D&D 5E D&D Promises to Make the Game More Queer

[Yunru]

I think it's a highly silly promise that they can't fulfil. Why? Because it's not on them, it's the DM's choice. There are as many straight/gay/bisexual/etc. people in a campaign as the DM chooses (unless I'm mistaken modules don't go out of their way to specify a NPC's orientation).

It'd be like saying that The Lego Group needs to put more gay people in your lego city.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think it's a highly silly promise that they can't fulfil. Why? Because it's not on them, it's the DM's choice. There are as many straight/gay/bisexual/etc. people in a campaign as the DM chooses (unless I'm mistaken modules don't go out of their way to specify a NPC's orientation).

It'd be like saying that The Lego Group needs to put more gay people in your lego city.

It's implied. King/Queen? Heterosexual. Prince/Princess? Heterosexual. It may not say "Bob the King only fancies women." But when you're on a quest to save King Bob after he's been kidnapped because he had an affair with the Queen of EvilLand (who is likely described as quite the bodacious babe), it's pretty well implied that King Bob likes the ladies and will go a long way to get some snookie from a hot girl.

Change that to saving King Bob from having an affair with Prince Malcom the Sexy-but-Totally-Evil? Yeah okay the DM could just cut that content or make Malcom into Maxxine but that doesn't actually matter. What matters is that people who are traditionally under-represented in TTRPGs now suddenly get to have a official book with an official character and an official quest by a major publisher that represents them. That's HUGE for them. The one or two DMs that will cut this content because of "teh gayz" is rather small in comparison.

 

[WayneLigon]

I think it's a highly silly promise that they can't fulfil. Why? Because it's not on them, it's the DM's choice. There are as many straight/gay/bisexual/etc. people in a campaign as the DM chooses (unless I'm mistaken modules don't go out of their way to specify a NPC's orientation).

It'd be like saying that The Lego Group needs to put more gay people in your lego city.

The point is not to change your game. The point is so that an LGBT player or GM can say 'I can see myself in this game - I exist in Eberron/Greyhawk/etc' and perhaps for the first time feel included in the larger community.

 

[Barolo]

It's implied. King/Queen? Heterosexual. Prince/Princess? Heterosexual. It may not say "Bob the King only fancies women." But when you're on a quest to save King Bob after he's been kidnapped because he had an affair with the Queen of EvilLand (who is likely described as quite the bodacious babe), it's pretty well implied that King Bob likes the ladies and will go a long way to get some snookie from a hot girl.

Change that to saving King Bob from having an affair with Prince Malcom the Sexy-but-Totally-Evil? Yeah okay the DM could just cut that content or make Malcom into Maxxine but that doesn't actually matter. What matters is that people who are traditionally under-represented in TTRPGs now suddenly get to have a official book with an official character and an official quest by a major publisher that represents them. That's HUGE for them. The one or two DMs that will cut this content because of "teh gayz" is rather small in comparison.

I may be the weird one here, but when I read "King/Queen", or "Prince/Princess" or even "innkeeper/blacksmith" I do not understand any sexual orientation as implied. Like, at all. If it is not specified and it would not affect the game story, I feel pretty much free to assign whatever orientation I might fancy, if the issue ever arises about that NPC in the game. I might say I would expect the majority of PCs/NPCs to be straight just because real-life statistics made me used to the idea, but individually, about a single NPC written on a module? Nah.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

It's implied. King/Queen? Heterosexual. Prince/Princess? Heterosexual.

The thing about old-style monarchy is that it doesn't matter if King Bob likes men or women, an important part of his job is to produce princes and princesses whether he enjoys it or not, and for that he's going to need a Queen.

 

[Sunseeker]

I may be the weird one here, but when I read "King/Queen", or "Prince/Princess" or even "innkeeper/blacksmith" I do not understand any sexual orientation as implied. Like, at all. If it is not specified and it would not affect the game story, I feel pretty much free to assign whatever orientation I might fancy, if the issue ever arises about that NPC in the game. I might say I would expect the majority of PCs/NPCs to be straight just because real-life statistics made me used to the idea, but individually, about a single NPC written on a module? Nah.

When I wrote King/Queen I suppose I could have been clearer, I meant the pairing of King & Queen.

I'm going to take a quick stab and say that you're probably not saying that as a member of the LBGT community. And that's the point. It's not about YOU. It's about THEM.

The thing about old-style monarchy is that it doesn't matter if King Bob likes men or women, an important part of his job is to produce princes and princesses whether he enjoys it or not, and for that he's going to need a Queen.

I really don't care because that is absolutely irrelevant. And I will not address the point further.

 

[Yunru]

It's implied.

Not really. DnD doesn't suffet a lack of representation for sexual orientations, it just outright lacks sexual orientations.

The King will have a queen, because monarchs must to have an heir, but that doesn't mean his consorts and concubine are female.

Way I see it, there's no printed gay/bisexual/etc people in adventurers because how often is a character's sexual orientation going to affect the adventure?

If anything I'm going to be wary of any published adventure that touts the claim because it's going to be one of three things:

• In your face with it, but otherwise inconsequential.
• Covering themes I'm not comfortable playing.
• In your face with it and covering themes I'm not comfortable with.

 

[Yunru]

The point is not to change your game. The point is so that an LGBT player or GM can say 'I can see myself in this game - I exist in Eberron/Greyhawk/etc' and perhaps for the first time feel included in the larger community.

I get that, and whole-heartedly welcome it. But it's not the focus of DnD, it's the background. Unless you're trying to bed a wench for information, or rescue some noble who's absconded, when's sexuality (any sexuality) going to play into matters?

 

[Barolo]

When I wrote King/Queen I suppose I could have been clearer, I meant the pairing of King & Queen.

Yes, that clarifies your point, thanks. To me it still does not imply much, though.

 

[Sunseeker]

Not really. DnD doesn't suffet a lack of representation for sexual orientations, it just outright lacks sexual orientations.

The King will have a queen, because monarchs must to have an heir, but that doesn't mean his consorts and concubine are female.

Way I see it, there's no printed gay/bisexual/etc people in adventurers because how often is a character's sexual orientation going to affect the adventure?

If anything I'm going to be wary of any published adventure that touts the claim because it's going to be one of three things:

• In your face with it, but otherwise inconsequential.
• Covering themes I'm not comfortable playing.
• In your face with it and covering themes I'm not comfortable with.

Uh huh. I'm sorry but do you have a point? Because I'm really not interested in throwing 40 years of D&D campaigns in your face. If you don't think that the vast bulk to the near totality of TTRPG material (and not just D&D) is straight, white and male, you're either not paying attention or playing dumb to pull a gotcha. And I'm not interested in either.