D&D 5E celebrating pride and lgbtq+ players 2021

[Gradine]

There's way too much to unpack here and I don't have the time or inclination to educate anyone to the extent that seems to be required here, but I'll at least put this out there:

Could we please stop essentializing queer identity as entirely and completely capital-s Sexual preference? Gay, straight, trans, non-binary, etc... these are important identity signifiers for characters even in many, many instances that aren't, and I quote, the "porno version of D&D with explicit graphic sex or description of genitals". That crap is actually really offensive and frustrating.

Oh, and I guess one last one for the road, but "transgenders" is not the appropriate term. While we're here, neither is "transgendered". They are transgender people (or individual, or folx if you wanna annoy a grammar nazi, which is honestly always a worthwhile outcome); please do not add the "s" or "ed" (or worse both) at the end of the word.

 

[J.Quondam]

Carnal relationships became a thing in those trendy Powered by the Apocalypse Games, which is why I avoided them until Dungeon World brought back traditional questing to PbTA.

Well, except for the infamous "Harlot Table" in the 1e DMG? "Carnal relationships" are certainly nothing new to D&D, because that was part and parcel of much of the source literature. It's the distastefulness of that very limited sexuality presented back then, I think, that is what drives the more varied and empowering presentation of gender and sexual identity in the game today.

Acknowledging such identity has nothing to do with porny games, and everything to do with simply accepting a basic part of how people think about themselves. There's nothing nefarious in that, no more so than a guy at work mentioning that he and his husband hosted a neighborhood barbeque last weekend.

(edited for paragraphs!)

 

[Gradine]

Actually the only PbtA game I've played with explicit sexuality as a mechanic in it was Monsterhearts. I know it's a big part of the original Apocalypse World but I really haven't seen it in too many other hacks.

 

[Faolyn]

Most people have no reason to define themselves as such and unless you are using stereotypes and tropes associated with those "classes" there is no reason for that to even be in your game unless genitals and/or sex are relevant.

So if a straight person plays a straight PC, are they playing a stereotype? Or a gay person can only play a gay stereotype? Are you saying that people are only capable of playing stereotypes? Do you disapprove of people playing characters of a different sex then they are as well--men can only play male characters, etc., because they might play a stereotype--or do you disapprove of assigning any sort of sex to their characters at all?

Is it somehow wrong to have characters flirt or get into relationships with each other or with NPCs? Are you incapable of doing such a thing without it turning into porn, and therefore assume that everyone else is like that as well? Or can you imagine that other people know how to keep it a rating appropriate for and approved by their group?

What exactly is difference in game between a cisgender woman and a transgender woman?

Imagine someone who is transgender, or who is wondering about their gender identity, but can't be open about it with their family. Getting to play a transgender person in game might be their one outlet.

Or imagine it as a motivating goal: A character is transfemale and really wants to change biologically into a woman, not just rely on clothing, illusions, temporary potions, or alter self spells. Or she might want biological kids. Well, she's off on a quest to gain the approval of the deity who monitors such things, or to find the fabled non-cursed belt of gender changing but only if you want to. That's why she adventures. It's a simple motivation, and perhaps a cliché one, but no more cliché than probably most motivations for adventuring.

Or it doesn't even have to be that sort of thing. If there's no difference between a ciswoman and a transwoman, then there's no reason why you can't play either one of them, regardless of your own gender identity.

To put it another way who is to say every Forgotten Realms NPC ever detailed by WOTC ad TSR was not both trans and homosexual? Who are you to say they aren't, and if you claim they aren't what are you basing that on? You can't claim they are cis and hetero unless you use prejudicial stereotypes to make such a judgement.

You seem to think that people have to rely on stereotypes. Why is that? Is the idea that someone can just play a person who happens to like people of the same sex, while not filling some stereotype, that alien to you? Or have you been unfortunate enough to have only gamed with jerks who use stereotypes? Because from my own experience, it's quite possible to play someone of any sexuality without relying on stereotypes, provided you aren't a jerk while doing so.

 

[imagineGod]

Well, except for the infamous "Harlot Table" in the 1e DMG? "Carnal relationships" are certainly nothing new to D&D, because that was part and parcel of much of the source literature. It's the distastefulness of that very limited sexuality presented back then, I think, that is what drives the more varied and empowering presentation of gender and sexual identity in the game today.

Acknowledging such identity has nothing to do with porny games, and everything to do with simply accepting a basic part of how people think about themselves. There's nothing nefarious in that, no more so than a guy at work mentioning that he and his husband hosted a neighborhood barbeque last weekend.

(edited for paragraphs!)

You are misrepresenting my point like so many here seem to do.

Read my statements again. The fact the you mention a harlots table does not mean it was used. Many of the classic 1st Edition D&D modules did not focus on carnal relationships neither between PCs nor NPCs. It was the Powered by The Apocalypse engine games that made it a thing until Dungeon World brought back classic questing.

All the tables of D&D I witnessed never had any focus on that either. There may be mention of gods or some such, but not really part of the play, more like background music.

D&D the game engine is oriented towards a tactical combat game much more than those Indie PbTA games that make interpersonal relationships so important.

Sometimes people just want to sit round a table and play an arcade game, kill monsters and loot without emotional baggage or introspection. Other times they want deep emotional catharsis. My table plays the arcade route.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

Race: Lego. Sexuality: Lego.

AFOL just took on a whole new meaning

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

First off, no I can not recall ever marrying NPCs or PCs in a game, but even if I did that is hardly relevant. There absolutely have been a man and woman running a tavern and there have been multiple women and multiple men running the taverns too. Whether or not these couples were shagging when the lights went out has never come up in my games and whether or not they were trans or cis or non-binary has never come up either and saying it hasn't come up is not the same as saying they were hetero/cis.

If they're there already then it doesn't hurt to have someone reference their wife/husband or boyfriend/girlfriend?

The fact that a marriage happened does not imply that LGBTQIA+ are not represented.

No. But neither does it mean they're represented. That just means they're ignored
Which they were for the previous thirty-odd years

The point is actively showing non-cishet people exist. Which lets those real people know they are accepted and welcome in the hobby. Rather than pretending they don't exist

I don't think I am an outlier.

There's a whole thread of people disagreeing with you
You kind of are

Now if you play a porno version of D&D with explicit graphic sex or description of genitals, then yes you may not have a truly inclusive game if your descriptions and situation are not broad and inclusive, but I think people that play those kind of games are the ones that are outliers.

Queer people are queer all the time, not just when they're having sex

It's not hard. As easily as referencing the male innkeeper having a husband and daughter rather than a wife and daughter

 

[Umbran]

There are many transgenders that are married as well.

Mod Note:

Please - not "transgenders", but "transgender people". Keep the focus on the fact that they are not just a package of gender walking around, but are, in fact, human beings, please.

Now if you play a porno version of D&D

Again, please. It isn't as if you can't depict a romantic couple without having pornography. That kind of overstatement is not constructive. Please tone down the rhetoric a few notches.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Most people have no reason to define themselves as such and unless you are using stereotypes and tropes associated with those "classes" there is no reason for that to even be in your game unless genitals and/or sex are relevant.

What exactly is difference in game between a cisgender woman and a transgender woman?

To put it another way who is to say every Forgotten Realms NPC ever detailed by WOTC ad TSR was not both trans and homosexual? Who are you to say they aren't, and if you claim they aren't what are you basing that on? You can't claim they are cis and hetero unless you use prejudicial stereotypes to make such a judgement.

The trouble with this argument is that it is predicated on there being no default assumption of gender and sexuality and race in media. But historically there is.* This assumption has been created by literal centuries of societal constructs, including media, in which a particular group is favoured in representation to the exclusion of others. This favoured group becomes the default. In turn this means, in the absence of an explicit statement about a character, the reader is almost certainly going to assume the default. Which means male, cis, het, and of the assumed demographic ethnic group for that time and place.

So by explicitly including in our media people who are not of the default assumption group we a) make more people feel welcome, and b) break down the default assumption. These are both good things.

By failing to explicitly include others we are reinforcing the default assumption. This makes people feel unwelcome. Erased. Unseen. Of less worth as a person. This is a bad thing.


* this is what BookTenTiger was getting at in their post about smilies above.

<edited to take on board Faolyn's suggestion.>

 

[Faolyn]

**perhaps I should say dominant.

Probably "assumed demographic" might be most accurate.