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
Why, when wizards and bards and Druids (well, in my worlds at least Druids are explicitly not divine) and rangers are just as common?
Hell, I play Eberron as about as agnostic as 20th century America and Europe.

One of the leaders of the split house Cannith is female, IIRC.

But yeah, closer to parity woulda been nice.
Jorlanna d'Cannith, yep. There's also one of the Triumvirs of House Tharashk, Maagrim Torrn.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
I so hope u find guys find the answers you are looking for. But I bet that 99% of all players could care less about population reproduction and fertility rate. I think they are more concerned how monster X brings adventure and RP to the game. Now it is cool if that is important to you and you can work it into a cool adventure and setting. But if we start doing logarithms to model these things realistically........
“Start”?

Surely, you meant to say “continue”, right?
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
“Start”?

Surely, you meant to say “continue”, right?

I’ve been designing games since 1986. Granted, most of the times when I’ve gone down the path of using complex calculations to emulate realism, it’s been around ballistics. But in every case, that path has led down dark roads into deep caves that by the time you step back and realize what you’ve created, it’s simply just not fun in the actual game.

Don’t go down that path. Leave the complex algorithms to computer games. The maths of the game should never be so complex that they slow down the action and take away the moment. Realism is good, because it helps set a baseline of expectations and assumptions players can use, but it should never turn away potential players based on ethnicity or gender feeling less heroic than another PC.

That would be my advice.
 

I’ve been designing games since 1986. Granted, most of the times when I’ve gone down the path of using complex calculations to emulate realism, it’s been around ballistics. But in every case, that path has led down dark roads into deep caves that by the time you step back and realize what you’ve created, it’s simply just not fun in the actual game.

Don’t go down that path. Leave the complex algorithms to computer games. The maths of the game should never be so complex that they slow down the action and take away the moment. Realism is good, because it helps set a baseline of expectations and assumptions players can use, but it should never turn away potential players based on ethnicity or gender feeling less heroic than another PC.

That would be my advice.
People whine about how complex the math in the first 3 editions was compared to 4 and 5 all the time. I dont see what their problem is. For a generation no one ever complained about the math and it all seemed rather simplistic and quick. Ive never seen the math from before slow anything down even thougb there was more of it.
Oh wait. Actually there is an explanation for it.
Current median d&d player is less likely to be math gifted.
Im sorry. D&d isnt competitive but basic math skills are a must. People just need to get gud (at math).
 

Horwath

Legend
People whine about how complex the math in the first 3 editions was compared to 4 and 5 all the time. I dont see what their problem is. For a generation no one ever complained about the math and it all seemed rather simplistic and quick. Ive never seen the math from before slow anything down even thougb there was more of it.
Oh wait. Actually there is an explanation for it.
Current median d&d player is less likely to be math gifted.
Im sorry. D&d isnt competitive but basic math skills are a must. People just need to get gud (at math).

math is the same, it's just that THAC0 is counter-intuitive.

3rd edition and beyond just went with "more is better" in every calculation.
 


Sacrosanct

Legend
I may be biased. I really enjoy doing math.

Agreed though. Thac0 was dumb. If there is gonna be math it should at the barest of minimums make sense.

I don’t think THAC0 was dumb. It was easy, and you didn’t need to do math. You looked at what you rolled and compared it to the THAC0 value on your character sheet to see what you hit. But more importantly, it was the first version of bounded accuracy we had (AC was capped). And I’m a fan of bounced accuracy, and did not like the number explosion bloat that came along with 3e.
 

Horwath

Legend
I don’t think THAC0 was dumb. It was easy, and you didn’t need to do math. You looked at what you rolled and compared it to the THAC0 value on your character sheet to see what you hit. But more importantly, it was the first version of bounded accuracy we had (AC was capped). And I’m a fan of bounced accuracy, and did not like the number explosion bloat that came along with 3e.

yes, but in 3rd edition, you did not need to look at chart, you know your attack bonus. Just add d20 to it and you know AC hit without any reference. It's faster.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
yes, but in 3rd edition, you did not need to look at chart, you know your attack bonus. Just add d20 to it and you know AC hit without any reference. It's faster.

Not when you had a bunch of modifiers to add up every attack. Heck, you didn’t even have the same BAB from one attack to another in a same round, not even factoring in all the other stuff that modified your attack roll. And you also had math well into the double digits, which takes longer to figure out.
 

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
I’ve been designing games since 1986. Granted, most of the times when I’ve gone down the path of using complex calculations to emulate realism, it’s been around ballistics. But in every case, that path has led down dark roads into deep caves that by the time you step back and realize what you’ve created, it’s simply just not fun in the actual game.

Don’t go down that path. Leave the complex algorithms to computer games. The maths of the game should never be so complex that they slow down the action and take away the moment. Realism is good, because it helps set a baseline of expectations and assumptions players can use, but it should never turn away potential players based on ethnicity or gender feeling less heroic than another PC.

That would be my advice.
i wuz jest funnin’.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top