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

[MostlyDm]

That is an interesting clause. It certainly begs the questions "what settings are appropriate for LGBT folk," and "how is that appropriateness determined."

The sheriff of Sandpoint, the town and centerpiece of the very first Paizo Adventure Path, is in a homosexual relationship with the theater owner.
But other than that, all the single NPCs are ambiguous - by design - so they can be objects of romance for any PC.

However, representation is still on their mind. It was noted by Paizo staff members (James L. Sutter IIRC) that when writing City of Strangers, diversity was on the author's mind and they worked to include lots of straight and gay characters in the book to create a representative and diverse city.
But forgot women.
It was pointed out to him too late that he'd forgotten to include female NPCs of note.

Which is the thing, if you're not careful and thinking about diversity and representation, it's easy to make all the important NPCs white males or relegate other races/ethnicities, genders, and sexualities to backrgound roles... if at all.

And... in what way was this adventure dramatically worse for this "oversight"?

When I say equal representation doesn't matter, people tend to assume what I actually mean is that it matters a lot to me and I am opposed to it.

But that's not it at all. It's much simpler than that.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

If inclusion of a particular type of person wouldn't fit smoothly to a particular situation, don't shoehorn it in. And if it would... then that doesn't mean you're now required to shoehorn it in. It just means you should do what makes sense to you in that situation, and include what seems reasonable.

Making a bunch of extra effort to be "inclusive" is tantamount to saying that it's important, and that it wouldn't naturally be included, so you need to force it.

Why? What is gained by that?

 

[Jester David]

And... in what way was this adventure dramatically worse for this "oversight"?

When I say equal representation doesn't matter, people tend to assume what I actually mean is that it matters a lot to me and I am opposed to it.

But that's not it at all. It's much simpler than that.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

If inclusion of a particular type of person wouldn't fit smoothly to a particular situation, don't shoehorn it in. And if it would... then that doesn't mean you're now required to shoehorn it in. It just means you should do what makes sense to you in that situation, and include what seems reasonable.

Making a bunch of extra effort to be "inclusive" is tantamount to saying that it's important, and that it wouldn't naturally be included, so you need to force it.

When I write stories, I tend to include mostly white CIS male characters by default. If I'm adding a new character to a story, chances are they're going to be said CIS male. Because that's what I am, and that's my worldview. And I tend to most identify with geeky hetro male characters in television and novels, because I can see myself most in the character.

Other people latch onto other characters. Different characters. That's whom they identify with, that's whom they see themselves in. And if there's no one even remotely like them in the book, then the material subtly says that it's not meant for them, that they're an outsider who isn't welcome.
And that matters. That matters a heck of a lot.

It's not shoehorning characters in. It's not. It's just remembering to add characters that differ from your personal default, to think outside the narrow box everyone constructs for themselves. It's not shoehorning to make a character black or gay or a transgendered middle-aged amputee anymore than it's shoehorning to make them white. Unless the story is explicitly about race (be it Roots or Blazing Saddles) then it's never shoehorning to shift a race. And in a fantasy world that has less of a gender bias, it's never shoehorning to change a sex. Ever.
(Heck, given the majority of the world isn't white and never has been, and women outnumber men 65/45, so arguably having more than 75% of your characters be white males IS shoehorning, since it's defying the average by a lot.)

The "oversight" in my example came about because the author never stopped to think beyond their personal comfort level and preferences, and it took all of five seconds for a female co-worker to notice. Because, not having anyone she could relate to or that she found interesting was a giant flaw in the book to her.

Why? What is gained by that?

Making other people feel welcome, accepted, and like they belong.
What's more important than that?

 

[MechaPilot]

Uh... except I gave several examples of how that appropriateness might be determined? In the post you quoted...?

I have reproduced the post that I quoted below. In it, you do not reference how that appropriateness might be determined.

I guess this is an example of the main difference. I think the best avatars have very little in common with their players. Quiet nerds playing brash brutes, sweet gentle souls playing merciless killers, rich people playing poor people, men playing women and women playing men...

If a setting is appropriate for LGBT folk, my hope would be that the LGBT characters are played by the most cis-het players at the table... And vice versa. Of course, this last one is often seen by many as taboo or offensive. Another reason why I'm skeptical this form of inclusivity is really all that great.

It seems like you're trying to make some sort of veiled implications about my mindset, which is... whatever. Your prerogative, but I'm not real interested in playing along.

It appears that way because the clause you used without any clarification simply looks like it reflects badly. That's why I was asking for clarity about which settings you view as being appropriate, and what it is about those settings relative to other settings that make them seem more appropriate in your eyes.

Not all characters are appropriate for all campaigns. This is true in the various senses most wouldn't necessarily bitch about (e.g. this is a thieves' guild game, everyone should have levels of rogue, or at least a suitable background), but also in senses that people can choose to be offended by (e.g. the setting for this game is that you're in an army of the Incan Empire... so your race and gender are predetermined.)

I recall you mentioning an Incan game earlier than the post that I quoted when asking for clarity. However, I also recall inquiring about a middle ground because applying the term "pseudo-" to "historical" creates a massive amount of space.

Adding pseudo to history can mean simply adding genuinely magical wizards and clerics that didn't historically exist, adding fantasy creatures that didn't historically exist, adding fantasy races that didn't historically exist, or adding gender equality that culture didn't historically have (or all of the above). Anytime you have a pseudo-historical campaign, you have to make a decision about how deep the resemblances will run, and (presumably) about why retaining certain resemblances are important when you choose to discard others.

I use those examples because I have seen both of those campaigns. They were fun. I've also been in games where there were no such restrictions. One of my favorite characters, that I'm still playing currently, is a portly old bisexual monk with a voracious appetite for physical pleasures.

My only point was: that's not appropriate for every campaign. Do you disagree?

I both agree and disagree (as I find is often the case).

I agree with you that different campaigns can have restrictions that, presumably, are intended to evoke a specific feel or flavor.

I disagree with you, as I did in my previous post, that one has to choose between a form of pseudo-history that holds very tightly to what was historically so, and including everything along with the kitchen sink.

 

[SuperZero]

A person saying that it matters to them is proof that it matters.

Running around making sure to let everyone know repeatedly that you don't care... doesn't demonstrate what you're saying, let's say.



The existence of people different from you shouldn't be naturally excluded.

That "oversight" was completely forgetting about women. That lack of representation feeds the idea that it's normal which leads to it "accidentally" happening again. It's cyclical. Women make up approximately half of the world; forgetting about them is kind of a sign that something is wrong.



The people who are currently vastly overrated seem to think it matters quite a lot. They're so often upset at the very idea of being represented less than they already are.
If representation doesn't matter to you, then maybe we could have some more ladies or GLBT characters? You don't care, after all.

 

[MostlyDm]

That is an interesting clause. It certainly begs the questions "what settings are appropriate for LGBT folk," and "how is that appropriateness determined."

I have reproduced the post that I quoted below. In it, you do not reference how that appropriateness might be determined.







It appears that way because the clause you used without any clarification simply looks like it reflects badly. That's why I was asking for clarity about which settings you view as being appropriate, and what it is about those settings relative to other settings that make them seem more appropriate in your eyes.




I recall you mentioning an Incan game earlier than the post that I quoted when asking for clarity. However, I also recall inquiring about a middle ground because applying the term "pseudo-" to "historical" creates a massive amount of space.

Adding pseudo to history can mean simply adding genuinely magical wizards and clerics that didn't historically exist, adding fantasy creatures that didn't historically exist, adding fantasy races that didn't historically exist, or adding gender equality that culture didn't historically have (or all of the above). Anytime you have a pseudo-historical campaign, you have to make a decision about how deep the resemblances will run, and (presumably) about why retaining certain resemblances are important when you choose to discard others.




I both agree and disagree (as I find is often the case).

I agree with you that different campaigns can have restrictions that, presumably, are intended to evoke a specific feel or flavor.

I disagree with you, as I did in my previous post, that one has to choose between a form of pseudo-history that holds very tightly to what was historically so, and including everything along with the kitchen sink.

Apologies on misremembering which post you'd quoted; the sentence in isolation didn't give me many clues. Replying on mobile, so it's a little tedious to hunt for the previous post to double-check. I was thinking of the earlier post in which I cited examples. Looks like you figured this out.

Sure, pseudo-historical settings will be different, and have different feels, and thus different restrictions. No disagreement there.

The Incan game in particular (I was a player, not a GM) was strongly-historically influenced; the main difference is that Incan superstition worked. So, we were escorting a Malki (essentially a mummified important figure) that was still alive in a sense and incredibly powerful. And weapons and armor made of gold was essentially magical, and extremely effective. Stuff like that. Culturally, it was a close to Incan as we could get (and difficult for us Westerners to wrap our heads around at times)... playing even something like a woman PC would have been wildly out of place, much less variant sexualities.

That's the sort of thing I was getting at.

 

[Shemeska]

I appreciated seeing 5e make some moves towards inclusivity, but IMO WotC is still catching up with where the industry has been going for years now in that regard. I'd like to see the inclusivity push reflected in modules and sourcebook material, otherwise it risks being somewhere between tokenism and marketing push at the start of an edition. But it's good for what it is, and I was happy to see it. If they continue and take some bolder moves such as those that Paizo has taken with including a wide array of representations wrt gender and sexuality in their products, that will be good.

 

[Mistwell]

No. It causes a problem. A complication. A dilemma.

"People who disagree with me" is a pretty broad interpretation of this particular situation as well. That's a very universal statement being applied to a very specific discussion point. How I feel about people disagreeing with me on Topic A and people disagreeing with me on Topic B evoke very different emotions.

This is an issue since people who are uninvolved on an issue (and potentially uninformed) are unlikely to have a strong grasp if something necessary or not. They might not feel it necessary, and that's very true for them, but that's not a universal truth. Without causes raising awareness, these issues remain vague and people remain ignorant of the details.

If people dissenting from your world view "causes a problem," particularly when you personally feel you know better than them what's best for society on that issue, what do you do to address the problem that dissent is causing for your world view?

 

[Mistwell]

Oh come on. It's not that folks disagree that's the problem. It's a problem when they stubbornly insist that there IS NO problem, and actively resist efforts towards equality and inclusivity.

Yes. And? Are you saying that dissent from your world view that X is a problem and needs to be addressed with actions to make things more equal and inclusive is to be labelled as a problem? And if so, how do you address that problem of people dissenting from your world view on that? Are actions to limit the methods available for those dissenters to voice their "wrong" views justified?

 

[MechaPilot]

Apologies on misremembering which post you'd quoted; the sentence in isolation didn't give me many clues. Replying on mobile, so it's a little tedious to hunt for the previous post to double-check. I was thinking of the earlier post in which I cited examples. Looks like you figured this out.

Not a problem. However, since we were discussing the setting appropriate nature of gender and sexuality choices, I would like to ask if you think any of D&D's settings (FR, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Planescape, Eberron, etc.) are characterized such that LGBT characters would be inappropriate (and if you think one of those settings would be inappropriate, what is it about that setting that makes you think that would be the case).

The Incan game in particular (I was a player, not a GM) was strongly-historically influenced; the main difference is that Incan superstition worked. So, we were escorting a Malki (essentially a mummified important figure) that was still alive in a sense and incredibly powerful. And weapons and armor made of gold was essentially magical, and extremely effective. Stuff like that. Culturally, it was a close to Incan as we could get (and difficult for us Westerners to wrap our heads around at times)... playing even something like a woman PC would have been wildly out of place, much less variant sexualities.

That's the sort of thing I was getting at.

I think a gay or bisexual character in that campaign would have been interesting, especially as a PC for a straight player to run. The culture would likely (I know significantly less about the Incas than other cultures) frown on expressing that sexuality, which would mean the character would have to find ways to hide and constructively deal with feelings his culture wouldn't allow them to express. It creates an interesting internal struggle for the character.

 

[MostlyDm]

When I write stories, I tend to include mostly white CIS male characters by default. If I'm adding a new character to a story, chances are they're going to be said CIS male. Because that's what I am, and that's my worldview. And I tend to most identify with geeky hetro male characters in television and novels, because I can see myself most in the character.

Other people latch onto other characters. Different characters. That's whom they identify with, that's whom they see themselves in. And if there's no one even remotely like them in the book, then the material subtly says that it's not meant for them, that they're an outsider who isn't welcome.
And that matters. That matters a heck of a lot.

I guess this is the main issue. This mindset is just totally alien to me. When I create fiction I don't gravitate towards creating people just like me. When I consume fiction, I don't prefer that the protagonist mimic me. But most people feel the same as you... so they create fiction that resonates with them. Do you want them to create fiction that doesn't resonate with them, to satisfy inclusivity needs?

I'd say we could let everyone make the kind of fiction that resonates with them. If more LGBT fiction is desired, then it can be made by LGBT people or by people for whom such a thing is actually interesting. Actively requesting such a thing for inclusivity reasons is just... well... shoehorning.

It's not shoehorning characters in. It's not. It's just remembering to add characters that differ from your personal default, to think outside the narrow box everyone constructs for themselves. It's not shoehorning to make a character black or gay or a transgendered middle-aged amputee anymore than it's shoehorning to make them white. Unless the story is explicitly about race (be it Roots or Blazing Saddles) then it's never shoehorning to shift a race. And in a fantasy world that has less of a gender bias, it's never shoehorning to change a sex. Ever.
(Heck, given the majority of the world isn't white and never has been, and women outnumber men 65/45, so arguably having more than 75% of your characters be white males IS shoehorning, since it's defying the average by a lot.)

The "oversight" in my example came about because the author never stopped to think beyond their personal comfort level and preferences, and it took all of five seconds for a female co-worker to notice. Because, not having anyone she could relate to or that she found interesting was a giant flaw in the book to her.


Making other people feel welcome, accepted, and like they belong.
What's more important than that?

The race thing is just silly.

America is predominantly white, but by no means exclusively white. So goes our fiction. In Mexico, their fiction features a lot of Mexicans. Korean fiction starts mostly Koreans. It's a non-issue.

A person saying that it matters to them is proof that it matters.

Running around making sure to let everyone know repeatedly that you don't care... doesn't demonstrate what you're saying, let's say.

I didn't say I don't care, I said it doesn't matter. And I explained what I meant. If it matters to someone, they should take steps to change things... by creating things that they care about. Not by trying to push others to conform to their desires.

The existence of people different from you shouldn't be naturally excluded.

That "oversight" was completely forgetting about women. That lack of representation feeds the idea that it's normal which leads to it "accidentally" happening again. It's cyclical. Women make up approximately half of the world; forgetting about them is kind of a sign that something is wrong.

The people who are currently vastly overrated seem to think it matters quite a lot. They're so often upset at the very idea of being represented less than they already are.
If representation doesn't matter to you, then maybe we could have some more ladies or GLBT characters? You don't care, after all.

Nobody needs to be in everything. Men don't, women don't, straight people don't, gay people don't... etc.

"Representation" as an ideal, instead of stuff like character, plot, etc... it's really damaging to fiction.

Also, it's interesting that your main tactic here is denying that anyone who fits any of these criteria could possibly disagree with you. Everyone who disagrees with you is a cishet white male, and all LGBT folks are clamoring for representation, right?