D&D 5E (2014) 5e's new gender policy - is it attracting new players?

[Zaran]

I don't need a game company to tell me that I can include alternative lifestyles in my game.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't need a game company to tell me that I can include alternative lifestyles in my game.

Once again, that section wasn't written for you, nor was it written to give people "permission" to play certain kinds of characters.

It was written to tell people who have felt marginalized or ostracized "Hey, you're welcome here, too. We acknowledge you and want you in the club." If you've never felt that way--either because you aren't part of that group or because you are but haven't experienced that marginalization, great! Nobody should have to. But for those who have, this sort of gesture can be genuinely meaningful.

 

[MoonSong]

The idea that including LGBT characters in a medieval fantasy setting would be anachronistic is wrong, I am afraid. Unlike today, in the ancient and medieval worlds it was trans and gender-nonconforming individuals who were more visible and respected than gay people. Someone mentioned the hijra of India, other examples include eunuchs in many Mediterranean, Near Eastern and Asian civilisations, sworn virgins in the Balkans, the Vestal Virgins of Rome, and many more.

The sworn virgins aren't exactly an example of transgenderism in western society, or at least not on a good way. They are the result of an extremely oppressive patriarchal society gone wild. I don't doubt there have been genuine transmen and gender non-comforming people among sworn virgins, but from some studies I read I get that most of them are actually very feminine heterosexual ciswomen forced to forsake their own identity for the sake of survival, because their society doesn't allow a woman to own property, to work outside the home or to be even outside their home without a man. Even the genuine trans among them still face discrimination and have less rights than men, they have to forsake "sex, marriage and family" So not the enlightened kind of society I would like to portrait on my games...

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well, if wanting to see the whole of humanity recognized in the things I love is a "problem", well, I don't want to be right.

Except they are not, in the way you mean. What about people with disabilities? There is no shout out in the core rules to such people, so they are not recognized.

No, I'm suggesting that if you don't ever mention the presence of a people even existing in your game, you're excluding that group of people. I think wotc has made a step in the right direction - I'd like to see them keep doing it.

So WOTC doesn't specifically mention any options for PCs with disabilities therefore they are excluded from play? Under that definition do realize what a pain in the ass it would be to actually "include" by way of specific mention, ALL of humanity. It would be ridiculous. Whats the point of being inclusive unless you go all the way?

Not buying it. People are people. The sooner we stop pointing out all the things that make us different and concentrate on the things we share that bring us together to game the better it will be for the hobby.

 

[Mercule]

Once again, that section wasn't written for you, nor was it written to give people "permission" to play certain kinds of characters.

It was written to tell people who have felt marginalized or ostracized "Hey, you're welcome here, too. We acknowledge you and want you in the club." If you've never felt that way--either because you aren't part of that group or because you are but haven't experienced that marginalization, great! Nobody should have to. But for those who have, this sort of gesture can be genuinely meaningful.

Except that his response is relevant to the question asked. It may be worded a bit snarky, but the core sentiment is that "No, I don't think it's impacted the inclusiveness, IME/IMO."

That's my experience, too. I've had gay players, characters, and NPCs in my games. I was the only guy in an otherwise all woman group, for a bit. We've had three couples in a game and other games where different "halves" of the couples played. I'd guess that my experience probably stems from the fact that I will (and have) walked from a group that behaves boorishly or boot a player of that sort from my game. The problem hasn't been in the games (mostly), but in the players. Bad behavior just stands out more in an already niche environment (see also: IT, executive retreats, sports, etc.).

I will say, as someone who initially strongly disliked the inclusion of said wording, that it hasn't been an issue. My opposition was because I don't think the topic has a place in the rules (pro or con). If the short blurb makes the game approachable to someone, great. I don't want sex/sexuality of any sort as a major feature in my D&D, though. That really breaks the "friendless orphan wanderers" mold that my group uses. I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it's true for most groups, IME. Narrating flirting (or more) with another guy, or a woman who's not my wife doesn't qualify as fun, even if I can separate reality from game. For even more icky awkwardness, my daughter joined our game, last winter.

The flip side to the short blurb being inviting to some folks is that it also gives other folks something to point at as "stupid" and bring the topic up "proactively", at their table, which could also alienate folks. Truthfully, those sorts of groups would alienate players no matter what, so it's a break-even for them. The point is that a little paragraph or two isn't going to suddenly make a table more "tolerant". It only exists for the few folks who are on the fence about whether something is OK -- strong feelings either way won't get changed.

 

[SuperZero]

Not buying it. People are people. The sooner we stop pointing out all the things that make us different and concentrate on the things we share that bring us together to game the better it will be for the hobby.

I see. Then one must wonder why you object to the benign existence of characters who are members of the relevant minority groups.

I don't want sex/sexuality of any sort as a major feature in my D&D, though. That really breaks the "friendless orphan wanderers" mold that my group uses. I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it's true for most groups, IME. Narrating flirting (or more) with another guy, or a woman who's not my wife doesn't qualify as fun, even if I can separate reality from game. For even more icky awkwardness, my daughter joined our game, last winter.

So you've never had a king who's married to a queen?

The theoretical benign existence of queer characters does not imply sex in the game any more than the existence of straight characters.

The flip side to the short blurb being inviting to some folks is that it also gives other folks something to point at as "stupid" and bring the topic up "proactively", at their table, which could also alienate folks.

And thank everything for that!
Now, obviously, ideally one wouldn't have to deal with that at all because it doesn't exist. But if I'm going to be dealing with that, prompt them to tell me up front so I can get the heck out of there.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Representation matters. Due to the nature of cis-normative, hetero-normative culture of the United States, where D&D has been written (for the most part) and produced, the assumed default in the game's settings and adventures has always been cis and hetero, usually white and usually male.

Its easy to say that the game doesn't need to make a specific call to diversity when you are a member of the default group that the game caters to. The aspects of our culture that are considered "normal" are also considered "normal" in the game.

Those who say they don't want sexuality, sex, etc in their murder-hobo-kill-loot-repeat game are ignoring the fact that those elements have been in the game from the beginning. They are just written from the point of view of the assumed default. Succubi, dryads, nymphs and many others have graced the pages of Monster Manuals since 1E, using magically enhanced, stereotypically feminine wiles to lure male characters in to servitude or death.

That bit of text in the 5E Player's Handbook was a step in the right direction and something I celebrated at the time of its release. Does more need to be done? Yup. Representation matters. Arguments to historical accuracy are hogwash in a fantasy game and have been debunked in this very thread.

 

[Mercule]

So you've never had a king who's married to a queen?

The theoretical benign existence of queer characters does not imply sex in the game any more than the existence of straight characters.

Fair point. IIRC, the blurb in the PHB talks about PCs (at least implicitly, by virtue of being part of character generation), which is the context of my comments. The point still stands that, IME, the vast majority of PCs might as well be asexual.

And thank everything for that!
Now, obviously, ideally one wouldn't have to deal with that at all because it doesn't exist. But if I'm going to be dealing with that, prompt them to tell me up front so I can get the heck out of there.

Again the point is that an established player is an established player. If that hypothetical group is the new player's first introduction to the hobby, then they are not just leaving the group. They are leaving the hobby. From that perspective, it is beneficial to the hobby for that new player to be able to try out the game and enjoy it before finding out that there are some jerks out there. They might have a chance to gain enough enthusiasm and confidence to take the game back to another group of friends, then.

 

[SuperZero]

Again the point is that an established player is an established player. If that hypothetical group is the new player's first introduction to the hobby, then they are not just leaving the group. They are leaving the hobby.

Ah yes. I would so much rather become established and start to maybe think of these people as friends before finding out that, surprise! They hate me and I am not remotely safe around them.

From that perspective, it is beneficial to the hobby for that new player to be able to try out the game and enjoy it before finding out that there are some jerks out there.

I think I'm going to hold the marginalized person's safety and comfort over some vague idea of "beneficial to the hobby," as though the game itself might get its feelings hurt (and matters more than the people).
But hey, if "beneficial to the hobby" is so important, there could be, say, a blurb in the PHB that explicitly says they're welcome that could help deal with this problem of feeling unsafe around the game. Just an idea I had.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I see. Then one must wonder why you object to the benign existence of characters who are members of the relevant minority groups.

Since when does not giving a crap about specific shout outs count as objecting?

It much simpler to default to the everyone is accepted policy then point to specific groups and say " OK you, you, you, you,you, and you are accepted". That means anyone NOT getting a specific shout out is thus NOT accepted. Its stupid.