• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Hussar

Legend
Especially since we do have plenty of real world examples of women in combat, and in armies--it's not that big of a reach. Last I checked, we do not have real world examples of someone shouting another person's arm back on.

No, no NO! Bad @Sacrosanct. :D

I will NOT fall for this.

Good grief, how sad is it that I'm willing to argue about this complete and total train wreck derailment of a perfectly good thread to correct someone's perceptions of a game that's been OUT OF PRINT for nearly ten years? Gah!

------

@Horvath - you mentioned 12-15th century Europe. But, again, we're talking an incredibly diverse period with dozens of cultures. Seeing Mongol, Slavs, Moors, and a dozen other ethnicities represented shouldn't really cause anyone to bat an eye. And, while we can talk about representations of armies, most RPG art doesn't focus on that. It focuses on individuals or small numbers. I mean, how often in any of the editions, do you see a picture of armies in the PHB, DMG or MM? There's a smattering, I'm sure, but, it's pretty rare. All this sidebar about militaries doesn't really apply to RPG art since RPG art almost never depicts images of large scale battles.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Gotta jump in and take issue with this one:
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?
Me.

I want to play Phineas Dirt-Farmer through his journey to becoming Sir Phineas, Knight of the Westmarches; I want to play Agatha the [not-so-old] maid through her journey to becoming a famed and feared warrior-priestess; and so forth.

And yes, this means that at the start of all that I'm playing simple Phineas and humble Agatha. Because I want to.
Generally, you don't play as the median character, you play as someone extraordinary.
Not quite.

You play as someone with the potential to become extraordinary if circumstance and chance allow.

Big difference.
 


Sacrosanct

Legend
No, no NO! Bad @Sacrosanct. :D

I will NOT fall for this.

Good grief, how sad is it that I'm willing to argue about this complete and total train wreck derailment of a perfectly good thread to correct someone's perceptions of a game that's been OUT OF PRINT for nearly ten years? Gah!

I never mentioned any specific edition, but was talking in general terms of the various lines people draw with mundane people doing supernatural uber powers. If someone assumed I was talking about a particular edition, I'm afraid that's on their biases and assumptions rather than anything I actually said (especially since as pointed out, that arm thing doesn't exist in any edition). My initial response when I replied about elves and magic was a bit tongue in cheek and facetious. I'm guessing that was lost. Anyone who focused on the literal arm being shouted back on completely missed the point.

Basically, the point I was trying to make was that it's one thing to have preferences of what we like for supernatural things because magic exists and we have no real life examples to point to, but it's another to deny something that actually does have a real life precedence, especially when said other supernatural things are accepted.
 


Tony Vargas

Legend
You play as someone with the potential to become extraordinary if circumstance and chance allow.
Big difference.
There a big difference between that and an Heroic-Fantasy RPG, sure.

Good grief, how sad is it that I'm willing to argue about this complete and total train wreck derailment of a perfectly good thread
TBF, it's a fraught, perfectly awful thread. I kick myself a little harder each time I reply - good thing I have such an unrealistic number of hps, and can regain them all each night.
to correct someone's perceptions of a game that's been OUT OF PRINT for nearly ten years? Gah!
A good 7 years.
OK, unless you count Essentials as the equivalent of out-of-print, which isn't entirely unfair.
 

generic

On that metempsychosis tweak
You play as someone with the potential to become extraordinary if circumstance and chance allow.

Big difference.
Oh, come now, you know what I meant!

Good points, though. I was making a point on the basis of female warriors and such, but I agree with the sentiment of your post.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I never mentioned any specific edition, but was talking in general terms of the various lines people draw with mundane people doing supernatural uber powers. If someone assumed I was talking about a particular edition, I'm afraid that's on their biases and assumptions rather than anything I actually said (especially since as pointed out, that arm thing doesn't exist in any edition).
It's a reference, as I'm certain you knew when you chose to use it, to a MM comment about a specific class that appeared in a specific edition, in which he admitted, immediately after it slipped out, that he was being ridiculous. But it sure stuck around.

My initial response when I replied about elves and magic was a bit tongue in cheek and facetious. I'm guessing that was lost.
So your point was that you had no point, and didn't believe what you were saying. Just being funny.

Using Joan of Arc and Boudica aren't good examples because they were leaders, and didn't have accounts of actual combat prowess.
Examples of Warlords, then, like, ironically, Bishop Odo, and, well, myriad others. And, thus, really, perfectly good examples for purposes of inclusion in presentation & art.
There are much better examples to use, like Scathach, or the Onna-bugeisha, or Grace O'Malley, or Lozen, or the aforementioned women gladiators
The last could be dismissed as 'performers,' I suppose, but are at least well-documented, you could say of Grace O'Malley that she was 'just' a leader, like the above, but, really, not a meaningful objection. Two of the others, IDK, but Scathach, a mentor of CuChulain, was a mythic, rather than an historic figure, though not a particularly supernatural one, so another good example of...

Basically, the point I was trying to make was that it's one thing to have preferences of what we like for supernatural things because magic exists and we have no real life examples to point to, but it's another to deny something that actually does have a real life precedence, especially when said other supernatural things are accepted.
Why, especially, if you're demanding RL precedents? (...yeah, folks, that's a rhetorical question, here comes the answer...)

Because you're talking about unusual or extraordinary or even anecdotal, reputed, or legendary RL precedents. It's absurd to say that there shouldn't be representations of female warriors on the grounds of 'realism,' in a game resplendent with Pegasus, Medusae, Chimeras, and Hydras when the same mythologies that brought us those also brought us Amazons, for instance, even though those accounts are almost certainly wildly exaggerated, based on encounters with nomadic tribes in which both sexes rode horses and used bows.
Because the inclusion of the fantastic elements lowers the bar on said realism, tremendously.

It's a strong argument that completely demolishes the 'realism' argument for exclusion.
 
Last edited:

Warpiglet

Adventurer
It depends on settings of course, but PC class tend to get much more power than NPC classes. And even NPC classes are quite rare (if you go by the "levels of NPC by population" of the 3.5 era). So it's quite possible that while healing magic is known to exist, you wouldn't have enough practitionner with their Adept levels to have a meaningful impact on the world at large.
Not playing in the realms or ebberon, this is exactly the D&D world I am used to and enjoy.

There might be scores of living wizards in the world. There may be priests and acolytes, but true miracle working clerics are PCs, heroes or saints. Uncommon.

Hedge wizards aren't running around making sure meat doesn't spoil or that the farmers daughter doesn't get pregnant.

I think assuming magic is ubiquitous because it exists could be like saying because our world has olympians or astrophysicists they are common...
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top