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.

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
Considering that heavy armour was something akin to owning a high performance sports car I wonder if there wasn’t the same urge to Trick it out.

Feathers and paint are the medieval equivalent of nice rims and a bitchin’ sound system. :)
“Sir Dogg of Snoop, I see that thine armor has been...altered.”

”Verily, Squier Playa! Mine buckler now seems to spin, though it moveth not. By means of crafty levers hidden in the greaves, I may seemingly lengthen or shorten my legs individually by deploying or retracting the platforms on the soles. The metallic enamel ’pon my breastplate is like unto the fire I spit. On the new year, I hope to do likewise for my faithful steed.”

“And yon trailing bards?”

”One bagpiper, one bass drummer, that all beware my approach.”
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Kings also usually had both ceremonial and protective armor, the former being weaker but more impressive, and much, much heavier IIRC.

I know that jousting armor was very heavy as it provided almost 100% protection from lances and in tournaments you did not need to worry about agility and speed.

Also if I were king, I would order my armorsmith to make lightest possible plate armor for ceremony, but that it look like a battlefield armor. And then add extra heraldy or what not on it.
make 0,5mm thick helmet and breastplate instead of 2mm.
0,5mm is still enough to look nice especially if you cheat with a fatter rim at the edges of plates and it still works for potential knife attacks in court assassinations :p
 

Embossing it was, cheap armor could be somewhat mass produced.

It's price was more like a car, Kings armor was sportscar

That's a very, very broad statement. Considering we're talking a period of several centuries, covering multiple cultures and whatnot, you really, really can't just say that.

A full suit of steel armor would be far, far beyond the means of the vast majority of people. We're talking 1%'ers here. Never minding a horse.

One thing that struck me, looking at exhibits in the local museum here in Japan of Samurai armor (roughly 14th century pieces I was looking at), is that history is a LOT goofier looking than we give it credit for. :D
 

That's a very, very broad statement. Considering we're talking a period of several centuries, covering multiple cultures and whatnot, you really, really can't just say that.

A full suit of steel armor would be far, far beyond the means of the vast majority of people. We're talking 1%'ers here. Never minding a horse.

One thing that struck me, looking at exhibits in the local museum here in Japan of Samurai armor (roughly 14th century pieces I was looking at), is that history is a LOT goofier looking than we give it credit for. :D

It was cheaper than chainmail, I posted a thread a while ago.

They had foundry cities were it could be mass produced. They had these water powered bellows and hammers to flatten it out.

It was cheap enough that professional mercenaries could afford it. Expensive but not omg levels of unaffordable.

A lot of surviving armor is the jousting armor and royal ceremonial armor. That stuff is expensive because if the etching, Gilt, inlays and forging to give it blue hues etc. German armor was famous, so were the landsknect infantry. Might have been in Styria (Austria) where it was made.

Strip all that crap off they had big Arsenal's of it to be used in times of war. Plate armor as we think of it was Renaissance not middle ages. What AD&D called platemail turned up 14th Century. I don't think there's any surviving examples but tombs have carvings of it.

They had workshops, specialized cities, proto mass production in the 16th Century. Another example. Venice had the arsenal where they could mass produced galleys.

I think that's the one. 49:40 mark blue hue, it shows you how they probably made the flash stuff and a workshop for the mass produced stuff. The best stuff is bullet proof vs contemporary guns at realistic ranges.

Kings were often poorer than one would think, there was a middle class, and the 3 estates thing was France not all of Europe.
 
Last edited:

Yeah, pretty much agree with all of that. Although, I'd point out that 16th century is a trifle late era for D&D stuff. That's getting on the far end of what you'd expect to see in a D&D game.

Although, to be fair, D&D has things like dwarves and other "maker" races that would likely be huge changers as well.
 

I would avoid stressing over the realism of economy and technology. Whatever settings, the game always takes place in a fantasy world. There is no reason to believe that even a REAL world on a different planet would have followed the same history of technology and economy as earth. Crude materials availability for instance wouldn't necessarily be the same.
 

Yeah, pretty much agree with all of that. Although, I'd point out that 16th century is a trifle late era for D&D stuff. That's getting on the far end of what you'd expect to see in a D&D game.

Although, to be fair, D&D has things like dwarves and other "maker" races that would likely be huge changers as well.

It's the tech level of the PHB though. Plate, rapiers, great swords came later. Hand crossbows could have been built in the Renaissance.

Early D&D was more 14th century with the odd anachronism like two handed sword.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top