D&D 5E D&D Promises to Make the Game More Queer

[Yaarel]

There are many people who are both observant monotheists and in samesex romances.

I want to see D&D inclusive of both spiritual diversity and sex-and-gender diversity.

 

[Wepwawet]

You're misrepresenting my point. I'm not arguing against inclusion. I don't care there are gay NPCs in adventures, honestly. I care about people trying to use a game to make an ideological statement instead of using reasoned, well researched arguments. There is a time and a place for ideological debate, but D&D isn't it.

My point is that this is not an ideological statement. At all.

Thinking that having characters that are LGBT, non caucasian, female in the game is a question of ideology, that is the issue.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't get it.

1. How is purposefully creating a gay NPC just for the sake of having a gay NPC supposed to be anything but offensive? I'm surprised gays don't see it that way as well. It's almost like saying y'all are so unimportant to the story that we have to go out of our way to work you into it.

2. Most heterosexual people dont play d&d for anything to do with sexual identity. If sexuality comes up it's typically background noise or because the group finds the fictional situation amusing. That's the disconnect we have with purposefully forcing sexuality or sexual identity into the story. Because of that many of us find the act of forcing anything like that into the game as offensive

 

[tombowings]

D&D's what you want it to be. It can be a simple escapist fantasy, or it can be an educational tool, or it can be a social outlet. Or a combination of all of them and other things. You don't get to proscribe what D&D is, other than to tell us what it is to you. If people want to write and publish games with gay characters in them, nobody gets to tell them they can't. If people want to play games with gay characters in them, nobody gets to tell them they can't. To many people, seeing themselves represented in art - TV, games, movies, literature - is important. Art, whether it be a painting, a poem, a game, or a book, is historically one of the most important mediums for the communication of ideas, philosophies, and viewpoints.

According to whom? Art is extraordinarily poor medium of exchanging viewpoints. It is messy, left up to interpretation of the viewer. It is unspecific and disinterested in facts, but is instead interest in pushing a particular agenda.In academic circles, Ann Rand's The Fountainhead is laughable in its credibility as a philosophical text for exactly this reason. In terms of identifying and solving real world problems, art pales in comparison to analyzing differing interpretations of a particular primary source or array of primary sources.

Of course, as you imply WotC will do as they choose.

I like to keep games propaganda free, regardless of message. Your and WotC's opinion may differ. That's fine.

 

[Kramodlog]

Good.

 

[Morrus]

According to whom? Art is extraordinarily poor medium of exchanging viewpoints. It is messy, left up to interpretation of the viewer. It is unspecific and disinterested in facts, but is instead interest in pushing a particular agenda.In academic circles, Ann Rand's The Fountainhead is laughable in its credibility as a philosophical text for exactly this reason. In terms of identifying and solving real world problems, art pales in comparison to analyzing differing interpretations of a particular primary source or array of primary sources.

Art isn’t measured by efficiency. It’s not an engineering problem.

But I very much disagree. Art - especially literature - is a *very* potent way to communicate ideas. Art has extraordinary power to affect people.

 

[Stormdale]

Like I said, time and place. D&D is not a political science class. It's not a interviewing 101 workshop. It's not a newspaper column. It's a game.

If Crawford wants to make a well reasoned, researched argument or have an intellectual discussion about the LGBT on Waking Up with Sam Harris, that's awesome. I'd even listen to it, and I'm sure I'd enjoy what he had to say, but inserting ones own propaganda into a children's game is not an appropriate way to win the war of ideas.

So D&D is a children's game? Really? Since when? I know a few children play it but in my experience it mainly starts being played by teenagers or young adults and often at a time in their lives when people are exploring and figuring out their sexuality.

I do not have any issue with D&D being inclusive of all sorts of minorities, elves have been predominantly gay in our campaigns for decades- helps explain their low birthrate years IMO. While Burne and Rufus (of Hommlet fame) have been a same sex couple since 2000 in my games.

I don't have an issue with D&D being more progressive/accepting of any sorts of minorities, we have moved on from the 1970s in oh so many ways. Now lets see D&D being more inclusive to people with disabilities too. For example, one of my best role players was born without any arms or legs, rolls all dice off his shoulder (which we place for him) and we take care of his character sheets- though in past couple of years has started to use a tablet so finally can control his own character sheets each week- D&D and other RPGs (which he plays 3-4 times peer week) has always been an escape for him and a chance to play out being able bodied and equal in all physical aspects to the other players. One week one of our guys turned up all excited to the game and said my next character is going to be a wizard with no arms or legs, just levitates everywhere, he's going to be awesome. Suddenly realised he may have offended the player with physical limitations but the player just laughed and said cool concept go for it.

D&D has always (IMO) been a game that tolerates and welcomes marginalised groups of all types and that has always been, and always been, one of its many strengths- so I don't see the inclusiveness Crawford put into the books as some sort of grad conspiracy, more of a sign of the current times. In 20-30 years time my children and grandchildren will look back on it and wonder what all the fuss is about, much like we do on my own countries decriminalising of homosexuality in 1986 and same sex marriage bill of 2013.

Stormdale

 

[tombowings]

My point is that this is not an ideological statement. At all.

Thinking that having characters that are LGBT, non caucasian, female in the game is a question of ideology, that is the issue.

How is "I wasn’t about to have this book go out and not ... [insert anything here]" not an ideological statement?

What the statement is doesn't matter. Here are some examples:


I wasn’t about to have this book go out and not ... discuss school shootings.

I wasn’t about to have this book go out and not ... draw attention to endangered wildlife.

I wasn’t about to have this book go out and not ... tell you how to have a healthy balanced breakfast.


Once again. I have no problem with the presence of LGBT NPCs, I have a problem with blatantly pushing an ideological view. If Crawford had kept his mouth shut and just included the NPCs, I wouldn't have cared, but he had do go and turn it into an ideological issue by making a big deal out of it.

 

[tombowings]

So D&D is a children's game? Really? Since when? I know a few children play it but in my experience it mainly starts being played by teenagers or young adults and often at a time in their lives when people are exploring and figuring out their sexuality.

I do not have any issue with D&D being inclusive of all sorts of minorities, elves have been predominantly gay in our campaigns for decades- helps explain their low birthrate years IMO. While Burne and Rufus (of Hommlet fame) have been a same sex couple since 2000 in my games.

I don't have an issue with D&D being more progressive/accepting of any sorts of minorities, we have moved on from the 1970s in oh so many ways. Now lets see D&D being more inclusive to people with disabilities too. For example, one of my best role players was born without any arms or legs, rolls all dice off his shoulder (which we place for him) and we take care of his character sheets- though in past couple of years has started to use a tablet so finally can control his own character sheets each week- D&D and other RPGs (which he plays 3-4 times peer week) has always been an escape for him and a chance to play out being able bodied and equal in all physical aspects to the other players. One week one of our guys turned up all excited to the game and said my next character is going to be a wizard with no arms or legs, just levitates everywhere, he's going to be awesome. Suddenly realised he may have offended the player with physical limitations but the player just laughed and said cool concept go for it.

D&D has always (IMO) been a game that tolerates and welcomes marginalised groups of all types and that has always been, and always been, one of its many strengths- so I don't see the inclusiveness Crawford put into the books as some sort of grad conspiracy, more of a sign of the current times. In 20-30 years time my children and grandchildren will look back on it and wonder what all the fuss is about, much like we do on my own countries decriminalising of homosexuality in 1986 and same sex marriage bill of 2013.

Stormdale

Are you even reading my posts? I agree with everything you're said, except maybe that D&D is a children's game. (Adventure Time is (was?) a kids show, but adults watch it anyway because it's fun.)

If you're like to refute any of my actual arguments about the use of propaganda in media, I would love to discuss them with you.

 

[Yaarel]

Blatantly pushing an antigay agenda is problematic on several levels.