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

[alchemicalsolution]

I dunno. I come from a country that's had gay marriage for about fifteen years now and it's really to the point now that no one actually cares anymore. It's completely a non-issue. It came, it passed, and we pretty much accept it now. So, why does it have to be a big deal in game? Do you make it a big deal that every half orc is the result of rape? Do you make it a big deal that tieflings are also the result of rape (at least old style tieflings were).

Well I assume you're from the Netherlands as that's the only country in the world that's had legal same-sex marriage for 15 years. All I can say is, if that's the case, I'd avoid extrapolating experiences from your own culture onto the rest of the developed west since the Netherlands is something of a liberal outrider. For the huge majority of humans alive today same-sex marriage is still not legal, let alone a non-issue, and if you include Japan, probably not even the majority of citizens in developed democracies enjoy same-sex marriage rights.

You've repeated the Half-Orc/Tiefling 'child of rape' analogy twice so I'll address it directly; yes, if all Half-Orcs and Tieflings in my campaign world were the result of rape (which they aren't) then that would be a big deal for a Half-Orc or Tiefling in my world.

LOL. You actually believe that it's radically altered Western civilisation to legalise same sex marriage? Honestly? Like I said, we've had same-sex marriage for over a decade and it's a non-issue AFAIC. Treating it the same as any hetero pairing is, IMO, the best solution all the way around.

Well I'm glad you find it funny, I'd venture to suggest that there's at least one significant demograph for whom the current trend towards legalisation of same-sex marriages is a pretty radical alteration; homosexuals. The world you describe just isn't recognisable to me, I'm afraid. The USA has only legalised same-sex marriage this year.

 

[seebs]

I think the intended assertion is that it doesn't radically alter anything else. When you change a social policy that directly affects some people, sometimes it has large and sweeping effects, and sometimes the effects are pretty much limited to the people affected. Other changes in marriage policy have had huge sweeping social effects; this one doesn't seem to be having any such huge effects.

Which is one of the reasons I tend to assume it's not a big issue in D&D games; unless I specifically want to focus the game on exploring the question, the practical effect for about 95% of people in the game world is "this really has basically no impact on how we live".

 

[alchemicalsolution]

Which is why I said I was summarizing. It took 447 posts in a huge thread before someone decided I needed to be a lot more specific in what was a one sentence summary. It was never meant to be a full-on interpretation - just a snippet from someone who didn't want to make a long post even longer by a full quoting of a section of rules that everyone already knew about.

I didn't say your summary was an inadequate full interpretation, that would be redundant. I said you summary was an inadequate summary, because it failed to capture the real meaning behind the section of text it was summarising. There could be 4 million posts in the thread, all of which repeated 'excellent summary' in bold caps a hundred times over, and it wouldn't constitute an argument in defence of your summary, just for the record.

But for all that, I almost entirely agree with you. About the only thing I disagree with is worldbuilding - I believe that the PCs should have a very strong ability to affect the undetailed parts of the world, and, point of fact, I let player creations exist in my world quite often. It means that the world I have now is one that I have fully created, but, paradoxically, is one I would never create on my own.

What I actually said was that world-building is best done collaboratively, but final creative control must rest with the DM if he is to be able to work complex themes into the narrative. I fully stand by that statement. You seem to suggest that I said something more like 'player's shouldn't be able to strongly influence the campaign setting' and argued against that.

And I think if someone sits down at a table and says "okay, I'm a trans elf", and the GM decides that transgender elves shouldn't be a thing, and tries to make that character's choice be a difficult one in the game, well, the GM might want to rethink his use of time. This is a game, and using the setting to force players to "explore" issues is not something I particularly enjoy.

Again, you're laying out a scenario that in no way resembles anything I've described or even suggested should happen. I'm just going to direct you to re-read my post and if you still think I'm making that kind of statement I invite you to quote it directly and in full.

This happened in the 90s a lot, with female gamers playing female PCs. There were so many forum articles in DRAGON about how it was the GM's duty to let the PCs "explore" what it was like to be female in a male-dominated world, and to overcome prejudices and blah blah blah.

I disagree.

Ok.

It's the GM's job to run a game that is fun for everyone sitting at the table. "Exploring" social issues is only something that should be done if the people involved want that to be there. Otherwise, throw it in the trash can, EVEN if you're playing, say, a semi historical game set in medieval europe. If a player wants to play a female knight, or a transgender roman soldier, well, do it. It's just a game.

I'm starting to think that the post I made and the post you read were two totally different blocks of words.

 

[Hussar]

Well I assume you're from the Netherlands as that's the only country in the world that's had legal same-sex marriage for 15 years. All I can say is, if that's the case, I'd avoid extrapolating experiences from your own culture onto the rest of the developed west since the Netherlands is something of a liberal outrider. For the huge majority of humans alive today same-sex marriage is still not legal, let alone a non-issue, and if you include Japan, probably not even the majority of citizens in developed democracies enjoy same-sex marriage rights.

My bad. Canadian. It's only been ten years, not fifteen. I was lazy and didn't look it up. The date isn't all that important, it's the point that it's a non-issue. And, my other point is, for all the hoopla about same sex relations in the recent media, once same sex marriage did become legal in Canada, the issue largely vanished. You almost never hear about it. And, no, society as a whole, didn't really radically alter. Sure, it changed for some people, but, as a whole? Complete non-issue.

You've repeated the Half-Orc/Tiefling 'child of rape' analogy twice so I'll address it directly; yes, if all Half-Orcs and Tieflings in my campaign world were the result of rape (which they aren't) then that would be a big deal for a Half-Orc or Tiefling in my world.

Since in your next post, you're taking Wik to task for precision, let me correct a few things here. In 5e, I was wrong, half-orcs are actually not a "child of rape" specifically. I'm not sure I buy it that much, but, sure, okay, at least they nipped that in the bud. This was, at the time, one of the main reasons half-orcs were removed from 4e, because the exact source of half-orcs was hinted at but never explicitly detailed. And the assumption that half-orcs would be the result of rape isn't exactly a leap here.

Tieflings, I did not say were a "child of rape". I said they are the child of demons and devils. Yet, we're expected to allow players to play tieflings that walk around in broad daylight and are not killed on sight. How's that for radically altering settings? Settings are expected to be so accepting of differences, that physically obvious DEMONIC beings are allowed to walk around with no major problems, other than maybe some low level hostility from shop keepers. I'd say that's a much, much larger impact on a campaign setting than if Bahb and his partner Brahd own the bakery.

¥quote]
Well I'm glad you find it funny, I'd venture to suggest that there's at least one significant demograph for whom the current trend towards legalisation of same-sex marriages is a pretty radical alteration; homosexuals. The world you describe just isn't recognisable to me, I'm afraid. The USA has only legalised same-sex marriage this year.[/QUOTE]

Pardon? Are you saying that a world that accepts homosexual relations wouldn't be recognisable to you? You mean that if you traveled to Canada, you would be able to tell that it has same sex marriage? You're trying to tell me that a world that accepts demon children, living machines (Warforged), magic, monsters, gods, and various other bits and bobs would be recognisable to you, but, one where the Bakers are two dudes isn't? Are you serious?

 

[Lanliss]

.
Tieflings, I did not say were a "child of rape". I said they are the child of demons and devils. Yet, we're expected to allow players to play tieflings that walk around in broad daylight and are not killed on sight. How's that for radically altering settings? Settings are expected to be so accepting of differences, that physically obvious DEMONIC beings are allowed to walk around with no major problems, other than maybe some low level hostility from shop keepers. I'd say that's a much, much larger impact on a campaign setting than if Bahb and his partner Brahd own the bakery.

To be exact, they are the very VERY distant relations of demons, in some cases. In others there is no relation at all, but they are instead among a cursed family. This is all taking place in a world that (I assume) has had them around for a while, and it has been long enough to know that the way they look means little. Of course, people are only as kind as you allow them to be, so if you want Tiefling's to have a hard life, that would make sense too.

 

[Hussar]

To be exact, they are the very VERY distant relations of demons, in some cases. In others there is no relation at all, but they are instead among a cursed family. This is all taking place in a world that (I assume) has had them around for a while, and it has been long enough to know that the way they look means little. Of course, people are only as Lind as you allow them to be, so if you want Tiefling's to have a hard life, that would make sense too.

Again, this is my point. I'm pretty willing to think that homosexual relations of some kind have been around for at least as long as Tieflings. So, if Tieflings are acceptable because it's been long enough, why doesn't that same argument apply to homosexual relations? In a world where your neighbour is a different species and this is apparently not enough to make the world unrecognisable, when inter-species relations are acceptable topics in the game, why on earth would two dudes be a problem for the game world?

 

[Lanliss]

Again, this is my point. I'm pretty willing to think that homosexual relations of some kind have been around for at least as long as Tieflings. So, if Tieflings are acceptable because it's been long enough, why doesn't that same argument apply to homosexual relations? In a world where your neighbour is a different species and this is apparently not enough to make the world unrecognisable, when inter-species relations are acceptable topics in the game, why on earth would two dudes be a problem for the game world?

I am not arguing against you on this point, simply clarifying a lore point. I agree with you on the point of LGBT inclusion. Also, I had not read the sub tone of your post, and originally thought you meant that you believed Tiefling's should have hard lives. I apologize for misreading that.

 

[Wik]

I didn't say your summary was an inadequate full interpretation, that would be redundant. I said you summary was an inadequate summary, because it failed to capture the real meaning behind the section of text it was summarising.

You know what's kind of funny here? You're criticizing me for not getting the full interpretation of what you said... and then speak of the "real meaning" of the text I was quoting from. But hey, whatevs.

There could be 4 million posts in the thread, all of which repeated 'excellent summary' in bold caps a hundred times over, and it wouldn't constitute an argument in defence of your summary, just for the record.

We're getting to around four million posts at this point. I don't think any seem to agree with any other. It'd be nice if everyone said I was right, though. I think the world would probably be a lot nicer to one another if that happened. But hey, that's my two cents.

What I actually said was that world-building is best done collaboratively, but final creative control must rest with the DM if he is to be able to work complex themes into the narrative.

Sure! And THIS is an argument I'd love to have. Like Umbran, I wanted to keep this related to gaming. It's gotten... messy... and it's sort of why I bowed out of the thread.

And honestly, I believe I agree with your statement. We're really just disagreeing about the amount of DM control... which isn't a big thing to disagree one.

I fully stand by that statement. You seem to suggest that I said something more like 'player's shouldn't be able to strongly influence the campaign setting' and argued against that.

Seems we missed each others' points by overreading the other's post with an intent already in mind. It happens on forums. I'm willing to let the misunderstanding pass if you are. Or we could argue at each other ad nauseum insisting "no, I'm right!" until the cows come home.

I live in a basement suite. I do not want cows to come home. It'll ruin the hardwood flooring, for starters.

Again, you're laying out a scenario that in no way resembles anything I've described or even suggested should happen. I'm just going to direct you to re-read my post and if you still think I'm making that kind of statement I invite you to quote it directly and in full.

Done, and re-read your post. I'm going to head your own advice, and post the part I'm replying to right here:

I would have quite a serious problem with the sentiment expressed in your wording, because it seems to provide the player with a justification for telling the DM how the societies of his world work with regard to sexual identity. This kind of world building is best done collaboratively, in my opinion, but ultimate creative control needs to rest with the DM if he's to have the opportunity to work themes into the narrative of the campaign.

It would be unacceptable to me for a player to declare 'the PH says I can be a Drow Cleric/Warlock who worships Torm and has a pact with Asmodeus, so your world has to accommodate that' just as it would be for them to say 'The PH says I can be whatever sex and sexual orientation I please and it doesn't matter so gender identity must be a non-issue in your game world".

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...t-attracting-new-players/page45#ixzz3ppoPahZT

It's the last bit of the sentence that I do not hold to. We are playing a game. If a player sits down at my table and says "I want to play X", it is my job as a GM to accomodate that to some extent or another.

If a player says "I want to be a female knight of Xerexington", I can't say "no, they're all male!". I CAN say "Well, they're all male. But maybe we can figure out a way to make that work." and go from there. And when it comes to things like sexuality, I should never get in the way. Because ultimately, that bleeds over into real life. D&D is just a game. Maybe some use it to explore real-world issues, but I don't. I generally use it to ESCAPE real-world issues.

Point of this is, if someone says "I want to be a trans elf", they can be a trans elf - and no one should say otherwise.

Which is, in my opinion, what the PHB says as well (and it should!)

I'm starting to think that the post I made and the post you read were two totally different blocks of words.

Maybe. But, as a friendly piece of advice, maybe there's the possibility of "I'm starting to think that the post I intended to make[/i] and the post you read were two entirely different blocks of words".

As I said above, it's a common thing that happens in forums. I'm giving you the grain of salt. Reading your post, I got the vibe that you were saying "the GM has the power to tell a player they cannot play a certain gender/sexuality if it doesn't conform with the GM's world design."

To which my reply is "Bollocks. It's just a game. If the GM says that to you, don't sit at the table. And maybe egg his house."

 

[aramis erak]

As I said above, it's a common thing that happens in forums. I'm giving you the grain of salt. Reading your post, I got the vibe that you were saying "the GM has the power to tell a player they cannot play a certain gender/sexuality if it doesn't conform with the GM's world design."

To which my reply is "Bollocks. It's just a game. If the GM says that to you, don't sit at the table. And maybe egg his house."

And if they follow your last bit of advice, they and you are part of a criminal conspiracy. A misdemeanor one, but a conspirator none the less. No better than a bigot yourself, in encouraging criminality.

I see a lot of demands of endorsement, but very little tolerance from the LGBT crowd.

True tolerance is "I disagree with you, but won't make an issue of it except in the appropriate venues." True tolerance does not demand endorsement - does not demand "It's OK with me if you live your life in a sinful and/or dishonorable matter" from the faithful.

In internet speak, tolerance is "agree to disagree" followed by stopping demands that the other side agree with you.

I'm not seeing tolerance from a lot of people here.

 

[aramis erak]

It's hard to justify that in the face of the fact that you're asking people to give up, completely, the idea of family, love, and sex, forever, to feed your entirely unfounded view of morality.



Wait... you haven't had characters with a lover in every port? Any heroes who follow up successful heroics with a roll in the hay with a lusty tavern wench or well-built smith's apprentice? You haven't had characters who go through relationships like Romeo, at one moment declaring true and undying love and the next rushing off after a subsequent pretty face of compatible species and gender? No garou in Werewolf availing themselves of the local kinfolk population, no vampires... Vampire is about sex. No vampires at all? No demons of Lust or angels of Creation engaging in good old-fashioned orgies in In Nomine, no... any concept at all... in the Game of Thrones RPG?

What games are you playing?

Not many, and not often.

And players who fixate on such characters are explicitly unwelcome at my table. It's a clear and up-front expectation.