D&D General “‘Scantily Clad and Well Proportioned’: Sexism and Gender Stereotyping in the Gaming Worlds of TSR and Dungeons & Dragons.”

[Gradine]

I do like some those old pictures, but I know it's never been in the right context for D&D and how things would actually go down.

Like maybe it's more like some adventurers saying "and here I was like in my trusty armored underwear and greatsword fighting off 30 orcs after the last night we had together" to some painter who mostly does erotic artwork, doing their best to depict what they were described, even though it's very far from what actually happened.

In fairness to artists (and this is certainly true of writers as well), but the market for erotica means it's a great way to pay the bills.

 

[Emerikol]

<snip>

If you gave it a unique "Choose any three stats" though (which, frankly, all background should have, but w/e), then sure it's fine.

Sounds like a pretty easy houserule.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Are they being depicted that way?

I mean, yes? Absolutely. None of them have alarming or edgy backgrounds, none of them are presented as outsiders. There's little to no suggestion of internal strife. The art depictions are very positive and fun.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, but it is somewhat narrow.

There is a lot of room for what circumstances were like during the background and even after the background before the class.

The character could be a scribe but still treated horribly. There is also still the wayfarer.

Sure, but that's just doing exactly what I said - the player has to know what they want, and essentially make up the entire concept of "between two worlds" rather than just picking it off a menu. That's absolutely something that requires more confidence, more practiced imagination, and more determination.

To be honest, I think this is a step on a journey D&D is taking, it's not remotely the destination. It's better than entire races being cast as outsiders or the like, absolutely, but neither the backgrounds, nor the species, nor anything else really present the tropes I think a lot of people want, even if they don't know about those tropes until they see them. I think we may see something presented in another edition that does lean into that a bit.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Did all half-elves have that origin? No, of course not. Happily married elves and humans living in communities where such unions are blessed became more common, as did the idea of half-elves as true breeding species. It was much more successful than half-orcs because elves were a good-aligned PC race and orcs and evil monster type. It was much easier to envision humans and elves living in peace than humans and orcs. Still, the "drama" of the race usually hinged on being between two worlds rather than part of one blended one. I wager more half-elves had one or more elements mentioned above than not.

I always liked how Vox Machina showed both sides of the mixed human-elf experience. There was Vex and Vax, who had a human mother and an elven father (who was entirely absent and barely acknowledged his children existed).

Meanwhile you had Keyleth, where both her parents were half-elves. Giving her a completely different upbringing and life experience to that of the twins.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I always liked how Vox Machina showed both sides of the mixed human-elf experience. There was Vex and Vax, who had a human mother and an elven father (who was entirely absent and barely acknowledged his children existed).

Meanwhile you had Keyleth, where both her parents were half-elves. Giving her a completely different upbringing and life experience to that of the twins.

Yeah and they were so well-portrayed and popular, and HEs so common in D&D-related fiction that I was very surprised to see WotC just sort of sweeping them off the table without an apparent care in the world.

I don't have my own copy of the 5E 2024 PHB yet - does it cover mixed-species characters at all? (To be clear I've read it a lot but didn't think to check for this.)

 

[Emerikol]

I mean, yes? Absolutely. None of them have alarming or edgy backgrounds, none of them are presented as outsiders. There's little to no suggestion of internal strife. The art depictions are very positive and fun.

There's nothing wrong with any of that, but it is somewhat narrow.

Sure, but that's just doing exactly what I said - the player has to know what they want, and essentially make up the entire concept of "between two worlds" rather than just picking it off a menu. That's absolutely something that requires more confidence, more practiced imagination, and more determination.

To be honest, I think this is a step on a journey D&D is taking, it's not remotely the destination. It's better than entire races being cast as outsiders or the like, absolutely, but neither the backgrounds, nor the species, nor anything else really present the tropes I think a lot of people want, even if they don't know about those tropes until they see them.

One thing I do that might prove helpful is I have a one on one interview with players and collaborative character development. They need to know stuff to fit into my campaign world anyway but I can also ask them open ended questions on the style of character they want to play and make suggestions. This might in your case be a way to avoid someone being too intimidated to speak up.

Now having said that, I agree 100% that what the rules officially offer sets a tone and kind of shows what they consider "normal". We might fight for exactly the opposite things but I think those things do matter. I think though that my way has already lost. We've left for the OSR world and OSR playstyle. That doesn't mean your way though has lost. You may yet be able to sway them in your direction.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

With backgrounds providing stat bonuses what stat bonus should I gain from the "Trans Woman" Background?

Perhaps I missed something in this conversation. Is that something you would want to use "background" to rules-model? I would think that it would be something that you would just declare your character to be, and pick something else as a background.

But if I try to answer your question: Stat Bonusses, when it comes to background, tend to be based around the sorts of things that a background would teach. The kind of vigorous "exercise" that you would have gone through during your time coming up as that background. Being cis, I wouldn't presume to know what that would entail for a "trans-woman" background (and again, I'm not sure that I'd use "background" to model the trans experience in a game - it seems like an odd fit to me).

But if you don't mind a somewhat tongue-in-cheek answer to your direct question, I'd say: CON (for your handling of the 'slings and arrows'), WIS (for figuring out who you are), and CHA (for the confidence and strength of character that comes, and was needed, to transition.)

Note: If any of the above is wrong, please forgive me. I'd like to consider myself an Ally, but I admit that I have much to learn.

 

[Remathilis]

In fairness to artists (and this is certainly true of writers as well), but the market for erotica means it's a great way to pay the bills.

I mean nobody is going to argue sex sells. I certainly don't mind beautiful people wearing impractical outfits in my fantasy art. But I also understand that a diet of only that style of depiction is probably not good.

 

[Remathilis]

Oh wow, I didn't know that was the case. So what are the PHB 2024 races?

Human, elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling, orc, dragonborn, tiefling, aasimar, and goliath.

 

[Gradine]

Yeah and they were so well-portrayed and popular, and HEs so common in D&D-related fiction that I was very surprised to see WotC just sort of sweeping them off the table without an apparent care in the world.

I don't have my own copy of the 5E 2024 PHB yet - does it cover mixed-species characters at all? (To be clear I've read it a lot but didn't think to check for this.)

Doesn't seem to even come up at all.