Defining "inclusiveness" in the context of homosexuality & bisexuality

[Ruin Explorer]

This thread seems rather political (given the "only 1 in 50 so don't show more" deal) and a violation of ENWorld rules, but even if not, the RPG-player community contains a vastly higher proportion of LGBTQIA individuals than the general population, meaning those figures are particularly worthless.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not sure what's going on here. A survey says that only 2.3% of the population in the US identifies as either gay or bisexual. OK. A little lower than other surveys, but at the lower bound of what I would see as the expected response.

I'm not sure what, if anything, it has to do with RPG representation in the text or art. Where has a character's preferences ever been included on a character sheet? And how you would possibly tell that from an art image, unless it was in a particular romantic context?

Not really seeing what this has to do RPGs, this seems more political to me, so I'm backing off.

 

[Morlock]

Really not sure of what this thread is advocating.

Nada. Just a tip on defining and quantifying.

Are you saying that the hobby needs to figure out an algorithm that dictates just how many instances a text should reference "homosexuality" based on a survey of how many people self-identify as gay or bi?

No. I'm spitballing what "inclusive" means.

Aside from that just being an incredibly problematic idea to hash out, it's a fantasy game, not a science textbook or peer reviewed study. There's not a magic number of references that reaches a "inclusive" threshold.

We're not talking game mechanics, lol. We're talking about creating a product. Commerce is a science (well, sorta), not a fantasy world.

It's as easy as putting in a single reference about how there are all different types of people with different types of relationships and identities, and not then respecting, not demeaning or pathologizing those relationships, in the rest of the game.

Hmm, seems like an even lower bar for "inclusiveness" than my numbers in the OP.

Random tables! All threads should advocate random tables

Lol. Roll for sexual orientation...

 

[Morlock]

So, ENWorld is a TTRPG site, and this is a specifically D&D subforum, and real world questions of the representation of sexuality is kind of not our bag what with the no politics & religion thing. The thread isn't bad, but if we can't explicitly relate this to something D&D-specific in the next few posts, I'ma hafta klunk it just for OT reasons.

Morlock, you're pretty new, so this might not've been evident. So just a heads up right now -- stay on topic, like Biggs told ya to.

I'm responding to all the "yay inclusiveness" posts I saw in at least one thread about 5e, to which there were no mod warnings in response.

Rules aren't rules if they aren't consistently applied.

P.S.: Biggs?

 

[Remathilis]

Perhaps the OP is trying to say that WotC already filled its "inclusiveness" quota back in 2005?

 

[Morlock]

(given the "only 1 in 50 so don't show more" deal)

Straw man.

 

[Morlock]

Perhaps the OP is trying to say that WotC already filled its "inclusiveness" quota back in 2005?

View attachment 62811

Hmm, sizzle. Before the thread is locked: what's that from?

 

[TwoSix]

I'm responding to all the "yay inclusiveness" posts I saw in at least one thread about 5e, to which there were no mod warnings in response.

Rules aren't rules if they aren't consistently applied.

That's because "inclusiveness is good" is about as political as "murder is bad".

 

[Gargoyle]

I'm responding to all the "yay inclusiveness" posts I saw in at least one thread about 5e, to which there were no mod warnings in response.

Rules aren't rules if they aren't consistently applied.

Maybe update your original post with a link to that, and summarize how this relates to D&D? I think you had the makings of a good post here, shame to just let it stay off topic and let it die.

 

[Morlock]

That's because "inclusiveness is good" is about as political as "murder is bad".

But "inclusiveness is inclusiveness" is political. Gotcha.