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

[Tia Nadiezja]

Well, the thing is... A setting where there are no depicted gay characters is also pushing a social issue, and moving away from "just anyone can play and have fun".

You can't make media that don't push social issues at some level. "Against the Slave Lords" has as a premise that slave lords are bad things.

Which is a statement that really ought to be on par with "gay and trans people exist" in terms of how controversial it is.

 

[Eis]

not sure what you mean here

people.....any people....regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation......can paint their faces black as a means of stealth....the black dulls the shine of light off of your skin and blends in with the night

if I am missing something I apologize....haven't read the entire thread

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Well, the thing is... A setting where there are no depicted gay characters is also pushing a social issue, and moving away from "just anyone can play and have fun".

You can't make media that don't push social issues at some level. "Against the Slave Lords" has as a premise that slave lords are bad things.

I don't think having gay characters is pushing social issues and didn't say they couldn't have gay characters or any other orientation. I just don't want to read the PH or a module and feel like a social agenda is being pushed. As for that module if it had been Against the Sex Orientation Bigots I would probably not be as happy with it as that is not something I'm very interested in exploring with the murderhobos at my table. Some might love for D&D to strongly go in that type of direction and that's fine I would just probably not play. Would having a module where the main plot is kicked off by the gay companion of a main NPC being kidnapped be a problem? Not really, I may change it I don't know. The core love story would be the key in any event however the DM wanted to run it. If suddenly the majority of NPC were gay or trans I'd probably wonder a bit. I guess its like stories I've read with gay characters vs gay focuses stories. People are welcome to enjoy D&D however they want.

This is all hypothetical though before someone thinks I'm saying that the line in the PH was the equivalent of D&D going to far in one direction for me.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

not sure what you mean here

people.....any people....regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation......can paint their faces black as a means of stealth....the black dulls the shine of light off of your skin and blends in with the night

if I am missing something I apologize....haven't read the entire thread

Yeah stealth racism!!!! just kidding. It would be hard for me to see people getting worked up over a practical use of dark face paint like that.

 

[Mallus]

IAs for that module if it had been Against the Sex Orientation Bigots I would probably not be as happy with it as that is not something I'm very interested in exploring with the murderhobos at my table.

How about a module called "DIE CIS SCUM VECNA DIE!". I'd run that for my group in a heartbeat. In fact, I may need to write it...

Two of my recent campaigns had important trans characters. One PC: Roxy Hurrah, one NPC: Shalazar, Director of the New School for Gate Research. I'll write more about them when I'm not about to leave work for the day.

BTW, I think [MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] said it best, "... it's recognizing that people are people.". Even if they're pretending to be elves.

D&D is in a special position as most-well-known rpg. Every game/system doesn't need to make clear & prominent statements regarding inclusivity. The biggest game, the one that was a bona fide cultural phenomenon, one only RPG that people outside the hobby recognize by name, that one? It kinda does. And it's a good thing.

 

[Jessica]

not sure what you mean here

people.....any people....regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation......can paint their faces black as a means of stealth....the black dulls the shine of light off of your skin and blends in with the night

if I am missing something I apologize....haven't read the entire thread

I agree. I remember going to basic training and even dark skinned soldiers had to use camo on their face for this reason. Even one of our African American drill sergeants said as much.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yes... So? Do you believe this is bad or racist in some way?

Mostly in that it presumes a white PC:

Even wearing a
darksuit, the glint of moonlight on a
pallid white face can give a thief away.
Blacking up the face (and neck) with
charcoal adds a further 2% to the hide
in
shadows chance for concealment in
shadows, dim light, etc. Burnt cork and
soot are alternatives. The thief should
not forget to blacken the backs of his
hands either

It's less the blackface thing (the blackening isn't for the purposes of a minstrel show) and more the "Your pale thief could definitely improve his chance to hide in shadows with some charcoal darkening the skin!", no thought given to the idea that you might already be hiding in shadows as a thief who ISN'T possessed of pale skin and thus...I guess...entitled to a permanent +2% bonus to hide in shadows?

At any rate, simply an example of how D&D hasn't always been a beacon for inclusivity in its history, which I don't think is exactly a controversial statement.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It turns out that all media are the proper vehicle for such campaigns, because media that aren't part of them are directly and actively opposing them. Representation in media has huge impact on how people treat other people. When media omit categories of people, those people suffer as a result. Humans do not have the ability to meet enough people to have a reasonably representative sample of the population, and will tend to react with relative hostility to unfamiliar people, or people in categories they haven't been exposed to before. Media representation reduces that bias.

I'm very much not impressed by the intellectual acumen of a 'if you're not with us, you're against us' declaration. That's a statement of zealousness, not reason.

That said, I strongly disagree that the culture war must be waged on every front possible. Some places, like D&D, are far to niche to matter. Whether or not D&D is at the forefront of the war is generally meaningless in the greater struggle. I wish you well (I voted for gay marriage, and support LGBT rights in general), but I'm sorry, I can't get so enthused that I must declare everything to be part of the crusade, and anyone not joyously enthusiastic about participating should be labeled as part of the problem. When you include the vast majority of everyone in 'part of the problem', you should start re-examining your definition of the problem -- you might have gone a bit too far.

What people are asking for is that other groups be treated the same as cisgender straight folks. Adventures have NPCs that are blatently identified as cis (pretty much anyone with a detailed description) and straight (anyone with an opposite-sex partner, spouse, or lover). If you refuse to have non-cis and non-straight people, that is erasure. It is discrimination. It is wrong.

Goodness. I've never seen a D&D module with a Republican in it. Or an Ethopian. I suppose they've been erased in favor of elves and dwarves and whatnot? That's a patently ridiculous claim that a failure of equal time is erasure. Erasure is what happens when you're systematically removed (not ignored) from representative media. You're going too far.

A D&D that includes straight characters but not gay is pushing social issues. It is, in fact, "pushing social issues" more than a D&D that includes mostly straight, but some gay, characters.

This is the point people seem incapable of grasping. Making a character straight is a choice, just as making that character gay would be. If one doesn't need justification, neither does the other. And this includes secondary or indirect references to sexuality, such as characters who are married or have families.

Having an occasional gay (or trans) character isn't pushing an agenda; it's recognizing that people are people.

Sure its not, and I agree with you. I also think that having published 'blank space' for you add more if you'd like isn't a bad idea, and may be even more broadly preferable than trying to keep track of whether or not you've hit the right percentages in game.

I mean, heck, this could easily be a minefield: "The only gay NPC in latest WotC adventure is the bad guy -- what are they trying to imply?!" I understand not wanting to engage in an area where people literally say 'if you're not with us, you're against us.' Which is why that kind of tactic receives so much pushback -- it's not useful because it leaves no room to engage in the middle. Which is where I think your suggestions largely fall, and where mine was intended before I was told that failure to agree entirely was the same as being an enemy.

 

[Jessica]

Mostly in that it presumes a white PC:



It's less the blackface thing (the blackening isn't for the purposes of a minstrel show) and more the "Your pale thief could definitely improve his chance to hide in shadows with some charcoal darkening the skin!", no thought given to the idea that you might already be hiding in shadows as a thief who ISN'T possessed of pale skin and thus...I guess...entitled to a permanent +2% bonus to hide in shadows?

At any rate, simply an example of how D&D hasn't always been a beacon for inclusivity in its history, which I don't think is exactly a controversial statement.

There is the racist presumption that PCs are white by default, but even if you have a dark skinned PC the benefit from something like that is still there because iirc it's the oils in the face that reflect light and not the color of the skin.

 

[Jessica]

It feels kinda crappy when people treat my existence as a "social issue" or a "political agenda" in our shared hobbies. There are enough people in the world who are either actively hostile or passively crappy towards us that little mentions like that are a huge boon.