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

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
"Concerted effort" and "passive" are mutually exclusive.

A concerted effor to reflect RW diversity through a passive medium.

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.
See, the thing that I'm seeing from your post is that anything that's not whitebread is "pushing a message" and going to cause "marketing fatigue" and backlash, or whatever. Gotta maintain the status quo or people get triggered.

Personally, I'm not seeing how including women and minorities is so triggering or fatiguing and going to cause the destruction of the hobby.

I could see your point were there slogans and screeds, or whatever, but it's all just art and decsriptors.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
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.

I make no secret of my piety. But I also will tell you that most consciously pious movies and books are just terrible. And I don't mean just bad in the way that 95% of everything is bad. I mean that they are ridiculously and especially bad.

Because stories have meanings. But meanings don't have stories. And people who are pious and who strongly believe in a message are tempted to start first from the meaning that they want to convey and work backwards, and invariably that leads to bad art. Bad art not only turns people away from the message you wanted to convey, but often as not the story that is actually produced doesn't even have the intended meaning.

Heavy handed, didactic, preachy story telling doesn't lead to a lot of people being fans except only the most heavy handed, didactic, preachy people.

What I see in the popular culture now is a replication of so many of the mistakes I've seen over the years in the religious culture. Which is part of the reason I feel that the popular culture is increasingly a nascent religion. Because it's acting like one.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
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.

I'm just not seeing how including women and minorities in art is equivalent to this.
 

A concerted effor to reflect RW diversity through a passive medium.


See, the thing that I'm seeing from your post is that anything that's not whitebread is "pushing a message" and going to cause "marketing fatigue" and backlash, or whatever. Gotta maintain the status quo or people get triggered.

Personally, I'm not seeing how including women and minorities is so triggering or fatiguing and going to cause the destruction of the hobby.

I could see your point were there slogans and screeds, or whatever, but it's all just art and decsriptors.
way to twist what i say and add things to it that are completely not present. I like realism. What would be realistic about there being nothing but white males? Also, 1 you do not know my race, 2 the term "whitebread" is a vulgar slur. My feelings dont bruise easy though. So if i was white i wouldnt care. But its annoying.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
way to twist what i say and add things to it that are completely not present. I like realism. What would be realistic about there being nothing but white males? Also, 1 you do not know my race, 2 the term "whitebread" is a vulgar slur. My feelings dont bruise easy though. So if i was white i wouldnt care. But its annoying.

I'm not trying to misrepresent you, I'm just saying that that's how your posts come across.

"Whitebread" isn't a slur against anyone. I'm white. "Whitebread" is being used in the same vein as "sausage party". A descriptor of the overwhelming lack of diversity in past art.
 

Celebrim

Legend
I'm not trying to misrepresent you, I'm just saying that that's how your posts come across.

Well, sometime think about how your posts come across.

"Whitebread" isn't a slur against anyone. I'm white. "Whitebread" is being used in the same vein as "sausage party". A descriptor of the overwhelming lack of diversity in past art.

That's the sort of not introspective comment that I'm talking about.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I make no secret of my piety. But I also will tell you that most consciously pious movies and books are just terrible. And I don't mean just bad in the way that 95% of everything is bad. I mean that they are ridiculously and especially bad.

Because stories have meanings. But meanings don't have stories. And people who are pious and who strongly believe in a message are tempted to start first from the meaning that they want to convey and work backwards, and invariably that leads to bad art. Bad art not only turns people away from the message you wanted to convey, but often as not the story that is actually produced doesn't even have the intended meaning.

Heavy handed, didactic, preachy story telling doesn't lead to a lot of people being fans except only the most heavy handed, didactic, preachy people.

What I see in the popular culture now is a replication of so many of the mistakes I've seen over the years in the religious culture. Which is part of the reason I feel that the popular culture is increasingly a nascent religion. Because it's acting like one.

See previous comment about stuff that makes you think vs being told what to think.

If you preach to hard at people it just antagonizes them. This doesn't matter what side of the political spectrum you are.

And no one likes being insulted, left/right/moderate doesn't matter.

It's not what you say but how you say it. It's like politics, policies don't matter charisma and name recognition are more important.
 



Maybe you dont know the stipulations of what makes a slur a slur. You see ACTUALLY both whitebread and sausage party are considered slurs. Perhaps you didnt realize because the people they target arent as likely to have their complaints heard. Im dead serious though. They are slurs. But i expect you didnt realize and thats ok. You intended no offense. No one is going to call you a racist or a sexist for it because they know that isnt your intent.

Now, if every time you said something like that you were told you were racist against whites or a misandrist even though EVERYONE knew you werent and that you meant no harm do you think you would get "fatigued" @Azzy ? Or "tired" of the "bs"?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top