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

[Jester David]

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.

That's... nice?

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.

That creates a vicious circle.

People want characters that resonate with them.
There are no characters in a community that resonate with them.
They don't get involved in the community.
Being uninvolved, they take their creativity elsewhere and write for other genres.
New people come along.
There are no characters in a community that resonate with them.
Etc.

This is fine so long as you have no interest at all at growing your community. But gaming is a greying hobby that peaked in terms of numbers sometime in the mid-80s.

It also dismisses the issue as "not my problem". If "they" want to fix things, then "they" should fix tings themselves. Which is uncool, as a community not being inclusive or even hostile is everyone in that community's problem.

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.

I'm unware of any D&D campaigns settings set in America.

America is also only 77% white. Is one out of every four people on TV non-white?

Also, even in America, they add characters to market to cater to different audiences. You can just see the sudden spike in Asians in cinema once China was recognized as an important market.

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.

So... if that small 1% that has no power wants to change then they need to just work that extra bit harder because no one in the 99%, which has all the power, needs to do anything?
Sorry, but no. Just... no. That's bully talk. That's saying "if you don't want to get picked on, you should stop being hit". It's putting the onus of change entirely one someone else.

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

No, that is true. But 95.7% race doesn't matter so a character can easily be black or white or purple. Unless it's a historical drama or race is a factor, it doesn't matter.
And if there's a gap, something missing, it typically doesn't hurt to add a new character or tweak an existing one.

This isn't the 1950s. We don't have an excuse anymore.

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

Damaging... how?
Can you give an example of something that has been damaged solely because a decision regarding race/gender?

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?

I don't recall implying anything of the sort. Just that people need to make an effort to be inclusive.
Again, that goes both ways, and LGBTQ author should also include some heteronormative characters. But that's usually not a problem.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm suspicious of this. How many novels have you read that are told from the perspective of someone of a different sexual orientation or gender identity than you? (And: where are you finding these, because it is hard to find these!)

Uh, lots. Most of Anne McCaffrey's novels feature female protagonists; Honor Harrington (David Weber) is a woman and has been for seventeen novels or so; the Safehold books (also by David Weber) have an ensemble cast but Merlin ("male" robot created from the memories of a dead woman) is the original primary protagonist; Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn novels were mostly about Vin, who is of course a girl; Shallan in the Way of Kings/Words of Radiance is a girl; Jim Butcher has written a couple of short stories in the Dresdenverse from the viewpoints of Molly and Karen Murphy; also his new book (the Aeronaut's Windlass) is primarily told from the viewpoint of female characters (Captain Grimm and Rowl being the notable male POV protagonists, but with less screen time I think than Bridget and Gwen). Tonight I'm reading Shadows of Self, which has only devoted maybe 15% of the POV time to Marasi (supporting character, female) and 60% to Wax (series protagonist, male) and 25% to Wayne (sidekick, male).

Then of course there are old favorites like Little House on the Prairie and Anne of Green Gables.

But when you say it's hard to find novels featuring someone of a different sexual orientation or gender identity, I'm a bit taken aback, because I find them ubiquitous. Not that sexual orientation or gender identity specifically are usually major plot points for these books, but they're there. Anne and Gilbert was a thing, and it was a thing told from a woman's point of view, and that was fine because it was relevant. But I don't think Anne and Gilbert would make a good game of D&D.

Edit: not to mention Larry Niven's Ringworld/Fleet of Worlds novels, which feature puppeteers (with a completely alien biology and attitude toward sexuality--their "females" aren't even the same species as the putative "males", they're more like brood hosts, and "female" is only an imprecise translation, with "males" having emotional relationships primarily with other "males" with whom they jointly "impregnate" the "females") and Protectors (ex-human asexual beings) like Jack Brennan, who are pure awesomesauce and some of my personal heroes. "Love" means something completely different to a Protector than it does to a human. Does that count as a "different sexual orientation?" It should.

 

[MostlyDm]

"Straight white boys only" is shoehorning.

... Okay? I never suggested that was an ideal.

I don't have a tactic. Inclusion helps all LGBT folks, and those who say they don't care often have a... more significant reaction than we anticipated upon finding some and realizing how little of it we've had.

But I literally never said anything like that.

No, you keep talking to me like I'm not a member of the LGBT community. I'm assuming it's because I disagree with you? That's the thing.

That's easy enough to say when they all do.
Do you think that people who aren't white straight men don't consume media with protagonists that are? I assure you, we do. We have to, because that's what exists. Which is what makes that rare example so very special.
You want us to stop? When fiction reflects reality, we won't have to.

Do you think we don't?
A small minority creates fiction where that small minority is proportionally represented; nobody else does. That's not going to create proportional inclusion, somehow.


First of all, nobody is being prevented from making anything.
Second of all, "Gay People Don't Exist In This Story and Only Like Two Percent of the World is Female" is not actually a kind of fiction.
We all already exist in every part of reality. We are not the unrealistic part of a story where heroes superficially resembling us also help beat up dragons.

These are all a bunch of things that have nothing to do with what I'm saying, and presume I'm both straight and male.

 

[MostlyDm]

I have a slightly different perspective. As I see it, I think the people you are talking about see the inclusion of LGBT characters as a big deal to themselves, and they don't necessarily want the game itself to make a big deal of the existence of LGBT characters. I think what they want from the game is the same apathetic acceptance that the traditional genders get, but I think that apathetic acceptance (by which I mean an attitude of "yeah, she's married to a woman. So are you. What's the big deal about that?") means more to people who aren't accepted that way in the real world.

Yeah. I think you're absolutely right, that's what's desired.

Here's the thing: You can't force apathetic acceptance. Of all the types of acceptance you may be able to force, that's the one that is the least logical. Apathetic acceptance has to come gradually, and clamoring for more representation doesn't really help.

 

[MostlyDm]

Uh, lots. Most of Anne McCaffrey's novels feature female protagonists; Honor Harrington (David Weber) is a woman and has been for seventeen novels or so; the Safehold books (also by David Weber) have an ensemble cast but Merlin ("male" robot created from the memories of a dead woman) is the original primary protagonist; Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn novels were mostly about Vin, who is of course a girl; Shallan in the Way of Kings/Words of Radiance is a girl; Jim Butcher has written a couple of short stories in the Dresdenverse from the viewpoints of Molly and Karen Murphy; also his new book (the Aeronaut's Windlass) is primarily told from the viewpoint of female characters (Captain Grimm and Rowl being the notable male POV protagonists, but with less screen time I think than Bridget and Gwen). Tonight I'm reading Shadows of Self, which has only devoted maybe 15% of the POV time to Marasi (supporting character, female) and 60% to Wax (series protagonist, male) and 25% to Wayne (sidekick, male).

Then of course there are old favorites like Little House on the Prairie and Anne of Green Gables.

But when you say it's hard to find novels featuring someone of a different sexual orientation or gender identity, I'm a bit taken aback, because I find them ubiquitous. Not that sexual orientation or gender identity specifically are usually major plot points for these books, but they're there. Anne and Gilbert was a thing, and it was a thing told from a woman's point of view, and that was fine because it was relevant. But I don't think Anne and Gilbert would make a good game of D&D.

Oh dude, another Alloy of Law is out? Awesome! I need to get that.

And yeah, agreed. Most fiction I read is from wildly different perspectives than mine.

 

[SuperZero]

NPC romances can affect the narrative powerfully, too. Snape/Lily, or Anikin/Padme, or whatever.

Can, sure (although I'm not sure I agree with either of your examples there).
The love triangle in the second chapter of War of the Burning Sky is a very influential element (also lesbian representation) despite being over for decades before the PCs arrive, but I'm not sure how common that is.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Oh dude, another Alloy of Law is out? Awesome! I need to get that.

And yeah, agreed. Most fiction I read is from wildly different perspectives than mine.

You know, it was only a week or so ago that I realized Wax and Wayne's names are a terrible pun.

 

[MostlyDm]

I'm ashamed to admit I made it pretty far into the first book before I noticed.

 

[Mistwell]

..are you suggesting that being wrong and being right are equally valid?
We can't have inclusion of GLBT people because that wouldn't be inclusive of people who don't like GLBT people?

Nope, not where I am going with this at all. Care to answer my question?

 

[Jester David]

Yeah. I think you're absolutely right, that's what's desired.

Here's the thing: You can't force apathetic acceptance. Of all the types of acceptance you may be able to force, that's the one that is the least logical. Apathetic acceptance has to come gradually, and clamoring for more representation doesn't really help.

But apathetic acceptance doesn't just happen. People don't just wake up an accept people. It's seeing positive relationships and people treated that humanizes people, that leads to acceptance and tolerance.

Think of the Cosby Show. It was hugely influential for showing a healthy, non-disfunctional upper-middle class black family. The father was a doctor. The mother was an attorney. Their kids went on to higher education. In many ways the family was colour-less and could have easily been white for the impact race had on the stories.
But it helped change how black people were viewed and perceptions of black families.

Without representation, groups become "the other", they lose their humanity and are more easily reduced into stereotypes or dismissed as not relevant.