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

[Shemeska]

I'm afraid that just isn't the case,

Except that it does appear to be the case, much to the lament of certain schools of sociology. The notion that somehow, in the absence of any empirical evidence to show it, that sexuality is a product of social interactions is a throwback to a century or more ago. It's the same unproven and dismissed ideas that spawned concepts such as being gay was somehow because you had an overbearing mother or a distant father. It's the same school of thought that has children being shipped off to summer camps for attempted psychological reprogramming by praying them into being straight.

Social interactions don't have any influence for instance on the receptors for suggested human pheromones in hetero men effectively mirroring lesbian women, and those of hetero women mirroring gay men. That's something set in early fetal development. The interplay of genes, epigenetics, and fetal hormone exposure seems to be nearly wholly responsible for where people fall on the sexuality and gender identity spectrum. The amount of work done in just the past ten years is huge.

 

[Orlax]

D&D is about you and your group and playing the way that you and your group want to play... as a DM, you are free to make whatever changes you want to your game. If you want to make those changes, go ahead. That is what D&D is about. But, telling me that I have to make these changes is not what D&D is about.

I have read some of those Paizo APs. I felt like there was way too much emphasis on sexual orientation, and I really hope that WotC does not follow suit. I had not seen that much attention paid to other relationships and it felt unnecessary to the story. If we ever play through that AP, then I'll probably gloss over most of that. Will I change the characters to not be gay? No, probably not. But, I don't think I would spend much time on that at all.

I hope WotC continues on the path of making it easy for DMs to change the story to suit you and your group. I feel that they have done that pretty well. Paizo, not so much.

I'm not saying anyone has to do it. I was merely stating a manor of including it should someone wish to. Romantic relationships haven't really entered into my home games too much, mainly because most of us are adults that are either married or engaged, and none of us feels like pretending we are attached to other people, and a lot of my NPCs are somewhat hollow (because the random antiquity/oddity dealer you got your +1 armor from that has nothing to do with the plot really didn't need that effort) and don't really need the "who I'm with romantically" detail filled in.

 

[Gnarl45]

Unless you alter the underlying way in which biology and the brain structures responsible for sexual orientation work, yes, it would still be the standard if religious morals vanished. That's not a value judgement whatsoever, it's just the (incredibly complex) science underlying the issue.

I’ve seen a documentary on prostitution in Thailand and I was surprised to see moms and dads encourage their daughters to become prostitutes because it’s good money. When Bougainville visited the Pacific Islands, he was surprised to find a society where men and women have multiple partners at the same time. The family structure is the village because any of the guys could be your dad. I’ve travelled in countries which have a blend of monotheist and ancestral traditions. Sexuality in these countries is very different than in Europe or North America.

When you consider how different sexuality is from one place to another, I can’t help but wonder how much of it is instinct and how much of it is defined by the society you live in. Since I doubt anyone ever isolated a few hundred humans from the rest of the world just to see who they would rather fornicate with, I doubt there is anything scientific about your claim. You have to at least consider the possibility that bisexuality or homosexuality might be the biological norm.

 

[ddaley]

I'm not saying anyone has to do it. I was merely stating a manor of including it should someone wish to. Romantic relationships haven't really entered into my home games too much, mainly because most of us are adults that are either married or engaged, and none of us feels like pretending we are attached to other people, and a lot of my NPCs are somewhat hollow (because the random antiquity/oddity dealer you got your +1 armor from that has nothing to do with the plot really didn't need that effort) and don't really need the "who I'm with romantically" detail filled in.

Exactly... I don't feel that including this in our gaming sessions would add to our sessions. This is not the focus of our sessions. My group likes the exploration and completing quests to find out who is behind that group of evil ruffians. They are not concerned about the orientation of the local sheriff.

 

[Jester David]

I have read some of those Paizo APs. I felt like there was way too much emphasis on sexual orientation, and I really hope that WotC does not follow suit. I had not seen that much attention paid to other relationships and it felt unnecessary to the story. If we ever play through that AP, then I'll probably gloss over most of that. Will I change the characters to not be gay? No, probably not. But, I don't think I would spend much time on that at all.

I hope WotC continues on the path of making it easy for DMs to change the story to suit you and your group. I feel that they have done that pretty well. Paizo, not so much.

Which AP are you talking about exactly?
The big one is Rise of the Runelords but very little time or focus is placed on the homosexual relationship, just that NPC 1 has a relationship with NPC 2. It recieved no more attention than any hetero relationship would.

I've heard of more in Wrath of the Righteous, but have not read so cannot comment.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm sorry if it bursts your little bubble but the D&D worlds have very little substance. They're plaster and paint.

I find that the use of phrases such as the apology you make here are not typically meant sincerely, but as condescending rhetoric to try to lend shock or substance to a weak argument.

I will grant you that D&D worlds are written to be more accessible than a truly medieval Europe-like world would be, and that they are written from a modern point of view with modern sensibilities - but I will also respond that such should be absolutely obvious given than no D&D worlds were designed by the medieval European peoples that they would have to be in order for that not to be the case; and that not having absolutely perfect representation of feudalism is not the same thing as not having feudalism at all, and acting like the game developers need not only design a game that plays well and evokes intended themes (which D&D does) but also need to perfectly simulate medieval Europe or be declared as having "0%" in common with medieval Europe makes a person seem like a pompous equine.

As to how much substance D&D worlds have, I find the most accurate answer there is that they have exactly as much substance as they are given by the people playing them - and if they are "plaster and paint" it is because that is entirely the result of self-sabotage.

 

[Jester David]

Because heterosexuality is the standard.

That is not cruel, or exclusionary, or homophobic. It's a simple statistical fact.

Instead of being able to see, blind people are unable to see.

Instead of using electricity, Amish people rely on old traditional technology.

Instead of dying in infancy, most people in the modern first world live a long time.

When something deviates from the norm, this is the sort of language you use. It's not a value judgment. Some abnormal stuff is great. Some sucks. A lot of it is somewhere in between, or value neutral.

But none of that changes the fact that there are still baselines and norms.

This desire to twist language in on itself for the sake of someone's feelings is really perverse.

Other posters have called out how heterosexuality being the "standard" has changed over the years.

But, overlooking that, even if hetero was the standard in our world, why should it be in a D&D world? Ditto rascism and sexism. Unless ethnic tension is part of the setting, is it necessary?

 

[MostlyDm]

Other posters have called out how heterosexuality being the "standard" has changed over the years.

But, overlooking that, even if hetero was the standard in our world, why should it be in a D&D world? Ditto rascism and sexism. Unless ethnic tension is part of the setting, is it necessary?

I'm actually very skeptical of genetic determinism in general. So I have no problem accepting that heterosexuality may not always be the standard; I don't really give a crap. Though I'd be careful in this area: some of your ideological allies have noted already that rejecting genetic determinism would also indirectly threaten a common LGBT defense mechanism (I can't control it, so stop trying to force me to be different.)

None of that is really germane to what I was saying though. For now, heterosexuality is the norm. The situation I was citing had to do with kids asking about gay relationships from a place of ignorance; such ignorance would only exist in a heteronormative society, so that's the one I was commenting on.

Also it is fascinating to me that you lump heterosexuality being the norm in with racism and sexism. What the heck is that about? As I said in my post, I wasn't discussing homophobia, I was just observing that heterosexuality is the norm. Is heterosexuality *inherently* oppressive and offensive to you, the way sexism and racism are? What's going on here?

 

[ddaley]

Which AP are you talking about exactly?
The big one is Rise of the Runelords but very little time or focus is placed on the homosexual relationship, just that NPC 1 has a relationship with NPC 2. It recieved no more attention than any hetero relationship would.

I've heard of more in Wrath of the Righteous, but have not read so cannot comment.

It was Wrath of the Righteous. Basically, a male, orc paladin had a sex change in order to be with his now female lesbian lover. They spent quite a bit of time on this relationship. Much more time that I would want to spend on any relationship. These were NPCs who work and/or travel with the party. I haven't read the entire AP, so not sure of their roles later on, but they are pretty pivotal to the story.

 

[epithet]

From D&D's inception, players of either gender could play characters of either gender without restriction. Characters' behavior, sexual and otherwise, is bounded only by the DM and the gaming group in terms of what is acceptable and the amount of detail in which it is described. The world is magical, and you can create a level 1 male half-orc that might end up as a level 20 female gnome. As far as I can see, none of that has changed over the course of the game's long history, but if folks are happy about being given official permission to play the way they always could, hey--I'm happy they're happy.

What I find remarkable in this conversation, though, is the attitude sometimes expressed that sex and sexuality isn't appropriate subject matter at a D&D table. One poster early in the thread specifically used the terminology of "rated PG or G" to describe his game content, then went on to describe bodies hitting the floor as players slaughtered their foes. What the hell? How have we as a society become so warped that it's more acceptable to see someone's lacerated viscera than their naked crotch, or more appropriate to behead someone than to bed someone?

The bottom line is that it is the responsibility of the DM to ascertain what his group wants to get out of the fantasy world and make a reasonable effort to provide that. If the group wants diversity in whatever aspects or dynamics, the DM should accommodate that. If the group wants to have their collective narrow world view vindicated and unchallenged, then give 'em what they want as long as you can stomach it. If you find a group's collective world view distasteful, you might need to find another group. If you can't be friends with someone, you probably will not enjoy playing D&D with that person. It has always been thus, and will probably always be.