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

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
Would you have considered at least conversing without the reference to trolls if the post perhaps was phrased a little more open to discussion and respectfully...for instance:

..........................

Based on what I have learned, women have been treated as chattel throughout much of history as such the mentality of some men/rulers back then was such where:

Due to the slow human reproductive rate, women were seen to be much too valuable to be risked on a battlefield, unless it was a last stand of sorts.

Women could possibly have but 1 child a year if we are optimistic on medieval standards given the harsh living standards of society back then and if we calculate that 30-50% (depending on sources) chance of them dying in childbirth, no society could afford to risk losing women in battle.

Men were simply more expendable in reproductive terms - remember might was everything and a larger population usually meant a larger army.
Men had the opportunity (in some cultures) to
impregnate up to 20 women in a year, should the situation arise were more than 95% of men died in battle, as ridiculous as that sounds.

Those were the times many women lived in. Not great at all, but too valuable to have them lost in battle unless it was anything but a final stand against an overwhelming foe.


........................


Have edited for grammar corrections and clarity. Never stops!
Yes.

That was not how Horwath phrased it originally. If he had, I would have engaged him readily.
Yes, thank you.

Maybe I could have phrased it that way, or maybe I should have phrased it that way.

But, I cant make a sentence and then make a two sentence disclaimer for every one.
And if someone want's to take most vile conclusion out of it...then it's their not my problem in the end.

If I have the time I will try to explain better. As I did to @Aebir-Toril remark that you need steel bones to autofire AK one-handed. I posted a video proving my point, he said that he was wrong, for me that was the end of it.

Do I really need to explain in detail the obvious difference in time of human gestation and recovery time for a woman after birth to a point when she can get pregnant again vs. the rate of spermatogenesis in mens testicles? Didn't we went through this in 6th or 7th grade of elementary school?
Fair enough. There were other statements, not that one specifically, that I objected to.

Let's move past this.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Tony Vargas

Legend
Do people fall up because it's a game where elves cast spells? The game always assumes a certain degree of realism/verisimilitude in order for us to make sense of it.
They could if there were some reason, I suppose, but generally, there isn't. That realism/verisimilitude doesn't need to extend to slowing the play experience or pacing of the game or trashing class balance, or choosing inclusive art & NPCs, regardless of historical 'realism' or what 'makes sense of it' for people who oppose any of those things.

One more time, for those in the back. Refusing to include women in your medieval setting armies based on realism, despite us having real life examples of women in the military and women warriors all throughout history is not the same as refusing to allow non-magical beings to leap giant buildings, or shout away the damage from a pike that just impaled you, because we do not have real life examples of that happening. One is not a far reach, while the other is a complete disregard of reality.
Actually, heroes of myth/legend would perform, say, prodigious leaps (especially in Celtic mythology, for instance), that would be considered physically impossible in the harsh light of reality, with no particular magical pretext, and history if filled with examples of people fighting on with wounds that should have been debilitating, and leaders rallying seemingly defeated troops to victory.

See the difference?
Well...
So let me see if I understand this correctly. You're saying some people are arguing that women shouldn't be represented based on realism while at the same time they are playing an elf that casts spells?
Ok...
...do you?

Do you retract the above? It is OK, by you, to limit representations to something 'realistic?' Even though some of the things being represented will already be imaginary, in the first place?
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
haha, true.

But I have no problem with the premise of the thread. Yeah, we should have diversity, as it is a fictional setting not a historical.

If the setting was named Europe 12-15th century then diversity might be looked on as forced.
I have no problem with your posts, but, I guess I just don't understand why they're relevant.

At all.

I'm playing D&D, I want my character to be "not like other people". Who wants to play the everyday Phineas Dirt-Farmer, when you could play a knight? And, who wants to play Agatha the old maid who lives on a farmstead when you could play the warrior-priestess Avacycla?

What exactly do any of these reproductive statistics (yes, I do concede that they have some basis in fact) have to do with representation in D&D?

Were there fewer female soldiers in most historical cultures? Yep, absolutely.

Does that have any influence on my D&D (or even, my historical RPG) game? Nope.

Generally, you don't play as the median character, you play as someone extraordinary.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Have you ever noticed that for all of your complaining about edition warring, you manage to instigate almost every single one?
Not true, lowkey13. I have noticed that you go out of your way to blame me, though, when I point out that something is, in fact, re-visiting ground already tread by the edition war.

It's not an unusual reaction. Activists still get blamed for 'making an issue' of something or those subjected to micro-aggressions blamed for 'taking offense,' rather than acknowledging (let alone correcting) the issue or trying to avoid giving offense.
 

Coroc

Hero
I agree with that (and I ban some races altogether if they don't fit the story sometimes). Gender restrictions never impacted our games because most classes are open to all but, speaking of D&D, did you have to deal with canonically "gender-restricted" classes? Like the Witches of Rashemen or Drow Sword Dancers?

Nope, i once had a girl friend who preferred to play male characters sometimes though.

Btw. in most of my campaigns drow are monsters and witches are evil :p
 

Oofta

Legend
When has any D&D art shown women as
Not true, lowkey13. I have noticed that you go out of your way to blame me, though, when I point out that something is, in fact, re-visiting ground already tread by the edition war.

It's not an unusual reaction. Activists still get blamed for 'making an issue' of something or those subjected to micro-aggressions blamed for 'taking offense,' rather than acknowledging (let alone correcting) the issue or trying to avoid giving offense.

But edition wars have absolutely nothing to do with this thread. You keep harping on something that is completely unrelated.

The discussion of how close to reality D&D should be is a completely separate topic.
 


If people want to have their faceless hordes at a no greater than 10 to 1 gender ratio, or whatever, fill your boots!

I guess, people play however they want, but if the settings explicitely says that there is a total absence of gender bias in Faerunian society, I'd expect 50/50 faceless hordes. And if there is 33% elves, 54% humans, 12% dwarf and 1% genasi in a given setting, I try to represent opponent reflecting this diversity when meeting shopkeepers and other NPCs.

(On a related note, how often are faceless mooks in tabletop RPGs depicted as women, anyway?)

I am trying to conciously add women among the mooks in settings where they emphasis equality when players ask for descriptions (sometimes they are very happy with just faceless thugs). It's quite complicated actually because we need to think of ramifications. I must reflect whether Faerun has a tradition of dowry in a political story (I don't see dowries appearing if boys and girls are considered equal in marriage). Whenever the PCs visit an orphanage I must avoid the tendancy to mention more women than men doing child care...
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
Um, so your defense is that you aren't instigating an edition war ....

Is that you're merely barging in on an unrelated threat to point out that people's arguments are "bogus" for an edition war.
That they are old arguments, that were bogus then, and are now, and that folks should stop buying into them just because, at some point, they may have tickled their confirmation bias.

But you are correct; I do blame you for introducing the topic
The realism argument was brought up, just like it had been in the past, and refuted, just like it had been in the past. I just pointed it out.
 

Oofta

Legend
Does any published setting assume 100% equality among humans? Personally I randomize gender (and to a lesser extent race) for my NPCs most of the time.

That doesn't mean I totally ignore the role of gender in society.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top