D&D 5E After 2 years the 5E PHB remains one of the best selling books on Amazon

[pemerton]

Being inclusive matters.

Not to everyone. To you, most certianly. To me, not as much.

Are you saying that you don't care whether or not the way the rulebooks depict the D&D gameworld includes you? Or are you saying that you don't care whether or not it includes others?

I ask, because there are some people who have clearly always been included in the gameworld. Traditionally "masculine" white heterosexual men are one such sort of people, with either the fighter or the wizard as their class archetype and the random harlot table as a pseudo-pornographic pandering to them; traditionally "feminine" women, with MUs as their archetype, are another (in the AD&D PHB she's called "Filmar, the mistress of magic" - p 7); the Morgan Ironwolf-type somewhat "masculine" woman is yet another.

And what I think [MENTION=6748898]ad_hoc[/MENTION] is pointing to is the increased scope of inclusion beyond these sorts of people to include others.

There seems to be a certain sort of selfishness in setting the boundary of inclusion that one cares about at oneself; whereas it would be a different thing (resignation? indifference?) to be happy with the rulebooks even though the fiction they depict doesn't seem to include oneself. And when posters say they don't care about inclusion it's often not clear which of these two positions they are adopting.

If you want to actually destroy D&D go ahead and keep pushing the "progressive intersectionality" cultural Marxism as the core tenet of the game.

I don't think it's going to destroy D&D to have characters in the gameworld who don't gender identify; or to have (say) Morgan Ironwolf rather than Conan be the love interest of the princess; or to have halflings wearing cornrows.

I have GMed with a black PC (in the sense of belonging to the gameworld's equivalent of the African diaspora) in a culturally European context; and with a PC was of uncertain, but probably gay, sexuality - though, given the cultural norms of the setting, perhaps resigned to a heterosexual marriage for political reasons. Things of this sort don't contribute to the destruction of D&D, as best I can tell - given that they are episodes of FRPGing, they contribute to its flourishing!

There's also not much connection between any of these things and Marxism ("cultural" or otherwise).

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Considering the frequent wenching that went on in a lot of the pulpy inspirations for 1e a harlot table was not that surprising, and a funny and occasionally useful addition. I still use it in my games today at times.

 

[evileeyore]

Yes, the official multi-page ones features columns of weight, height, age, skin, hair and eye color and a big box you could draw or wrote your appearance. So, a column about skin color is okay, but one about gender isn't?

Who says it isn't okay? It's just absent. You are interpreting it as "political", when it very likely isn't.

Again, if you don't like the charsheet presented, make your own. Be constructive rather than destructive.

Leaving out just that seems to be a desire of appealing to certain narratives.

The narrative in which gender doesn't matter to people playing [-]Orc and Pie[/-] D&D?

Again, I like the simple "description" column better.

Agreed. I prefer a simple set of a few lines.

Are you saying that you don't care whether or not the way the rulebooks depict the D&D gameworld includes you?

Correct.

Or are you saying that you don't care whether or not it includes others?

Also correct.

If someone doesn't like the way a gameworld sets out the options, they are free to change them. The Gameworld Police will not break down doors and enforce the meta-narrative.

I ask, because there are some people who have clearly always been included in the gameworld.

Yes; Clerics, Dwarves, Elves, Fighting-Men, Halflings, and Magic-Users.

Traditionally "masculine" white heterosexual men are one such sort of people,

As well as others. My first character was female, my second a skinny 'non-traditionally masculine' male, and the third another female (though not particularly feminine).

Neither my DM, nor the other players, nor the rules said anything about those choices.

...with either the fighter or the wizard as their class archetype and the random harlot table as a pseudo-pornographic pandering to them; traditionally "feminine" women, with MUs as their archetype, are another (in the AD&D PHB she's called "Filmar, the mistress of magic" - p 7);

1 - You just said wizard was a traditionally masculine role. Now it isn't?
2 - The first picture of Magic-Users in Dungeons & Dragons Men & Magic Volume 1 (1974) shows three scrawny dudes, two of which are 'coded' non-caucasian.

the Morgan Ironwolf-type somewhat "masculine" woman is yet another.

So because she was depicted as muscular she was "masculine"? I think I've spotted the problem and it isn't with D&D's presentation of sex or gender.

And what I think [MENTION=6748898]ad_hoc[/MENTION] is pointing to is the increased scope of inclusion beyond these sorts of people to include others.

So... the people who weren't excluded by the game since day one.

You realize the only exclusions that occurred were social in nature? Individual groups* excluding such things in their own games? Yes.



* And the RPGA, which officially excluded any mention of sex or sexuality (but in particular homosexuality).

There's also not much connection between any of these things and Marxism ("cultural" or otherwise).

You've obviously been lucky enough to remain completely ignorant of the Social Justice culture that has grown on the internet. May you remain blissfully ignorant of that pack of jackals.

 

[Umbran]

If you want to actually destroy D&D go ahead and keep pushing the "progressive intersectionality" cultural Marxism as the core tenet of the game.

Talking about how we treat gender identity in games is okay.

Attaching how people consider this to a greater "cultural Marxism" is a great way to get a moderator to give you the hairy eyeball. So, maybe you want to take a few steps away from that precipice, hm?

 

[pemerton]

Considering the frequent wenching that went on in a lot of the pulpy inspirations for 1e a harlot table was not that surprising

I guess so, in the same sense that Call of Cthulhu might have included a random generation table for determining the ancestry, depraved look, etc for people of "mixed" ancestry. (The language actually used by HPL is often less genteel than "mixed".)

But pointing to the fact that the pulps were sexist, and in certain respects even pseudo-pornographic (eg REH's Vale of Lost Women), is only to explain how, not to deny that, they included some sorts of people but not others.

AD&D tended to inherit this in its approach to gender and sexuality. The harlot table is one example.

the people who weren't excluded by the game since day one.

Upthread I distinguished between what the rules of the game permitted or forbade - and in this respect they had very little to say about sex, gender or sexuality, other than the AD&D 1st ed STR limits for women - and the language of, and fiction presented in, the books, which is a signal from the publisher to (what it takes to be) its audience.

Just to give one example: despite the fact that the AD&D MM describes dwarves as being "typically deep tan to light brown of skin" and gnomes as "wood brown, [with] a few rang[ing] to gray brown, of skin", I think nearly every depiction of a dwarf or a gnome in an AD&D book, AD&D-era Dragon magazine, etc, shows them as having basically northern European skin tones.

Those pictures are not any sort of rule that forbids having brown-skinned dwarves and gnomes. But they send a signal about who is the expected audience. Likewise the move, in 2nd ed AD&D rulebooks, from Gygax's "he or she" to an exclusive use of the masculine pronoun.

When [MENTION=6748898]ad_hoc[/MENTION] talks about inclusion, I take the point to be one about changing those signals. That's what I mean when I talk about inclusion.

You've obviously been lucky enough to remain completely ignorant of the Social Justice culture that has grown on the internet. May you remain blissfully ignorant of that pack of jackals.

I don't want to venture into territory that breaks board rules, so I'll confine myself to this: from your point of view I suspect I'm more of a jackal (though not one with a twitter account) than an ignoramus.

 

[Umbran]

So... the people who weren't excluded by the game since day one.

You realize the only exclusions that occurred were social in nature? Individual groups* excluding such things in their own games? Yes.

With respect, you do realize that lack of explicit inclusion does act as an impediment to entry, right?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Lol jackals.

Ok!

Proud jackal, here! :thumbs up:

 

[PMárk]

Who says it isn't okay? It's just absent. You are interpreting it as "political", when it very likely isn't.

I think it left out deliberately, therefore it is political. It's a statement. A statement I agree with the intention of (to some extent), but not with the implementation.

Again, if you don't like the charsheet presented, make your own. Be constructive rather than destructive.

​

​

Yes, yes, you could do your own, so you doesn't have the right to criticize. I expressed my opinion on the official character sheet and my opinion remains the same regardless of I could make my own. Likewise, I could criticize, say, WotC handling of the campaign settings regardless of I could wrote my own one.

The narrative in which gender doesn't matter to people playing Orc and Pie D&D?

No. The narrative, in which every mention of anything gender-related automatically triggers the wrath of certain groups. The narrative which treats gender as something non-existent.

Look, for me gender is NOT an qualitative aspect in any kind of sense. I don't have any grudges toward any gender identity. I'm actively supporting woman rights and equal treatment, just as gay marriage and all of that. I just don't like when the answer to sexism is banning important parts of reality. Because our gender identity is a very important part of our identity in most cases and a very important part of how others see us. Therefore, I don't think it's good to shun it from the charsheet. And that's all.

 

[PMárk]

With respect, you do realize that lack of explicit inclusion does act as an impediment to entry, right?

So, if a shop doesn't explicitely say "We welcome guys in boots and metalband hoodies!" I shouldn't go there, or I should feel unwanted?

Ok, that was deliberately sarcastic. I think it could act as an impediment, but it's more in the head of person who feel it and in most cases not on the part of the affiliated. If you felt unwanted and shunned most of your life, you'll have a harder time to feel welcomed. But it's somewhat unfair to say "this group shunned me" when it's not true, all that happened is the group didn't explicitely invited you, but you are just as welcomed as the next person.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Talking about how we treat gender identity in games is okay.

Attaching how people consider this to a greater "cultural Marxism" is a great way to get a moderator to give you the hairy eyeball. So, maybe you want to take a few steps away from that precipice, hm?

I know enworld is a safe space in many ways, but no, I wish to take nothing away from my prior statement.