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

[doctorbadwolf]

I doubt it. People will always be who they are, and writing "be respectful" somewhere won't change that. If so, there would never be flame wars on forums...

Communities that present themselves as inclusive change as a result. Look at any nerd community. Comic books. Video games.
Inclusive creative works change the communities that enjoy them. For the better.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

The game doesn't need much of anything beyond dungeons, faceless bad guys and the potential for reward. Some of us enjoy a little more than the bare bones though. In some games magic is rare and coveted and different people react to that differently, some enslave wizards, some kill wizards, some lock them in high towers for the rest of their lives. Poor, stupid, bigoted people do a lot of stupid and bigoted things. I mean it's still written into the 5E Tiefling racial backstory that you're a wretched demon spawn and everyone hates you. Orcs aren't rape-babies anymore but apparently Tieflings are still the heel of society! That's what the game doesn't need. The pre-written idea that across all incarnations of the game at every table the backstory for Tieflings remains the same.

And D&D has gotten better at not assuming things about its players as well, because the game also doesn't need those.

The table however and the campaign that takes place there is something beyond the game.

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.

Sure it could.

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.

This is completely hooey. The cultural default outside of completely backwards parts of the world is not one of rejection. I've played with non-gender-binary folks in the vast majority of games that I've taken part in. This is both before and after 5E.

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.

Fact is, we need to be tolerant of differences. As I mentioned, I've played with non-gender-binary folks in the majority of my games. I've even played with a few furries (3, if memory serves). That said, there are always limits and asking everyone to accept everything is both unreasonable and simply impossible. When people push the game in a sexual direction, regardless of the type of sex they prefer that goes beyond my limits. When people attention-grab and constantly want the spotlight on themselves, that goes beyond my limits. Neither the game nor the playerbase should be under any obligation to accept everything or everyone. There are some straight, some gay and some furry folks I will NEVER play with again, because the paradigm I've stated time and again in threads just like this is:

Some people are just jerks, irregardless of their playstyle, their sexuality, their skin color, some people are just plain jerks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I apologise if this post comes off as lecturing, gender and sexuality are my main focus as a historian so I would just like to correct some misunderstandings in the thread regarding their place in history.

The idea that including LGBT characters in a medieval fantasy setting would be anachronistic is wrong, I am afraid. Unlike today, in the ancient and medieval worlds it was trans and gender-nonconforming individuals who were more visible and respected than gay people. Someone mentioned the hijra of India, other examples include eunuchs in many Mediterranean, Near Eastern and Asian civilisations, sworn virgins in the Balkans, the Vestal Virgins of Rome, and many more. These always existed in a specific religious or political context, such as the eunuch servants of the Byzantine court who were favoured because their inability to create families of their own meant they were seen as wholly loyal to their employers. I'm not trying to say that a trans peasant would have been accepted, but there were specific roles in many cultures which required or were reserved for people outside of the traditional gender binary, even in the most hyper-masculine societies.

Indeed, if you think that including a trans character in a medieval European-based fantasy setting is an anachronism, then presumably you would have to ban female characters from being anything besides wives, mothers, prostitutes and maybe priestesses, because women in history who stepped outside of these specific roles were viewed as violating the boundaries of their gender, unless it was in one of the aforementioned sanctioned roles. Historical conceptions of gender were extremely inflexible for both men and women, look no further than the reaction to Joan of Arc for an example of how a woman who involved herself in war would be viewed and treated, even without taking part in actual combat. And since no one has argued for such restrictions on female characters, I can't see how allowing trans characters would be any more anachronistic.

Non-heterosexual people similarly existed throughout history, and not just in Ancient Greece. For specific European examples, there are many kings who had male "favourites", some of whom came to bad ends but by no means all, as well as overtly romantic letters exchanged between monks. Evidence for female same-sex relationships is rather harder to come by due to the bias of having overwhelmingly male sources. Again, your average peasant probably would not have been able to express their sexuality freely, but for the upper ranks of society, specifically male members things were different. Often, as a long as a man did his duty by marrying and siring children, he could get away with taking lovers of either sex.

First post, hopefully I have made sense.

My favorite bi woman in history is La Maupin. http://www.badassoftheweek.com/lamaupin.html
There also some rad pirate ladies who liked other rad pirate ladies.

 

[Mistwell]

This is only true when there is a truly equal power dynamic (not just legally, socially) - when everyone feels equally safe, equally heard, and equally respected. That power dynamic doesn't exist in reality, so in reality, this is pretty impractical advice for actual behavior. In reality, where differing levels of social power exist, it is the responsibility of the socially powerful to create a safe space to be challenged. So in reality, applying this usually just looks like the powerful getting their way, since it fails to address that nuance of human interaction.

Presuming that social power dynamics don't have much to say in the matter is understandable for someone from a majority group - they have the luxury of not having to think about those power dynamics on the regular. But it's a flawed presumption, and it imagines a world that simply isn't realistic.

I disagree in every respect. Nobody "gets their way" with the ability to voice dissent. Voicing it isn't itself a "victory for the message". And it does not have to be respectful. Nor should it be "safe" - indeed "dangerous" speech is often the most important speech, and labeling speech as dangerous is a step to oppression. Like I said, Brendan O'Neill describes it far better than I have (you should watch that debate I linked to). But offensive speech is often the driver of the most positive social change in history, and squelching it to protect people and make them feel safe does the opposite. It stagnates society, and leads to echo chambers.

And please do not assume I am in "the majority group" because you disagree with my viewpoint on this (that's making me the topic rather than the opinion itself). Nothing I said imagines the world is simple. How about you return to focusing on what I said rather than who you think I am and what my experiences might be.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Wow. That's a jump from "may insult" to "beat to a pulp". I wasn't assuming a physically threatening situation. In my entire life, I've witnessed maybe one incident of physical threat based off some form of discrimination and that never manifested actual violence. Even in "adult" life (quotes used because the behavior isn't adult), I've only witnessed insults and/or cold-shoulder type treatment. Those suck, but are in a completely different league than physical danger. My comments should be taken in that context.

Let me be really clear: Physical threats are always bad and it is better to know before going into danger.

You are lucky.

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell, your list forbids posting your list, since in doing so you are violating most of the points.

No it doesn't. And saying it does, without explaining or even making any attempt to back up your position, doesn't make it so.

And hey, why is the rule "Don't be a jerkface" so terrible because someone is daring to impose rules, but you can give me this list of rules? I did not agree to them. And you're not doing a very good job of persuading.

List of rules? I didn't give you a list of rules (where did I imply those were rules)? Weird. I said that's what a liberal mind used to mean. I said that's what being open minded should mean, because it exposes one to diverse ideas. I said offensive speech often leads to positive social change. I listed what I think is wisdom. But I never said or implied this was a list of rules anyone has to abide by. You feel free to not do any of those things. It's your life, and nobody is going to force you to listen to ideas you don't like or which challenge your world view or take you out of your comfort zone. You're free to not read or listen or consider.

As for my doing a poor job persuading, perhaps. Though persuasion takes time and almost never happens in a day. But more importantly, I admitted Brendan O'Neill does a better job of explaining this idea than I do. You should watch him. He's way smarter than I am

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So people who disagree with you ("Argue that such things are unnecessary") are a "problem" in your book? IE dissent is labelled as a problem?

Dissent is only a relevant term with unequal power dynamics.

 

[Orlax]

I disagree in every respect. Nobody "gets their way" with the ability to voice dissent. Voicing it isn't itself a "victory for the message". And it does not have to be respectful. Nor should it be "safe" - indeed "dangerous" speech is often the most important speech, and labeling speech as dangerous is a step to oppression. Like I said, Brendan O'Neill describes it far better than I have (you should watch that debate I linked to). But offensive speech is often the driver of the most positive social change in history, and squelching it to protect people and make them feel safe does the opposite. It stagnates society, and leads to echo chambers.

And please do not assume I am in "the majority group" because you disagree with my viewpoint on this (that's making me the topic rather than the opinion itself). Nothing I said imagines the world is simple. How about you return to focusing on what I said rather than who you think I am and what my experiences might be.

Yes you are entirely allowed to say it.

However I am allowed to tell you that you are a d-bag for saying it. I'm also allowed to not listen, and I'm allowed to advisel others not to listen to you either, because the whole of your message concerning a particular topic is wholely without humanity. Finally if I do in fact own the space we are speaking in, you know my personal property that I'm allowing you to speak in, I am allowed to tell you to stop talking or leave, or to just tell you to leave.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

DnD is a game of epic heroism. DnD doesn't stand for Diddling 'n Dice. There is no high heroism as you shout in the faces of parents and their children when they shop for groceries to push your political agenda. There will be no Affirmative Action to ensure you gain +1 Metaphysically Oppressed Bonus because you're a Post-Op Pansexual Eskimo. There will be no speech codes to penalize Demons and Devils for being Politically Incorrect. The losers who want to sit around and imaginary diddle with dice are completely and utterly fringe, and really need to invent their own game because DnD isn't for everyone.

These postmodern delusions of "equality" have no place in DnD either. There is no "equality" in DnD. FFS we have classes and levels. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to figure out that a 1st level character is NOT "equal" to a 5th level character. You want equality? Then YOU go fight the dragon! Take your 1st Level, low-Strength havin' butt to the cave and you fight the dragon. Your strength is not equal to mine. Your hit points are not equal to mine. The dragon will kill you because you're weak. All of that kumbaya bull crap needs to die in a fireball because it has no place in DnD.

My roommate and DM for years was a gay pedophile. He was obviously not allowed in any game store or near schools. Interestingly enough his homosexuality was never the focus for ANY of our games, not a single one. Meanwhile, pedophilia is being pushed by the Culture of Critique as a norm, with pedophiles calling the rest of humanity "monsters" in articles published by the MSM. The only thing worse than a pedophile is a Social Justice Warrior who makes every perversion their moral imperative. And that's precisely what this thread is about. It's about taking something that is a fringe element of any society and pushing it into the forefront of a game that isn't about social issues and soup kitchens.When you play DnD you find the threat and you kill it. Then you take all of their property and you're a hero. That's DnD!

What cave did you crawl out of? Go back to it.

 

[mflayermonk]

Sure. But what I'm saying is this - by advising that I was running an open table, I drew in new players. So, is D&D, by being much more open than they have been in the past, beginning to draw in from a more diverse group of players in the LGBTQ community?

Thirty years ago, the player base at conventions was very diverse. The cons were large and general back then. I think the splitting off into smaller, more focused conventions makes it appear the groups are less diverse.