D&D Developers Explain Choices on Gender Diversity in New Edition

[UberPubert]

First: Not everyone will have actually CONSIDERED that they could create any kind of character they so pleased.

That just makes it sound like it's their fault. This isn't even a matter of Wizards adding LGBT labels to an existing sheet, there was no spot on the sheet for these qualities - cisgendered or heterosexual. DnD sheets didn't bother including them because it didn't discriminate on a character's ability to be an adventurer based on these qualities. How such a non-discriminatory attitude that's persisted for decades be seen as the opposite is to ignore the definition and intent completely. Asking to be especially acknowledged when other groups aren't isn't a move for equality, it's pushing for special treatment.

Second: D&D is a game of numbers and information, and that information plays a crucial role to the game.

The game doesn't care about player eye or hair color either, partially because some races all have the same eye color, and/or no hair, but also because it doesn't matter. It's not important to the mechanics so it isn't normally recorded - players are free to write in their own description, or hell, just show up with art of their own character, but it didn't change the game, just like it isn't now. Also, names are recorded in case a GM forgets and race actually does have important abilities/bonuses/penalties, you can't argue they're as superfluous as gender/sexual identity.

 

[Rellik San]

Second: D&D is a game of numbers and information, and that information plays a crucial role to the game.

The game doesn't care about player eye or hair color either, partially because some races all have the same eye color, and/or no hair, but also because it doesn't matter. It's not important to the mechanics so it isn't normally recorded - players are free to write in their own description, or hell, just show up with art of their own character, but it didn't change the game, just like it isn't now. Also, names are recorded in case a GM forgets and race actually does have important abilities/bonuses/penalties, you can't argue they're as superfluous as gender/sexual identity.

I don't mean to be rude to your GM, but if your characters appearence weren't taken into context in certain situations, then he was a pretty lousy GM. Often my GM's would have appearance play a factor "Oh, so you want to be an Elf ranger with glowing silver eyes and shimmering white hair... good luck tracking shit at night, fool." Oft times it's of no importance other times it can greatly effect the outcome of something: "Oh, this Dwarf is wanted," can become "This dwarf with a specific scar that looks like yours is wanted," little details that can seemingly have no effect on a game can often have more results than you'd think.

Including things like gender and sexual identity can be just as important as any distinguishing physical traits you give your character and if you don't believe me on that, just ask anyone who's Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay GM threw them up against a Slaaneshi cult.

 

[UberPubert]

I don't mean to be rude to your GM, but if your characters appearence weren't taken into context in certain situations, then he was a pretty lousy GM. Often my GM's would have appearance play a factor "Oh, so you want to be an Elf ranger with glowing silver eyes and shimmering white hair... good luck tracking shit at night, fool."

Can normal elves even have that? It sounds like he's some kind of planar half-breed like an Aasimar. And what does it matter if his eyes glow? Are you implying he blinds himself with his own ocular radiance?

Oft times it's of no importance other times it can greatly effect the outcome of something: "Oh, this Dwarf is wanted," can become "This dwarf with a specific scar that looks like yours is wanted," little details that can seemingly have no effect on a game can often have more results than you'd think.

Of course a character's appearance can mean something when you're trying to describe it, but seeing as how the mechanical effects on appearance is limited it tends not to come up. I once made a half-orc barbarian (stereotype of stereotypes, eh?) but I figured I'd have a difficult time getting work if he looked like a savage and made it clear he'd gone to great lengths to clean himself up to look like a more reliable mercenary. It was acknowledged and that was pretty much the end of it, barring a few side comments about "the dressed-up orc".

Including things like gender and sexual identity can be just as important as any distinguishing physical traits you give your character and if you don't believe me on that, just ask anyone who's Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay GM threw them up against a Slaaneshi cult.

Are Slaaneshi cult encounters really that common, though? I'll make it more general: Are characters regularly expected to be having sex or being sexually attracted to others, or having others sexually attracted to them? In my experience, no. Typical RPGs are about adventure, and action - not sex or romantic relationships (running contrary to video game RPGs in that sector, I suppose). Most people I've encountered weren't fond of the idea of bringing the game to a halt for sexual encounters, part out of disinterest and also making members of the group a little uncomfortable if they're not really close friends.

Which isn't for me to say that other groups aren't supposed to do that, but if they do, would it be such a great stretch to assume they'd feel comfortable making note of their character's gender/sex identity beforehand? Or at the very least, not be made to feel uncomfortable by the game not specifically including it?

 

[Rellik San]

Can normal elves even have that? It sounds like he's some kind of planar half-breed like an Aasimar. And what does it matter if his eyes glow? Are you implying he blinds himself with his own ocular radiance?

Well anything theoretically could make his or her eyes glow (magic items, spell buff, etc.), I'm implying that as a ranger, it would make their stealth abilities somewhat inoperable.

Of course a character's appearance can mean something when you're trying to describe it, but seeing as how the mechanical effects on appearance is limited it tends not to come up. I once made a half-orc barbarian (stereotype of stereotypes, eh?) but I figured I'd have a difficult time getting work if he looked like a savage and made it clear he'd gone to great lengths to clean himself up to look like a more reliable mercenary. It was acknowledged and that was pretty much the end of it, barring a few side comments about "the dressed-up orc".

Which is fair enough, mechanically it can serve little point... then again "I'm an 8' tall warrior built like a barn," probably would have negative effects on your ability to tunnel fight, description can be as effective or passive as the DM chooses.

Are Slaaneshi cult encounters really that common, though? I'll make it more general: Are characters regularly expected to be having sex or being sexually attracted to others, or having others sexually attracted to them? In my experience, no. Typical RPGs are about adventure, and action - not sex or romantic relationships (running contrary to video game RPGs in that sector, I suppose). Most people I've encountered weren't fond of the idea of bringing the game to a halt for sexual encounters, part out of disinterest and also making members of the group a little uncomfortable if they're not really close friends.

Slaaneshi cults are as likely as cults of the other 3 chaos gods, each god represents something so you have Tzeentch (corruption and change), Khorne (War and Bloodlust), Nurgle (Pestilence and bile) and Slaanesh (Temptations and perversion). All of whom in the Warhammer universe are quite likely to be ran into. Slaanesh is of particular importance if you have elves or an elf heavy campaign, of course that's not say Slaanesh will always play on sexual desire, there are other temptations for sure, but sexual deviancy is ever so a favourite of that perverted he/she (Gender ambiguity doesn't even begin to cover Slaanesh, all things and none of them at all times) and the followers there of. I mean of course a good GM won't dwell on the stickier details, but trying to tempt someone through roleplay is a possibility and having information about such things is an important factor when trying to set up whatever fate will befall them, knowing if it's the bar wench succubus, or a stable hand incubus that's needed makes the difference.

Which isn't for me to say that other groups aren't supposed to do that, but if they do, would it be such a great stretch to assume they'd feel comfortable making note of their character's gender/sex identity beforehand? Or at the very least, not be made to feel uncomfortable by the game not specifically including it?

At the end of the day, it's upto the players and GM's to play however they want and use and throw away whatever rules don't make sense to them. As a result I wouldn't even like to guess what players in a wide ranging hobby like this would feel about it, but if you and your group don't like it, fine, no one's forcing you to use it, just do what you think is best for your group. But with that in mind, just because broaching the (or any subject, i.e. the holocaust) subject is something you're uncomfortable with doesn't mean other groups are too, so why there is the resistance to a tiny paragraph in the book or people basically telling others: "Well if you include that, you're playing it wrong" (before we go there, I know you're not saying that in the least), I'll never know, it's a fantastical game with fantastical adventures and if some like those to get sexy, if some use it to adjust reaction bonuses (oh look a mechanical effect it COULD have on the game) then so be it.

 

[UberPubert]

Well anything theoretically could make his or her eyes glow (magic items, spell buff, etc.), I'm implying that as a ranger, it would make their stealth abilities somewhat inoperable.

There's certain spells that can alter a character's appearance for sure, but their use is limited to the point where I'd hesitate to call their effects a feature of a character's regular appearance.

Which is fair enough, mechanically it can serve little point... then again "I'm an 8' tall warrior built like a barn," probably would have negative effects on your ability to tunnel fight, description can be as effective or passive as the DM chooses.

Mechanically speaking size categories and their various bonuses and penalties are supposed to cover abnormally large creatures, and as far as core races go even half-orcs only get as big as 6'10".

My only point here being that - working within the regular restrictions placed on races during character creation - appearances and similar character features are only worth what players and GMs agree on. I'll concede exceptions may occur based on setting (Since you appear familiar with the subject, compare a dnd dwarf without a beard, who would be nothing special, to a warhammer dwarf without a beard, who would be someone typically disgraced or outcast in dwarven society) but these rarely reflect the views of the people creating the game, and I doubt they mean to discourage anyone from creating characters who are atypical of what's depicted in the books.

Slaaneshi cults are as likely as cults of the other 3 chaos gods, each god represents something so you have Tzeentch (corruption and change), Khorne (War and Bloodlust), Nurgle (Pestilence and bile) and Slaanesh (Temptations and perversion). All of whom in the Warhammer universe are quite likely to be ran into. Slaanesh is of particular importance if you have elves or an elf heavy campaign, of course that's not say Slaanesh will always play on sexual desire, there are other temptations for sure, but sexual deviancy is ever so a favourite of that perverted he/she (Gender ambiguity doesn't even begin to cover Slaanesh, all things and none of them at all times) and the followers there of. I mean of course a good GM won't dwell on the stickier details, but trying to tempt someone through roleplay is a possibility and having information about such things is an important factor when trying to set up whatever fate will befall them, knowing if it's the bar wench succubus, or a stable hand incubus that's needed makes the difference.

But a Warhammer party is just as likely to run into many other kinds of enemies (skaven, tomb kings, ogres, greenskins, lizardmen, chaos dwarfs, etc.) that make sexual (or even just social) encounters almost impossible. Slaanesh and their cultists make up a very small part of the universe and interacting with them through sexual temptations directed at the player is a very specific kind of encounter, and the same goes for the succubi of dnd. The GM has a plethora of substitutes at any given time, and while situations that can call for the player character's sexuality aren't implausible, I'd wager you could get along just fine without them.

At the end of the day, it's upto the players and GM's to play however they want and use and throw away whatever rules don't make sense to them. As a result I wouldn't even like to guess what players in a wide ranging hobby like this would feel about it, but if you and your group don't like it, fine, no one's forcing you to use it, just do what you think is best for your group. But with that in mind, just because broaching the (or any subject, i.e. the holocaust) subject is something you're uncomfortable with doesn't mean other groups are too, so why there is the resistance to a tiny paragraph in the book or people basically telling others: "Well if you include that, you're playing it wrong" (before we go there, I know you're not saying that in the least), I'll never know, it's a fantastical game with fantastical adventures and if some like those to get sexy, if some use it to adjust reaction bonuses (oh look a mechanical effect it COULD have on the game) then so be it.

I think you've misunderstood me completely at this point so I'll just make a few clarifications.

First, I'm not uncomfortable with exploring sex or sexuality in RPGs (PnP or otherwise) but I do tend to fall into the former category of disinterest I mentioned earlier. It's just not why I play, I don't mean to criticize anyone who does, and it's not as if my group avoids it like the plague we just don't delve into it often.

Second, I have no issues approaching hard subjects like the holocaust (though, I wouldn't compare transgender/homosexuality in DnD to it) and I don't have a problem with anyone who does, I think anything should be able to be discussed or explored, even in the context of a game, or a joke - even if it's tasteless.

Finally, I'm not saying transgender/homosexuality doesn't belong, what I'm trying to explain is I don't think it was ever meant to not be there.

To me, the implication that this is a great big change from the norm of the freedom allowed in DnD also seems to imply that they are, or were at some point, transphopic/homophic, and didn't welcome those kinds of players. That they felt the need to address it, and that others are responding to it as if it's relevant, seems practically regressive.

To put it into perspective: Imagine if they came out with a new press release to confirm that their players could choose to have different skin colors other than white. Wouldn't that seem a little dated and out of place (especially in a game where you can play as a different species, let alone race)?

 

[JSoup]

Seems like a big kerfuffle over nothing.
Whatever they said, the best reason for adding these is "This is an RPG about role playing. More options are better than less options."

 

[Vegosiux]

All I know is that I could have picked "Motorcycle" for my gender in all my games so far, and nobody told me I couldn't. Point is, these options weren't restricted to begin with.

Seems like a big kerfuffle over nothing.
Whatever they said, the best reason for adding these is "This is an RPG about role playing. More options are better than less options."

That's the thing. It's not like any option was added. It's just "Oh by the way, you can do this too, and we'll pretend you couldn't so far, even if you could."

 

[Harry Mason]

This is wonderful. Everyone saying that this is "pointless" is... Uh... Missing the point. But Jeremy Crawford hit the nail right on the head. This isn't about pandering (it's likely to piss more people off than it endears), and it's not that D&D barred those types of characters at any point before. It's looking those minorities in the eyes and saying "we see you, come sit at our table."

Horseshit on a stick this isn't about pandering. This is a blatant panic move on the part of WotC to regain their massive amount of lost marketshare with the abortion that was 4th Ed. Rather than do something substantive they toss out a throwaway gesture as an attempt to lock in the LBGT market and gain SJW cred.

Man, if you think that there is a financially substantial amount of geeks sitting around going, "I'm not sure about this new edition of D&D, but I think I'd be swayed by a marked acknowledgement of transgendered people," you probably love D&D because you're well equipped at living in a fantasy world (did you see the perfect set-up/execution of that joke? *high five*)

Attempting to make the game play like 2nd edition might reasonably be viewed as pandering. Having the Tiefling included as a base character race is pandering. Having the Warlock grandfathered in as a PHB class is pandering. Including a socially progressive sentiment in a game marketed at a culture that struggles with said sentiment... Well, if they're pandering, they're not doing a very good job.

If this good will gesture bothers you, I'd suggest taking a deeper look at why you feel that way. If you think that being welcoming towards more diverse players is somehow botched recompense for the failure of 4th edition, you may harbor some fundamental misunderstandings about the realities of both marketing and your feelings towards GLBTQ people. Also, Wizards is in no way panicked. They are making enough money to develop their own nation and private military off of this game either way. Throwing a bone to us queers is more likely to lose them money than earn fictional SJW (Single Japanese Women?) cash.

On the other hand, if you're just determined to hate 5th at all costs, I can't begrudge you that. 4th was bad enough to act at least a little unreasonable over. Because... I mean... Damn...