D&D 3E/3.5 Diversity in D&D Third Edition

With 3rd Ed, our main goal was to return D&D to its roots, such as with Greyhawk deities and the return of half-orcs. By staying true to the feel of D&D, we helped the gaming audience accept the sweeping changes that we made to the rules system.

With 3rd Ed, our main goal was to return D&D to its roots, such as with Greyhawk deities and the return of half-orcs. By staying true to the feel of D&D, we helped the gaming audience accept the sweeping changes that we made to the rules system.

One way we diverged from the D&D heritage, however, was by making the game art more inclusive. People of color, for example, were hard to find in earlier editions, and, when they did make appearance, it wasn’t always for the best. Luckily for us, Wizards of the Coast had an established culture of egalitarianism, and we were able to update the characters depicted in the game to better reflect contemporary sensibilities.

dnd-party.jpg

A few years before 3E, the leadership at Wizards had already encouraged me to go whole-hog with the multicultural look of the RPG Everway (1995). In this world-hopping game, we provided players and Gamemasters with scores of color art cards to inspire them as they created their characters and NPCs. The art featured people and settings that looked like they could have come from fantasy versions of places all around the earth, and the gender balance was great. I once got an email from a black roleplayer who said that Everway had forever changed the way he roleplayed, so I know that the game’s multicultural look was meaningful to some gamers out there. With D&D, we took the game in the same direction, but not nearly as far. The core setting has always resembled medieval Europe, and we expanded the diversity of the characters while still maintaining the medieval milieu.

The characters that players see the most are the “fab four,” the four iconic characters that we used repeatedly in our art and in our examples of play. Two are men (the human cleric and the dwarf fighter) and two are women (the elf wizard and the halfling rogue). Given the demographics of gamers in 2000, the implication that half of all D&D characters are female was a bit of a stretch. The only complaints we got, however, were about the introductory Adventure Game, where the characters were pregenerated, with names and genders assigned to them. Some young men would have preferred fewer female characters and more males to choose from. None of us worried too much about those complaints.

In addition to the main four characters, we also assigned a particular character to represent each of the other classes, with that character appearing in examples of play and in art. The four human characters comprised a white man (the cleric), a white woman (the paladin), a black woman (the monk), and an Asian man (the sorcerer). The remaining four nonhuman iconics were three men and one woman. It was a trick to strike the right balance in assigning fantasy races and genders to all the classes and to assign ethnicities to the human characters, but the iconic characters seemed to be a big hit, and I think the diversity was part of the appeal.

Somewhat late in the process, the marketing team added Regdar, a male fighter, to the mix of iconic characters. We designers weren’t thrilled, and as the one who had drawn up the iconic characters I was a little chapped. My array of iconic characters did not include a human male fighter, and that’s the most common D&D character ever, so the marketing team gave us one. We carped a little that he meant adding a second white man to the array of characters, but at least he was dark enough to be ambiguously ethnic. Regdar proved popular, and if the marketing team was looking for an attractive character to publicize, they got one.

Back in 1E, Gary Gygax had used the phrase “he or she” as the default third person singular pronoun, a usage that gave the writing a legalistic vibe that probably suited it. In 2E, the text stated up front that it was just going to use “he” because grammatically it’s gender-neutral. Even in 1989, insisting that “he” is gender neutral was tone deaf. By the time I was working on 3E, I had been dealing with the pronoun issue for ten years. In Ars Magica (1987), we wrote everything in second person so that we could avoid gendered pronouns. The rules said things like, “You can understand your familiar” instead of “The wizard can understand his/her/their familiar.” In Over the Edge (1992), we used “he” for the generic player and “she” for the generic gamemaster, which felt balanced and helped the reader keep the two roles separate. That sort of usage became standard for Atlas Games’s roleplaying games. Personally, I use singular-they whenever I can get away with it, but 20 years ago that was still generally considered unorthodox. For 3E, I suggested that we tie the pronouns to the iconic characters. The iconic paladin was a woman, so references to paladins in the rules were to “her.” I thought we’d catch flak from someone about this usage, but I never heard fans complaining.

One topic we needed to settle was whether monsters that were gendered as female in folklore, such as a lamia, should be exclusively female in D&D. I figured we should ditch gender limits wherever we could, but an editor argued that gender was important for the identity of a monster like the lamia. I asked, “Is that because it is in woman’s nature to deceive and destroy men?” Luring and destroying men is a common trope for female-gendered monsters, with the lamia as an example. “Yes, it is” said the editor, but she was laughing, and I had made my point. You can see an illustration of a male lamia in the 3E Monster Manual.

While we incorporated Greyhawk’s deities into 3rd Ed, we had no intention of picking up Greyhawk’s description of various human ethnic groups, corresponding more or less to ethnicities found on Earth. For gamers who cared about the Greyhawk canon, the Asian sorcerer would be from a lightly described territory to the west and the black monk would be a “Touv” from the jungles of Hepmonaland. Touvs in 2E were defined as having a penalty to their Intelligence scores, and we sure didn’t want to send any players in that direction. In 3E, the Asian and black characters were just humans, full stop.

The good news is that the gaming audience rolled with the iconic characters featuring people of color and women. With 5th Ed, the design team picked up where we left off and have pursued diversity further. The diverse cast of characters goes a long way in making D&D look modern and mature.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jonathan Tweet

Jonathan Tweet

D&D 3E, Over the Edge, Everway, Ars Magica, Omega World, Grandmother Fish

Zardnaar

Legend
Wait, you're saying that having the art and descriptors in an RPG is causing message fatigue? That just passively showing women, minorities, and what not is a message and is fatiguing you? Do you have the same experience when you see women, minorities, and what not in your daily life? Does art and pronouns really cause you such discomfort?

I think what they're saying is you are getting overflow from other media.

For example you don't get much cheesecake art these days but I don't regard cheesecake as integral to the D&D experience. I still like the editions with such art but there's guranteed to be someone who gets upset about it online.

I wouldn't put it in modern D&D at least the core books.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Wait, you're saying that having the art and descriptors in an RPG is causing message fatigue? That just passively showing women, minorities, and what not is a message and is fatiguing you? Do you have the same experience when you see women, minorities, and what not in your daily life? Does art and pronouns really cause you such discomfort?
1. Its not passive. Developers have stated plainly that its a concerted effort. That they do actually shoehorn things in whether it makes optimal sense or not. So if you are an honest individual (of course you may jist not have realized. Thats fine too.) you already know that this trend being a passive one is off the table. The developers have specified otherwise. On this site as well as many other venues.

2. Lets just entertain the hypothetical you introduced because im curious. What if the answer is "yes"? What then do you propose? Surely you understand that if the answer is "yes" that means the message is being pushed harder than what would recieve optimal results right? Would that not mean that if the true objective is progress a scale back is in order? Because that is how one would pursue optimal behavioral adjustment. Otherwise all you acheive is being annoying and probably a major fall back when people get "fatigued" enough after an implicit "suck it up" is issued too many times to too many people. Not good marketing. Might wanna avoid that. For optimal results. But anyway, as i was saying, if the answer really is "yes", what then? How do you proceed? Pretty interesting hypothetical.

Ps. Nearly everyone ignores pronoun alterations in anonymous surveys at this point. Might be a sign of what he's talking about happening.
 
Last edited:

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
1. Its not passive. Developers have stated plainly that its a concerted effort. That they do actually shoehorn things in whether it makes optimal sense or not. So if you are an honest individual (of course you may jist not have realized. Thats fine too.) you already know that this trend being a passive one is off the table. The developers have specified otherwise. On this site as well as many other venues.

Whether or not it is a concerted effort by the developers, representation is still a passive thing—it's just art/whatever reflecting people that exist in reality rather than being whitebread all the time.
 


Whether or not it is a concerted effort by the developers, representation is still a passive thing—it's just art/whatever reflecting people that exist in reality rather than being whitebread all the time.
"Concerted effort" and "passive" are mutually exclusive.

Also youve dodged the question and the hypothetical you yourself introduced having answered neither.

This question is fairly straight forward. Is basically just pushing harder and harder and saying "suck it up" and patronizing people any time they mention a legitimate threat to the product like "marketing fatigue" completely disregarding it (which causes products to fail every day due to lack of dilligence) really good marketing sense? If not, what is the alternative course? That doesnt necessarily have to involve a stoppage of the message but just patronizing is not a good marketing sense answer.

I see a backlash coming. I worry about it. I think not enough people worry about it. Pushing a message and all is fine. But it has to be tempered. Otherwise our hobby might go kaput if we over shoot.

That's all im saying.

Im bisexual and i understand the value of messaging, but i think we need to listen when people say they see signs of messaging fatigue. Its a sneaky killer of products. Something can be super popular and all of a sudden POOF popularity just sublimates over night. Id hate to see that happen to d&d over something of a tertiary goal like inclusivity. This isnt political. Make no mistake. Im talking business.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Wait, you're saying that having the art and descriptors in an RPG is causing message fatigue? That just passively showing women, minorities, and what not is a message and is fatiguing you? Do you have the same experience when you see women, minorities, and what not in your daily life? Does art and pronouns really cause you such discomfort?

No, I think he's saying that he's tired of this sort of crap. I think he's saying he's tired of people at the very first opportunity that they can accusing him of being what is literally the most socially unacceptable thing that you can accuse people of, and that being culturally and socially "Ok" and people are afraid to even call people on it unless they are the target of the same sort of behavior. I think he's tired of people in power, part of the dominate culture, acting as if this behavior is some sort of bravery on their part when it's really no more than rudeness masquerading as virtue. And I think he's saying that even when you declare your agreement with the goals, if you criticize any part of the platform having to defend yourself from the now ubiquitous charge of "racism" is just as tiring as it is ridiculous. We're in a society where you can get away with just about any sort of infamy save the tinge of "racism" and where everyone is accused of it all the time. And it's all so much obvious hypocrisy and not actually any superior care and concern for people, but just an argumentative technique to justify what you already believe by linking it all together in one big mass where questioning any bit of it gets immediate charges of "racism".

Which is exactly what happened here. He gets one bit off the message, and he's immediately hit with charges of "racism" by someone on line that doesn't know really anything about him. It's just another example of the larger cultural hypocrisy, proven by the fact that when these charges of "racism" don't advance the cause the person - say he's the Prime Minister of Canada or the Governor of an important battleground State and he's in your party - he gets a free pass. And the "#metoo" charges come thick, right until they start circling around to the In Group, and then they go silent because it was never really about being more compassionate, it was just a weapon in a culture war.

And let's bring this back to gaming. It seems Johanthan Tweet had good intentions and I do and have applauded his work. But this for me will always be D&D. This is probably my favorite D&D piece of art of all time. I encountered this when I was like 8 or something like that, and I thought it was awesome.
Cleric.jpg


It's always never enough to just have good intentions. It's seems that we always have to at the same time say how much better we are doing than the past. It reminds me so much of the marketing of 4e, where they didn't just say, "Hey, we're making this sweet game", but they had to just crap all over 3e by pronouncing just how terrible of a game it was and just how badly designed it was. It turned me off 4e even before I got a chance to see it, because though I had some problems with 3e, I thought it was the best system overall I'd ever seen and anyone that thought it was terrible was a person whose opinions I didn't trust. And you know what, I think history kind of vindicated that the 4e designers weren't nearly as smart as they pronounced themselves to be.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
You're getting an overflow of women and minorities? Can I offer you my sympathies?

No the same arguements are overflowing.

I'm somewhere in the middle, I only care if it's ham fisted retcons type stuff. It's more applicable to movies and TV.

By heavy handed I mean pushed to hard. A lot of movies for example are starting to crash and burn because the message is being pushed harder than things like plot.

That doesn't really apply to D&D because there's no story as such.

If you push diversity to hard you get less diversity because things start failing and falling apart in terms of sales.

D&D's not even close to that point though.
 

Wait, you're saying that having the art and descriptors in an RPG is causing message fatigue? That just passively showing women, minorities, and what not is a message and is fatiguing you? Do you have the same experience when you see women, minorities, and what not in your daily life? Does art and pronouns really cause you such discomfort?

I'm saying I can understand why someone who sees another thread titled, "Diversity in D&D," might feel tired by it even if they agree with it. I think @Morrus's comment earlier that these threads exhaust him is a perfect example. There isn't any new discussion and it is the same points over and over. The threads get slowly more civil as time has gone on and people change their minds, but it's a painfully slow process. It will require older generations to literally die out for them to change. I absolutely sympathize with the poor mods who are responsible for keeping the peace. I think one major reason reason the forum rules tell us to avoid real world politics in discussions is because in a very real sense these discussions don't belong here even when they're tangential. People want it to be a refuge from the real world. I sure as heck wouldn't come here if the topics looked like Twitter or the political forums on Reddit.

There are some social graces at work, too. Lots of people don't talk politics, religion, or sex with friends, family, or coworkers. There are several social situations where they're taboo subjects or even plainly forbidden (e.g., a funeral, small talk with strangers, at work, etc.).

Lots of people when they want to talk about their hobby don't want to talk about or think about the real world politics because they use it as an escape. I don't think that's unreasonable, and I don't think it's unreasonable to voice that opinion. I do think it's unreasonable to be upset that some people say they don't want to talk about politics, particularly because some people always get upset when people do talk about politics.

I do say that there's a tremendous difference between someone saying, "I'm so tired of this topic," or, "I wish we didn't have to talk about this," and someone saying, "this isn't something that should change in this hobby," or, "I think it's wrong for the hobby become more diverse." I also think a lot of people who are all about championing a social cause wherever it is are the kind of people who don't see a difference there at all.

Think of it this way. You go to your new SO's home for your first holiday party or dinner with them. They warn you their family feels different than they do, and the first three people you see are wearing MAGA hats (or Bernie Sanders hats, or whatever). If your reaction isn't to feel some measure of exhaustion from or aversion to how you imagine the upcoming hours going, then I don't know how to express the kind of fatigue or exhaustion I'm talking about. If your reaction is just to feel outraged about it, that's just doubly exhausting for everyone else.
 

No, I think he's saying that he's tired of this sort of crap. I think he's saying he's tired of people at the very first opportunity that they can accusing him of being what is literally the most socially unacceptable thing that you can accuse people of, and that being culturally and socially "Ok" and people are afraid to even call people on it unless they are the target of the same sort of behavior. I think he's tired of people in power, part of the dominate culture, acting as if this behavior is some sort of bravery on their part when it's really no more than rudeness masquerading as virtue. And I think he's saying that even when you declare your agreement with the goals, if you criticize any part of the platform having to defend yourself from the now ubiquitous charge of "racism" is just as tiring as it is ridiculous. We're in a society where you can get away with just about any sort of infamy save the tinge of "racism" and where everyone is accused of it all the time. And it's all so much obvious hypocrisy and not actually any superior care and concern for people, but just an argumentative technique to justify what you already believe by linking it all together in one big mass where questioning any bit of it gets immediate charges of "racism".

Which is exactly what happened here. He gets one bit off the message, and he's immediately hit with charges of "racism" by someone on line that doesn't know really anything about him. It's just another example of the larger cultural hypocrisy, proven by the fact that when these charges of "racism" don't advance the cause the person - say he's the Prime Minister of Canada or the Governor of an important battleground State and he's in your party - he gets a free pass. And the "#metoo" charges come thick, right until they start circling around to the In Group, and then they go silent because it was never really about being more compassionate, it was just a weapon in a culture war.

And let's bring this back to gaming. It seems Johanthan Tweet had good intentions and I do and have applauded his work. But this for me will always be D&D. This is probably my favorite D&D piece of art of all time. I encountered this when I was like 8 or something like that, and I thought it was awesome. View attachment 116696

It's always never enough to just have good intentions. It's seems that we always have to at the same time say how much better we are doing than the past. It reminds me so much of the marketing of 4e, where they didn't just say, "Hey, we're making this sweet game", but they had to just crap all over 3e by pronouncing just how terrible of a game it was and just how badly designed it was. It turned me off 4e even before I got a chance to see it, because though I had some problems with 3e, I thought it was the best system overall I'd ever seen and anyone that thought it was terrible was a person whose opinions I didn't trust. And you know what, I think history kind of vindicated that the 4e designers weren't nearly as smart as they pronounced themselves to be.
Wow. Bravo. clapping

You put that really well.

Actually all three of the last posters. Excellent.

It is one thing to fail to use honey and use vinegar instead. It is an exceptional failing to believe setting fire to someone will continue to keep you in someone's good graces.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top