D&D 5E Does the inclusion of these two gamers undo WOTC desire to be inclusive?

[Elf Witch]

http://failforward.co.uk/post/93348768153/how-dungeons-and-dragons-is-endorsing-the-darkest-parts




I was saw this on another page and read some of the comments and many felt that it would stop them from buying the game others felt that it was an over reaction and that it was not fair to say these two men have gone out of their way to make gaming hostile for LGBT gamers.



I know Pundit and often find him annoying so I tuned him out several years ago. But I have heard that he worked on a book that had a transgendered character on the cover. And that he treated the subject matter with great sensitivity. I don't know much about Zac.

I couldn't get any answers on that page because people were getting really upset and it became impossible to have a rational discussion without someone taking offense. So I thought I would come to a place where we tend to be able to have rational conversations and ask could this be an issue for you buying the game?

If this has been discussed before and I missed it could someone point be to it?

 

[wedgeski]

It illustrates many things to me about the internet and the gaming community, none of which reflect on WotC's inclusiveness.

 

[Eirikrautha]

Meh...

To paraphrase an example of a notorious logical fallacy, "If Adolf Hitler said the world was round, would that make it flat?"

Unless one of the two is sitting in your gaming group ruining your play, who cares? We're going to play "guilt by association" now? I guess that says something positive about 5e, that the only avenue of criticism that remains is to try and guilt it by association.

If someone sat down at my table and started to bad-mouth other players over irrelevant (i.e. outside of the game considerations), I'd kick them in a heartbeat, whether they were anti or pro inclusiveness. Anything that detracts from the enjoyment of the other players is not tolerated. But to kick someone just because of what someone else said about them on a website? That would make me a hypocrite.

 

[Sadras]

So I thought I would come to a place where we tend to be able to have rational conversations and ask could this be an issue for you buying the game?

No.

These two individuals, whom I don't know very well a part from a few internet posts by RPG Pundit and episodes watched from Zak S's series, have no influence in whether my friends and I will enjoy the game and the books. They can consult whomever they wish - just give me a great game and I'm sold.

It's D&D for goodness sakes. Its not even as close a link as was the relationship between Hugo Boss and the Nazis and people still purchase Hugo Boss products.

 

[jadrax]

http://failforward.co.uk/post/93348768153/how-dungeons-and-dragons-is-endorsing-the-darkest-parts

The linked article is a badly researched mishmash of controversy and lies which no legitimate publisher would touch. It has also now been debunked by at least a dozen sources, many of which included testimony by people who are actually LGBT gamers.

 

[dd.stevenson]

I couldn't get any answers on that page because people were getting really upset and it became impossible to have a rational discussion without someone taking offense.

That's because this matter is a spat between two groups of TTRPG hobbyists who appear to genuinely hate each other. Note that the article you cited does not read as if written by a neutral observer.

 

[Iosue]

In response to the question in the subject, absolutely not. Both men have expressed complete support with the paragraph on gender, and for LGBT people.

Both men can be abrasive in expressing their opinions, but from everything I've seen and read, their issues are with specific people, some of who happen to be LGBT, not with LGBT lifestyles or rights.

Even regardless of these men's support for LGBT and the gender paragraph, they only make two of many consultants, and WotC's desire to be inclusive is and should be reflected in their own actions in the presentation of the RPG and related media, not in their one-time hiring of two particular web personalities for consultation regarding rules and design of the RPG.

I find the linked piece to be manipulative, disingenuous, poorly written, and extremely uncredible, for reasons pretty much outlined in the pieces below.

Marginalized people don't exist for you to weaponize
Factual errors and rhetorical traps in Failforward’s post about DnD 5’s consultants
Seebs

 

[variant]

I never even heard about these two until they were brought up a few(?) weeks ago. Then I did my own research and found all the claims on them baseless without any evidence and moved on.

When again they were brought to my attention I went browsing around again and learned a moderator from rpg.net even went to RPGPundit's forum and gave a public apology for buying into it without doing her own research.

They are both abrasive individuals that gained a number of enemies and many of those that jumped on the bandwagon of the hate train are the same people that absolutely hate 5e and are using it to try and damage it.

 

[Wolfskin]

So I thought I would come to a place where we tend to be able to have rational conversations and ask could this be an issue for you buying the game?

Not really. Both these persons were indeed hired as consultants for the rules of DnD, but that's it- they have no ongoing contract with WotC nor are calling the shots in the design process.

It's not my intention to accuse anybody, but I can't help but feel many people behind this controversy are just people who don't like 5e and are trying to claim a higher moral ground based on these happenings. There's some dirty edition warring going on in there.

 

[whiteape1]

After reading, the link that you provided, and then your post. I can understand on some level what concern there may be. But even with their names attached, I still don't think this undermines the progress the WOTC have made in including different sexual options within the core rule. After all they are only consultants.
I have also seen arguments saying that, the section for sexual orientation, is too small. But honestly that section doesn't need to be adorned or large, it's small for a reason, because now in this day and age sexual orientation does not need to be a big kerfuffle, but a part of life that should just be automatically just accepted.