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

[MechaPilot]

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.

Yes, I can think of an example or two. However, one person acting in bad faith cannot be allowed to spoil the entirety of people who advocate for justice. What you describe is guilt by association without even requiring an active decision to associate with the bad faith actors for the guilt to be transferred.

To put it more simply, what you describe is akin to deciding that all D&D fans are guilty of every terrible thing that any D&D fan has ever done.

 

[SuperZero]

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."

No, what I said was that people don't notice it, but it's always there. When's the last time you noticed air?
People have said that they've never noticed an NPC in a published adventurer being stated heterosexual. I picked up a book I own but haven't read (no, I'm not sure why I spent money on it), flipped through it, and very quickly found a mention of a female NPC's husband.
In War of the Burning Sky, which isn't WotC but I've been reading it so it's on my mind, the lesbian love triangle is notable. I can, however, easily name some characters who are men stated to be interested in women or vice versa--I say it like that rather than "straight" since most of them could be bi. There's a male/female couple mentioned at the very beginning of the campaign; the PCs likely do not have a chance to meet them. They're background color, but both background characters and important ones can be straight without people thinking sexual orientation got mentioned--that is exclusive to same-sex ones.

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.

Okay, but I couldn't find it if it wasn't there.
That it is there, but so common you don't even think about, was the point I was making. Saying "Of course you can find it!" only suggests you know it's there.
True, I doubt anybody was intentionally representing straight couples; they don't have to, because that's normalized and you'd have to make an effort not to.

Now you're talking about when it is overtly stated?

I'm not sure why you're desperately trying to find a contradiction in what I am stating, but it has been entirely consistent and not that complicated.
Many NPCs do not have an established orientation. This is fine.
Some NPCs do have an established orientation. This need not be quite as blunt as the PHB blurb; sometimes two NPCs are married, and there it is.
Not all of those NPCs need to be straight. In fact, they really shouldn't all be.
If you didn't notice any NPCs established straight (or theoretically bi in some cases), check again but pay attention for them. They're probably there (though not necessarily in every single work--just, uh, almost every single one).

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

No, I'm claiming to see the static.
Not that that's remotely a good metaphor, really, since that static is not in fact overlooked background noise.

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?

First of all, I'm not claiming to see any patterns, just that the background exists. Second of all, I'm hardly the only one who's said that.
Also, like, it's there? I can, in fact, pop open this published adventure sitting next to me and see a picture of a man kissing a woman, find a mention of a male pub owner whose wife might help the party, and find an important male NPC whose daughter resembles his late wife, and I've not made it far through the book. Those exist; I am not imagining them, and suggesting that I am is as bizarre as insulting, although I realize the latter was intentional.
Besides, you could see it for yourself if you were to pay attention to it. People don't notice the absence of something they didn't expect to see.

Maybe you could consider what I'm actually saying instead of calling me ignorant. I mean, I do have some experience here. I'm explaining for you, even.

 

[Queer Venger]

One of my favourite things in 5e is the section on PC gender. I won't repeat the entire quote, because I don't have a PHB on me, but it amounts to "you can be male, female, transgender... and your sexuality doesn't matter. It's good. Be who you want to be". This is an awesome thing, and I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised.

I'm not wanting to get into an argument on "women in gaming". It's been had before, and I don't think it's worth having. D&D has made efforts to be more inclusive towards women, but it's still a work in progress. But that's not the point of this post.

I DO think, however, that D&D as a brand has not said much on gender diversity/sexuality in gaming in the past. As in, there's precious few LGBTQ characters in official D&D products, or even much mention of it. Pathfinder is much better at this sort of thing, absolutely, but even they admit that they often don't do enough in regards to transgender characters (though this has been changing). But pathfinder is not D&D...

Anyways. I think the PHB was a step in the right direction, though I don't think much more has been done about it since. Are there any LGBTQ characters in the adventures? None spring to mind, which makes me think the PHB was just giving lip service. Is that enough? I'm not at all sure.

The question has come to mind recently due to a player's guide I wrote for new players in my weekly friday night game. It's for mostly new players (there's a huge amount of interest! When did this happen!?), and I had a list of table rules for play. After all, I would have a lot of people sitting at my table that I had never met. Anyways, One of ten points was this:



I put this in there because, in the past when playing with strangers, I've had male players decide it was the place to hit on female players... or get into argument about "Men's rights", or other crap like that. I just wanted to nip it in the bud, because sometimes when playing with strangers, you wind up playing with jerks. It's just life.

But a strange thing happened.

When we were dreaming up the campaign, I put out feelers. Many turned it down - some of whom I've never met, but were invited by other people who are attending. One is gay, and another is transgender. Anyways, after I posted my little PDF, I guess it got passed around. They caught wind of it (I live in a small town), and suddenly have changed their minds. Both are attending tomorrow.

So, I'm curious - did my table rules have an effect? Did my "open table" change their minds, make them less nervous of attending a table populated by people they don't know?

And this curiousity has got me wondering - is the game's official stance on LGBTQ issues going to help attract new players in those (and other) communities? Does more need to be done, or is the current pace the correct one?

We'll know for sure when we get some steamy Drizzt-Artemis action by Salvatore ;-)

 

[ddaley]

Most NPCs don't list marital status... they are merchants or inn keepers or whatever. You are free to choose whatever sexual orientation you like. Are you saying that they need to add sexual orientation to the stat block for NPCs? I don't see how that is necessary.

 

[Jester David]

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.

1) Unless you're playing with a 5 year old, the "why" situation is unlikely.
2) Why is it awkward? Why is discussing the idea of two people who love each other being in a relationship awkward?
3) Just the fact you're saying "men love over men instead of women" implies that women are the standard, the baseline that is being varied.

It's easy to ignore this stuff. But if everyone does, then no one learns anything, then we need to continually start again with every generation.

I've had the awkward conversation. At a little over 4yo my son saw an advertisement on TV for the show TransParent and wanted to know why a man was dressed like a woman. It was a little awkward, but no more than trying to discuss any sexual situation without imparting any... unneeded details.
My wife and I did our best to explain that not everyone who looks like a man on the outside feels like a man on the inside. Which was really all it took. Because it's a simple question and really only needs a simple answer. Because kids don't come with the drama we associate with the issue, and will just accept what you tell them. "Some men love other men, some men love women, and some men just want to be left alone. Now get out of daddy's office and let him get back to DragonAge."

 

[ddaley]

1) Unless you're playing with a 5 year old, the "why" situation is unlikely.
2) Why is it awkward? Why is discussing the idea of two people who love each other being in a relationship awkward?
3) Just the fact you're saying "men love over men instead of women" implies that women are the standard, the baseline that is being varied.

It's easy to ignore this stuff. But if everyone does, then no one learns anything, then we need to continually start again with every generation.

I've had the awkward conversation. At a little over 4yo my son saw an advertisement on TV for the show TransParent and wanted to know why a man was dressed like a woman. It was a little awkward, but no more than trying to discuss any sexual situation without imparting any... unneeded details.
My wife and I did our best to explain that not everyone who looks like a man on the outside feels like a man on the inside. Which was really all it took. Because it's a simple question and really only needs a simple answer. Because kids don't come with the drama we associate with the issue, and will just accept what you tell them. "Some men love other men, some men love women, and some men just want to be left alone. Now get out of daddy's office and let him get back to DragonAge."

This is all well and good, but do we have to have this discussion when we are sitting down to play a game? This seems like a huge diversion. There is a time and place for these discussions. I just don't see why it has to be determined by the writers of modules as to when we have these discussions.

 

[Wik]

How do you know that more npcs are not gay? Just because a module doesn't call it out doesn't mean that they are not gay. I don't recall modules pointing out that certain characters are heterosexual either. In my opinion, I think pathfinder went too far in trying to make those issues too central to the story. I play with my kids and don't really want to be having to have those discussions during our game nights. I would rather keep sexual orientation out of the game as much as possible.

As far as women in gaming, I haven't seen that as a problem. Maybe it is just the groups I have played in, but we have usually had one or more women in our groups going back to the mid 80s. My wife plays with us today. I am not sure that the problem is with the art or the way that the books are written... but rather just more men are interested in these fantasy settings. 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.

I'm sorry, but that "Hey, they COULD be gay. Make 'em gay if you want. Or maybe they are, but the module doesn't mention it!" argument is kind of flawed. We've heard it a bunch in this thread before, and it doesn't fly. If something doesn't exist in the module's write-up, that means it's in the air. In other words, there is no fact in regards to it. So, if a module is vague about an NPC's gender, race, class, alignment, or whatever - the GM figures it out. That's cool.

And the same works with sexuality. But, here's the thing. The game has, many, many times, implied a character's heterosexuality. A king has a queen, or there's a missing wife that needs to be rescued, or there's a duelist that will hit on the female PC with the highest charisma, or whatever.

I'm just asking for, in those situations, that one time out of ten, they flip things. And if the GM running it, for whatever reason, doesn't want to present it that way, let him change it. Because that's what people are already suggesting to me - "if you don't like it, why not change it?"

Well I'm saying, hey, why can't others make the change sometimes? Let's have a broader base of gender and sexuality in gaming. It will not hurt anybody, and will make many feel more accepted. And in a hobby that seems to be shrinking, despite a society that is more 'nerd-friendly' than ever before, that's a damned good thing.

 

[Jester David]

I'd like to make a few personal points.

Different games will have different levels of inclusion. Sometimes worlds are cold and cruel and full of stupid, bigoted people. In a fantasy setting though, such people tend to take a more xenophobic bent before they take a sexual-orientation bent. Gay humans are still humans, unlike those dirty, nasty dragonborn! Sometimes worlds are warm and welcoming, full of cosmopolitan people. Sometimes worlds are mercantalist and don't care who or what you do as long as you have enough coin to make your problems go away. Different settings will treat different groups of people differently, it's just one of the challenges that exists in that given world that players will have to deal with, be they elf, tiefling, gay or transgender or all of the above.

I'm not interested in an IRL political debate at the gaming table. I eat breathe and otherwise live politics. I'm interested in a good, fun game. A good, fun game will have some politics, but if players don't want to delve into them I will downplay them. If players do, they may tackle social and political issues of the game instead of tackling the magical, violent or otherwise physical elements of the game. But I'm not there to debate IRL issues. If Kingdom A treats homosexuals poorly players are welcome to engage in a fight for equal rights as much as they are welcome to literally fight the king for rulership of the kingdom if they feel it is an issue they wish to resolve.

Some of my earliest D&D games were with a gay male couple in a town that was pretty tolerant. They didn't make a big deal of being gay and I played a heterosexual woman (i'm a white, straight male), I didn't make a big deal about that either. In fact I don't even know if any of their characters even had orientations that's how not brought up the issue was.

Of course, I could replace "homosexual" with "wizard" in that entire post. Because lots of game worlds and settings associate spellcasters with fiendish pacts and witchcraft, burning them at the stake. Which is fine and a perfectly acceptable way to play if everyone is on board with that kind of tension and drama and persecution.
But the game doesn't assume that and is pretty neutral with the acceptance of magic. It lets people do what they want and push issues when needed.

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.

If I may indulge in a slippery slope, couldn't that same argument be made about television or movies? I'm a parent and don't have much time to myself to relax and watch TV, let alone get out to the theater, why shouldn't I just be entertained? Why should someone's political or social agenda being foisted on me? Or books, or classic art, or music...
We should just agree to treat everyone equal and get on with our lives.

Accept that doesn't work. It becomes easier to ignore. And when an issue is ignored, the people affected by the issue are easier to ignore.
They feel less welcome. Because they're not accepted everywhere. Unless an activity is called out as accepting they have to assume it's the cultural default and they are not welcome at the table.

Fact is, sometimes it's good to have a reminder that it's a big hobby, that people are diverse, and we need to accept everyone.

 

[Jester David]

This is all well and good, but do we have to have this discussion when we are sitting down to play a game? This seems like a huge diversion. There is a time and place for these discussions. I just don't see why it has to be determined by the writers of modules as to when we have these discussions.

The time and place for those discussions is when they ask questions.

Would you have the discussions otherwise? Are you having them?
If you can pause a TV show or movie to discuss what they saw, its appropriateness, or answer any questions... why not a game?

Heck, an RPG might be one of the best ways to make youths consider social issues. It's a seriously great teaching tool because you have to step into the role of someone else and literally try and think like them and see through their eyes.

 

[Jester David]

I play with my kids and don't really want to be having to have those discussions during our game nights. I would rather keep sexual orientation out of the game as much as possible.

So you eliminate all married couples? Everyone reproduces asexually or is only "friends"? Everyone looks like Barbie or Ken down the front?