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

[Pedantic]

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.

I believe (and of course @Steampunkette knows best and can speak for herself) the point was to demonstrate the risks of tying character power to a significant defining character trait in that way. If there's a strong mechanical incentive to pick a particular background for personal power, that undermines the background's role in providing story context, plus (especially in this case) it risks the simplifying something complicated and cheapening it thereby.

Part of the appeal of half-orcs/half-elves was precisely that they're somewhat ambiguous symbols, which can bear a lot of allegorical meaning. I'm not sure that outweighs the downsides of a racial reading though, which are pretty clearly and profoundly bad.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am sure the ratio of it was more revealing images of women but he did have beefcake art of male figures too, like this one

View attachment 387927

Pretty certain that was a Caldwell image

That’s still very much a male-centric fantasy. The dude is being presented as aspirational for the audience, not as an object of the audience’s sexual desire.

 

[Sacrosanct]

On a related note, one thing that always seemed off to me as justification for female cheesecake was, "I don't have a problem with male cheesecake, so what's the problem! It's fair, so no big deal!"

The problem I have with that is that the people being objectified are not given a say into the discussion. It's men speaking for women telling them that they shouldn't have a problem because men are naked too. Well, did anyone actually ask women if that's what they wanted, to see male cheesecake? Or maybe they don't care for male cheesecake, and just want women to have realistic armor?

 

[Remathilis]

I don't think that it says anything at all. I suspect that it's something that they never figured out in time for publication, and that we'll see them return to the concept in the future.

I think that they better.

My take was that they realized the sidebar wasn't going to cut it and there was no way they could start a new system from scratch that late into development with all the work needed on classes and such. So it got shelved until a later book. I wager we will probably see some UAs about this some time in the coming year for a 2026 book. But considering there is going to have design a whole new species system, playtest, community feedback, and sensitivity reading, I understand it is going to take a lot of time before it happens.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm not sure how 1) is going against any rules. In that case you're just using story to explain choices, which to me, is just how you play D&D.

Because unfortunately the 5E 2024 PHB does not (and I did check this) contain any rules allowing you to in any way edit backgrounds unless they're from 5E 2014 products in which case it basically do whatever you want. I don't remember it even having an "ask the DM if you want to change stuff" re: backgrounds, but maybe I've forgotten/overlooked it - I haven't seen it since like, weekend before last.

So RAW and RAI and all that.

I agree with you that that's how you play D&D. It is not how 5E 2024 explains you play D&D, weirdly, despite it being how the 5E 2024 playtest did it, to loud applause.

I've said this before, but I really think tieflings should remain as the "mistrusted outsiders" choice. That's like the big part of their appeal, and if you cannot play that trope as a literal devil spawn, then I feel things have gone a bit wrong.

As a Tiefling fan I agree, and what's funny is, I think like, easily 95% of people who want to play a Tiefling don't want them to be a Happy Insider, but that's what they are now, by default! I feel like they should have presented them as Mistrusted Outsiders with some kind of clause to get out of that. Especially as canonically in most D&D settings they are Mistrusted Outsiders.

(I will say at least their art piece has a bit more edge and fun to it that the decidedly boring ones for say, dwarves and elves.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

My take was that they realized the sidebar wasn't going to cut it and there was no way they could start a new system from scratch that late into development with all the work needed on classes and such. So it got shelved until a later book. I wager we will probably see some UAs about this some time in the coming year for a 2026 book. But considering there is going to have design a whole new species system, playtest, community feedback, and sensitivity reading, I understand it is going to take a lot of time before it happens.

But have they actually retconned some existing mixed-species characters to be mono-species? Because if they're doing that, I think the concept might be gone for good.

 

[Charlaquin]

View attachment 387930


Gotta love the Hawkeye Initiative!

I actually love the image on the right!

Fun fact, this is exactly how JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure gets its famously absurd poses. The artist just really enjoys drawing muscular male characters dressed in avant-grade high fashion outfits, in poses typical of female models.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But have they actually retconned some existing mixed-species characters to be mono-species? Because if they're doing that, I think the concept might be gone for good.

Didn't they do precisely that to a couple of characters in the recent Phandelver "remake" or whatever you want to call it?

Which certainly seems like a warning shot, though I doubt they'd dare do it to a really famous character.

 

[Remathilis]

Because unfortunately the 5E 2024 PHB does not (and I did check this) contain any rules allowing you to in any way edit backgrounds unless they're from 5E 2014 products in which case it basically do whatever you want. I don't remember it even having an "ask the DM if you want to change stuff" re: backgrounds, but maybe I've forgotten/overlooked it - I haven't seen it since like, weekend before last.

So RAW and RAI and all that.

The 2024 DMG discusses changing backgrounds and making new ones. It's framed in the "you can change a background for a PC if you want" language but it's there. What's not there is the ala carte design for players without DM input.

 

[Remathilis]

But have they actually retconned some existing mixed-species characters to be mono-species? Because if they're doing that, I think the concept might be gone for good.

An NPC shopkeeper in Phandelver was reconnected from half-elf to drow. This might be due to them not being sure how they were going to handle them, and as an NPC with no stat block the numbers didn't matter.

Part of the issue I wager is that they haven't agreed on nomenclature yet, so it's easier to just change a minor npc while they figure it out.