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

[nomotog]

Were the PCs sexless mannequins?

That... could make for a rather interesting game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's not correct.

Sex is whats in your pants.
Gender is a codified set of social norms attached to a specific set of genitals.
Gender identity is the assortment of social norms you attach to yourself.
Sexual orientation is what you are physically attracted to irrespective of your genitals.

that is a very nice break down (and you present it in a way I will just assume it is correct)... using these terms I think describing your character's current gender identity would be all that was needed for a basic game...

Lan-"then again, I can't see myself ever allowing anyone under the age of about 12 at my table in the first place"-efan

to be fair... I was in that boat too five or six years ago...

Now, the fact that when I meet my brother in law we came from two VERY different play styles (he use to joke we were too serious, and none of my friends liked his style at first) he played in the air force over in Germeny with other Military people... and they did ever so slightly more RP then what I do with the kids...

Now, I also just bought the oldest (well kick started) an RPG for kids by monte cook to get him more into the stories... he likes hearing me and my friends tell (edited) stories of us doing all sorts of things with the game I don't let them...


just to be funny I will say the 8 year old just proved he is WAY smarter then me this week.
Our mage Game SOed... so I have spent the last few days working on a new Mage (OwoD) character for a new game taking place in 1960's... I am playing a Virtal Adept with mastery of Cooraspondance... bascly a techno mage who specializes in scrying teleporting and warding... SO I ran my cool character past him. "Yea and I have an awesome jacket I want the DM to approve that is the ultimate armor... It's bigger on the inside...as in the linning. SO my jacket has tanks inside it, try punching through that with your bullet or knife..."

My 8 year old nephew misses not a beat in telling me I'm dumb... then forces me to bribe him and his sister with chocolate before he will tell me why it's dumb... so you know what the little twerp says... "If you can make in between the liner as big as you want to fit a tank, why not make it so big no bullet can reach through... no armor at all just a hundred miles, that way anti tank guns still fail"

He earned his kit kat that day...

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the game itself is fairly neutral on the subject. I don't think that the current edition's handling of the questions of sexual identity and gender identity would drive anyone away. Not would that area of the game specifically attract a player.

Specific gamin groups on the other hand can be incredibly welcoming to such concepts or incredibly closed. It runs the gamut. And I really don't think that there is any right or wrong answer that is universal. Each gaming group is likely to do what appeals to them and what they are comfortable with...and that makes sense. Nothing wrong with it.

Telling someone they need more or less material about gender identity in their game is wrong. For example, such material has never come up in my long running group. The reason is not because anyone in the group is uncomfortable with such topics...it's simply that other areas interest us more. The opposite is likely true for many other groups, and that's great. Neither way is wrong.

The only time I can think of where this can matter at all is in a public game. In such games I think common sense by all parties is required, and perhaps concessions on both sides. Maybe Joe DM has to accept that the party rogue is a gay socialite who uses his charm and connections to get what he wants. At another table, maybe a player has to reign it in a bit and play just a fighter instead of a gay fighter.

If people just be decent to each other, use common sense, and not act like every aspect of an issue is a political debate, then I would expect most such games would go smoothly.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That... could make for a rather interesting game.

ken's and barbies... with no sex drive. You are shaped male or female, you don't worry about reproduction...

and now I want to see how my mature Tuesday crew will handle me saying "In this game the stork is real"

 

[Hussar]

What a winning typo.

This seems to be the crux of the issue: are you just saying how you would run your table, or are recommending/requesting/insisting that all tables run the same way?
/snip]

I giggled at that typo too. LOL

I'd say the crux of the issue isn't about how to run tables at all. The crux of the issue is how the game is presented to tables. It's been mentioned several times before that modules and setting material feature couples, and thus some degree of sexuality. We've come a long way in presenting minorities and whatnot in the game and perhaps it isn't a bad idea to toss a couple of LGBT bones in there as well.

At least, that's the argument as I see it.

 

[seebs]

That's not correct.

Sex is whats in your pants.
Gender is a codified set of social norms attached to a specific set of genitals.
Gender identity is the assortment of social norms you attach to yourself.
Sexual orientation is what you are physically attracted to irrespective of your genitals.

This summary of the terminology is about 30 years out of date. In particular, gender identity is almost entirely not related to "social norms"; it appears to be some kind of wired-in instinct in the brain for the majority of people.

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

play just a fighter instead of a gay fighter.

My presentation of this quote is its own comment, because it by itself says everything.

 

[seebs]

Consider, by contrast, "play just a fighter as opposed to a straight fighter".

 

[Tia Nadiezja]

Consider, by contrast, "play just a fighter as opposed to a straight fighter".

Indeed. My point was how much the quote said about general attitudes and why we have to keep having this argument.

Namely, we'll keep having this argument until people realize that "just a fighter" isn't a thing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My presentation of this quote is its own comment, because it by itself says everything.

Not really. I understand your point entirely, but I feel that what you quoted within the larger context of everything else I posted is clear. To remove everything else and boil what I said down to just that one bit with no other context seems a bit disingenuous.

In some games, any sexuality may need to be removed. Someone who is interested in playing a character who flirts/flings his or her way to his or her goals might have to reign it in a bit depending on the group of players. Someone earlier mentioned a game with children. I would think that any player with common sense would tone down those aspects of his character regardless of whether the character was gay or straight.

By contrast, other players may have to accept that character as a valid part of the game, and should be more open to that kind of approach.

Is that clearer?

Consider, by contrast, "play just a fighter as opposed to a straight fighter".

Sure, I agree. If we are speaking of a fighter where either the straight aspect is somehow more than a "default" sexual identity for the character. But because we all treat straight as the default, usually a term like "ladies man" or "Casanova" might be more likely.

In my example above, I simplified it as a "fighter instead of a gay fighter" with the intention that the gay aspects of the character were very central to the character. Certainly that does not need to be the case. But in cases where it may be, the player in a public game may have to tone it down. Same for a Casanova type of bard.

Again, I just think it boils down to common sense and being decent to others on everyone's part.