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

[TheCosmicKid]

A good example of this in literature is Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series.

Yeah, he's been in the back of my mind during this conversation for a while now. Basing your entire cosmology on la différence? Not a great call.

I wonder if he was that bad in his Conan books? I can't bring myself to read them, in dreadful anticipation of what I might find!

Can't speak for Jordan's Conan, but the original Howard stories are kind of interesting in how they go back and forth so radically depending on whether Howard was writing formula for a paycheck or writing something he was actually invested in. Don't get me wrong, I don't expect Bêlit or Valeria to win any Feminist Icon of the Century awards any time soon, but they're real and distinct personalities who go to some surprising places, and the contrast between them and the disposable damsels of lesser Conan tales is truly stark. I think that when a creative mind goes to work, however sexist its cultural context and own personal beliefs, it cannot help but create depth of character -- some instinct for verisimilitude, or perhaps a simple aversion to boredom, demands it. Howard is a neat illustration of this because he alternates so clearly from work to work between the artist and the hack.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

So to answer the original question:

Very unlikely, and frankly, I don't want to deal with the kind of players who would be positively affected by the blurb and you shouldn't want to either, for reasons I will explain.

The most common response, and the most logical, is, "Why did you waste the ink to print this?" It's a fancy way of saying, "Define the characters as you want." Why? As a general rule, who wouldn't? Most characters who feel the need to make homosexual characters would do so whether that print was there or not.

People who don't like it will simply do what I do and ignore it, or at the most, draw a line through it with a black felt marker and call it a day. To my knowledge, nobody has refused to buy the book over two sentences that really, just restate something that has always been there.

Now, as for the people who read this and it made a difference in favor of buying it, I would never want to game with them because they can be split into two groups. First one is that those who see it as a sign that those they deem as bigots are not welcome - as evidenced by the fact that when I pointed this out, one person said, "yes, exactly."

The other group, and this one is more toward the problem that it brings directly to the entire RPG community, is those who have the mentality that the GM is hardbound by the rules of the book. I remember reading the exact words, "Now, whenever a DM tells me I can't make a bisexual character, I can point to this paragraph and tell him to STFU and he has to let me." The kind of players who refuse to accept the idea that the GM (or DM) can override the rulebook are players that I want nothing to do with.

That the blurb might turn off a few bigots IS a selling point - neither my game nor the hobby as a whole need homophobes, misogynists, racists, or transmisogynists - and any GM who uses Rule Zero to ban bisexual characters is raising a huge neon sign over their table that says, "I am a terrible person and my game will likely suck! Don't play here!"

Or are you planning to defend that GM and the players potentially driven away as not being bigots? Because please, please do. I really can't wait.

 

[Fergurg]

That the blurb might turn off a few bigots IS a selling point - neither my game nor the hobby as a whole need homophobes, misogynists, racists, or transmisogynists - and any GM who uses Rule Zero to ban bisexual characters is raising a huge neon sign over their table that says, "I am a terrible person and my game will likely suck! Don't play here!"

So you see it as a good thing to get rid of the "wrong people" from what is already a niche hobby? "We're driving 'those people' out, so buy our products" is a selling point?

And I am the type of GM who would ban bisexual characters unless there is a VERY good explanation why I shouldn't. This is because I have never seen an example of bisexuality or homosexuality in PCs that was not either A) trying to be stereotypically homosexual for the shock value, or B) trying to make a real-world political/moral statement.

I also generally ban transsexuality because in a world full of magic, it doesn't make sense; think your body is the wrong gender? Get magic to fix it. Problem solved.

Or are you planning to defend that GM and the players potentially driven away as not being bigots? Because please, please do. I really can't wait.

Wasn't planning on defending it, but since you can't wait for me to do so, I will. Moral and religious disapproval of homosexuality, transsexuality, and really, most other things, is not bigotry; it is disapproval. Bigotry is declaring that a person has no value and should be driven out of a city, job, or the role playing community. Believe it or not, not everybody who says homosexuality is wrong is acting out of hate. Most aren't.

Further, transsexuality is, ultimately, a religious claim; it is based on the gnostic assertion that the mind and spirit are superior to the physical world, and that the physical world is wrong when they are in conflict. I do not believe that, and I will not act as though I do.

The role-playing community is full of people of many different views on many different things. To declare openly that you support changing the demographics so that only "the right people" play in the hobby, as the actual bigotry.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So to answer the original question:

Very unlikely, and frankly, I don't want to deal with the kind of players who would be positively affected by the blurb and you shouldn't want to either, for reasons I will explain.

1) The most common response, and the most logical, is, "Why did you waste the ink to print this?" It's a fancy way of saying, "Define the characters as you want." Why? As a general rule, who wouldn't? Most characters who feel the need to make homosexual characters would do so whether that print was there or not.

2) People who don't like it will simply do what I do and ignore it, or at the most, draw a line through it with a black felt marker and call it a day. To my knowledge, nobody has refused to buy the book over two sentences that really, just restate something that has always been there.

3) Now, as for the people who read this and it made a difference in favor of buying it, I would never want to game with them because they can be split into two groups. First one is that those who see it as a sign that those they deem as bigots are not welcome - as evidenced by the fact that when I pointed this out, one person said, "yes, exactly."

4) The other group, and this one is more toward the problem that it brings directly to the entire RPG community, is those who have the mentality that the GM is hardbound by the rules of the book. I remember reading the exact words, "Now, whenever a DM tells me I can't make a bisexual character, I can point to this paragraph and tell him to STFU and he has to let me." The kind of players who refuse to accept the idea that the GM (or DM) can override the rulebook are players that I want nothing to do with.

While I whole-heartedly disagree with your opinion, I also feel an urge to ask you to explain something quite puzzling. I have numbered your paragraphs to make responding slightly easier and to avoid confusion.

In 1) you start off with something that while may come across as insensitive, could be a valid point. If the entire point of the paragraph is to state you can play whatever character you want and that has been true at your table for years, then it may seem odd to have the book call that out directly.

However, then in 4) you say your biggest complaint is that it will attract players who will expect to play whatever concept they wish and then get upset when the GM denies them, citing that is in the rules to try and overrule GM fiat in this matter.

So, which is it? Can a player play whatever character they want and that truth need not be stated. Or does the GM have the sole power to override characters and then the company may have a valid point in sending a message saying that people can play whatever concept they wish. If they can play anything they want then expecting to play anything they want is... exactly how it should go. Or do you think that somehow this impinges on DM rights or power when they might be called out on denying a character concept a player is heavily invested in.

2) is interesting, since I have yet to hear anyone mention redacting the text, simply erasing from the book to deny it's existence, but you state you are only ignoring the text because what it states is self-evident and non-controversial as it has always been an aspect of the game.

In 3) I would like to point out that, going into a game and expecting you will be treated like a human being instead of something less than that.... is not bad? I mean, if you have a problem with people showing up expecting to not be mocked, derided, or judged for being who they are.... well, I doubt you have to worry about the people with those expectations sticking around for a terribly long time.

If I have made any erroneous assumptions feel free to correct me, but... I think your text speaks loudly.

 

[seebs]

Very unlikely, and frankly, I don't want to deal with the kind of players who would be positively affected by the blurb and you shouldn't want to either, for reasons I will explain.

Given that that category includes about 80% of the people I've gamed with, I am suspecting that you have some belief about these people that does not match my experience.

The most common response, and the most logical, is, "Why did you waste the ink to print this?" It's a fancy way of saying, "Define the characters as you want." Why? As a general rule, who wouldn't? Most characters who feel the need to make homosexual characters would do so whether that print was there or not.

Maybe. But having it explicit in the rules does set expectations for community norms.

People who don't like it will simply do what I do and ignore it, or at the most, draw a line through it with a black felt marker and call it a day. To my knowledge, nobody has refused to buy the book over two sentences that really, just restate something that has always been there.

Probably they haven't, but it's not at all the case that it has always been there.

Now, as for the people who read this and it made a difference in favor of buying it, I would never want to game with them because they can be split into two groups. First one is that those who see it as a sign that those they deem as bigots are not welcome - as evidenced by the fact that when I pointed this out, one person said, "yes, exactly."

What's wrong with that? I mean, that's how things like this in rules work socially; they establish a community norm as a baseline. And I would absolutely prefer a game which does not welcome people who are hostile to LGBT characters, or which indicates in some way that their "don't put that stuff in this game it's not appropriate" stuff will not be supported by the broader community.

And, well, the text in the rules does that. It doesn't prove that they can't play, it won't keep them out unequivocally, but it will at the very least set a community default expectation that LGBT characters should be tolerated, and if a group wants to exclude them, they are going to have to say they are doing so rather than just relying on "why would you think that would be allowed?"

What's missing here is the part where you explain what you think is wrong with this category of players. Do you think their belief is false, or do you think it's bad, or what? Because the obvious response to this is "yes, that is a likely effect of having such a thing in the official rules".

 

[Fergurg]

While I whole-heartedly disagree with your opinion, I also feel an urge to ask you to explain something quite puzzling. I have numbered your paragraphs to make responding slightly easier and to avoid confusion.

In 1) you start off with something that while may come across as insensitive, could be a valid point. If the entire point of the paragraph is to state you can play whatever character you want and that has been true at your table for years, then it may seem odd to have the book call that out directly.

However, then in 4) you say your biggest complaint is that it will attract players who will expect to play whatever concept they wish and then get upset when the GM denies them, citing that is in the rules to try and overrule GM fiat in this matter.

So, which is it? Can a player play whatever character they want and that truth need not be stated. Or does the GM have the sole power to override characters and then the company may have a valid point in sending a message saying that people can play whatever concept they wish. If they can play anything they want then expecting to play anything they want is... exactly how it should go. Or do you think that somehow this impinges on DM rights or power when they might be called out on denying a character concept a player is heavily invested in.

2) is interesting, since I have yet to hear anyone mention redacting the text, simply erasing from the book to deny it's existence, but you state you are only ignoring the text because what it states is self-evident and non-controversial as it has always been an aspect of the game.

In 3) I would like to point out that, going into a game and expecting you will be treated like a human being instead of something less than that.... is not bad? I mean, if you have a problem with people showing up expecting to not be mocked, derided, or judged for being who they are.... well, I doubt you have to worry about the people with those expectations sticking around for a terribly long time.

If I have made any erroneous assumptions feel free to correct me, but... I think your text speaks loudly.

Numbering the paragraphs does help.

To the question about paragraphs 1 and 4, the answer is, yes, the GM should have the sole power to override characters as he sees fit. I explained in a different post why I generally do not allow homosexual or transsexual characters, and it's not a moral argument. My entire point is that the crowd that this blurb attracts are those who say that the GM is subservient to the rulebook, when it should be the other way around.

As for paragraph 2, I ignore it, but the book would have been better without it; it feels like a way of saying, "How can we repeat the theme of 'play what you want', but with sex?" Why not say, "Your character can be sexually promiscuous, or a wife beater, or have a sword called 'Jew Killer'"? All things that are true, but not printed.

As for number three, expecting to be treated decently is not the same as expecting that everybody is going to agree with everything you do. You can do things I don't approve of and still have the reasonable expectation of being treated like a human being. Frankly, you can be a member of the Ku Klux Klan, and I'd still treat you like a decent human being at the game table. Now, if you bring your theories of race into the game, that is probably going to be a problem.

 

[seebs]

So you see it as a good thing to get rid of the "wrong people" from what is already a niche hobby? "We're driving 'those people' out, so buy our products" is a selling point?

Having seen what happens to MMO populations when the developers decide not to get rid of the "wrong people": Yes, it absolutely is. If you don't do anything to suggest that the trolls should go elsewhere, they will drive away a lot of other people and make the environment unpleasant for lots of people.

There's a pretty long history of gaming groups being seriously unwelcoming to, say, women. However, that wasn't the majority of players being unwelcoming; it was a small minority, plus lots of people feeling like they couldn't do anything about it. When we started driving away that tiny population of people who were overtly hostile to women, we started getting more women at the table... And the hobby grew as a result.

Bigots are bad for the hobby.

And I am the type of GM who would ban bisexual characters unless there is a VERY good explanation why I shouldn't. This is because I have never seen an example of bisexuality or homosexuality in PCs that was not either A) trying to be stereotypically homosexual for the shock value, or B) trying to make a real-world political/moral statement.

And how exactly do you define "trying to make a real-world political/moral statement"? What makes one character's sexuality a "real-world political/moral statement", and another's not? I've seen at least a few bi characters in D&D games, and I've never thought much of it, because there was nothing particularly political about it; they were just characters acting the way they would.

I also generally ban transsexuality because in a world full of magic, it doesn't make sense; think your body is the wrong gender? Get magic to fix it. Problem solved.

First off, what magic, exactly? What magic available to first level characters, specifically? Because this doesn't seem at all consistent with the world. That's like saying there's no reason for there to be any people in the game world with wooden legs, because after all, magic could fix that. Or any orphans. Parents dead? Get magic to fix it. Problem solved.

Wasn't planning on defending it, but since you can't wait for me to do so, I will. Moral and religious disapproval of homosexuality, transsexuality, and really, most other things, is not bigotry; it is disapproval. Bigotry is declaring that a person has no value and should be driven out of a city, job, or the role playing community. Believe it or not, not everybody who says homosexuality is wrong is acting out of hate. Most aren't.

I've met one person so far that I think could credibly claim to be expressing disapproval but not bigotry. Maybe two. I've met hundreds who claim they are not bigoted, but whose behavior and actions show a consistent bias towards denying other people their humanity.

Furthermore, it's not necessarily "bigotry" to claim that people ought to be excluded from a community; it depends on why you want them excluded. Harm to the community is a good reason. Being someone you personally don't like isn't.

Further, transsexuality is, ultimately, a religious claim; it is based on the gnostic assertion that the mind and spirit are superior to the physical world, and that the physical world is wrong when they are in conflict. I do not believe that, and I will not act as though I do.

This is complete nonsense. You're about 40 years out of date on research; at this point, we have a pretty good idea how sexual dimorphism works in humans, and this has nothing to do with some kind of strange gnostic assertion, and a whole lot to do with how mammalian instincts operate.

The role-playing community is full of people of many different views on many different things. To declare openly that you support changing the demographics so that only "the right people" play in the hobby, as the actual bigotry.

No, it's not, because "the right people" doesn't mean "the people who share a particular set of views" but "the people who are willing to let other people play the characters they want". No one cares how you personally feel about the hypothetical moral questions, just how you treat the other players. Nothing in the rules demands that you believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable in our world, after all.

 

[Fergurg]

(only quoting what I'm addressing to keep this from being too long)

What's wrong with that? I mean, that's how things like this in rules work socially; they establish a community norm as a baseline. And I would absolutely prefer a game which does not welcome people who are hostile to LGBT characters, or which indicates in some way that their "don't put that stuff in this game it's not appropriate" stuff will not be supported by the broader community.

And, well, the text in the rules does that. It doesn't prove that they can't play, it won't keep them out unequivocally, but it will at the very least set a community default expectation that LGBT characters should be tolerated, and if a group wants to exclude them, they are going to have to say they are doing so rather than just relying on "why would you think that would be allowed?"

What's missing here is the part where you explain what you think is wrong with this category of players. Do you think their belief is false, or do you think it's bad, or what? Because the obvious response to this is "yes, that is a likely effect of having such a thing in the official rules".

What is wrong with this category of players is that they are seeking to alter the demographics of the RPG community by removing "undesirables" - and I am part of the demographic they are actively seeking to eliminate.

While I believe that yes, their belief is wrong, the problem is much bigger than a difference of opinion. I have not come across a litmus test of, "If you support gay rights, you shouldn't be allowed to play RPGs" but I am seeing more of the other way around. And how far does this get carried? Should stores refuse business to people for having the "wrong views"?

As a fan, a member of the community, and a customer, I have one right - and that right is to not be told, "You can't be here anymore."

I personally witnessed a Magic: the Gathering tournament where a person was disqualified for wearing a shirt that said "marriage=man+woman" shirt; the head judge waited until the tournament was started, then said, "Round 1 has started. Do not start playing." He walked over to the player and loudly proclaimed he was disqualified without prize for being a bigot. I have told this story before, and there is always one person who applauds the judge for doing that. Do you?

 

[Hussar]

It's actually a couple orders of magnitude more than forty thousand years on the Serengeti Plain, but we're wandering a bit afield. The value of the Alien example is precisely that it holds behavior constant. If you want to say that Ripley behaves differently because she's a woman -- well, no, she manifestly doesn't. She behaves the way the script (written by a man, incidentally) tells her to. Any woman-specific behavior we perceive from her logically must be an illusion. And yet I don't hear a lot of complaints that "no real woman would behave that way". The character works, and works well. Remember what we're actually talking about here: the ability to play convincing characters of the opposite sex in D&D.

Are there statistical differences between men and women? Of course. Do they present a significant writing/roleplaying challenge? Not really. I find the worst-written opposite-sex characters are those where the writer assumes the differences are greater than they are, and tries to attach gendered motives to the vast expanses of human behavior that men and women in fact experience in common. The immature "boobs boobs boobs" D&D player? He's certainly not making his character's sex less than it is; he's making it more than it is.

If you think there is no difference in how a woman acts in a role and how a man acts in the same role, you've never studied much theatre. People don't behave the way they do because of a script. Acting does not come from a script. If it did, then all it would take is a good enough script and I'd be just as good of an actor as anyone. That's certainly not true.

Scripts do not tell you how to act.

 

[seebs]

What is wrong with this category of players is that they are seeking to alter the demographics of the RPG community by removing "undesirables" - and I am part of the demographic they are actively seeking to eliminate.

I don't know enough about your play and behavior to evaluate that claim, but it seems to me that this contradicts your previous claims. You had stated that this text didn't need to be present because it didn't change anything or have any effect. But if it doesn't have any effect, then you wouldn't be part of the set of people that would be excluded. It's only if it would have any effect that you'd be excluded.

While I believe that yes, their belief is wrong, the problem is much bigger than a difference of opinion. I have not come across a litmus test of, "If you support gay rights, you shouldn't be allowed to play RPGs" but I am seeing more of the other way around. And how far does this get carried? Should stores refuse business to people for having the "wrong views"?

I've never seen the "other way around", either. I've only seen people suggesting that the baseline community norm should be to provide a safe and welcoming envrionment for LGBT players. That's not at all the same claim as "support gay rights". And yes, that absolutely should be the community norm, for the same reason that we've gradually migrated towards "provide a safe and welcoming environment for female players"; because it enriches the hobby and results in us having more people.

As a fan, a member of the community, and a customer, I have one right - and that right is to not be told, "You can't be here anymore."

Ahh, but you haven't been told you can't be here anymore. You've been told that certain specific behaviors will not be tolerated. You are welcome to continue playing if you don't do those things. If you want to do those things more than you want to participate in the community, then you aren't a member of the community.

Communities involve reciprocal agreements about standards of treatment. If you are unwilling to treat people according to those standards, you aren't a member of the community, even if you participate in the activity.

I personally witnessed a Magic: the Gathering tournament where a person was disqualified for wearing a shirt that said "marriage=man+woman" shirt; the head judge waited until the tournament was started, then said, "Round 1 has started. Do not start playing." He walked over to the player and loudly proclaimed he was disqualified without prize for being a bigot. I have told this story before, and there is always one person who applauds the judge for doing that. Do you?

I don't know the rules for MTG tournaments. I would think it would have made more sense to request that the player change their shirt, but I have no objection to a community deciding that they would rather exclude people like that player than the people that player would drive away. Every community makes rules about what behavior is or isn't acceptable. You could have a community which allowed fistfights during games, or you could have one which prohibited them. Personally, I would prefer to be in the one that prohibited them. But that would, indeed, result in excluding the players who prefer fistfights as a way to resolve conflicts.

Our society is in the middle of confronting a large and complicated issue, and part of what we're confronting is how to set social boundaries for that. It's gonna be complicated and messy as we try to figure out how to resolve the resulting conflicts, but then, that's been true before. If I recall correctly, I was born sometime before the last attempt at the use of coverture as a legal doctrine in the US. I have sort of accepted that things change and boundaries shift.

But by and large, my preference is going to be for the community that allows the largest number of people to feel welcome to play. Since I've seen people driven away from RPGs by bigotry of various sorts in the past, I prefer a book that explicitly affirms a welcoming stance towards those people, because that improves the chances that the people who drove them away will leave.