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

[TheCosmicKid]

The view that it's important to create places where non-loud voices can be heard, and the view that everyone should be able to be heard, are not incompatible. The key is that you want to create some places where you specifically give preference to the people who have a hard time being heard... But don't do that everywhere or universally.

For what it's worth, the basic solution has been the same since the inception of functional democracies: take turns. The "places" are actually times.

 

[Eric V]

Rule Utilitarianism would look at the idea of "Would utility increase if everyone got the chance to be heard?"

The answer is "yes" (for verification, RU would look at the opposite of the rule).

Thus, even in some specific situations wherein the utility would drop (having to listen to dumb Uncle Sydney, for example), we still allow it because we follow the rule that would maximize utility.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to make sure we create spaces where everyone can be heard.

Those with the most power need to see when they effectively silence other speech and stop doing so to make sure utility has a chance to be raised.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In a room, yes. In a nation, no. The metaphor is a broken one. Martin Luther King was able to march on Washington even with every bigot in the country trying to shout him down, but a hostile remark at a gaming table can easily drive its target away.

MLK was able to march because a space was created that allowed him to do so - concepts like Freedom of Assembly, for instance, which is a notion that the powerful (state) will not tell the powerless (people) that they can't gather together.

So why are we even talking about freedom of speech? The idea of creating a safe, tolerant environment for D&D has nothing to do with the subject. The space is not a public forum, it's Brad from Accounting's rec room, and the players aren't there for political discourse, they're there to pretend they're killing orcs. Jenny may spend all day exercising her freedom of speech by marching in a Pride Parade, and then have her evening ruined if someone drops a homophobic remark at the table. It's both ridiculous and irrelevant to say that this remark silences her own speech -- ridiculous because it obviously doesn't, and irrelevant because, even though it doesn't, it's still a bad experience for her. So when Brad requests no homophobic remarks at his table, he's not taking some principled stand on the meaning of free speech one way or the other. He's just trying to make sure everyone has fun.

I tend to take people seriously when they want to try and say something, so when they want to try and say that Brad is suppressing free speech at his table, I think it's important to treat it seriously and recognize the limitations of that claim - to note that it fails on its own terms. That can help move the conversation forward. Once we've accepted that it's a good idea to make a safe space for the less powerful, the "I just want FREE SPEECH!" objection disappears, and must either be replaced with a more substantial objection, or abandoned and Brad's decision supported.

It's also OK to say "that claim doesn't have much merit in this context," but I figured the more valuable point was that "free speech means making safe places," because that's a broader point than Brad's table.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's also OK to say "that claim doesn't have much merit in this context," but I figured the more valuable point was that "free speech means making safe places," because that's a broader point than Brad's table.

As you have learned, it is also a much more controversial point. The limited claim of "don't be a jerk at Brad's table" has broader support than the broader claim does. For example, I think you're greatly misunderstanding the right to Freedom of Assembly. To use the Honor/Dignity/Victimhood cultures terminology, Freedom of Assembly is a right that was asserted under a dignity culture. It's about self-empowerment, and when it is referred to as an "inalienable right" that is not a plea to the state not to take the right away--it is an assertion of an individual moral right to overrule the state if it does attempt to abrogate that right.

There's certainly no notion there that the people receive Freedom of Assembly because they are "powerless." Rather the opposite in fact. It's more like a veto of state power than a shelter.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

There is no scientific reason to believe that. The sexual habits of amoral species certainly doesn't support it as any kind of given.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I tend to take people seriously when they want to try and say something, so when they want to try and say that Brad is suppressing free speech at his table, I think it's important to treat it seriously and recognize the limitations of that claim - to note that it fails on its own terms. That can help move the conversation forward. Once we've accepted that it's a good idea to make a safe space for the less powerful, the "I just want FREE SPEECH!" objection disappears, and must either be replaced with a more substantial objection, or abandoned and Brad's decision supported.

If Brad were interested in fostering freedom of speech in his rec room, he would not and could not request no homophobic talk; he would have to give the homophobe a turn to speak and then give everybody else a turn to speak. The "I just want FREE SPEECH!" objection is absolutely valid, assuming that the objector is in a forum which allegedly protects freedom of speech but he is not given a turn to speak. To invalidate the objection, Brad must pull the assumption out from under it and own, "No, my rec room is not a free-speech forum". And as a private citizen organizing a voluntary recreational activity on his own property, Brad has every right to do that -- indeed I would wholeheartedly encourage him to. It's not an issue of power dynamics or safe spaces; it's just basic dinner conversation etiquette.

It's also OK to say "that claim doesn't have much merit in this context," but I figured the more valuable point was that "free speech means making safe places," because that's a broader point than Brad's table.

Like the Player's Handbook says, "Specific beats general."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

There is no scientific reason to believe that. The sexual habits of amoral species certainly doesn't support it as any kind of given.

Darwin disagrees. There is no species in the world for which fertile pairings are not the norm. If there were, that species would no longer be a species in the world.

To be more specific: horses can breed with mules to produce infertile donkeys, but it's not the norm. If horses were genetically predisposed to preferentially seek out mules to breed with instead of other horses, every subsequent generation would have fewer horses with that trait. From a Darwinian perspective you can simply quantify it as a trait with a fitness penalty akin to infertility.

 

[Jester David]

Darwin disagrees. There is no species in the world for which fertile pairings are not the norm. If there were, that species would no longer be a species in the world.

To be more specific: horses can breed with mules to produce infertile donkeys, but it's not the norm. If horses were genetically predisposed to preferentially seek out mules to breed with instead of other horses, every subsequent generation would have fewer horses with that trait. From a Darwinian perspective you can simply quantify it as a trait with a fitness penalty akin to infertility.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...iscover-evolutionary-advantage-homosexual-sex

 

[bookwormbabe29]

I feel like transgender identity is a modern thing, and not really a good fit for the kind of fantasy games that people tend to associate with D&D. It's not incompatible or anything, just not really something that should be focused on any more than a characters sexuality in general.

That said, WotC has done a pretty good job of using a writing style that's not male-oriented since they took over the brand. Go read the 3e books and you'll see a very healthy (probably half) number of chapters written using female pronouns, so it's obvious they were trying to broaden the audience even going back that far.

Beyond that, I just don't see the point in trying to force every real-world current event issue into an RPG game like D&D.

My friend, allow me to share some information with you. Trans people - like gays, lesbians, cross dressers, etc - are NOT a new thing. We've been around (and I do say we, as I am transgender) for a long, long time, and you can find stories and records of us in every culture. Reality being, transgender people were often treated with far more respect in the distant past, and the whole nonsense of discrimination is a relatively 'new' thing from a historical point of view (new being relative here). We were forced to hide for years, but we never went away. Our existence might be new to you, but don't assume we're new to everyone else too. You can 'feel' what you like and all, but the fact remains we are not some new fad or whatever, and have been around a long, long, time. If you 'feel' that is wrong, I welcome you to do some research into the facts. I'd be happy to help, as spreading education is a good thing (and well, I was a teacher once).


As for the topic on hand: I had no idea 5e had this passage in it until last night, and reading over it made me quite happy. I've been gaming for over 20 years now, and even if it is lip service, there are a LOT of companies who don't even do that much. That they are willing to upset so called 'conservatives' with this stance and risk boycotts, loss of sales, etc, to do something positive for our community... it's truly encouraging. I don't know if it will bring it more players, as most of my transgender friends already play role playing games. Time will tell, I suppose.

 

[akr71]

I welcome WotC's attempts at trying to be more inclusive and I welcome them being explicit about it in the PHB. As a straight white male, I have always enjoyed a position of entitlement, however I'm no longer part of that plum 18-35 demographic. I recognize that I might often be blind to the struggles that marginalized groups might face and should as a person try to be more inclusive.

Growing up D&D was a haven for a marginalized group I was a part of though - bookworms/non-jocks/nerds/computer geeks/whatever - we welcomed whoever wanted to play, mostly male, but not entirely.

I DM for 3 different groups and I view the 5e gender policy differently for each group.
Group 1 - Friends and coworkers - 2 women, 5 men - all married, all straight - the women are spouses of other players, but are there because they want to be and enjoy the game. Any sexism or gender bias is not tolerated. If a player wanted to have a gay or transgender PC, it would be supported by me as DM, but I fear it would be an excuse to perpetuate stereotypes for the sake of (perceived) humor.
Group 2 - My family - PG rating, sexuality and sexual issues are not welcome. I go out of my way it include powerful female NPCs and villains.
Group 3 - my daughter and her friends (all girls) - again PG rating, sexuality is not really welcome. That would be creepy. I expect my daughter to take over DM duties and they can steer it where they wish. They also all plan to join the D&D club at junior high I told my daughter that she and her friends do not have to put up with any gamer-boy attitudes and I would be more than happy to volunteer if the club needed another adult. She came home super excited last week saying the first meeting was Friday and another girl (other than her group) signed up!

So, to the OP - Is the policy attracting new players? From my perspective, the game is certainly attracting more females than it did when I was a kid. More gender balance is a good thing. Gaming with my wife is fun, gaming with my daughter is fun, seeing my daughter get excited about the game with her friends is great.