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

[Yunru]

Uh huh. I'm sorry but do you have a point? Because I'm really not interested in throwing 40 years of D&D campaigns in your face. If you don't think that the vast bulk to the near totality of TTRPG material (and not just D&D) is straight, white and male, you're either not paying attention or playing dumb to pull a gotcha. And I'm not interested in either.

If you have 40 years of D&D campaigns where even a quarter of the characters are of any defined sexuality I'll... buy you a kitkat or something. (what, I'm poor )

My point is that the majority being straight, white and male is a brush you're (/your DM's) labelling them with, not DnD.


NB: I'm not talking about things like story books or movies here, as they are a different beast from the game itself.

 

[LordEntrails]

This thread disgusts me.

I ignored the fact that this is obviously a political thread because the poster was Morrus. If he wants to talk about a specific political topic, fine.

I started off supporting reasonable attempts in this game to prevent anyone from feeling excluded from the game.

Then I watched as numerous people began to infer things that were not being said. Refused to accept that their view of the connotations and motivations of a poster might be other than what they had already decided they were.

Then it turned ugly. What I felt was a reasonable debate that was genuinely engaged in by several from all sides became apparent it was something else when an obvious schedule was presented by the OP and the rules were changed. What started out claiming to be about inclusion, became an excuse by the OP to promote his single view by persecuting and restricting the language of those he did not agree with.

As for the those of you claiming tolerance must be practiced by both sides, if you are religious, go back and read your religious texts. They all basically say that one should tolerate those who are not tolerant of you. If you are not religious, then think this through as some other posters have done, and claiming that tolerance must be reciprocal is simple intolerant.

Demanding inclusion is fine. Persecuting those who think it should be done in a different manner than you want, claiming any view other than yours is a "shadow" or "ploy" or "device" for intolerance is simple persecuting another for holding a view different than yours. And is what many of you claim to be fighting against, by doing exactly what you say is wrong.

You disgust me.

 

[MechaPilot]

I may be the weird one here, but when I read "King/Queen", or "Prince/Princess" or even "innkeeper/blacksmith" I do not understand any sexual orientation as implied. Like, at all. If it is not specified and it would not affect the game story, I feel pretty much free to assign whatever orientation I might fancy, if the issue ever arises about that NPC in the game. I might say I would expect the majority of PCs/NPCs to be straight just because real-life statistics made me used to the idea, but individually, about a single NPC written on a module? Nah.

Sexual orientation is not implied by terms like king or queen, it's implied because it's unstated, and because DMs live in and are influenced by a society that has a default assumption of heterosexuality.

I'm a woman, and mostly interested in other women. I tend to play characters who are like me in that regard (not always, but usually). When I'm playing with a group and a male PC hits on a female NPC, none of the DMs or GMs I've played under have ever batted an eye. But, the moment my female PC hits on a female NPC you can see that look on their face that shows their gears are turning; they're trying to rationalize to themselves if it's okay to make that NPC gay. And that's not just an assumption on my part; I've asked them about it.

Now, I can't say I entirely blame them. We all tend to make things line up with our default assumptions about life, and to pause when there's a hiccup in those assumptions. And, most of those DMs and GMs were close friends of mine, not just acquaintances met online or through a gaming store. But, it's quite noticeable at the table when it happens.

 

[LordEntrails]

If you have 40 years of D&D campaigns where even a quarter of the characters are of any defined sexuality I'll... buy you a kitkat or something. (what, I'm poor )

My point is that the majority being straight, white and male is a brush you're (/your DM's) labelling them with, not DnD.

Well said. A point I tried (poorly) to make back on page one.

 

[Sunseeker]

Well said. A point I tried (poorly) to make back on page one.

You're still here? I thought this forum wasn't "open" enough for you? Buss off to Reddit already.

 

[FrogReaver]

The point is not to change your game. The point is so that an LGBT player or GM can say 'I can see myself in this game - I exist in Eberron/Greyhawk/etc' and perhaps for the first time feel included in the larger community.

How long yall been playing D&D with guys and gals that know your gay? If that's not inclusion I don't know what is...

 

[Yunru]

Sexual orientation is not implied by terms like king or queen, it's implied because it's unstated, and because DMs live in and are influenced by a society that has a default assumption of heterosexuality.

I'm a woman, and mostly interested in other women. I tend to play characters who are like me in that regard (not always, but usually). When I'm playing with a group and a male PC hits on a female NPC, none of the DMs or GMs I've played under have ever batted an eye. But, the moment my female PC hits on a female NPC you can see that look on their face that shows their gears are turning; they're trying to rationalize to themselves if it's okay to make that NPC gay. And that's not just an assumption on my part; I've asked them about it.

Now, I can't say I entirely blame them. We all tend to make things line up with our default assumptions about life, and to pause when there's a hiccup in those assumptions. And, most of those DMs and GMs were close friends of mine, not just acquaintances met online or through a gaming store. But, it's quite noticeable at the table when it happens.

As a somewhat limited counter-position (I'm neither a female interested in females, or a DM interested in romance or sexuality) if a female character was trying to flirt with another female character I to would pause. I have to consider if the character's interested (for any gender, and not just on the type of junk), but also I'd have to consider how she would respond if she is interested.

Judging from the fact you say others where flirting I'm guessing at least half of that doesn't apply, but there's still the possibility of the "I don't know how this happens" aspect.

 

[LordEntrails]

...
Now, I can't say I entirely blame them. We all tend to make things line up with our default assumptions about life, and to pause when there's a hiccup in those assumptions. And, most of those DMs and GMs were close friends of mine, not just acquaintances met online or through a gaming store. But, it's quite noticeable at the table when it happens.

Is this a problem? I mean it could indicate some inner motivation or thought process, bias, etc. It can also simple mean that their are too many details in a campaign for a DM to not leave out details that are generally unimportant until confronted with something by a player.

I mean, the fictional gay dwarven smith from earlier, does he have brothers or sisters? When is his birthday? Who were his parents? We're they married? There are thousands of details that a DM can't (and shouldn't) figure out or think about until presented with a need to do so.

Or maybe this should be the new NPC Stat block:

Bathan Flintstone
Medium humanoid (dwarf), neutral good
Sexuality: Homosexual, long term monogamous
Parents: Heterosexual, long term monogamous
Children: None
Birthday:
...

 

[Ganymede81]

Way I see it, there's no printed gay/bisexual/etc people in adventurers because how often is a character's sexual orientation going to affect the adventure?

Strahd's sexual orientation is the onus behind the primary adventure hook of Curse of Strahd: protecting Ireena Kolyana so that Strahd can't forcibly make her his bride.

A huge chunk of the adventure is literally stopping Strahd from "hooking up."

I, for one, am sick and tired of TSR then WOTC shoving this heterosexuality all over our faces as if it were some heaving breasts.

 

[LordEntrails]

You're still here? I thought this forum wasn't "open" enough for you? Buss off to Reddit already.

Is this your attempt to be inclusive?