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

[MostlyDm]

Something that many seem to forget on forums like this is that it is not America. It is not your country, or any given country except EN world. It has its own "laws" and it's own authority. The American freedom of speech has no control over what you should allow yourself to say on here. You should always follow the site rules over the local speech laws of your given country.

That's true, and I'm not trying to break any rules of ENworld. And if I am I'm sure a mod will let me know ASAP. But like I said, free speech isn't about laws to me, it's about moral principles.

Superzero, yeah, I know you quoted me, man. I'm just letting you know that the context I intended was different than how you're interpreting it. So you're not really responding to any of the content of what I was getting at. Which... Is fine, you clearly have another point you want to make, I just don't really have much to say to it.

 

[seebs]

Hmmm. Interesting perspective. I have a friend who would probably agree with you. Just this past Sunday, in class he gave everyone a piece of advice: "If you never ever want your kids to ever talk to you again, just say these simple words: 'you shouldn't feel that way.'" His parents were not derisive of him but they weren't warm either, and I think he has similar feelings to what you describe above. (He occasionally says, things like, "I never once had a real conversation with my dad. I found out more about my dad after he was dead than I ever knew when he was alive.") And you do make an interesting argument that in the face of unambiguous physical abuse, perhaps the unambiguous(?) evidence of abuse prevents them from internalizing the scars. I'm certainly not going to just take your word for it, but it's an interesting argument.

However, the xkcd comic is not about a parental or intimate relationship. It's about pretty much the situation that I, and probably many of you, went through in our childhoods.

True, but it turns out that it's still true for the overwhelming majority of people.

Eventually you just lose respect for the other person and quit talking to them (as JesterCanuck has done in this thread), and then it ceases to be a significant memory. On the other hand, being physically assaulted for no good reason is something that I remember much better. The effects still only lasted a couple of days, but it definitely left me feeling more violated than mere words from a stranger ever do. I did send a PM to one person on this thread telling them to cut something out, so I'm not claiming that words don't matter at all, but they don't matter very much and it's not worth spending time on grudges. As it is written,

"I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds."

I know from personal experience that forgiving and letting go leaves you happier than grudge-holding does. Hence, why I regard the xkcd as hyperbole. You can choose to forgive and move on.

Capability is a lot more complicated than that; not everyone can, and even if you choose to forgive and move on, the damage was still done. Humans are social creatures, and by default, care what other humans think of them. Learning to dehumanize other people enough not to care what they think is not automatic for people, and even for people who've learned it, it is itself a harmful thing to have to do. So for the most part, humans will experience pain when other people show contempt for them, and even if they move on, there is usually some harm done. (Most importantly: You have to have people who do support you. Not everyone does.)

Disclaimer: I spend a lot of my time talking to abuse survivors, but I'm not actually structured in a sufficiently-normal way to have any idea what any of this stuff feels like for people.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Wow... finally caught up after a week of reading when I can... and I can't really think of anything to say except that I'm not sure how to feel about how combative this got and how long it stayed that way...

I think I'll throw some Kurt Vonnegut into this mess. When asked the meaning of life, he replied "Just be kind." I like to try and set that as my minimum standard, I'm not perfect at it (Heck, I'm 24 I barely know anything in the larger context, though I seem to know a lot more than others) but it is the goal to strive for.

Off topic tangent, isn't it interesting that great novels like Moby Dick and Slaughterhouse 5 can be parsed down into "Friendship saves lives" as can shows like My Little Pony and Sailor Moon. It's staggering to see how often the same message is repeated.

 

[Lanliss]

That's true, and I'm not trying to break any rules of ENworld. And if I am I'm sure a mod will let me know ASAP. But like I said, free speech isn't about laws to me, it's about moral principles.

Superzero, yeah, I know you quoted me, man. I'm just letting you know that the context I intended was different than how you're interpreting it. So you're not really responding to any of the content of what I was getting at. Which... Is fine, you clearly have another point you want to make, I just don't really have much to say to it.

I apologize if you thought I was talking about you exclusively, or even just this thread. I meant it for any of the threads I have seen that got rather combative. Many people believe that "internet" translates to a free pass on anything they say, due to the anonymity. I simply chose this thread to mention it due to the heavy out of game implications, while other threads are only on in game subjects like DM hiding dice rolls, or the importance of alignment. This one actually has implications if you go to far, so I felt it was a good place to bring up my philosophy.

 

[WayneLigon]

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?

I have seen a similar thing happen in our local area -- having such a statement can soothe nerves. I've had two people come up and tell me 'I appreciate what you wrote. It made me feel safe'. Up front stating such a thing is always good.

 

[Wik]

I have seen a similar thing happen in our local area -- having such a statement can soothe nerves. I've had two people come up and tell me 'I appreciate what you wrote. It made me feel safe'. Up front stating such a thing is always good.

Thanks. I'm a big fan of this rule in hindsight. Someone who was supposedly super shy, who I had never met, showed up at my session and was super friendly. It was pretty awesome, and I can't wait for friday and session #2.

I'm still unsure on my original question, though. Does that statement bring in new players, or is it just goodwill? I think, ultimately, it doesn't really matter. The people that it pisses off aren't really the people I want sitting at my table, anyway.

 

[SuperZero]

I'm still unsure on my original question, though. Does that statement bring in new players, or is it just goodwill? I think, ultimately, it doesn't really matter. The people that it pisses off aren't really the people I want sitting at my table, anyway.

People who weren't interested in DnD in the first place are never going to see it anyway.

But you'll get more people actually playing. You'll get some of them more comfortable and feeling safe. Actually, some of them might bring in a few more.

And with that statement in your game advertisement, you'll get more of them at your table because they feel more comfortable and safe.
But at that scale, of course the sample size is tiny. You, personally, might not have gotten any at that game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A moral principle is something that ought to be done.

Saying immoral things is NOT a moral principle.

Not squashing speech may be a moral principle (and usually is except for hate speech).

What's kind of ironic is that adhering to a strict and literal policy of "never have any speech squashed" leads to more restricted speech in practice, due in part to failing to address power dynamics. If you support peoples' right to speak their minds, then you should support some speech being forbidden some times. Forbidding some speech makes it safer for others to speak their minds, thus leading to greater freedom of speech (and less hegemony in that speech) in practice.

To those who say they value freedom of speech, but refuse to make a space for that speech to be freely given, their espoused values are in conflict with the practical results of their chosen path of action. If you let everyone speak their mind freely, it's just the loudest and most belligerent that get heard, and I'd hardly call that freedom of speech - there are many voices silenced in that cacophony. It's not a complex idea, but it can be counter-intuitive, and it's practical, rather than ideological, so it lacks that dogmatic panache.

 

[spectacle]

What's kind of ironic is that adhering to a strict and literal policy of "never have any speech squashed" leads to more restricted speech in practice, due in part to failing to address power dynamics. If you support peoples' right to speak their minds, then you should support some speech being forbidden some times. Forbidding some speech makes it safer for others to speak their minds, thus leading to greater freedom of speech (and less hegemony in that speech) in practice.

But who decides what speech has to be forbidden in order to make a safe space for other speech? What will you do when those in power decide that your opinions are dangerous,labels your speech harmful and forbids it to make it "safe" for their side to shout you down?

 

[Orlax]

But who decides what speech has to be forbidden in order to make a safe space for other speech? What will you do when those in power decide that your opinions are dangerous,labels your speech harmful and forbids it to make it "safe" for their side to shout you down?

The one that decides what direct is forbidden is the person that owns the space. When they tell me to shut up, I'll shut up and maybe because we are letting normally silenced voices be heard I'll actually learn something. I can attest, this works. I've walked into spaces with the whole you gotta let everyone talk mentality. I got shut down hard. Then I hung around lurking in the space for more than a year, and its made me a better person because I shut up and listened to the normally silenced rather than just voicing my concerns over what they are saying.