D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[Obryn]

Wow. Someone used "coloured" and "oriental" in a post saying racism isn't a problem in D&D.

I think we've hit irony overload. If laugh if it weren't so sad.

 

[Morrus]

This thread is for fans to state their preferences for the future direction of the product that they love.

Yes. And the sooner we understand that's what it is and stop slinging around absurd accusations of "censorship" and "political agendas" the better.

I bring up race because this thread is about race primarily.

It started off about race, yes. And you're welcome to talk about it. That's not what I was discussing, though.

Sexism in D&D is a dealt with problem, it is extremely unlikely that Wizards will go back to an older school depiction of women (i.e. were not in the 70s any more and all that goes with that). Back in the 90s this was a real problem, but it's been solved already.

Sexism in gaming isn't, though, in its many forms. This subject, despite the title, has drifted into a far bigger topic than just D&D, as conversations often do.

Like I said, if you don't want to talk about that, don't. It's not compulsory. But stop... eh... trying to censor me! (Man, I'm so funny I kill myself....)

Seriously, if you don't want to discuss that topic, don't. Please stop telling me not to, though.

See the depiction of the harpy over the editions to see the censorship. I'm not saying we need to see boobies when we open our D&D rulebooks, I'm saying someone at TSR and at Wizards made a decision to not continue that trend (i.e. censor the !).

That's not what censorship means. Choosing not to draw a picture is not censorship. Censorship is preventing someone else from expressing something.

WotC is not censoring anything when it decides not to draw a picture of a naked harpy, or a Rolls Royce, or a carrot. Let's at least use the right words, eh?

 

[The Choice]

The remaking of a game's artwork in order to fufil an ideal about the way society should be perceived really is political propaganda.

From a commercial standpoint, it's not political, it's basic economics.

Also, I don't know why making a fantasy game more open, respectful of diversity, and fairer in its depiction of race and gender is such a problem.

"I'm down with that dragon flying, breathing lightning, and that dude just throwing bat guano into the air to make a fireball appear, but a chick fighting it in something other than a chainmail that conveniently allows for her midriff and cleavage to be seen? Verisimilitude broken, dude! Oh and is that halfling black? Worst. Game. Ever."

How women feel about D&D is not encapsulated into its artwork at all

It isn't, but its artwork could be construed as to represent the game's authors' feeling about women.

making women feel comfortable is the job of the DM and the players and (to some extent) the rule book

This assumes GMs are the chief gateway into the hobby. An assertion I am not going to contradict. But, for many women I know, access to a gaming group only came after they went out and familiarized themselves with gaming on their own. If that investigation turns up a vast pool of imagery and themes that degrade them or makes them feel uncomfortable, they are much more likely to never pick up a game like D&D.

but let us not forget, women already feel comfortable with D&D, as do players of all races, because D&D is not in anyway sexist or racist.

Not voluntarily, but at times (because of "tradition") it can be accidentally.

And women aren't necessarily "comfortable" with D&D. We have one in this thread that isn't comfortable with the portrayal of characters of her gender in the game. Not enough for us to call it significative of anything, but reason enough for us to look at the question with an open mind and to reconsider our stance on it.

Old school artwork which showed women as 'sex objects' has already been pruged from D&D.

Nope. Numerous exemples to the contrary
have been cited in this very thread.

What's being discussed here is the removal of white folk from artwork in line with a misperception that somehow not seeing a black dwarf is putting people of other races off playing. Obviously, this is nonsense.

Not removal, appropriately proportional.

And, seriously, would seeing a dark-skinned dwarf (already exists : gold dwarves in FR) or elf break your "immersion".

I used to work in eLearning and the amount of political correct boxes that have to be ticked to deliver a project in this sector, for government clients, is very very high (as you might expect). But there we are dealing with photography and representing the demographic of the real user base. Here, with D&D, we are not representing real elves or real dwarves or real halflings or real humans. It's nothing like it. 'Bringing D&D into line' with liberal values is a purely political motivation dressed up as addressing a wrong; a wrong that doesn't actually exist. No chinese person is complaining that they see western characters in a western RPG.

In your imagination, maybe all elves are white, and there's a planet full of only white people. That's not the case in mine.

Question for you : should the cover of D&D Next's Player's Handbook prominently features a black character of a fantasy race, do you buy it (for argument's sake, pretend you will like the ruleset)?

It's time to tell the truth; there is an agenda at play that wants to reinvent ALL MEDIA to be culturally diverse. That in itself is not a bad thing. It just does not know it's limits, it's too stupid to understand that fantasy is not reality... and so it is playing out in D&D now. And it's probably unstoppable.

You are right that there is an agenda here. Actually, there are two : players who seek to have a game that represents values they deem important (inclusiveness, respect, diversity, etc.) along with their own experience of their gender or race, and businesses that want to thrive in an ever competitive market. One's vaguely political, the other one is just applied marketing research and basic economics.

 

[Mike Eagling]

Some people just don't want to see white folk when they open a book up, I guess.

Has this ever been the opinion of anyone posting in this thread? I admit, due to it's length, I've dipped in and out and may have missed something but isn't the "request" to include more variation in ethnicity not the total removal of another?

 

[Obryn]

Has this ever been the opinion of anyone posting in this thread? I admit, due to it's length, I've dipped in and out and may have missed something but isn't the "request" to include more variation in ethnicity not the total removal of another?

Nope, that was beamed into his head by the CIA.

-O

 

[Morrus]

Has this ever been the opinion of anyone posting in this thread? I admit, due to it's length, I've dipped in and out and may have missed something but isn't the "request" to include more variation in ethnicity not the total removal of another?

Nah, it's a complete strawman. He's inventing positions to argue against; nobody's expressed that desire. Or for censorship. Or for most of the other things he's strenuously arguing against.

 

[Ratskinner]

I've first hand experience of political correctness, I used to develop eLearning resources for government clients, so I do know what I'm talking about here. I'm not saying you are government, I'm saying the situation here is basically the same; pretty soon they'll have to be disabled people depicted in D&D artwork because, well, it's putting people in wheel chairs off playing. This is way they think, this is the agenda at play.

What? You never saw a pirate-type adventurer with a peg leg or hook hand? Heck, one of my favorite characters in fantasy literature is called "One-Eye". He hangs around with a character called "Darling" who is a mute and yet somehow leads a successful rebellion against one of the most powerful magic-users on her world using sign language that they call "finger talk". Somebody around here must have read or watched Game of Thrones, one of the kids (sorry its been a while for me, Bran?, maybe?) loses the use of his legs early on, and is still an important character EVEN ON AN ADVENTURE. Blind prophets, anyone?

Physical exemplars of masculinity or femininity are one type of fantasy that people wish to explore. Those of us who are comfortable with the form and function of our genitalia sometimes like to explore other options. I don't see why they shouldn't appear in the artwork as well. I don't consider it a great imposition to ask that the artwork in the hobby's flagship game appear a little more sophisticated. If that makes me part of some mysterious "they", then so be it.

 

[TanithT]

No one on this thread is calling for women to be portrayed asexually - the criticism is of women being portrayed as hyper sexualised for the pleasure of the imputed male viewer - and the only duty I have advoctaed is one of not portraying all women as hypersexualised in this particular way without regard to context and content.

The issue is a bit more complex than that. I don't think there is any problem with material where adult men and women are consensually sexualized for the viewing pleasure of adults. The problem is when ONLY women are CONSTANTLY sexualized in nonsensical contexts that make them look stupid, silly, useless, frivolous, ridiculous, suicidal, idiotic, unworthy of respect, cannot take them seriously, strictly eye candy and not effective heroes or adventurers, etc.

The message that delivers is a clear and powerful one when men are shown as the strong heroes and women are shown mainly as useless, frivolous sex objects whose sole purpose is to be ogled by men. They are clearly not accomplishing any other damn thing due to how they are dressed in the circumstances. Except possibly being killed because they are sure as hell not dressed to survive, or to earn any regard for themselves and their accomplishments as opposed to their bodies.

That's the problem with it. I am seriously boggled with the people who think it's about morality or censorship. It is plainly and simply about not being stupid, and not making one gender into eye candy for the other gender at the expense of showing them as useless and stupid. When softporn makes actual sense in the context of the game material and it does not show anyone being stupid, I have no issue with it in an adult supplement. Are they at a cocktail party or in their own bedroom? Skimpy attire is fine. Are they in a dungeon, in the hostile wilderness, or on a battlefield? That's gonna get you killed. That is stupid.

The issue is with women being consistently depicted as stupid and as useless for anything other than sex appeal. That is not cool. Demanding that all women be sexualized for your viewing pleasure all the time, even at the expense of showing them as stupid and useless, is not okay. You are demeaning other people for your fun, and the result is that those people are a lot less likely to want anything to do with you or your idea of fun.

I don't think some folks on this thread understand how powerful and pervasive that message is. There is a reason that a lot of women don't feel comfortable in gaming. I certainly don't. This is the reason. The material is very specifically not made for us, it's made to appeal to heterosexual males at the expense of making us look stupid and frivolous and good for nothing except showing our bodies. That is not a welcoming message for women.

The reason this needs to stop is not just about women, either. That level of pandering insults everyone's intelligence, and it keeps up the stereotype that gamers are sniggering, immature nerdy virgins who can't relate to women who aren't imaginary. If that isn't who you are, if you are a grown man who is not threatened by normal, non cartoonish women who have jobs and lives and dress normally and expect the same respect as men when they do those jobs, then you don't need your D&D art to be nothing but chainmail bikinis.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

See the depiction of the harpy over the editions to see the censorship.

I hate it when people throw that word around improperly.

Neither the government nor its agents forced a change in the depicting of creatures like the Harpy, ergo, no censorship.

 

[TanithT]

I hate it when people throw that word around improperly.

Neither the government nor its agents forced a change in the depicting of creatures like the Harpy, ergo, no censorship.

Doesn't occur to anyone that bewbs on a bird is kind of silly, anyhow? Makes about as much sense as having them on a reptile. Hello, not mammals, ergo no mammary glands.

Still, depictions of a harpy or a succubus are not actually in the 'stupid' category. Assuming you can get past the whole avian/mammalian biology thing by imputing it to magic, anyhow. If it makes actual sense for them to be showing boobs as opposed to it being incredibly foolish for them to be doing so, at least you're not demeaning the character being depicted by showing her as stupid.