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

[Mouseferatu]

Guys, if you don't see it as an issue, great. That means it isn't--for you.

But I know, personally, of people who do feel more welcome, more included, thanks to details like this. Who have felt excluded--not as if they couldn't make the character they wanted, but simply like the game didn't acknowledge them. They are happier with occasional characters in the rules, or in fiction, on TV, whatever. Because it makes them feel less marginalized, less like outsiders. Never being mentioned or acknowledged is still exclusion, even if it's passive rather than active exclusion, even if it's unintentional rather than deliberate.

It's important to them. It's made a difference to them. It makes them feel like part of the club, not an afterthought (or even less). That's real. That's major for the people who feel this way. And yes, for that reason, it is a big deal--even if it's not a big deal for certain people.

 

[Staccat0]

The idea that there are DMs out there with players who WANT to play a LGBT character, but can't because their DM insists that it's somehow anachronistic with a world containing magic, dragons, elves and dwarves is pretty sad. I like the book having an official default stance of inclusiveness.

Obviously, people can play D&D without magic or elves and lot with lots of homophobia and that's totally valid and maybe a very interesting thing to explore through games... as long as that's what the players also think is fun. Those scenarios are honestly exceptions that seem outside the scope of the discussion -- but if they aren't it begs the question why the heck you'd even want to play 5e as a system, haha.

"In my world, humans are 8 feet tall and have no gender! Women don't even exist! There aren't monsters and also it's in the future!"
Okay cool, so you've never had a problem ignoring the PHB and just doing your own thing. Let's all aknowledge that the PHB is for new players to get their footing to some degree.

EDIT: ^Meaning that if the book is supplying pantheons of religions and a list of legal classes and races it's a nice gesture to make sure LGBT characters are included in the current Default/ Adventuerer's League/ Forgotten Realms/ Marel Universe iteration.
In the same way that the PHB and DMG fully endorse DMs customizing and changing things to suit their game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

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...

I've never seen a player choose to play a character that they had no qualities in common with - those quiet nerds playing brash brutes usually match to the gender of their players, the sweet gentle souls playing merciless killers share a sense of humor, the rich people playing poor people still imagine their character having similar preferences in sexual/romantic matters despite scenarios of that kind not coming up in play, men playing women and women playing men might being doing just that because of their gender identity... and many other ways in which the chosen character is a representation, expression, or exploration of some part of the player.

I know I have certainly never played a male character that wasn't a "what if?" version of myself in some way, nor a female character that wasn't an expression of my love and respect of strong women with the kind of compassion that I wish came easily to me.

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.

My experience with the type of people that are responsible for the taboo of which you speak is that they are going to be harmful to the social interaction of the game no matter what sort of character they "allowed" to play - there have been enough of such characters even before the book actually mentioning them specifically to create taboos and cause offense, after all.

We shouldn't look at those that will be abusive and build the game to try and minimize their abuses - we should look at the others who will play in good faith and build the game to be as welcoming to as many of them as is possible. I know that my entire table, cis, het, or otherwise (I personally don't even like those labels - people are into what they are into, and I don't feel a need to sort them or myself into boxes for it) took a moment upon learning of the presence of the passage of text in question and collectively agreed "That's really nice of them to say."

 

[Zardnaar]

Beats me. We have 2 groups one with 6 of us with 2 females and the other with 7 inc 3 females one of which is the DM and one of the guys might be gay IDK and I don't really care.

 

[Lanefan]

Things like the passage in the 5e PH can't ever hurt anything; and if they bring players in that's all well and good. More importantly, perhaps, is that anyone who would leave the hobby because of such things is someone we're all probably better off without.

I've never seen a player choose to play a character that they had no qualities in common with - those quiet nerds playing brash brutes usually match to the gender of their players, the sweet gentle souls playing merciless killers share a sense of humor, the rich people playing poor people still imagine their character having similar preferences in sexual/romantic matters despite scenarios of that kind not coming up in play, men playing women and women playing men might being doing just that because of their gender identity... and many other ways in which the chosen character is a representation, expression, or exploration of some part of the player.

I know I have certainly never played a male character that wasn't a "what if?" version of myself in some way, nor a female character that wasn't an expression of my love and respect of strong women with the kind of compassion that I wish came easily to me.

Hey, at least you've played characters of a gender not your own, which puts you far ahead of some...

I've played all kinds as well, including one who had its gender changed partway through its career - the character's reaction to this is was based on how the character had played thus far; she who liked disguises and intrigue became he who liked disguises and intrigue, and he just saw it as a new improved disguise. His sexual preference hasn't changed, though, which I only just now realized makes him the first gay character I've ever played.

It only makes sense, though, that any character I play is going to have a bit of me in it somewhere; just like any actor playing a given role is going to put their own stamp on the part (look no further than the various actors who have played James Bond for an example of what I mean).

As for having sexuality (and romance, and sex, etc.) in the game at all - it adds a lot. There's been threads in here about such things where a to-me-shocking number of DMs have said they don't and won't have any such things in their games, and one or two who won't even allow players to play characters not of their own gender. Meanwhile we truck along with in-party romances, flings, crushes, jealousies, pregnancies (and childbirths), breakups, marriages, and so forth all as just another part of the game; frequently involving PCs played by players not of their gender.

Lan-"and magic only makes it all much more complicated"-efan

 

[SuperZero]

Oh, of course. But forums and real life are entirely different things, obviously. In the real world, if you tell people showing up that they should maintain proper respect, most normal people will.

You're not telling the jerk to be nice. You're telling the jerk you won't put up with him if he can't treat others decently.

And, more importantly, you're telling the vulnerable person that you won't put up with a jerk if he can't treat them decently.


I have a board game night meetup group I go to weekly. I like board games. I'll drive 20 minutes for that.
There's a monthly-ish board game night that's explicitly queer-friendly posted on another group. One I wouldn't normally participate in, since it requires that I drive over an hour. I'll drive over an hour for that.
Will you get people interested in that wouldn't have been? Naw. Will you get interested people to show up because they feel more welcome and safer? Yes.


That bit in the PHB makes me cringe and doesn't actually change anything anyway. I'm so glad it's there.

War of the Burning Sky has an elven lesbian love triangle that features kind of prominently in the second episode, FWIW. IIRC, it's not called out in big neon letters that these characters are BIG OL' LESBIANS!!!(1)!, it's just a bit of stuff with the pronouns, but discovering the details of that relationship can be pretty important to the narrative, and to how the adventure ends.

Straight characters are everywhere. Mentioned casually enough that people don't even notice them and will tell you that straight characters aren't mentioned either.
You never see that with queer characters. When I read about Anyariel's paramours, I had to flip back. "Oh, I must have misread something. I thought that character was a woman, but obviously not..." But then she was.

I may have gotten a little excited about that.

 

[S'mon]

And this curiousity has got me wondering - is the game's official stance on LGBTQ issues going to help attract new players in those (and other) communities?

No, but your 'be respectful' instruction might. They're two different things.

 

[MechaPilot]

Hey, at least you've played characters of a gender not your own, which puts you far ahead of some...

I think some people are afraid of playing a character of a different gender from their own. Or, I should say, afraid of potential harassment by the rest of the group for doing so.

Unfortunately, a lot of different hang-ups can get drawn into role-playing. I recall one friend who was devout, and who tried to play a cleric character. Unfortunately, his being devout made it extremely uncomfortable for him to RP the pantheistic religious aspects of the cleric. In that case, it was a player who was hindered by his own hang-up. However, I've also seen people who were uncomfortable when another guy in the group played a female character, and the way they used their sense of humor to defuse their own tension tended to make the male player of the female character the butt of those jokes.

 

[Jester David]

Even if its only one person over the course of the edition its enough.

 

[MechaPilot]

I guess that's the problem for me. Either it's a pseudo-historical setting where this stuff would have major, usually negative, role playing consequences... In which case people get upset that it's not inclusive.

Or it's anachronistic and with modern western urban sensibilities... In which case nobody cares and it doesn't matter, so why make a big deal about it?

It's like people want it to be a big deal per the first scenario, but with zero uncomfortable or difficult consequences per the second scenario.

I just don't get it.

It seems to me that those two choices only examine the two farthest ends of the spectrum: pseudo-history on one end, and so fantastical that anything goes on the other end.

It occurs to me that there is plenty of middle ground to be had. Take for example one of the cities in one of my homebrew worlds. In that city, alchemists discard failed potions by dumping them into the slums in the dead of night. In the slums of that city, people affected by the potion-dumping develop or are born with differences that can include a range of things from unnatural hair and eye colors to more significant things such as gender and psychological alterations.

To me, even in a pseudo-historical world, this seems like a relatively reasonable consequence if alchemists exist and dumping regulations do not.

Additionally, I don't think people mind negative role-playing consequences as long as they are not universal, and as long as they make sense in the game world. Having every culture the characters come across view transgendered characters negatively instead of having some diversity of opinion inspired by cultural differences feels punitive for no reason. Instead, having one culture view the transgendered negatively, while another mostly doesn't care as long as the transgendered person adheres to the gender roles that society has created (based on the existence of multiple genders in their culture), and another treating them as blessed by the gods creates a diversity of treatment that allows for a variety of stories without universally shunning a character.