is the basis for assuming that the first time the children encounter the idea of same-sex couples/families is when they encounter them as game elements?

I don't think I know any kids for whom that would be the case.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm sure some fan creations have feudalism but are there any examples that have been published by WoTC or TSR?

The dominion rules presented in the Companion box set involve feudalism, which results in the world of Mystara having feudalism in some parts of the setting.

Normally the D&D worlds (or parts of them) without knights in shining armor don't try to look like medieval Europe. They're the Shinning South in the Forgotten Realms or Al Quadim.

Yes, and yet knowing that you stated that all D&D worlds are the USA with knights in shining armor. Which is a strange thing to do, making a statement you know is incorrect.

 

[Sunseeker]

I said people don't notice it.

You said, and I'm re-quoting so I don't have to shuffle back 5 pages:

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.

Now, if you meant something other than what you said then I think we're all due some clarification. But as it reads it looks a lot like you're saying "heterosexual normativity isn't always obvious, but it's always obvious when you're looking for it."

And that was exactly my point. If you're looking for it, chances are you'll find it, because you're trying to find it. You are implying its existence from material that was not obviously written to be such.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I see two characters stated to be in a relationship without either of them having their gender stated.
And even if that happens even once ever... we're still at the same point. Those characters didn't have their orientations stated or implied, and thus they're not the ones I was talking about.

So what are you talking about? Because the post I initially quoted you seemed to be referring to something that was not obvious, such as two people in a relationship whose genders were not overtly stated. Now you're talking about when it is overtly stated? Have some internal consistency man.

Yeah okay. I'm talking about background noise that people don't even notice. Like the opposite phenomenon.

So you're claiming to see pictures in the static?

Which is again, exactly what I was talking about. The brain looks for patterns. You're looking for latent heterosexual normality therefore you're finding it. The idea that there is something in the static is a horror trope based off the natural biological function of the brain to create patterns where there otherwise aren't any because to do otherwise would be to attempt to grasp pure chaos which the human brain does not do well. It's why movies like The Grudge or The Ring are scary because they play on our most basic biological functions.

In short: when you are claiming to see patterns in the static and noone else is, your reaction is to accuse them of ignorance. Have you considered perhaps that those patterns aren't there at all?