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

[BlameTheWizards]

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

"Including the material brings value in two big ways: it looks a segment of our audience in the eyes and tells them that we see them, and it encourages our other players to consider the spectacular array of characters that they can create in D&D," said co-lead Jeremy Crawford.

Perhaps one of the biggest stories to come out of the impending launch of Dungeons & Dragons latest edition was Wizards of the Coast's very direct acknowledgment of gender diversity within the game rules. In the basic rule set for the game, which were released for free <a href=http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/basicrules>on Wizards website earlier this summer, the entry on "Sex" in the "Personality and Background" section tells players that they "don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender," and even states that the game's chief elven god is seen as both androgynous and hermaphroditic. The rules also, for the first time, explicitly state that a character's sexual orientation is completely up to the player to decide.

In a recent interview with The Mary Sue, Dungeons & Dragons lead designers Jeremy Crawford and Mike Mearls talked at length about their design to encourage that diversity. Said Crawford:


We knew early on that we wanted the new edition to be inclusive: inclusive of beloved material from previous editions, inclusive of different play styles, and inclusive of a varied cast of characters. We also wanted to be welcoming to as many D&D players as possible, to look at the wonderfully diverse group of people who play the game and say, "There's a place for each of you at the game table." ... Including the material brings value in two big ways: it looks a segment of our audience in the eyes and tells them that we see them, and it encourages our other players to consider the spectacular array of characters that they can create in D&D."


The text for the chapter came from Crawford talking with writers and editors at Wizards, who helped tweak the wording, before getting final approval from Mearls, who weighed in with some thoughts of his own:


I think a lot of RPG designers are in the same place that we were, in the sense that they want their games to be inclusive but don't always quite get how to do that ... Any social change takes time. My personal sense is that I've always been much more leery about offending gay and transgender folks by fumbling the issue in an effort to include them. I'm not worried about offending bigots - quite the opposite, in fact. The value lies simply in acknowledgement, and realizing that it's better to put something out there than remain quiet out of a misplaced bout of sensitivity


Mearls also called this flexibility of character design "hugely important" to tabletop RPGs, since they're designed to encourage creativity. The interview focused on a variety of other topics as well, including the art direction for the new edition. Mearls mentioned that the development team - including an art team consisting almost entirely of women - decided early on that they were going "to avoid bare midriffs, cleavage, and other common gaming tropes. We only use those if a specific character would actually dress that way," such as the demonic incubus and his six-pack abs.


For more news on the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons, check out our <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136372-Exclusive-The-Table-of-Contents-and-Sorcerer-From-the-D-D-Players-Handbook>exclusive look at the table of contents and the Sorcerer class from the upcoming Player's Handbook.

Source: The Mary Sue

Permalink

 

[Fappy]

I don't really see the point in this, but then I've never really looked to the rules to aid in the roleplay aspect of my characters (either PC or otherwise). I mean, D&D has been fairly inclusive for a long time as far as the published material goes. IIRC the gender pronoun they used in their 3rd edition books was "she" and "her" as opposed to the previously assumed "he" and "his". Also, Pathfinder has an even split of male and female representation in their class archetypes, including very non-traditional choices like a female Barbarian and Paladin.

Addressing this sort of stuff "officially" within the rules just seems kind of... pointless? The real issue inherent in any kind of sex/gender issue related to this hobby is two-fold:

1. Biased/sexist/etc. notions the community at large has (whose views will not be changed by a paragraph of flavor rules)
2. The art. Yes, we all love Red Sonja and the art on old Robert E. Howard books, but D&D used to be plagued with way too many nonsensically near-naked ladies. This is primarily woman's issue, not really a gender identity/sexual orientation issue, but it's more-or-less related and is thankfully being addressed by the creators (though they are late to that particular party)

I guess I just think it's silly that they're even drawing attention to this. It's really not a big deal and even kind of expected at this point.

 

[Karadalis]

Wait wait wait... the chief elven god is gender fluid?

SLAANESH! What are you doing in DnD? Youre suposed to stay in GW land!

Effing chaos gods and their shenanigans...

 

[Auberon]

Bitches don't know 'bout Vivec's Muatra. Although he lacks the androgynous attributes, but not for long...

 

[Istilldontcare]

I don't really see the point in this, but then I've never really looked to the rules to aid in the roleplay aspect of my characters (either PC or otherwise). I mean, D&D has been fairly inclusive for a long time as far as the published material goes. IIRC the gender pronoun they used in their 3rd edition books was "she" and "her" as opposed to the previously assumed "he" and "his". Also, Pathfinder has an even split of male and female representation in their class archetypes, including very non-traditional choices like a female Barbarian and Paladin.

Addressing this sort of stuff "officially" within the rules just seems kind of... pointless? The real issue inherent in any kind of sex/gender issue related to this hobby is two-fold:

1. Biased/sexist/etc. notions the community at large has (whose views will not be changed by a paragraph of flavor rules)
2. The art. Yes, we all love Red Sonja and the art on old Robert E. Howard books, but D&D used to be plagued with way too many nonsensically near-naked ladies. This is primarily woman's issue, not really a gender identity/sexual orientation issue, but it's more-or-less related and is thankfully being addressed by the creators (though they are late to that particular party)

I guess I just think it's silly that they're even drawing attention to this. It's really not a big deal and even kind of expected at this point.

I don't think you quite get why they doing this in context to D&D as a game. This is specifically an update that addresses a lack of acknowledge of Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Characters in D&D. The game does not have a system to specify if you character likes to have sex with a person of the same sex, both sexes, or identifies as a gender they were not born as. This is important because DMs are supposed to tailor the quests based on the character type. ALL of the natural quests given to a DM assumes that the characters are straight-cis people.

Now they are addressing it by putting sexuality on the character sheet and writing the quests to have the DM look at the character sheet and determine whether to make the sex demon a succubus or incubus that wants to attack a particular party member, or what character to have try to seduce a character in the party. Before the DM had to figure out how to handle this themselves and remember the orientation of the character separate from the character sheet. Having it on the character sheet makes it easy to remember, but it also has another element: suggestion. By including sexuality as an aspect of personality, it encourages players to play characters that are gay or transgendered who might not have considered that in the past. By putting sexuality on the card, it makes the player consider an aspect of who they are playing that was not previously asked of them.

 

[Greymanelor]

I... guess this is good? I don't know, it seems more like needless attention grabbing.

To me it seems like it might be better if they just didn't make any statements about gender or sexuality at all. I've never known anyone who even paid attention to what they might have said about such things in the older editions or at least, if they did, never let it stop them from doing whatever they wanted to anyway.

 

[Fappy]

I don't think you quite get why they doing this in context to D&D as a game.

I understand it just fine.

This is specifically an update that addresses a lack of acknowledge of Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Characters in D&D. The game does not have a system to specify if you character likes to have sex with a person of the same sex, both sexes, or identifies as a gender they were not born as. This is important because DMs are supposed to tailor the quests based on the character type.

If your gender identity/sexual orientation is so core to your character that you need aspects of the campaign custom tailored to it you will have already found a place to write that down.

ALL of the natural quests given to a DM assumes that the characters are straight-cis people.

What does this even mean? Are you talking about adventure paths? One of the first big NPC friendlies you meet in Rise of the Runelords is a bisexual...

Now they are addressing it by putting sexuality on the character sheet and writing the quests to have the DM look at the character sheet and determine whether to make the sex demon a succubus or incubus that wants to attack a particular party member, or what character to have try to seduce a character in the party.

I can't speak for other GM's, but I don't think I'd forget if one of the PC's was trans or gay. That's a pretty distinct character trait in a fantasy setting.

Before the DM had to figure out how to handle this themselves and remember the orientation of the character separate from the character sheet. Having it on the character sheet makes it easy to remember, but it also has another element: suggestion. By including sexuality as an aspect of personality, it encourages players to play characters that are gay or transgendered who might not have considered that in the past. By putting sexuality on the card, it makes the player consider an aspect of who they are playing that was not previously asked of them.

That's the best argument you have going for you here, but it doesn't exactly discredit what I have said. I never said I had a problem with them including any of this. In fact, I am happy they did. My argument is why it had to be focused on like this in the first place. They're acting like it's this big, progressive statement they're making when it really isn't. Maybe they deserve more credit than I am giving them, but knowing that a lot of other game companies are already miles ahead of them in this regard kind of takes the wind out of their sails.

 

[Kerethos]

I've never played the american D&D (outside of old Bioware games), but the Swedish, or just other, tabletop RPG's that I've played have not been that interested in gender differences or sexuality.

I think one had rather extensive rules about pregnancy, and how traits could be inherited and such, but that's about it. From a statistical perspective, there's really no difference between the two.

I mean this has been pretty much the standard representation of women in Swedish RPG's for, at least, a few decades:

Yes, some kind of ranger-type, which might be a bit stereotypical. But women are fully clothed and functionally dressed, and look as capable as the male adventurers. They're not wearing some leather corset, deep cleavage dress or metal bikini.

And we're a country known for naked blondes

Edit: about sexuality
And if you want to be hated for being gay or transsexual, you'd pretty much have to find and play in a culture where that for some reason wouldn't be accepted. Like some noble campaign where you'd be expected to have children. And from my experience, a transgender character = great at disguises. Making players say: "Join my part, please". Because they don't really care what's in those pants or under that skirt. It's a useful skill either way.

Or, you know, just a fun detail about the character added to make it unique. But I guess that just the outlook you get when art that looks like something out of a Conan cover isn't your norm for characters?

 

[Weaver]

I see this as wholly pointless. There were never restrictions like this in the first place. Why tell the player "By the way, you don't have to adhere to binary gender!" when no one ever had to in the first place? I'm not offended by it, I'm just beyond belief that there are players out there who will think "Wow, I never thought of that! I'd better roll one up right away!"

I like to play all kinds of crazy characters. My last pathfinder character was a 107 year old widow who ran an inn by herself. She had -6 to all physical stats cause of her age.

I guess this depends on what kind of campaign your in too. We've been doing a dungeon crawl for about 8 months and sexuality has never cropped up even once. It's basically about combat and loot.

 

[FavouredEnemy]

For all the people who can't see the point in this, who think it's attention grabbing, who are confused about why bothering: from my perspective as a member of the LGBT community, and with lots of geeky friends who are LGBT, I can't understate how important a step this is for many of us. If it doesn't affect you, cool! Run or play whatever game you want to! If I knew you in real life, I might take more time to explain why it's important - but I'd just like to ask people to respect that it is important to other people, even if you don't know why

 

[UberPubert]

I pointed this out during the bioware's dragon age inquisition/cupcake news article and I think it still stands here. DnD (and most of your typical RPG settings in general) have allowed players to make pretty much whatever they want over the years, gender or sexual identity was never really addressed because it was never important in the mechanical sense. It's not like characters were being restricted on the type of clothes they could wear or activities they could enjoy based on what gender they identified as, they were as free as the GM allowed them to be. They didn't even have to be human (or even humanoid), so even the otherkin could be satisfied.

Establishing named characters of atypical gender or sexual identity is not an unwelcome change, but feels like a wholly unnecessary one. Nothing stopped players before.

 

[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."

If that isn't beautiful I don't know what is.

 

[faefrost]

Ummm WTF?!?! If ever there was a game that really did not have a pressing need for a new take on Gender Issues it has got to be the classic table top Pen and Paper Role Playing Game where you could literally and easily Role Play as anything you and your friends wanted to be. 500 year old Dwarven Vegisexual? Sure go for it! This has been possible in the game since what 1980 or so at a minimum? It's not like anything that this would involve would or should require rolling a D20. (And if it does?... EWWWWW!) This is a game that does and always has existed purely within the players imaginations. I think actually codifying this or putting in any sorts of rules governing this subject is far more limiting (and rather insulting to the playerbase) than simply leaving it for the players to simply be who they want to be.

Heck in my old player group the first thing they would do when faced with any sorts of rules like this would be to try and come up with something so absurd that the rules actually do not cover it. And nobody needs that. (besides the Japanese anime and manga industry all ready went there years ago.)

 

[The Material Sheep]

For all the people who can't see the point in this, who think it's attention grabbing, who are confused about why bothering: from my perspective as a member of the LGBT community, and with lots of geeky friends who are LGBT, I can't understate how important a step this is for many of us. If it doesn't affect you, cool! Run or play whatever game you want to! If I knew you in real life, I might take more time to explain why it's important - but I'd just like to ask people to respect that it is important to other people, even if you don't know why

I suppose. Being a member of the LGBT community, I don't see how this adds much to my experience of DnD anyway. Though I suppose I never liked or played fourth edition and have completely migrated to Pathfinder at this point. Great system, and a very inclusive setting while still feeling like it's not covered in bubble wrap.

This doesn't seem like pandering. It seems sincere. I realistically believe there doesn't need to be a mechanical reference to gender other than, you can do what you want with the mechanics. It seems much more relevant to the actual settings that DnD uses, than the mechanical rules.

 

[Product Placement]

"Sex" in the "Personality and Background" section tells players that they "don't need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender," and even states that the game's chief elven god is seen as both androgynous and hermaphroditic. The rules also, for the first time, explicitly state that a character's sexual orientation is completely up to the player to decide.

You mean to tell me that a game where I can be whatever I imagine me to be, allows me to be whatever I imagine me to be?

Who would have thought?

 

[Kanova]

But its DnD. You could do whatever the fuck you wanted to do in the first place. You didn't need the book or rules to say you could be a homo if you wanted.

 

[PhantomEcho]

Seriously, people... how hard is this to grasp. This plays two major roles of importance.


First: Not everyone will have actually CONSIDERED that they could create any kind of character they so pleased. Not -every- potential player is so fortunate as to be surrounded by supportive folks telling them that it's cool to roll however the hell they want, and seeing that the rules pretty much said nothing about them one way or the other wouldn't exactly help someone worried about the game's inclusiveness to make an informed decision. D&D's extant world largely ignored the entire situation... leaving it, as everything else, up to the players to sort out. Since when, however, has IGNORING an entire group of people been the acceptable answer to any situation? I've got plenty of friends who fall under that LGBT moniker, and they've always been very vocal about 'going unseen' being as much a part of the problem as being openly discriminated against. I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I'm certain most everyone has heard that argument before. It's a mainstay of the equality-for-everyone-forever movement. If you somehow managed to miss it, I think you might be failing to internet properly.

Second: D&D is a game of numbers and information, and that information plays a crucial role to the game. While the player is certainly free to modify the game however they please, interpret or break rules on a whim, and evidently even 'fudge the numbers' a little if it suits the situation, it has ALWAYS been the intention of the rules and books to provide as COMPLETE and COMPELLING a framework as possible for the players to build off. How can anyone argue that this was a wasted effort when the MERE EXISTENCE of the rules and books is an equally wasted effort according to those same guidelines?

If you can already play the game however you please, what's the point of any of the information? What value is there in writing all these books, if players are just going to take the data and warp it however they see fit?

To dismiss the fact that the gender and sexuality of a character is clearly stated and accounted for in the character sheet is to ignore that the mere EXISTENCE of a character sheet is utterly unnecessary according to this same logic. It's an acknowledgement. It's there for the same reason that your sheets remind you of your RACE and NAME. Thoroughness.

The value of all data to the core of D&D is in its consistency and thoroughness. This is just another layer of thoroughness, with the added benefit of informing outsiders and reminding seasoned players that there are actual PEOPLE writing these rules and they are acknowledging the diverse body of players in an official capacity.

 

[Lady Larunai]

I don't see the point in pandering nobody stopped you from playing a gay wizard if you wanted or a lesbian bearded transsexual dwarf, it's kind of sad if you need a line on a bit of paper marked gender to play the character you want.

 

[Angelowl]

Meanwhile in Exalted has the dominant culture with a social norm that you are supposed to sleep around with your friends, coworkers and superiors in order to not be seen as prude. Gender not relevant. One of the setting's primary deities changes sex at will, the game has rules for getting pregnant in a gender bent state. One of the city states have strict gender norms but simple juridical sex change due to the argument "the gods make mistakes at times".

As a bisexual ladyboy, colour me not impressed. White Wolf is far ahead of this. And Pathfinder manages to do the same thing without proclaiming "Lookie guys! We ALLOW your characters to be gay now!". Seriously, I remember an official male fighter-wizard couple and a transgendered masculine barbarian.