PDA

View Full Version : Opinions On Gender And Sexual Disiverity In TRPGs



GMProtagonist
2016-06-08, 05:08 PM
I'd just like to start some banter on this subject. What are your thoughts on introducing diverse characters into your games? Have you ever played a trans PC or met an NPC who was gay? As a beginning GM and member of the LGBT+ community , I'd love to hear other's experiences with the topic of diversity in TRPGs.

golentan
2016-06-08, 05:14 PM
Yeah. I include/play as gender and sexual minorities all the time. Helps that I like Exalted, to some extent. LGBT folks abound in the official fluff, and t here are socially acceptable norms around being trans or gay for example in many of the cultures of the setting.

I got weirded out though at one point playing traveller because a scientist referred to "his husband" and people thought it was a Borderlands reference. No, it was a reference to the fact he has a husband.

EternalMelon
2016-06-08, 06:53 PM
My Human-mech-suit wearing Intelligent cat ended up in a casual relationship with the shapeshifting genderfluid crossdressing elf NPC. (5E)
No one really batted an eye. In fact, they congratulated me on bagging one of the "Hottest Dates" in the game world. So my group at least is delightfully open.

golentan
2016-06-08, 07:11 PM
My Human-mech-suit wearing Intelligent cat ended up in a casual relationship with the shapeshifting genderfluid crossdressing elf NPC. (5E)
No one really batted an eye. In fact, they congratulated me on bagging one of the "Hottest Dates" in the game world. So my group at least is delightfully open.

Wait-wait-wait...

Mech suit? In 5e?

TechnOkami
2016-06-08, 07:18 PM
Wait-wait-wait...

Mech suit? In 5e?

Homebrew. That is all.

On the topic at hand: I am thoroughly indifferent. Do what'chu wanna do. As long as it's not actively harming or belittling I could really care less.

Also, @ Melon: that Elf must have gotten so much pu$$y. Just sayin'. :smallwink:

EternalMelon
2016-06-08, 07:21 PM
Wait-wait-wait...

Mech suit? In 5e?
More like a puppet I could operate from the inside just so that I could dance with my Hot Date in a pretty dress (syntax intentionally left ambiguous). Created using a fantastic disguise check and help from my mechanic crystal golem mind slave friend.


Ninja Techn0!

Homebrew. That is all.
Yeah, DM was fine with it especially 'cause it was all fluff supported by mechanics.

On the topic at hand: I am thoroughly indifferent. Do what'chu wanna do. As long as it's not actively harming or belittling I could really care less.
Also, In case my anecdote didn't get my opinion across I agree with Techn0.

Also, @ Melon: that Elf must have gotten so much pu$$y. Just sayin'. :smallwink:
Probably :smalltongue:
EDIT: I should mention sex itself never shows up our games, just dating.

druid91
2016-06-08, 07:56 PM
I have not done, nor seen, either of those things. Though I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be done. It's just that it's very rare for my gaming group to bring these things* up as anything but a joke.

And mostly, I stick to evil plotting, murdering of potentially important NPC's by accident, and raising undead legions to do my bidding. Also headbutting Darkmantles into cave walls.

*I should point out, due to potential for misunderstanding, I meant sex in general. We're almost to a man, a table of murderhobos and murderhobos with a few ranks in diplomacy respectively. We kill things, and then occasionally make a stupid crude joke about brothels. And then we kill things. Again. Sometimes the same things as the first time.

Telonius
2016-06-08, 07:59 PM
For the past few years my group hasn't gotten too far into who's getting in bed with whom (mainly because my six-year-old daughter is in the room). But one of the players in the previous campaign played a pretty promiscuously bi character. She eventually got tired of playing that, retired the character, and made a Monk/Earthbender.

It's probably going to be touched on at least a bit in the campaign I'm playing now. My wife and I are cross-playing; female Cleric of Olidammara for me, male Sorcerer for her. (After one session, I'm pretty sure the whole table think they're "together" in-game, but they're just close friends).

Scarlet Knight
2016-06-08, 08:26 PM
Elves.

All male elves are androgenous.

All females elves are pansexual.

I'm pretty sure it's in the rules since the blue box.

RyumaruMG
2016-06-08, 09:00 PM
What are your thoughts on introducing diverse characters into your games?

I'll keep it simple: we need more. Not just PCs, but canon NPCs. Representation matters.

DJ Yung Crunk
2016-06-08, 09:07 PM
Everyone at the table of the campaign I'm in now is bisexual so there's a "everyone is bi" policy on the characters and NPCs.

Cizak
2016-06-08, 09:16 PM
I made a decision some time ago that I would never roleplay a straight white cis man ever again. I already am that every day of my life, and there are so many other options available. Now, I haven't gotten much chance to actual roleplay since I made that decision, but I played an agender character in an apocalypse RPG, using my language's new gender neutral pronoun.

Dire Moose
2016-06-08, 10:01 PM
The main character I've been playing in Pathfinder Society (https://docs.google.com/document/d/18NXwgYGmLE_637W40DUbkDuV6cNhNEM9iLSKNCIeCfM/edit?usp=sharing) is an elven trans woman, though nobody in the gaming groups knows that.

I really don't know how to make it relevant to anything in-game though, and she wouldn't really want to discuss it in-character, so I'm kind of wondering what to do with that aspect of her. I do want to at least mention it at some point, but again, not sure what would prompt her to bring it up.

golentan
2016-06-08, 10:03 PM
The main character I've been playing in Pathfinder Society (https://docs.google.com/document/d/18NXwgYGmLE_637W40DUbkDuV6cNhNEM9iLSKNCIeCfM/edit?usp=sharing) is an elven trans woman, though nobody in the gaming groups knows that.

I really don't know how to make it relevant to anything in-game though, and she wouldn't really want to discuss it in-character, so I'm kind of wondering what to do with that aspect of her.

Pursue vigorously a belt of gender change or similar magic item, then come back apparently no different but happier?

BananaPhone
2016-06-08, 10:15 PM
I'm against diversity for the sake of diversity. Forcing modern, fashionable politics into my entertainment is not something I am in favor of, particularly in things like medieval settings where such political leanings are vastly out of sync with what should be.

If people want to write those type of characters and actually make them characters that are fleshed out rather than a token that they use to virtue signal, then I'm more inclined towards it if it fits the setting. There are also other circumstances where such things could make for enjoyable stories, like an alchemist making a potion of love that instead turns them into a woman or something. Or something less extreme like Ser Loras from Game of Thrones, a homosexual character whose sexuality is not just a part of his character but is important to his plot and character arc because it clashes with those around him, as is extremely fitting for such a setting. To me that is far more compelling than simply "this is team diversity here to save the day".

But diversity for the sake of diversity? No. It's creative poison.

Dire Moose
2016-06-08, 10:47 PM
Pursue vigorously a belt of gender change or similar magic item, then come back apparently no different but happier?

As mentioned in the document I linked, she'd already transitioned via magic prior to becoming an adventurer.

golentan
2016-06-08, 10:50 PM
As mentioned in the document I linked, she'd already transitioned via magic prior to becoming an adventurer.

Didn't read the full document. Well then, the only way it would come up is if she runs into someone from her past, neh? I once had a character who was trans and it literally never came up because why would it?

BladeofObliviom
2016-06-08, 10:56 PM
I managed to play a transgender character by accident once. I'd written Female in pen on the sheet, but the actual description I gave to the other PCs and GM was gender-neutral and so they assumed I was playing a guy, probably because I was a guy and didn't inform them otherwise. Moreover, the GM thought I'd written the description based on "a dude version of his girlfriend", and I decided that maybe I shouldn't correct him.

But it was written in pen on the sheet, even if no one else saw what I could.




Outside of that story, I play asexual characters with some regularity; sexuality is strange to me and it takes extra effort to roleplay a sexual character of any kind.

goto124
2016-06-08, 11:00 PM
Elves.

All male elves are androgenous.

All females elves are pansexual.

I'm pretty sure it's in the rules since the blue box.

I thought all elves are androgynous and pansexual...

Siosilvar
2016-06-08, 11:11 PM
I'm against diversity for the sake of diversity. Forcing modern, fashionable politics into my entertainment is not something I am in favor of, particularly in things like medieval settings where such political leanings are vastly out of sync with what should be.

If people want to write those type of characters and actually make them characters that are fleshed out rather than a token that they use to virtue signal, then I'm more inclined towards it if it fits the setting. There are also other circumstances where such things could make for enjoyable stories, like an alchemist making a potion of love that instead turns them into a woman or something. Or something less extreme like Ser Loras from Game of Thrones, a homosexual character whose sexuality is not just a part of his character but is important to his plot and character arc because it clashes with those around him, as is extremely fitting for such a setting. To me that is far more compelling than simply "this is team diversity here to save the day".

But diversity for the sake of diversity? No. It's creative poison.

lol

...honestly, that's all I have to say there. LGBT people exist. And have always existed. Khnumhotep, Julie d'Aubigny, Chevalier d'Eon, arguably Shakespeare. Portraying the actual diversity of human life is not a political statement, or if it is, then that statement is "this shouldn't be a political statement".

Is it far more interesting when it actually shapes how the character interacts with the outside world? Yes. The son of a noble betrothed to another noble's daughter but who really loves the male poet down the row (supposedly secretly, but it's an open secret) is more interesting than "hey guys, I'm gay". But it's a double standard if you insist that diversity has to tie into the plot and the "norm" doesn't. Why should every character fit the default unless it's plot-relevant? History absolutely doesn't fit that mold, and it's even less fitting in an already-ahistorical fantasy setting.

EternalMelon
2016-06-08, 11:14 PM
-snip-
In general media its just so easy to include diversity in acceptable situations its kinda baffling.
But for tabletop I'm not going to care if people don't want to play "diverse" characters. Play what you want ect.

[...]trans [...] literally never came up because why would it?
Ah, the joys of fantasy. If only. :smallwink:


I thought all elves are androgynous and pansexual...
The solution is for Elves to be Pangendered and Asexual :smalltongue:

golentan
2016-06-08, 11:19 PM
Ah, the joys of fantasy. If only. :smallwink:


Hey, if I'm playing in a world with magic that solves my problems, I'm gonna use it to solve my problems.

When I'm playing a demonically empowered mini-titan capable of laying waste to cities with a word and creating species of demon from thin air to do her bidding, she gets whatever pronouns she wants and the physical changes of transition are WAY less important than the fact she can turn into a living sandstorm and go to war with a walking mountain.

Again: I really enjoy exalted.

BananaPhone
2016-06-08, 11:29 PM
lol

...honestly, that's all I have to say there. LGBT people exist.

I know I exist.


And have always existed. Khnumhotep, Julie d'Aubigny, Chevalier d'Eon, arguably Shakespeare. Portraying the actual diversity of human life is not a political statement, or if it is, then that statement is "this shouldn't be a political statement".

No one says we don't exist.



Is it far more interesting when it actually shapes how the character interacts with the outside world? Yes. The son of a noble betrothed to another noble's daughter but who really loves the male poet down the row (supposedly secretly, but it's an open secret) is more interesting than "hey guys, I'm gay". But it's a double standard if you insist that diversity has to tie into the plot and the "norm" doesn't. Why should every character fit the default unless it's plot-relevant? History absolutely doesn't fit that mold, and it's even less fitting in an already-ahistorical fantasy setting.

Because they're the norm (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Sexual_Identity_in_the_UK%2C_2012.png), by a long margin, and we're not. It's like watching a movie about the English Civil War and asking why the vast, overwhelming majority of characters are white.


In general media its just so easy to include diversity in acceptable situations its kinda baffling.
But for tabletop I'm not going to care if people don't want to play "diverse" characters. Play what you want ect.


People can come up with whatever they want in tabeltop rpg's. That's their own fun and escapism so more power to them.

golentan
2016-06-08, 11:43 PM
Because they're the norm (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Sexual_Identity_in_the_UK%2C_2012.png), by a long margin, and we're not. It's like watching a movie about the English Civil War and asking why the vast, overwhelming majority of characters are white.

PCs, almost by definition, are not the norm. The extent varies system to system and game to game, but PCs are overwhelmingly more likely to travel more than 20 miles from their place of birth (something fairly rare to this day), are more likely to interact with royalty or wizards or dragons or spaceships than your average subsistence farmer, are reasonably likely to be the only person in a village of 200 to know more than the pointy end of the sword goes towards the enemy when fighting (or in the case of Sci Fi, be the only people who consider combat armor and plasma rifles to be casual wear), are likely more educated than the vast majority of people they would meet in a historically accurate setting by simple virtue of literacy, and in a typical fantasy kingdom 95% humans and racially segregated towns are more than likely not even going to be majority human or even have any coherent racial makeup.

If my Lady Paladin Orc prefers other Lady Orcs, I don't see why that's significantly more implausible than a female Orc (being essentially a green-skinned human with tusks, a situation which appears in absolutely no historical context I can think of) joined a lawful good martial tradition despite a patriarchal blood-god based society and is palling around with someone whose ancestry includes demonic interbreeding who regularly transforms himself into a wolf because it's basically a sacrament to him. Seems like the alternative is to say "we're actually playing in feudal europe with no magic or strange races." And that idea doesn't sell well from what I've seen. Tabletop RPGs are fantasy, and fantasy is fantastic. By definition.

Siosilvar
2016-06-08, 11:55 PM
Because they're the norm (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Sexual_Identity_in_the_UK%2C_2012.png), by a long margin, and we're not. If you walked up to someone in the Byzantine Empire and announced your list of tumblr-inspired gender pronouns, said person would have no clue on earth as to what you were talking about and would probably think you were possessed by the devil.

It's like watching a movie about the English Civil War and asking why the vast, overwhelming majority of characters are white.

You didn't answer the question. So I'm going to rephrase it:

Why does being a minority mean we have to justify our inclusion?

It's like watching a movie about the English Civil War and asking why there's not a single frame with a black person visible, when they made up ~3% of the population at the time in varying social classes. Surely one of the background actors should have been black. It's like watching a generic action movie set in the US and asking why there's not a single frame with a black person visible, when they make up ~13% of the population right now. More in urban areas where these things tend to be set.

And that holds doubly or trebly true in the fantastically egalitarian societies that make up the faux-medieval settings for most RPGs.

BananaPhone
2016-06-08, 11:56 PM
PCs, almost by definition, are not the norm. The extent varies system to system and game to game, but PCs are overwhelmingly more likely to travel more than 20 miles from their place of birth (something fairly rare to this day), are more likely to interact with royalty or wizards or dragons or spaceships than your average subsistence farmer, are reasonably likely to be the only person in a village of 200 to know more than the pointy end of the sword goes towards the enemy when fighting (or in the case of Sci Fi, be the only people who consider combat armor and plasma rifles to be casual wear), are likely more educated than the vast majority of people they would meet in a historically accurate setting by simple virtue of literacy, and in a typical fantasy kingdom 95% humans and racially segregated towns are more than likely not even going to be majority human or even have any coherent racial makeup.

If my Lady Paladin Orc prefers other Lady Orcs, I don't see why that's significantly more implausible than a female Orc (being essentially a green-skinned human with tusks, a situation which appears in absolutely no historical context I can think of) joined a lawful good martial tradition despite a patriarchal blood-god based society and is palling around with someone whose ancestry includes demonic interbreeding who regularly transforms himself into a wolf because it's basically a sacrament to him. Seems like the alternative is to say "we're actually playing in feudal europe with no magic or strange races." And that idea doesn't sell well from what I've seen. Tabletop RPGs are fantasy, and fantasy is fantastic. By definition.



I think a few people are missing the point of what my statement was. I've addressed the specifics of players in their group and with their GM. If they want to make their world be one where everyone is a hermaphrodite and the standard human skin color is blue, then that is their prerogative. Go on and have fun.

My statement, however, is about this spilling over into the content published by the gaming companies and the media in general. In this broader and less-personalised arena, my argument is for authenticity, genuity, story telling and character over the tokenism and virtue signalling for the politics of the times. One of these wings is healthy, the other is not.

Liquor Box
2016-06-09, 12:04 AM
I'm against diversity for the sake of diversity. Forcing modern, fashionable politics into my entertainment is not something I am in favor of, particularly in things like medieval settings where such political leanings are vastly out of sync with what should be.

If people want to write those type of characters and actually make them characters that are fleshed out rather than a token that they use to virtue signal, then I'm more inclined towards it if it fits the setting. There are also other circumstances where such things could make for enjoyable stories, like an alchemist making a potion of love that instead turns them into a woman or something. Or something less extreme like Ser Loras from Game of Thrones, a homosexual character whose sexuality is not just a part of his character but is important to his plot and character arc because it clashes with those around him, as is extremely fitting for such a setting. To me that is far more compelling than simply "this is team diversity here to save the day".

But diversity for the sake of diversity? No. It's creative poison.

Good post.

In my experience the truth is that most characters (PC or NPC) don't actually have a defined sexuality. PC X is generally described by reference to his gender, stats, class, level, general appearance and general characteristics - or she he will usually not be footnoted as being straight (or otherwise) - and in most games that wont come up in roleplay. Even more so with respect to NPCs - in the majority of cases the buxom barmaid or overweight and over important mayor will not give any indication as to their sexual preference.

Even more true as far as transgendered characters go. As Dire Moose pointed out, whether a character was born the gender they now are, or was magically transitioned is irrelevant to the game, and in the cases of the overwhelming majority of characters will not be a factor (even in the mind of the character's creator.

Of course, people should feel free to create homosexual of trans characters if they want. It is then up to them whether they try to project that aspect of their character into the game or not.

As to published content, my above point becomes even more true. Is Lidda or ALhandra lesbian? Ir Krusk the barbarian trans? Who knows - none of these things are defined either way.

Siosilvar
2016-06-09, 12:17 AM
I think a few people are missing the point of what my statement was. I've addressed the specifics of players in their group and with their GM. If they want to make their world be one where everyone is a hermaphrodite and the standard human skin color is blue, then that is their prerogative. Go on and have fun.

My statement, however, is about this spilling over into the content published by the gaming companies and the media in general. In this broader and less-personalised arena, my argument is for authenticity, genuity, story telling and character over the tokenism and virtue signalling for the politics of the times. One of these wings is healthy, the other is not.

No, I get it, I just fundamentally disagree. Not least because there's no bright line between the two.

EDIT because at 3 am I can't get to sleep because of this:

MtG's Alesha is arguably a token trans character, since her story would like likely have worked just as well with anybody in the same position as the sole human in an orc tribe. But her story is a pretty good story regardless, and her being a trans woman adds to the worldbuilding. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and the rest of your argument (at least, as I understand it) boils down to the tautological "well-developed characters are more interesting than bags of traits", plus some rhetoric that looks very close to what I see used to exclude minority representation where it costs nothing to add.

golentan
2016-06-09, 12:38 AM
I too get it, I just find that... Well, as Siosilvar has indicated, I find the line drawn between what violates suspension of disbelief in a roleplaying game and what doesn't arbitrary at best, especially when it comes to representation.

EternalMelon
2016-06-09, 12:51 AM
EDIT: I agree with the above posters and don't really have anything else to say, the posts didn't exist when I started this and then got distracted. Leaving my post written cause idk.


My statement, however, is about this spilling over into the content published by the gaming companies and the media in general. In this broader and less-personalised arena, my argument is for authenticity, genuity, story telling and character over the tokenism and virtue signalling for the politics of the times. One of these wings is healthy, the other is not.
In historical pieces: Definitely. In historical fiction: Sure*. In fantasy and fictional fiction: Straight up tokenism should be discouraged, but it takes only a few words to change a characters sexual preference (or even just a short bit of acting) to a way that includes and represents sexual minorities. Doesn't have to be a big deal.

In terms of fantasy settings, I don't see a reason to not include non-straight people* when you already have people shooting fireballs from their hands and channelling the powers of gods. Not exactly the "norm" we have either. *

EDIT: *Just Realized the Implications, woops!

*Sorry for the atrocious English.

Coidzor
2016-06-09, 12:52 AM
Had an agender character once.

Don't really want to play in a game that's explicitly about the character's being X or Y, and prefer it to be incidental to the overarching story, though.

golentan
2016-06-09, 12:58 AM
Had an agender character once.

Don't really want to play in a game that's explicitly about the character's being X or Y, and prefer it to be incidental to the overarching story, though.

Oh sure. Unless it's specifically an ecchi game (which can be fun) the primary thrust of any character should not be about what or who is in their pants. But it's nice to know that when the war is over, Captain Ravager will return safe to the arms of his beloved, to my mind.

Dire Moose
2016-06-09, 02:03 AM
So, with the character I mentioned, I'd like to reveal that she's trans at some point, but I don't know what would be a good way of doing that in-character. This is for Pathfinder Society and there are no personal character arcs in those scenarios, so nobody from her past is likely to appear. Any ideas as to how to do so in a way that isn't forced and out of character?

5a Violista
2016-06-09, 05:01 AM
Any ideas as to how to do so in a way that isn't forced and out of character?
I don't know exactly if this would work with Pathfinder Society, but this is the only idea that comes to mind for now: you work with another player OoC to bring it up. Their character did some digging to know other characters better, and drops a question like "Hey, weird question, are you a guy? I can never tell with elves" or "Would you happen to have a brother/know someone named Sarion?" and then your character responds "No, <insert 2-sentence blurb here that says what you want to say>".

Themrys
2016-06-09, 07:57 AM
What is TRPG? I only know rpg. The pen&paper kind of thing. Is T for table?

The background world of my favourite rpg doesn't have gender roles in most regions (there are some that do, if you like a bit medieval misogyny to spice things up, or something), so I always play agender characters. Don't think anyone noticed except that sexist GM who tried to enforce gender roles.

Also played a gay male once, but group broke apart before it became relevant. Or so I think - the group was mostly teenage males, so I don't know what amount of supposed in-game but actually out-game flirting I spared myself. Playing a male character was my insurance against that, and he was gay so that I would have a short explanation for why he wouldn't flirt with the barmaid. Not the most noble reason to play a gay character, admittedly. But at least I can't be accused of doing it for the sake of diversity. :smallwink:

My plans to play an elf character whose sex nobody knows sadly never came to frutition. (I was planning something like Vaarsuvius, and would have quoted one of V's lines on how the question of hir sex is wholly irrelevant to hir employment as member of the OotS.)

goto124
2016-06-09, 08:35 AM
I have an elf who started as straight male, only to become a bisexual more-or-less genderfluid to support a relationship with another straight male character (who mistook the elf for a female... it was kind of weird). Might've been an iffy decision, but I really like this relationship and would have it no other way.

noparlpf
2016-06-09, 08:56 PM
I don't think I've ever played a transgender character. One might qualify as transspecies, though. Otherwise, I think heterosexual characters might actually qualify as a minority by a little bit. Generally sexuality isn't particularly relevant to killing monsters, but it does come up here and there occasionally.


I'm against diversity for the sake of diversity. Forcing modern, fashionable politics into my entertainment is not something I am in favor of, particularly in things like medieval settings where such political leanings are vastly out of sync with what should be.

If people want to write those type of characters and actually make them characters that are fleshed out rather than a token that they use to virtue signal, then I'm more inclined towards it if it fits the setting. There are also other circumstances where such things could make for enjoyable stories, like an alchemist making a potion of love that instead turns them into a woman or something. Or something less extreme like Ser Loras from Game of Thrones, a homosexual character whose sexuality is not just a part of his character but is important to his plot and character arc because it clashes with those around him, as is extremely fitting for such a setting. To me that is far more compelling than simply "this is team diversity here to save the day".

But diversity for the sake of diversity? No. It's creative poison.

It's fiction. The only history and political scene are the ones the author creates. It's an active choice to set a story in the same boring rehash of White Christian Europe when there have been hundreds of other cultures with varying approaches to gender and sexuality over the past ten thousand years.

Besides, if there are, say, twenty characters in a story, there ought to be around 1-2 non-heterosexual characters just based on statistics. Otherwise it's "not realistic." Take GoT, since you brought it up. It's actually a statistical anomaly that there aren't more explicitly homo-/bisexual characters among the main cast.

Sexuality doesn't have to be "relevant" to the plot, either. If it did, shouldn't 99% of action heroes be asexual, not default-heterosexual with a poorly-written and unjustified makeout scene thrown in at the end of the movie?

Themrys
2016-06-10, 04:23 AM
Sexuality doesn't have to be "relevant" to the plot, either. If it did, shouldn't 99% of action heroes be asexual, not default-heterosexual with a poorly-written and unjustified makeout scene thrown in at the end of the movie?

You make a compelling argument for banning any mention of sexuality unless it is relevant to the plot.
On the other hand, I am sure the heterosexual male action writers would find a way to shoehorn in some "plot relevance". James Bond is one of the worst in terms of superfluous mentions of heterosexuality, and I am sure most would claim it is all plot relevant. (I admit I never watched the movies. This whole "Bond girl" thing is so appalling.)

Scarlet Knight
2016-06-10, 06:52 PM
I thought all elves are androgynous and pansexual...

You obviously haven't been looking at the artwork of female elves...


I have an elf who started as straight male, ...another straight male character (who mistook the elf for a female... it was kind of weird)...

DM of the Rings?

goto124
2016-06-10, 10:17 PM
DM of the Rings?

Nah, there was no sexual harassment, the sexuality was far more relevant since it was a romance plot, and the elf turned into a female in short order.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-11, 11:48 AM
It comes up a lot. When you dig through people's personal belongings on a regular basis, it's just going to come up one way or another. Also, if you don't have societies directly modeled on very homophobic ones, there's nothing wrong with some historical models of 'acceptable' homosexual contact.

Were things a complete murder-fest, I wouldn't mind if sexuality got swept under the rug, but I don't tend to play that sort of thing. And even then, heterosexual attraction is often a theme. (Capturing the beautiful princess for instance).

And it would just feel extremely weird if somehow the game never broached this subject, when it does come up in history. Cross-dressing conquistadors, soldiers, and entertainers, hidden places where people can meet the same sex, acceptable transgendered groups, affairs, and gay spies are all a part of history.

In many ways, I view LGBT characters the same I view brown people or females. If the writer has not made it clear why they don't exist or aren't visible then the writer is very lazy and I should expend a similar effort in interacting with the world.

ClintACK
2016-06-11, 03:30 PM
Re: OP...

I've never really played in a campaign where sexuality played a real part. I'd just toss out the usual caveats about playing the role of a different real-world minority. There be mines in that there field yonder. (I can't watch Breakfast at Tiffany's or the Phantom Menace without cringing.) There's a tendency to play characters as larger-than-life caricatures -- which is fine when it's the angry half-orc barbarian or the greedy drunken dwarf... and much touchier when it's the greedy jewish banker or drunken irish dockworker. But with a mature group of players, I don't see why it should be a problem.




Besides, if there are, say, twenty characters in a story, there ought to be around 1-2 non-heterosexual characters just based on statistics. Otherwise it's "not realistic." Take GoT, since you brought it up. It's actually a statistical anomaly that there aren't more explicitly homo-/bisexual characters among the main cast.

I actually think GoT is pretty good on this score.

Remember not to count characters whose orientation we don't know. It's (# explicitly gay / # with explicit sexual orientation) not (# explicitly gay / # of characters).

You can't count someone as explicitly straight just because they are married (Renly married, and there are plans to marry Loras off to someone.) or because they talk a good talk with the other soldiers around the campfire. Do we have any idea what sexual orientation Bran, Rickon, Sansa, and Arya are, just out of the Stark kids? We know Jon and Robb were straight. And Tyrion, obviously. And Cersei and her lovers.

Four explicitly gay characters (Loras, Renly, Oberyn, and Yara) is quite a few in cultures where most gay characters would be closeted, if not actively in denial. I think it's pretty clear that the Blackfish (who looks to have a big role this season) is gay too, though I know others don't agree with me.

In addition, there are lots of characters in the middle of the spectrum and a *ton* of other sexual minorities -- at least three main-cast eunuchs and a ton of people sworn to abstain (Maesters and Night's Watch), even if they don't always keep those oaths. And horrific sexual sadism. And twin-incest -- don't forget the twincest. And many survivors of sexual abuse, some as children.

Then we've got Brienne and Yara exploring what it's like for a woman to take on an explicitly male role in two different martial societies.

And Loras imprisoned by the Faith Militant on just the suspicion of his homosexuality.

And Theon struggling to come to grips with post-castration life -- drinking in a brothel while his sister takes a woman to bed. And then there are Grey Worm and Missandei...

So it's not like they aren't exploring themes of sexual and gender identities pretty darn thoroughly.

Would it really improve the show to pump up the numbers by learning that Maesters Luhann and Aemon are gay but abstain, that Petyr Baelish is in profound denial (which feeds his obsession with Catelyn Stark who should have chosen him so he could have been straight), that Sansa had a secret crush on Margaery (she only wanted Joffrey because of the fairytale princess story society put in her head), that two of Khal Drogo's blood riders were lovers (but wouldn't even understand the concept of 'gay' as we know it), and that Kevan Lannister has been carrying on affairs with his squires for years?

At some point it feels like trying to count how many of the characters are left-handed. Or how many like cilantro. Sexuality isn't a part of the story role of Maester Luhann or Kevan Lannister -- so we don't know anything about their sexual interests or proclivities. And that's okay.

I liked J.K. Rowling's answer to this (wildly paraphrased) -- that lots of her characters were gay, it just didn't come up because Harry Potter was a story about a pre-pubescent teen saving the world.


Sexuality doesn't have to be "relevant" to the plot, either. If it did, shouldn't 99% of action heroes be asexual, not default-heterosexual with a poorly-written and unjustified makeout scene thrown in at the end of the movie?

The kind of movie you're talking about isn't just selling an action plot -- it's explicitly about vicarious wish-fullfillment for primarily heterosexual men.

Zale
2016-06-11, 04:59 PM
I'm against diversity for the sake of diversity. Forcing modern, fashionable politics into my entertainment is not something I am in favor of, particularly in things like medieval settings where such political leanings are vastly out of sync with what should be.

If people want to write those type of characters and actually make them characters that are fleshed out rather than a token that they use to virtue signal, then I'm more inclined towards it if it fits the setting. There are also other circumstances where such things could make for enjoyable stories, like an alchemist making a potion of love that instead turns them into a woman or something. Or something less extreme like Ser Loras from Game of Thrones, a homosexual character whose sexuality is not just a part of his character but is important to his plot and character arc because it clashes with those around him, as is extremely fitting for such a setting. To me that is far more compelling than simply "this is team diversity here to save the day".

But diversity for the sake of diversity? No. It's creative poison.

Making a setting where LGBTQ people are "modern, fashionable politics" is very much a personal choice.

I much prefer settings where LGBTQ people can exist, but to each their own I guess? Have fun in heteronormativity-burg.

@ OP

I like inclusiveness. As someone who grew up not seeing any characters who weren't straight, and suffering emotionally from the isolation of that, it brings me great joy to see characters like myself in media. To a lesser extent, I really enjoy seeing LGBTQ people as a whole as part of the worlds or stories that I read or roleplay in.

TTRPGs have not had the best track record with this, historically. Even recently, 5e tried to be inclusive, but the best it managed was a single paragraph saying that maybe, possibly, these sorts of people exist?

Whereas you have RPGs like Exalted that have transgender characters in leading roles; lots of diversity in NPCs.

However, as I whole it's getting much better.

I personally like to include LGBTQ people as characters in games I GM. It may not, however, always come up because not all games care a lot about stuff that's not murder, but mentioning them offhand is something I definitely endeavor to do.

JNAProductions
2016-06-11, 05:04 PM
Honestly, gender and sexuality are rarely important to a game. (At least in the games I play-Traveller and D&D.)

You're an adventurer or explorer-it doesn't matter much if you're male, female, or something else. Likewise, do you like dudes? Chicks? Plants? All three, plus more? Doesn't really matter except in downtime, and then it's just story fluff.

oxybe
2016-06-11, 05:26 PM
Nope. My group doesn't really play D&D, or TTRPGs for that matter, to explore gender or sexuality, just looking around in dungeons and the innards of orcs. It never comes up in character creation, dialog or downtime.

A lot of times when playing a module where gender or sexuality is introduced it seems forced, either as a way to make a character sympathetic (Hell's Rebels has a NPC who's mentioned to be transgender and we find it out just as they're trying to recruit us to their scrappy underdog cause) or vilify them (I don't know if it's just bad luck but goshdarn does paizo like making it's villains incestuous).

It just not something that we're interested in exploring when gaming.

Themrys
2016-06-11, 05:30 PM
I liked J.K. Rowling's answer to this (wildly paraphrased) -- that lots of her characters were gay, it just didn't come up because Harry Potter was a story about a pre-pubescent teen saving the world.

You would still think that some of Harry's classmates would have been known to be lesbian or gay. So if she really said "lots of characters" that's a copout.
I do see why it wasn't made explicit that Dumbledore was gay. Teenagers aren't interested in the sexual orientations of old men.

But there was the Valentine's Day celebrations. And the ball. And so on.

@JNA: A person who likes to sodomize chickens would be something of an ethical problem. Unless the adventurer life is so full of work that he never gets around to doing it. :smallcool:

Evelyn Elliott
2016-06-11, 05:34 PM
I actually think GoT is pretty good on this score. [...]

Four explicitly gay characters (Loras, Renly, Oberyn, and Yara) is quite a few in cultures where most gay characters would be closeted, if not actively in denial.
I don't mean to be rude, but Oberyn is not gay. He's bisexual.

golentan
2016-06-11, 05:45 PM
Honestly, gender and sexuality are rarely important to a game. (At least in the games I play-Traveller and D&D.)

You're an adventurer or explorer-it doesn't matter much if you're male, female, or something else. Likewise, do you like dudes? Chicks? Plants? All three, plus more? Doesn't really matter except in downtime, and then it's just story fluff.

So, in traveller you've never had an honor duel with an aslan clan-leader that ends with taking over his Wives and now you have to figure out how to satisfy the social and in some cases sexual needs of half a dozen clawed and fanged aliens with pseudo-penises?

Cuz... That may have happened in one of my games.

<.<
>.>

Edit: To be clear, the wives had hired the human to dispose of their husband because he kept messing up their business interests, as well. So it wasn't "I now own you," but rather "I'm expected to perform a ceremonial social role on behalf of people who had the previous guy assassinated for messing up."

Necroticplague
2016-06-11, 06:00 PM
Honestly, sexuality and identity things like that don't tend to come up in games in I'm in most of the time. Not that there's an active effort for or against it, but it's simply that the kind of things the campaigns focus on have sex and gender as repetitively unimportant character traits. The fact your a fighter says way more about you, and is far more relevant, than what may or may not lie beneath the codpiece.

That being said, my own setting is fairly cosmopolitan in nature, so matters like gender and sex are relatively minor over the other differences between people.

Milo v3
2016-06-11, 06:49 PM
As to published content, my above point becomes even more true. Is Lidda or ALhandra lesbian? Ir Krusk the barbarian trans?

Surprisingly pathfinder's iconic's do have bisexuals, transgender, and genderfluid characters among them.

LaserFace
2016-06-11, 07:23 PM
I tend not to bring up gender identity and sexuality when DMing, and I haven't played gay or trans characters. Usually it's just about the adventure, and these things turn out to be kind of irrelevant, even if our table is very open-minded and accepting of lgbt folks.

I don't think I'd frequently go out of my way to note someone is lgbt unless it were vital to the story in some way. Folks can be free to envision characters as they please, but I think shoehorning extraneous details like this seems kinda ... I dunno? Attention-grabby? Like if I say the King of X is gay and nobody cares, why did I bother saying it, apart to maybe appeal to someone at the table (which is probably condescending)? To say the King of X is gay and therefore has no heir and it creates problems for the realm ... that might be an interesting story, though.

So barring a campaign that really addresses sexuality, or a playgroup that is keen on including such themes, I'll basically never bring it up.

Arcane_Snowman
2016-06-11, 07:46 PM
I make little to no attempt to portray sexuality at all in my games, primarily because I just don't feel particularly comfortable with those sorts of scenarios, but the group for which I run also don't really seem to want to play in a game where sexuality is particularly important. That being said I've never discouraged people playing such characters.

I don't recall having had any trans NPCs, but I've played as both trans and gay characters before and we've had quite a few in the group wherein I'm a player. Heck a number of plots in the group where I play have revolved around the fact that a character was either homosexual or transgendered*.

*Our primary game is a historical setting so we've gotten a decent amount of time spent on problem solving things like secrecy: allowing two lovers to meet in secret as to keep it from their disapproving families and allow them to continue their affair. The primary transgendered character that I played was a knight who was desperately trying to keep it a secret that she did not have the right equipment to appease the various swooning maidens that she attracted with her looks and prowess, whilst at the same time keeping her feelings for one of her friends that she was crushing on under wraps.

Coidzor
2016-06-11, 08:11 PM
So, with the character I mentioned, I'd like to reveal that she's trans at some point, but I don't know what would be a good way of doing that in-character. This is for Pathfinder Society and there are no personal character arcs in those scenarios, so nobody from her past is likely to appear. Any ideas as to how to do so in a way that isn't forced and out of character?

Well, it's PFS, so it's already a terrible idea for much beyond dungeoncrawling and the odd urban adventure where social encounters are just another form of trap, IIRC, so your options seem especially limited.

Pluto!
2016-06-11, 08:35 PM
I rarely assign sexual identities to my NPCs before they show up on-screen, and usually only assign it reactively based on what would make scenes work.

If I introduce a female throwaway NPC and a male PC tries to seduce her, I'll probably run with it.
If I introduce the same female throwaway NPC and a male slug-man tries to seduce her, I'll probably try to play it for laughs.
If I introduce the same female throwaway NPC and a female PC tries to seduce her, I'll probably run with it.
If I introduce the same female throwaway NPC and a female PC whose player has introduced the PC's sexuality as a struggle tries to seduce her, I'll probably make the NPC straight to maintain the PC's characterization.

Steampunkette
2016-06-11, 09:33 PM
My opinion?

"Yes, please!"

Particularly in canon works like campaign settings.

Ninja Bear
2016-06-11, 10:56 PM
We do it the same way as Pluto!; gender and sexuality typically don't come up unless one of the players initiates something or it's important to the plot, at which point both become whatever they need to be.

I'm kind of shocked at all the other posters above me (like the passive-aggressive "welcome to heteronormativity-burg" guy) who are insisting that other people's medieval-based settings have to import early 21st century Western European norms regarding gender and sexuality, or that they are somehow doing something wrong if they don't. It reminds me of all of the people who insist that they should be able to import their early 21st century knowledge of nuclear physics into somebody else's medieval-based setting so that their 9th level wizard can use Major Creation to build an atomic weapon. There are plenty of very good reasons why you'd do something else; for example:


Those norms would have been completely out of place in a medieval environment and wouldn't have reflected how medieval people thought about gender or sexuality at all (as discussed, for example, here (http://thehumon.tumblr.com/post/136457784713/the-past-is-rarely-as-we-imagine-it));
things like sexual preference would have been regarded as secondary concerns anyway due to less concern being placed on individual rights/desires (for example, a lord would have a duty to make an heir regardless of how he felt about women);
those norms would probably be even more out of place in the fantasy setting because things like access to magic obviously would shape their reasoning (for example, access to mind-affecting spells may mean that "pray-away-the-gay" actually works and it's seen as an affliction, or widespread access to polymorph spells may mean that everybody routinely changes sex or even gender); and
those norms may not actually reflect how things work in the fantasy setting's biology, much less its societies.


It's also, let's face it, kind of a boring change to make if you want that to be the focus of your story; "what if: early 21st century gender norms in a medieval-based setting" doesn't really present too many interesting questions or make good use of the fantasy setting, especially not when compared to something like "what if humans used spermatophores -- how would things be different, and how would we apply what we believe to be universal philosophical principles?"

FocusWolf413
2016-06-11, 11:01 PM
I keep sex and stuff out of the games I'm in. It really simplifies the issue.

Scathain
2016-06-11, 11:24 PM
Female antagonists. Enough said. The dude I usually play one on ones with is a bleeding heart, so it's fun to throw powerful (in many senses of the word) women at him as enemies.

Thrudd
2016-06-11, 11:32 PM
I keep sex and stuff out of the games I'm in. It really simplifies the issue.

That's basically my approach. I don't care if a player says their character has whatever sexuality. But I would also let them know scenarios where that is relevant are not likely to come up very often, so don't make that the primary defining element of your character.

For world design, there is an argument for wanting to know what people may be attracted to what other people, because it helps in determining how they interact with each other. So I would determine percentages for people that are other than heterosexual, and randomly determine the orientation of any NPC that is encountered. For fantasy races, I might assign different percentages just to mix it up. Of course, cultural factors will also impact how people interact and how they perceive these things.

Max_Killjoy
2016-06-11, 11:36 PM
The "standard" D&D setting is one in which permanent shape-changing and sex-changing magic exists, and running away to adventure is a thing (adventuring is practically a profession). Given the existence of the bard class, I'd say that adventuring is probably not the only way to run away from home and make a living, on the road or otherwise.

This "standard" setting's society is one where the existence of people who feel they'd be more at home in a body that was somehow different might be a bit more accepted, and even if one's village or family isn't accepting, one could always run off, "have some magic done", and start a new life somewhere else.

Steampunkette
2016-06-11, 11:45 PM
Most campaign settings put men and women on equal footing and feature fantastic monsters, magic, and psionics. And many of them aren't bog standard fantasy settings made up of murder hobos wandering mystical lands.

So the Historical accuracy argument doesn't hold water on two different levels. First that historical accuracy need apply and second that it's assumed to be medieval fantasy just because it's a TTRPG.

If it doesn't come up in your game that's fine, of course. No one (probably) is going to demand you add MOGAI content. But there's no good reason to keep it out of canon works, backgrounds, and the hands of players beyond the willingness of the content creator to add it. Which I hope is high!

Dimers
2016-06-12, 12:01 AM
On the other hand, I am sure the heterosexual male action writers would find a way to shoehorn in some "plot relevance". James Bond is one of the worst in terms of superfluous mentions of heterosexuality, and I am sure most would claim it is all plot relevant. (I admit I never watched the movies. This whole "Bond girl" thing is so appalling.)

Now I REALLY want to see a gay James Bond. Suave heartthrob city. I'm fairly certain that I would be biting my fist, and I say that as a straight male. Bring on the Bond Boys!


My statement, however, is about this spilling over into the content published by the gaming companies and the media in general.

In which case you're not addressing the OP, which was asking about your experience of games rather than what's being produced by companies and media. But when you write


Because they're the norm (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Sexual_Identity_in_the_UK%2C_2012.png), by a long margin, and we're not. It's like watching a movie about the English Civil War and asking why the vast, overwhelming majority of characters are white.

... it really sounds like you're saying that if most characters in a given setting should be a certain way, you're okay with excluding any character who doesn't fit the norm. (Or in conjunction with your distinction between companies and play groups, you're at least okay with companies/media excluding same, but have no comment on exclusion among play groups.)

@OP: Pretty much the same as others here. Asexuality, bisexuality, transexuality, transgender, kinks/fetishes, intersexuality ... these things rarely come up in play although they're sometimes part of my character background, because sex is not often involved in problem-solving adventure. Older D&D has sex-based charms and nymphs and such, but that's definitely the exception. In my current and recent PC lineup I have

one mostly asexual
one homosexual
one very leery of sex happening anywhere nearby
one who might've developed a romance with a living fire if the game had gotten off the ground
two uninterested in sexuality because they're undead
one who will experience romantic complications because he's now a psychic projection of himself
one whose powers of domination were used in backstory as a professional sexual service
four who were not my IRL sex
one small demon-infused fey creature with limbs that grew rather phallically and an innate desire to fulfill people's desires, which in retrospect I would not have built if that table ever talked about sex in-game
probably around seven people approximately my own sex and orientation

That's just for play, mind you. It looked like you were also talking in terms of DMing. Again, it rarely matters in play, but when I'm coming up with characteristics for humanish NPCs, my muse tells me some non-normative sexuality for maybe 20% of them. I have to put effort into ensuring that my world is populated to a sensible degree with people who have other minority or discriminated qualities -- but the sexual characteristics come naturally.

Coidzor
2016-06-12, 01:21 AM
So, in traveller you've never had an honor duel with an aslan clan-leader that ends with taking over his Wives and now you have to figure out how to satisfy the social and in some cases sexual needs of half a dozen clawed and fanged aliens with pseudo-penises?

Cuz... That may have happened in one of my games.

<.<
>.>

Edit: To be clear, the wives had hired the human to dispose of their husband because he kept messing up their business interests, as well. So it wasn't "I now own you," but rather "I'm expected to perform a ceremonial social role on behalf of people who had the previous guy assassinated for messing up."

Yeah...

If it were basically anyone other than you, I'd be convinced that the GM was masturbating at the table. :/


Most campaign settings put men and women on equal footing and feature fantastic monsters, magic, and psionics. And many of them aren't bog standard fantasy settings made up of murder hobos wandering mystical lands.

So the Historical accuracy argument doesn't hold water on two different levels. First that historical accuracy need apply and second that it's assumed to be medieval fantasy just because it's a TTRPG.

If it doesn't come up in your game that's fine, of course. No one (probably) is going to demand you add MOGAI content. But there's no good reason to keep it out of canon works, backgrounds, and the hands of players beyond the willingness of the content creator to add it. Which I hope is high!

I'm pretty sure if you include Mogwai, then the entire game becomes about gremlins, because you're playing Gremlins the RPG or making whatever system you're playing with into Gremlins the RPG until such time as that arc is over, if it ever ends. :smalltongue:

Siosilvar
2016-06-12, 01:28 AM
I'm kind of shocked at all the other posters above me (like the passive-aggressive "welcome to heteronormativity-burg" guy) who are insisting that other people's medieval-based settings have to import early 21st century Western European norms regarding gender and sexuality, or that they are somehow doing something wrong if they don't.

I'm kind of shocked, too, because literally nobody in this thread has said that. But it's an easy mistake to make, what with all the strawmen out today.

Inclusion of LGBT+ people in the setting does not dictate anything else on the setting. And I, and pretty much everybody else who's argued in favor of inclusion, has explicitly or implicitly stated that interaction with the setting makes such identities more interesting... but that's not a requirement if the game isn't prepared to deal with those topics. At which point all of what you brought up is moot anyway.

Belac93
2016-06-12, 01:34 AM
In one of the games I'm DMing, I have a gay PC, a straight PC, a PC who is reportedly straight, but seems to have to romantic interests, and a straight PC (the youngest of the group IC, and the only married one).

Steampunkette
2016-06-12, 01:41 AM
I'm pretty sure if you include Mogwai, then the entire game becomes about gremlins, because you're playing Gremlins the RPG or making whatever system you're playing with into Gremlins the RPG until such time as that arc is over, if it ever ends. :smalltongue:

Funny.

Marginalized
Orientations
Genders
And
Intersex

An acronym for LGBTQIA that sums up any group under the umbrella without requiring further division.

golentan
2016-06-12, 02:11 AM
Yeah...

If it were basically anyone other than you, I'd be convinced that the GM was masturbating at the table. :/

We agreed to gloss over the physical side of things except when it would be really, really funny to make a joke, and the character became a respected patriarch of his aslan clan and the ladies were able to expand their business ventures to a wider variety of import export with the aide of their human consultants.

Esprit15
2016-06-12, 02:27 AM
I just go with what feels right for a character. Sometimes it's a guy who goes for the cute girl, sometimes it's the girl who hops into bed with the shapeshifter and a friend, sometimes the character doesn't form romantic attachments due to their distracting nature. Come to think of it, the only thing I probably haven't played is a trans character, and that's mostly because it's not something I'm familiar enough with to try.

As far as settings go, while it is easiest to just assume heterosexuality, I do it more out of personal ease than out of any attempt to pretend a group doesn't exist. Plus, as far as I know at least, everyone at my table leans far closer to straight than any other section of the spectrum, though that hasn't stopped a few bisexual or homosexual characters from being played. Even when they stayed at a brothel though, it barely came up (phrasing).

Phoenixguard09
2016-06-12, 02:46 AM
I remember reading something about a setting where sex always led to the creation of a spirit, but of course, not always a body for that spirit to inhabit.

The un-bodied spirits then turned into evil creatures which hungered for a proper life or something like that and tried to kill people.

No homosexual relations would of course lead to plenty of these creatures roaming around, so it was frowned upon as literally being dangerous to the survival of the species.

I found this very interesting, but I have no doubt that I have butchered the retelling. How would you feel if your GM suggested a game in this setting?

goto124
2016-06-12, 02:56 AM
I know a GM on these forums (I'm not his player) who rolls for sexual orientation for his NPCs. This is a character-driven game with a group who's been together for over a year, rare for a PbP. There're plenty of mares women NPCs and the PCs include lesbians. One of the male NPCs rolled gay, but his sexual orientation has yet to come up in-game and the players realized only because the GM decided to mention it OOCly.

I also have a PC who started out straight male, but transformed into a bisexual genderfluid due to another dashing straight male PC and his beautiful girlfriend... :smallbiggrin:

Consistent playing with a straight male PC (played by a straight male player) means I typically bring out straight/bi female characters when it's romantic/sexy time. Sometimes I wonder if I'm discriminating against male gays. Then I realize that because I've only ever played romance and sexuality with the aforementioned straight male PC, sexuality in my games has never come up except in relation to that singular PC.


I found this very interesting, but I have no doubt that I have butchered the retelling. How would you feel if your GM suggested a game in this setting?

"Why are you deliberately creating a setting where any sort of non-reproductive sex is automatically wrong? Not just homosexual sex, but also heterosexual sex with contraceptives. It's sex-negative by making the "sex is evil unless it makes babies" be literally true."

This setting going to be FULL of heterosexual couples who doesn't want babies, but desire sex anyway - maybe they try to find sexual acts that satisfy them without creating spirits. We haven't even gotten to the LGBT people. Are spirits created only when a male part is involved? This is reflective of RL beliefs of what 'counts' as sex.

I might play, but only if the game is about dealing with the many, many social issues that crop up, and even then only when I trust the GM to deal with it in a manner that indicates actual knowledge of whatever issues are involved.

Steampunkette
2016-06-12, 03:03 AM
Agreed with Goto. I'd never play in a setting where nonprocreative sex creates monsters. It's everything Goto said.

It makes infertility an abject evil, marginalizes most trans folks as evil, and makes basically every gay person who has relationships into the literal mother of monsters.

There's so many layers of gross, there.

Zale
2016-06-12, 03:15 AM
I'm kind of shocked at all the other posters above me (like the passive-aggressive "welcome to heteronormativity-burg" guy) who are insisting that other people's medieval-based settings have to import early 21st century Western European norms regarding gender and sexuality, or that they are somehow doing something wrong if they don't.

Ok.

I don't want to play in a game where I have to deal with archaic notions about gender and sexuality. I live in the bible belt. I get plenty of that just from my day to day life.

If you want to do that, go ahead. I don't care. I just don't want to take part in it. It is emotionally exhausting for me in a way I don't want to deal with.


those norms would probably be even more out of place in the fantasy setting because things like access to magic obviously would shape their reasoning (for example, access to mind-affecting spells may mean that "pray-away-the-gay" actually works

I wish I had the emotional distance from that to be able to use it as a thought experiment. It would make my life much more bearable.



I found this very interesting, but I have no doubt that I have butchered the retelling. How would you feel if your GM suggested a game in this setting?

My religious conviction that homosexuality was wrong nearly led to me taking my own life.

I wouldn't take part in the game. I probably wouldn't talk to them again.

goto124
2016-06-12, 03:16 AM
It makes infertility an abject evil, marginalizes most trans folks as evil, and makes basically every gay person who has relationships into the literal mother of monsters.

There's so many layers of gross, there.

But if the curse was set upon by an evil god, and the PCs are running about figuring out how to fix it while caring for the afflicted people?

If everyone knows this campaign is explicitly about people of all types, who want to have sex but it's detrimental to society, and how they deal with it? If everyone, especially the GM, has the knowledge to handle sexuality and LGBT issues? If everyone trusts one another, especially the GM?

That sounds like quite a campaign.

There are people who don't want to deal with such issues in their fantasy games, that's perfectly alright. Even I like to play fantasy games where LGBT people just kind of exist with zero trouble at all. It's a perfectly valid type of campaign, as is the type where LGBT issues do exist in some fashion and have to be dealt with.

What I am against, is automatically assuming LGBT is shunned or bad by default. If there's gender or sexuality discrimination, it has to be an explicit feature of the setting, not something that popped out of nowhere because "of course they'll discriminate" (or worse, because the GM is OOCly discriminatory and actually thinks certain discriminatory beliefs are true). If I create a fighter lady and NPCs start commenting on how women should stay in the kitchen, and gender discrimination wasn't stated anywhere in the pitch for the campaign, I'll at least have a long talk with the GM.

It's one thing if the setting is explicitly "this RL setting" and is actually historically accurate to a T, another thing if the GM says "it's a medieval setting what did you expect" when many other parts of the setting aren't remotely historically accurate, showing clear signs of lack of research, or even turns out to be more LGBT-unfriendly than its closest historical counterpart.

Assuming it's even a counterpart to a RL setting. If it's purely fictional, all bets are off. If you don't provide some interesting social beliefs that interact with sexual orientation and handle it in a 'actually did the research' way, let me play my gay character dammit. Not that different from making settings gender-equal so that players can play female characters without discrimination.

Comissar
2016-06-12, 04:03 AM
I'm currently running Reign of Winter IRL for some friends. As anyone who's run an adventure path likely knows, you get all kinds of backstory on all your NPC's that helps inform how they'll act and react to the PC's actions. This includes their sexuality and (unsurprisingly) their gender. I'm going to touch on some very light spoilers for the campaign path, so don't read ahead if that bothers you.

As has been mentioned up-thread, Paizo keeps a (in my mind) pretty good diversity of characters in its worlds. Within Reign of Winter, each town/city has multiple NPC's, and to my memory each location's NPC's has a number of LGBT characters within the populace. It's usually just a line or two mentioning the fact, most town/city NPC's only get a paragraph, but it's still nice to see. There's a more significant pair of NPC's in the third book. One is a dungeon warden who, while not actively hostile toward the PC's, is not exactly helpful either. She's dealing with an invasion at the time of the PC's arrival, and effectively doesn't know how to treat the group. Her lover is found locked inside one of the rooms. Within the story, they've quarrelled recently and, in the heat of anger, the warden locked her lover in their shared room until she could get an apology out of her (for something her lover didn't actually do, incidentally).

The warden's lover is actually a transgendered Elf (or Half-Elf, I forget which now). She initially started wooing the warden pre-transition, much to the bemusement of said warden. After some effort on the Elf's part, they began a relationship, and the Elf transitioned thanks to the warden's magic. There's a decent bit more about it all in the DM guide to the section, but it effectively boiled down to two things. 1) The warden is in a non-heterosexual relationship, and 2) The person she's in a relationship with is transgender. Of these, only 1) is immediately visible to the PC's, because magical transition.

Fast forward a week or so in campaign time, and the group run into the locked room in the dungeon and smash the door down (because of course they do). They find the Elf in there looking resigned to her fate. Suddenly hopeful at seeing the PC's, she gives a brief explanation of why she's locked in ('the warden locked me here because she thinks I cheated on her', or words to that effect). So of course, and as I'd expected when seeing that this scene was coming up, the PC's latch on to the most obvious thing with that statement. The warden's locked her lover in a room without her consent and that's a really awful thing to do to someone you love. So to cut a rambling story short, they help her escape from the warden, which upsets the warden significantly when she finds out (after the escape has already happened) because she still harbours feelings toward the Elf, who in turn now just wants to leave and not return.

So the PC's know that the warden and Elf were in a relationship, but didn't know much of the Elf's backstory. If they'd chosen to ask about it, it would've been revealed to them, but they opted to focus on the important question of 'how do we get you out of here?' And honestly, this is how most NPC's in the game are treated. My group is pretty good at staying focused on solving the problems of NPC's, regardless of what brought them to that point. In fact, they're so good at it that I sometimes have to have said NPC give clumsy exposition because they know something important, the game designers assume PC's will ask them, and my group just don't ask at all :smalltongue:

TL:DR - LGBT characters definitely exist in the campaign world I run. Their status as LGBT is often only tangentially important to the plot, and is not treated as being unusual or worrisome by the group I run the campaign for. The details I'm given let me inform their actions, but the story is ultimately about the PC's, and their story largely revolves around hitting stuff really hard until it doesn't need to be hit anymore and solving a major political issue (which I won't spoil), and they don't seem to have any real inclination toward exploring relationships with other characters beyond friendships.

Steampunkette
2016-06-12, 04:25 AM
100% with Commisar, 99% with Goto.

Even in hyper realistic midieval settings gay people existed, and often weren't harassed about it contrary to historic revisionism.

The Ponte delle Tette is a great example. Gay sailors visiting Venice were so common that the Government was scared of the population falling off. Rather than lead a big anti-gay religious pogrom, they employed every sex worker in the city by demanding they stand on a bridge with their... *ahem* "wares" on display at all hours of the day and night, year round.

Middle of winter? Start barrel fires for warmth and pull down your gown to advertise sex services!

Before the number of gay folks threatened the population they just didn't care.

Also trans people, Intersex folks, and others have always been a thing and previously received varying levels of respect depending on where, when, and to whom they were born.

Berenger
2016-06-12, 04:48 AM
Even in hyper realistic midieval settings gay people existed, and often weren't harassed about it contrary to historic revisionism.

This. As a rule, I'm highly sceptical of any statement that starts with "In the Middle Ages, people thought / were / did...". I can't think of any major trend (in politics, religion, warfare, travel / trade, acceptance of [insert a lot of minorities / groups of people] etc.) that had no notable exceptions at least in some places or at some times. I think the most common misconception about "The Middle Ages" is the complete underestimation of the cultural developments and the diversity going on.

goto124
2016-06-12, 05:24 AM
I remember reading something about a setting where sex always led to the creation of a spirit, but of course, not always a body for that spirit to inhabit.

The un-bodied spirits then turned into evil creatures which hungered for a proper life or something like that and tried to kill people.

No homosexual relations would of course lead to plenty of these creatures roaming around, so it was frowned upon as literally being dangerous to the survival of the species.

I found this very interesting, but I have no doubt that I have butchered the retelling. How would you feel if your GM suggested a game in this setting?

I just had another idea!

How do people even know non-reproductive sex leads to evil spirits? What if it's all hogwash made up by a religion to convince people that such sex is evil, and the spirits are actually created by something else? Or the spirits don't exist?

The effects on society and people are still largely the same, but removes the OOC implications that the GM is sex-negative.

KillingAScarab
2016-06-12, 05:39 AM
Sexuality hasn't often been brought up at the physical tables I have been at. When it has, I think it was often mishandled, and those groups were immature in general. I was probably also quite ignorant.

I think my approach now is somewhat similar to The Gentleman Gamer's in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ_D1G7suSg). To paraphrase, while I worry about giving the subject the respect it deserves and I don't want to make it the focus of a character, none of my characters are myself, so if it adds to the story, why not?


Most campaign settings put men and women on equal footing and feature fantastic monsters, magic, and psionics. And many of them aren't bog standard fantasy settings made up of murder hobos wandering mystical lands.This reminds me, my introduction to Forgotten Realms was through Baldur's Gate, where the character creation screen flat out states there is equality between the two character creation choices. Some time later when I was considering taking over as DM, I purchased the 3.0 book Faiths and Pantheons and noticed this is very much not the case for non-standard player races. Obviously, there's the drow, but its also in the text for the orc deities. In the entry for Luthic, it says her favored weapon is unarmed and there's a monk tradition which is kept secret because orc women are forbidden from training with weapons... so I guess they want you to waive away monk weapon proficiencies. Luthic herself is also very limited. While you can say this is a sign of the evil tendencies, I think I would rather significantly change that or choose a different setting. Especially considering half-orcs.


So the Historical accuracy argument doesn't hold water on two different levels. First that historical accuracy need apply and second that it's assumed to be medieval fantasy just because it's a TTRPG.We're also on the forums for a specific webcomic. *looks author's quote in signature*

Scarlet Knight
2016-06-12, 06:28 AM
You would still think that some of Harry's classmates would have been known to be lesbian or gay. So if she really said "lots of characters" that's a copout.
I do see why it wasn't made explicit that Dumbledore was gay. Teenagers aren't interested in the sexual orientations of old men.

But there was the Valentine's Day celebrations. And the ball. And so on.


They were lots of gay characters, but they were in Hufflepuff, so no one talked to them anyway...

Except for Professor Quirrell, who must be trans with that Norma Desmond turban of his...

goto124
2016-06-12, 07:06 AM
They were lots of gay characters, but they were in Hufflepuff, so no one talked to them anyway...

I should not be laughing this hard.


This reminds me, my introduction to Forgotten Realms was through Baldur's Gate, where the character creation screen flat out states there is equality between the two character creation choices. Some time later when I was considering taking over as DM, I purchased the 3.0 book Faiths and Pantheons and noticed this is very much not the case for non-standard player races. Obviously, there's the drow, but its also in the text for the orc deities. In the entry for Luthic, it says her favored weapon is unarmed and there's a monk tradition which is kept secret because orc women are forbidden from training with weapons... so I guess they want you to waive away monk weapon proficiencies. Luthic herself is also very limited. While you can say this is a sign of the evil tendencies, I think I would rather significantly change that or choose a different setting. Especially considering half-orcs.

It's great that while gender discrimination exists and is specifically called out in specific cultures, such discrimination is not a 'by default' thing. In fact, the default is the lack of gender discrimination, and any such discrimination is part of the flavor of the setting.

I would note such gender (and LGBT) discrimination and let my players know about it beforehand, in the pre-game setting notes. Especially if I'm keen enough on the gender discrimination that it affects character creation.

Yora
2016-06-12, 07:42 AM
This. As a rule, I'm highly sceptical of any statement that starts with "In the Middle Ages, people thought / were / did...".

As a rule it should be "In the Victorian Age people thought that in the Middle Ages people tought/were/did..."

That was probably one of the worst periods of systematical history forging and defamatory lible ever.

Themrys
2016-06-12, 07:42 AM
We do it the same way as Pluto!; gender and sexuality typically don't come up unless one of the players initiates something or it's important to the plot, at which point both become whatever they need to be.

I'm kind of shocked at all the other posters above me (like the passive-aggressive "welcome to heteronormativity-burg" guy) who are insisting that other people's medieval-based settings have to import early 21st century Western European norms regarding gender and sexuality, or that they are somehow doing something wrong if they don't.


Well, if you want to play in an all-male group, you certainly can have your average misogynist medieval society as a setting. Just don't complain that there are no female players at your table. I don't live in the Bible Belt, but I still get enough misogyny daily that I don't think it an exciting thing to play. (Besides, what would I play in your historically correct ****ty medieval setting? Someone's wife? No thanks.)


@Scarlet Knight: Of course! It all makes sense. Hufflepuff is the only house founder who had those "early 21st century Western European norms" regarding children's right to get an education, so it would make sense that the Hufflepuff house teacher is the only one who'd make any effort to protect the little lesbian witches and gay wizards from bullying. So they'd all go there. And then, no one would talk to them.

Clistenes
2016-06-12, 08:40 AM
As a rule it should be "In the Victorian Age people thought that in the Middle Ages people tought/were/did..."

That was probably one of the worst periods of systematical history forging and defamatory lible ever.

It's kinda a cyclical thing.

Right now there are a lot of historians, anthropologists...etc. writing that the pre-industrial people where way more tolerant/civilized/open/free that we give them credit. People pick it up, and repeat it at internet forums and everyday conversations, and is slowly becoming mainstream belief.

At some point historians will dug out some documents, write some essays, and remind us of all the pyres, castrations, tortures, executions, slavery, rapes...etc., and the pendulus will go the other way, and everybody will speak about how horrible was the past and how minorities were exploited and oppressed.

It is something that has always happened and will always happen. Books of history tell us more about the mindset of the writer than about the period they write about; they write about the issues that worry people during their own time, and project them on the past.

And in Europe's Middle Ages's case, they were an extense time period and Europe is a large and diverse place, so it is dangerous to generalize: What could get you burnt or quartered alive in a time and place was tolerated in another one.

Iceforge
2016-06-12, 09:08 AM
When I am DM'ing, the sexuality of NPCs rarely come into play, I have had several NPCs where my thoughts was they was homosexual, but it never manifested in play.

I have played a homosexual character in a one-shot once, just because it felt like the right thing for the character.

Sexuality rarely comes into play at all in the games I participate in, so thats the main reason its not that included, that being said, if my feeling for a character is they are of a certain sexual orientation, then thats what they going to be.

Never had a trans character in a game, but then I guess I just don't relate/have inner understanding enough for it to get the "feeling" that its the right thing for a character/NPC when developing them. Im not counting cursed "gender swap" items in this, as thats not the same thing at all.

Satinavian
2016-06-12, 09:19 AM
I've seen many gay, bi or asexual PCs and NPCs and even some intersex individuals. It is still by far not a mayority, but not rare either.

As for trans, well, that gets complicated. Trans makes no sense without gender roles/gender stereotypes.So the possibility to actually be trans and what that means depends very much on the fantasy culture depicted.

goto124
2016-06-12, 09:27 AM
Trans makes no sense without gender roles/gender stereotypes.So the possibility to actually be trans and what that means depends very much on the fantasy culture depicted.

Many people here depict LGBs without any sort of discrimination in play. I wonder what that would look like for trans people.

Comissar
2016-06-12, 09:33 AM
Many people here depict LGBs without any sort of discrimination in play. I wonder what that would look like for trans people.

I think the difficulty is actually seeing it in a given campaign. When magic abounds, and there's plenty of ways to magically alter yourself, it becomes unusual to run into a trans. individual who has not transitioned. Mostly that's a result of 'well, why not just use spell x, or magic item y?' And if they have done the above, then if they're an NPC, why would it come up at all if the PC's don't ask about it?

There are probably a not insignificant number of low level NPC's without the access to such means, but the PC's will not be interacting meaningfully with that kind of level of NPC for very long in a typical adventure, and even if they do the question does again arise of whether or not they'd even become aware of it?

It could make an interesting driver for why a character took up adventuring, though. It's a quick, if dangerous, way to make money and could therefore provide the most expedient means for the PC to get to where they want to be.

Max_Killjoy
2016-06-12, 09:34 AM
It's kinda a cyclical thing.

Right now there are a lot of historians, anthropologists...etc. writing that the pre-industrial people where way more tolerant/civilized/open/free that we give them credit. People pick it up, and repeat it at internet forums and everyday conversations, and is slowly becoming mainstream belief.

At some point historians will dug out some documents, write some essays, and remind us of all the pyres, castrations, tortures, executions, slavery, rapes...etc., and the pendulus will go the other way, and everybody will speak about how horrible was the past and how minorities were exploited and oppressed.

It is something that has always happened and will always happen. Books of history tell us more about the mindset of the writer and than about the period they write about; they write about the issues that worry people during their own time, and project them on the past.

And in Europe's Middle Ages's case, they were an extense time period and Europe is a large and diverse place, so it is dangerous to generalize: What could get you burnt or quartered alive in a time and place was tolerated in another one.


Very good point. It's hard (but nowhere near impossible) to find writing about history that sets aside the author's modern concerns. Revisionism is also a major concern.

Any amount of serious digging across the time and distances that encompassed "medieval Europe" will reveal stories to support either argument.

EternalMelon
2016-06-12, 09:37 AM
I've seen many gay, bi or asexual PCs and NPCs and even some intersex individuals. It is still by far not a mayority, but not rare either.

As for trans, well, that gets complicated. Trans makes no sense without gender roles/gender stereotypes.So the possibility to actually be trans and what that means depends very much on the fantasy culture depicted.
Trans also deals with discrepancies in the physical body. Its not at all gender roles and stereotypes. In a game with sex changing magic, being trans would only be as big a deal as one makes it be.

Many people here depict LGBs without any sort of discrimination in play. I wonder what that would look like for trans people.
As with LGB+s, it should be no more than a blip on the radar unless it has any plot relevance. LGBs without discrimination are treated as fairly as Heterosexuals, as would Trans people be treated fairly with Cis people.

KillingAScarab
2016-06-12, 10:04 AM
It's great that while gender discrimination exists and is specifically called out in specific cultures, such discrimination is not a 'by default' thing. In fact, the default is the lack of gender discrimination, and any such discrimination is part of the flavor of the setting.

I would note such gender (and LGBT) discrimination and let my players know about it beforehand, in the pre-game setting notes. Especially if I'm keen enough on the gender discrimination that it affects character creation.True, that is a point in its favor. That also sounds like a reasonable way to handle it. I guess I'm just hung up on the effect it could have on half-orcs since they were a standard player race.

Malimar
2016-06-12, 10:31 AM
What I said in the last thread about this topic:

In my setting, 90% of the (NPC) population are bisexual. This is mostly to maximize the number of romantic possibilities -- if a PC wants to romance an NPC, it doesn't matter what their respective genders are (it mostly came up because there's one female PC on an unofficial quest to sleep her way through most of the female NPCs).

In the main country where PCs adventure, women have equal rights to men (including cognatic inheritance of properties and titles). The aristocracy is implicitly encouraged to acquire at least one opposite-sex spouse, for heir-producing purposes, but other than that all their marriages (polygamy is encouraged for the aristocracy and permitted for everybody else) can be whatever.

Nobody, be they in the majority or the minority, faces discrimination due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Other countries do things differently -- some are more agnatic, others are more enatic -- but that's not for realism purposes so much as it is for variety purposes.

SilverLeaf167
2016-06-12, 11:13 AM
Generally speaking, I've made the decision that my D&D settings at least don't really feature any of our real-world prejudices; I don't take it for granted that a completely alternate world would have the same unjust norms we do, and homophobia etc. isn't really something I want to deal with in a relatively light-hearted game. "Fantastic racism" against goblins etc. exists, if only because it's such a staple of the genre, but tends to be less pervasive (and accurate) than in most settings. Games in a more realistic setting would presumably work, well, realistically, but I doubt I'd make a big deal out of it.

In terms of NPC gender, I typically just go with whatever I feel like without really thinking about it, but there are a few places where I've made the conscious decision to make someone female, for variety if nothing else. Male still tends to be "default", but not for any intentional reason. Complicated by the fact that Finnish pronouns etc. are gender-neutral, so most characters' genders don't actually get mentioned at all and the players might very well miss what I intended for a character. You might say that nobody's gender is established until explicitly stated. Schrödinger's Gender? :smalltongue:

Sexuality, romance or even married couples haven't really featured that much in any of our games, but if they somehow did, I'd follow the same principle. The same applies to other LGBT+ issues.

Regitnui
2016-06-12, 11:42 AM
While I think ttRPGs, and especially D&D, is a great place to talk about gender diversity, I haven't used it much in-game. In retrospect, it doesn't come up much at all. However, the Warforged races are a great "safe" way to talk about transsexuality (big, hulking construct calls itself female and wears a dress, as an example), and changelings are an interesting study in sexuality. This is, of course, assuming that your group is mature enough to handle it. I once ruined succubi for someone by mentioning that the original myth had them become incubi at will, only *cough* attacking men for sperm they'd then use for themselves after turning incubus.


And mostly, I stick to evil plotting, murdering of potentially important NPC's by accident, and raising undead legions to do my bidding. Also headbutting Darkmantles into cave walls.

Can I sig this?

ClintACK
2016-06-12, 11:43 AM
I don't mean to be rude, but Oberyn is not gay. He's bisexual.

Oops. Apologies, yes. Definitely.

Themrys
2016-06-12, 11:47 AM
In terms of NPC gender, I typically just go with whatever I feel like without really thinking about it, but there are a few places where I've made the conscious decision to make someone female, for variety if nothing else. Male still tends to be "default", but not for any intentional reason. Complicated by the fact that Finnish pronouns etc. are gender-neutral, so most characters' genders don't actually get mentioned at all and the players might very well miss what I intended for a character. You might say that nobody's gender is established until explicitly stated. Schrödinger's Gender? :smalltongue:

If you don't use gendered pronouns, then how do you know that male is the default in the players' heads?

Just saying, if German language was like that, I'd assume that the at least half of the guards at the city gate, etc, are female. :smallwink:

Granted, if you want to teach the players that women are not a minority, then that's a disadvantage. But if you're playing with male-as-default sexist people, and just want to have fun, I imagine it must be great. Like, they're sexist - but you don't notice it!

Thrudd
2016-06-12, 11:52 AM
While I think ttRPGs, and especially D&D, is a great place to talk about gender diversity, I haven't used it much in-game. In retrospect, it doesn't come up much at all. However, the Warforged races are a great "safe" way to talk about transsexuality (big, hulking construct calls itself female and wears a dress, as an example), and changelings are an interesting study in sexuality. This is, of course, assuming that your group is mature enough to handle it. I once ruined succubi for someone by mentioning that the original myth had them become incubi at will, only *cough* attacking men for sperm they'd then use for themselves after turning incubus.


Of course, that's obvious. Why else would Goody Brown's sin baby have the same eyes and red hair of Farmer Jones from down the way? The demon stole his sperm and put it in her. No other possible explanation.

SilverLeaf167
2016-06-12, 12:28 PM
If you don't use gendered pronouns, then how do you know that male is the default in the players' heads?

Just saying, if German language was like that, I'd assume that the at least half of the guards at the city gate, etc, are female. :smallwink:

Granted, if you want to teach the players that women are not a minority, then that's a disadvantage. But if you're playing with male-as-default sexist people, and just want to have fun, I imagine it must be great. Like, they're sexist - but you don't notice it!

Sorry, you seem to have taken that "male is default" remark a little more seriously than I meant. The players have no trouble accepting that 50% of NPCs they meet in any given situation are female. As far as "canon" goes, the gender split really is equal but simply never comes up. The way these misunderstandings usually become apparent is when I later describe a previously ungendered character with a gendered term (like "the armored man raises his sword" or something); I don't see inside their heads, so maybe they really do imagine 50% spreads, how do I know. That said, I don't think it's completely unreasonable for "male" to be a natural first impression when the person playing literally all the NPCs is a low-voiced male, too, and we don't really pay special attention to it. They're always open to this misunderstanding being fixed with a simple "oh, didn't catch that".

Yes, I acknowledge that it's still a form of ingrained sexism, but from your tone, it sounds like our group is a bunch of chauvinists who can't imagine female city guards or something. I'm not looking to "teach" them anything, as they all already know that and I'm just the DM in a group of friends, not some kind of authority figure. "But if you're playing with male-as-default sexist people, and just want to have fun, I imagine it must be great" is a pretty strong way to word it. You probably didn't mean it as an accusation, but please refrain from such overblown assumptions based on a single vague paragraph.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-12, 12:43 PM
I do find it funny that many people are complaining about bringing modern values into a game when you certainly see modern values in that the peasants aren't all deserving of their lot in life and aren't inherently inferior to the divinely mandated ruling class. You probably wouldn't get much traction in a game where a king who was illegitimately born but a great king was doomed to bring ruin and die horribly because he wasn't born in marriage, either. I mean, you're already cherry picking what bits of history you have and most games focus on extraordinary people. Medieval history didn't have elves, either, so things are already getting shaken up.

I don't think there's anything wrong with exploring these concepts in an RPG, but I don't think there's anything wrong with booting them out either. Being a slave to historical accuracy (that is widely debated and spans a small continent and several centuries to boot) at the price of a player's comfort is silly. Never considering trying to step outside the boundaries of history and play with world building is also silly.

Also, it gets a bit weird when most RPG art goes off of contemporary attractive values and people want more historical accuracy. Those breasts are too big! Bring on the forehead! Lady needs to be freaking translucent! Where's my unibrow!

Siosilvar
2016-06-12, 01:31 PM
But for trans, well, that gets complicated. Trans makes no sense without gender roles/gender stereotypes.So the possibility to actually be trans and what that means depends very much on the fantasy culture depicted.

Eh, not really. Current models basically boil down to "the brain is wired for a different body than the one they've got" which is perfectly possible for any species with sexual dimorphism/polymorphism. And the existence of such is going to lead to at least division of labor, if not more complicated gender roles.

Darth Ultron
2016-06-12, 01:39 PM
I mean, you're already cherry picking what bits of history you have and most games focus on extraordinary people. Medieval history didn't have elves, either, so things are already getting shaken up.


And not just history, it's cherry picking everything.

It's just a game. If your such a radical that you think a game ''must'' have X to showcase your particular point of view, and worse force it upon other people.....then you might not want to even play the game. You might want to go do something else...anything else.

Most games are combat adventures, so gender and sex don't matter, the color of the dragon matters. And you can have two married dwarf dudes, just don't make it such a big deal under the spotlight. Players -"Ok, we Thank Ron and Don for their information and head towards the Caves of Chaos'' DM-'The dwarven males Ron and Don are a married couple!'' Players-"OK. We go to the caves..." DM-''Dwarfs think that male marriage is a birthright!'' Players-"Um, the caves?" DM-"Any dawrf can marry whoever..or whatever they want and all of dwarfdoom accepts them all 100%!'' Players-"Um, the adventure? the cave? Can we play?"

TheCountAlucard
2016-06-12, 01:41 PM
Most games are combat adventures, so gender and sex don't matter, the color of the dragon matters.Respectfully disagree.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-12, 01:43 PM
Most games are combat adventures, so gender and sex don't matter, the color of the dragon matters. And you can have two married dwarf dudes, just don't make it such a big deal under the spotlight. Players -"Ok, we Thank Ron and Don for their information and head towards the Caves of Chaos'' DM-'The dwarven males Ron and Don are a married couple!'' Players-"OK. We go to the caves..." DM-''Dwarfs think that male marriage is a birthright!'' Players-"Um, the caves?" DM-"Any dawrf can marry whoever..or whatever they want and all of dwarfdoom accepts them all 100%!'' Players-"Um, the adventure? the cave? Can we play?"

Seems more like incompatible desires between DM and the players. DM wants world building, players do not. You might need to have a chat about expectations fo the game if they are trying to push for their dwarven culture when the players are trying to run away to fight something...

Also, do people just not play games where theft, blackmail, spying, or manipulation of political marriages are a thing? That's usually where this stuff comes up for me.

SilverLeaf167
2016-06-12, 01:45 PM
Eh, not really. Current models basically boil down to "the brain is wired for a different body than the one they've got" which is perfectly possible for any species with sexual dimorphism/polymorphism. And the existence of such is going to lead to at least division of labor, if not more complicated gender roles.

You make a good point about dimorphism and its effects on society. Personally, I've decided to recognize that it exists, but not to make a statistically significant deal out of it. Yes, I realize that it's unrealistic, and some gender roles could be considered "naturally occurring" - for instance, if men are larger and stronger on average, it's logical for that to have at least some effect on their career choices, even if there's no bigotry about it - but it's still a debated subject in real life and I'm not going the extra mile to nitpick it in a game where it isn't really relevant.

As I keep saying that, maybe I should note that I agree these subjects definitely can and should be discussed in games. Our particular group just happens to be a pretty light-hearted, apolitical one.

Kish
2016-06-12, 01:49 PM
And not just history, it's cherry picking everything.

It's just a game. If your such a radical that you think a game ''must'' have X to showcase your particular point of view, and worse force it upon other people.....then you might not want to even play the game. You might want to go do something else...anything else.

Most games are combat adventures, so gender and sex don't matter, the color of the dragon matters. And you can have two married dwarf dudes, just don't make it such a big deal under the spotlight. Players -"Ok, we Thank Ron and Don for their information and head towards the Caves of Chaos'' DM-'The dwarven males Ron and Don are a married couple!'' Players-"OK. We go to the caves..." DM-''Dwarfs think that male marriage is a birthright!'' Players-"Um, the caves?" DM-"Any dawrf can marry whoever..or whatever they want and all of dwarfdoom accepts them all 100%!'' Players-"Um, the adventure? the cave? Can we play?"
Gee, I wonder where that group is, and whether they're made of anything other than straw.

What I have seen, is a DM who looks at a module and goes, "Lesbian married couple? Their casually presented existence in the text is forcing us to discuss controversial material, and I'm mad at the writers for it." (Yes, he said that.)

Siosilvar
2016-06-12, 01:57 PM
And not just history, it's cherry picking everything.

It's just a game. If your such a radical that you think a game ''must'' have X to showcase your particular point of view, and worse force it upon other people.....then you might not want to even play the game. You might want to go do something else...anything else.

Can you name me a single example from this thread, without implicitly insulting everybody who supports inclusiveness of LGBT+ people in games?

And that's before getting to the fact that if you squint hard enough, any setting element could fall under that definition. Pure tactics games are fun, but at that point you're not really playing an RPG any more. They've all got noncombat rules for a reason.


As I keep saying that, maybe I should note that I agree these subjects definitely can and should be discussed in games. Our particular group just happens to be a pretty light-hearted, apolitical one.

Which is fair enough. I hope I've been consistent throughout this thread in maintaining that this stuff should only come up in a way suited to the game and group.

Steampunkette
2016-06-12, 02:01 PM
It's always kind of funny, for me, to watch people who are cisgender with no personal experience with trans identities or issues try to define transness based on their own logical understanding of gender exclusively as a social construct.

For the people who think gender is all about stereotypes and social assumptions: you're mistaken. Gender is inherent, performative, spiritual, and more.

One performs their gender as regards to social expectations and the way they were raised to understand "This is what (X Gender) does as compared to (Y Gender) or (Z Gender)"

But one also has an inherent understanding of themself as arranged in a manner incongruous with their internal perceptions of personal reality and how that impacts their emotional and psychological health both on the short and long term.

Further, one has the Spiritual understanding of self, which in our society is damned hard to reconcile with most modern religions which are dominated by cisgender people who offer no aid to the person grappling with issues beyond their understanding. This could also be viewed as metaphysical or any other term a person would apply to their understanding of the entity which is comprised of both mind and body without being solely defined by either.

Now here's the tricky part: It's a grab bag. Some people have issues with 1 and 3 but no issue with 2. Others have issues of 2 and 3 but not one. Some people have all three, and others have additional layers that I personally have no experience with and do not feel comfortable discussing due to my ignorance.

I hope this insight helps some people.

Themrys
2016-06-12, 02:11 PM
Seems more like incompatible desires between DM and the players. DM wants world building, players do not. You might need to have a chat about expectations fo the game if they are trying to push for their dwarven culture when the players are trying to run away to fight something...

Also, do people just not play games where theft, blackmail, spying, or manipulation of political marriages are a thing? That's usually where this stuff comes up for me.

Most of the groups I've played in focused on talking to the right people, doing detective work, etc. Only a small amount of the game was actual fighting.

There also was a lot of heterosexuality. Like "While you chat, the farmer tries to persuade you to marry her son." I thought it was hilarious and played along, ask if the dude is handsome and stuff. After all, inheriting a nice farm to retire to would be great!

On the other hand, I do not play D&D. I play DSA. Which isn't focused on dungeon crawls, so other topics than fighting DO come up, has equality of the sexes in most of the countries of the setting, and did away with sexual dimorphism because, guess what? It is a fantasy world. Women having the same upper body strength as men is more realistic than dragons.

It is a lot of fun to play. Sadly there are people who refuse to acknowledge the setting. I no longer play with those men.



For the people who think gender is all about stereotypes and social assumptions: you're mistaken. Gender is inherent, performative, spiritual, and more.


Is that so? Then kindly refrain from assuming that I have a gender. I have no such thing. I was socialized into the feminine gender role to some extent, I couldn't avoid that, but there is nothing inherent or spiritual about that.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-12, 02:14 PM
On the other hand, I do not play D&D. I play DSA. Which isn't focused on dungeon crawls, so other topics than fighting DO come up, has equality of the sexes in most of the countries of the setting, and did away with sexual dimorphism because, guess what? It is a fantasy world. Women having the same upper body strength as men is more realistic than dragons.

It is a lot of fun to play. Sadly there are people who refuse to acknowledge the setting. I no longer play with those men.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is DSA? Is that The Dark Eye? I've heard of it, but never seen an English translation.

Also, Sexual Dimorphism has never come up for my group because the lady PCs who tend to fulfill that role aren't typically human. Many times the setting just shrugs and declares that elves/orcs/goliaths/tieflings/dwarves/whatevers don't have that issue.

Comissar
2016-06-12, 02:21 PM
I hope this insight helps some people.

It's always helpful to get new perspectives, and I hope my comments haven't given an improper representation of where the issues are at! I ended up getting dragged into an argument on another forum about some real world laws being brought in with regard to transgendered individuals (deliberately being vague but I'm willing to bet you can guess which laws I'm referring to, but forum rules here say no to political discussion, so I won't address any comments in either direction on that beyond providing context for what I'm saying here).

The guy I was talking to held depressingly regressive views, and I decided to do some research in order to counter his points with actual facts. The process was quite interesting and did provide new perspectives on the pressures faced by the LGBT+ community as a whole, and transgendered individuals in particular (that being the focus of the forum discussion). But put bluntly, even if I take the time to research the difficulties and pressures faced by the community, I'm only ever going to be an outsider looking in, so to speak.

Even if I'm DMing a campaign with LGBT+ NPC's, or playing as a LGBT+ PC, it's still going to be from the outsider perspective. I feel like the representation is important (even if it's only me and a couple of friends seeing it), and that if I'm going to take the time to play characters (on both sides of the PC/NPC line) I should at least take the time to understand the differences in headspace that can exist.

Themrys
2016-06-12, 02:25 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but what is DSA? Is that The Dark Eye? I've heard of it, but never seen an English translation.

Also, Sexual Dimorphism has never come up for my group because the lady PCs who tend to fulfill that role aren't typically human. Many times the setting just shrugs and declares that elves/orcs/goliaths/tieflings/dwarves/whatevers don't have that issue.

Ah, yes, that would be it.

So, in your group, no one plays a female human? The Dark Eye usually encourages people to play human - the other races are so alien it requires an extra roleplaying effort to get them right.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-12, 02:28 PM
Ah, yes, that would be it.

So, in your group, no one plays a female human? The Dark Eye usually encourages people to play human - the other races are so alien it requires an extra roleplaying effort to get them right.

No, they just tend to be mages or thief-types. I'm seriously trying to remember the last time someone wanted to play a female human basher and I just can't remember. The last time I think someone got close was a Half-Elf barbarian, but I think she wanted her elven tribe to be matriarchal and females were larger. (I forget what the DM said about that.) It is dawning on me that my parties are very rarely human dominated, however...

I think I should admit that I do tend to favor some acknowledgement of the fact that human males are larger in many campaign worlds. I usually have males more heavily represented in jobs (mining, blacksmithing, etc.) or combat roles (infantry, heavy cavalry) that favor upper body strength and large size. Women get shuffled into other jobs and combat roles (slingers, healers, scouts, skirmishers, etc.) where their size is either not as important or a benefit. It's sorta there, but I'm actually on the extreme for the people I tend to play with who usually don't do this. If a player wanted to play an amazon, they're an amazon.

Kish
2016-06-12, 02:34 PM
Yeah, I play male characters and female characters, but rarely play human characters.

Darth Ultron
2016-06-12, 03:47 PM
Respectfully disagree.

With the first part or the second? Most RPG's are heavy on combat or if you want to be all Disney ''action''. I think this is very basic.

And as it's an ''action adventure'' then things like ''real life society'' don't matter. The game is about salying a dragon or getting some secret map or whatever....not some strange social commentary.


Gee, I wonder where that group is, and whether they're made of anything other than straw.

What I have seen, is a DM who looks at a module and goes, "Lesbian married couple? Their casually presented existence in the text is forcing us to discuss controversial material, and I'm mad at the writers for it." (Yes, he said that.)

So, wait, your against the players that just want to play the game and not be drawn into a strange social situation?

I don't see how ''that DM'' is any different then a DM that says ''This module has egg elves that are hatched from eggs'' or ''a halfling and giant married couple'' or ''some strange new magic sub system for shadow magic.'' It's fine to be upset with ''aquatic dwarves'' but not ''radical social stuff''? Why?


Can you name me a single example from this thread, without implicitly insulting everybody who supports inclusiveness of LGBT+ people in games?


An example of what? Cherry picking? Someone of ''one view point only'' attempting to ''force that single view point'' on others?

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-12, 04:00 PM
So, wait, your against the players that just want to play the game and not be drawn into a strange social situation?

If this is a person's reaction to the mere mention of a lesbian couple, then there's the door. Go away. Nothing is forcing you to discuss their situation, so you are not drawn in by the mere mention of it. And they're lesbians, if you haven't figured that one out by now, I'm honestly not sure how to interact with you. How is THAT strange?

Comissar
2016-06-12, 04:04 PM
With the first part or the second? Most RPG's are heavy on combat or if you want to be all Disney ''action''. I think this is very basic.

And as it's an ''action adventure'' then things like ''real life society'' don't matter. The game is about salying a dragon or getting some secret map or whatever....not some strange social commentary.

Well, I don't know if I agree entirely with that. On this very forum, the best RPG's I've been in have actually been very light on the combat and been all about the RPG interaction. I'm in one currently that's pokémon themed and the last actual combat we had was several months ago real time. Regardless of that, I'm having a blast with it. Different formats lend themselves to different styles of game, and different DM's will want to explore different themes. To pidgeonhole RPG's as 'Slay the Dragon, Save the Prince' with NPC's being relegated to shopkeeper duty is to focus on a very narrow band of RPG's.

Don't get me wrong, there's absolutely nothing wrong with playing that kind of thing. I tend to play that kind of thing with my RL group. I think there's a bit more space for nuance, but most of them are still relatively new to RPG's, so it's better to keep things mechanically focused until they're 100% comfortable with it. Once they are, the conversation can open up as to whether they want to take a more nuanced game, or stick with the tried and true combat orientated stuff. And I'll be fine with either. But in both cases, I'm going to put the effort in to give NPC's or my character's believable backgrounds, up to and including the presence of LGBT+ folk, regardless of how tangential it is. It may never come up, but everything about the character's backstory can inform how they're played, and should at least be considered.

Darth Ultron
2016-06-12, 04:12 PM
If this is a person's reaction to the mere mention of a lesbian couple, then there's the door. Go away. Nothing is forcing you to discuss their situation, so you are not drawn in by the mere mention of it. And they're lesbians, if you haven't figured that one out by now, I'm honestly not sure how to interact with you. How is THAT strange?

If you have something in the game like two male dwarves married or an elf married to a tree(not a trent, a tree) it should not matter. Any more then saying ''the sky is blue''.

But when the DM climbs up on their high horse and sits on a soapbox to decree their one sided beliefs in anything with a huge spotlight and force the players to acknowledge and agree with them....then that is the strange problem.

The player is there to play the game, not stroke the DM's radical social views.

SilverLeaf167
2016-06-12, 04:15 PM
If you have something in the game like two male dwarves married or an elf married to a tree(not a trent, a tree) it should not matter. Any more then saying ''the sky is blue''.

But when the DM climbs up on their high horse and sits on a soapbox to decree their one sided beliefs in anything with a huge spotlight and force the players to acknowledge and agree with them....then that is the strange problem.

The player is there to play the game, not stroke the DM's radical social views.

And earlier, you were asked whether you've actually run into a DM like that. They probably exist, but I'd hazard a guess they're mostly fringe exceptions. I'd bet everyone agrees with you that such a hypothetical person would be pretty annoying, though. This is what was meant by "straw (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawmanFallacy)": you arguing against claims nobody's actually presented.

Also, "radical social views" is a pretty strong word to use for something like this.

Comissar
2016-06-12, 04:19 PM
If you have something in the game like two male dwarves married or an elf married to a tree(not a trent, a tree) it should not matter. Any more then saying ''the sky is blue''.

You're right, it should not matter. And in my experience, it's not a point of contention when it is mentioned.


But when the DM climbs up on their high horse and sits on a soapbox to decree their one sided beliefs in anything with a huge spotlight and force the players to acknowledge and agree with them....then that is the strange problem.

The player is there to play the game, not stroke the DM's radical social views.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that the DM should be pushing their ideologies on other people. DM's are free to run the games they want to run. Equally, players are free to play in the games they want to be in. If you've seen a post I've missed in this thread stating that DM's should be using their games exclusively as political platforms, I'd appreciate you pointing me toward it.

Darth Ultron
2016-06-12, 04:34 PM
And earlier, you were asked whether you've actually run into a DM like that.

Any DM that goes out of the way to add this stuff to the game is a DM like that....


I don't believe anyone has suggested that the DM should be pushing their ideologies on other people. DM's are free to run the games they want to run. Equally, players are free to play in the games they want to be in. If you've seen a post I've missed in this thread stating that DM's should be using their games exclusively as political platforms, I'd appreciate you pointing me toward it.

Right. I'm saying the ''supporters of X'' should not put ''X'' in the game because, as they support X, they won't accept anything else other then ''100% you must agree with them and support whatever they say too...or else''.

It's a lot like saying you should not use a person/place/thing your a ''crazy fan'' of. Lets take Drizzt. You have DM Zeno, and he thinks Drizzt is the most awesome ever. He should never use Drizzt in any RPG as he is too much of a fan. Basically...you'd get the worst fan fiction. DM-"Drizzt looks at your character and because he is sooo cool you take a -20 to everything as your soooo scared!''.

And the ''radical social type'' DM is exactly the same.....

Comissar
2016-06-12, 04:43 PM
Any DM that goes out of the way to add this stuff to the game is a DM like that....

Stuff like what, precisely? The true complexity of the human(oid) creature? Including LGBT+ in a campaign is only a big deal if it's made into a big deal by one or more parties. It should otherwise just be an entirely normal part of the setting. Including it isn't bad DMing. Shoving it down someones throat would be (I was trying to think of a deliberately over the top example to use to illustrate my point, but I literally can't think of something that would constitute 'shoving it down someones throat'), but if the sum total of it being brought up is "Oh, if you're looking for the Smithy, Caelyn runs it with her wife. She's the best smith in town, you can trust her blades to never break." then I really fail to see where the problem is.


Right. I'm saying the ''supporters of X'' should not put ''X'' in the game because, as they support X, they won't accept anything else other then ''100% you must agree with them and support whatever they say too...or else''.

It's a lot like saying you should not use a person/place/thing your a ''crazy fan'' of. Lets take Drizzt. You have DM Zeno, and he thinks Drizzt is the most awesome ever. He should never you Drizzt in any RPG as he is too much of a fan. Basically...you'd get the worst fan fiction. DM-"Drizzt looks at your character and because he is sooo cool you take a -20 to everything as your soooo scared!''.

And the ''radical social type'' DM is exactly the same.....

So... Don't trust people to be able to include something they like the idea of? Should I veto someones character design because I'm concerned they like the idea of it? If somebody chooses a portrait for their character and I'm worried they're a bit too enthusiastic about how cool it looks, should I pick out a different portrait instead? You are aware that it's possible to entertain ideas that you don't inherently agree with, yes?

SilverLeaf167
2016-06-12, 04:51 PM
Any DM that goes out of the way to add this stuff to the game is a DM like that....

Well, if your assumption is that anyone including LGBT+ elements in any way, no matter how slight, is only doing so because they want to go on rants about them in the middle of the game, this "civil discussion" is pretty doomed from the start.

Many people, including me, don't see something like a same-sex couple as "radical". It's something that's become increasingly normalized in the western world and continues to do so. If most characters in a particular game are just cardboard cutouts, yes, a gay one is going to stand out and look forced. However, in any game where a given NPC might have a spouse, for instance, it shouldn't be "radical" for that spouse to be of the same sex.

As you said, "it shouldn't matter". Others here agree. The clear consensus is that LGBT+ characters should and can be treated like any other character, or whatever makes sense in the setting. There is nothing about them that makes them inherently disruptive to gameplay, unless of course one of the players happens to get upset by their simple inclusion, but that's why every gaming group should operate however works best for them.

Themrys
2016-06-12, 05:11 PM
Many people, including me, don't see something like a same-sex couple as "radical". It's something that's become increasingly normalized in the western world and continues to do so. If most characters in a particular game are just cardboard cutouts, yes, a gay one is going to stand out and look forced. However, in any game where a given NPC might have a spouse, for instance, it shouldn't be "radical" for that spouse to be of the same sex.


Yes. I honestly cannot imagine how one can play an rpg where no one ever knows anything about the private life of anyone.

Like, do you slay monsters all the damn time? And if so, why play an rpg and not just some other competitive game?

I play rpgs exactly for the reason that PCs have a bit more of a life than the pieces in a chess game. Of course, in a chess game, it would indeed be weird to announce that the Queen is lesbian and only married the king for political reasons.

However, if an NPC begs the PCs to save her spouse, who has been abducted by an evil monster, that spouse being female is not something that would warrant any discussion. Not in groups I'd be comfortable playing in, anyway. The PCs would just ask for a description and then go on to save the spouse. No need to discuss anything, because if you're a homophobe, there's the door - I am not even willing to discuss it.

Florian
2016-06-12, 05:12 PM
Depends on the game and setting used.

With D&D, that´s not a topic that ever comes up as way more interesting and exotic things exist. The "fantasy biology" even makes it hard to justify those topics at all, given how different things work as compared to the real world.
That should not come over as dismissive, but it´s hard justifying a topic like being trans in a game where people can suffer identity crisis from being stuck between two entire species or full body transformative powers are pretty common. And no, I don´t want to find out the sexual practices of druids once they gain Wild Shape or learn how the Half-Fire-Elemental Treeant came to be.

When playing other, more down to earth games, those topics can and will come up, as they are based on interaction with NPC and inter-party interaction instead of adventuring. Sexuality simply is one of the main driving forces for us humans and leaving that out would make the games more shallow for my taste.
For example, in a L5R game I gm, one player chose to have his character being gay but also into a political marriage and expected to produce an heir in the near future. Solving that dilemma is a pretty plot-driving force for the story development.

Malimar
2016-06-12, 05:16 PM
Most games are combat adventures, so gender and sex don't matter, the color of the dragon matters.

Just because you play a certain kind of game doesn't mean everybody else does.

I've got one player for whom D&D revolves around romantic relationships, and all that combat adventure business is secondary. As far as I'm concerned, sleeping your way through all my NPCs is just as legitimate a game experience as stabbing your way through them.

But no, there is One True Way to play TTRPGs and doing it any other way is badwrongfun.

The fact that so many people in this very thread care about gender and sex issues in their TTRPGs demonstrates that it does matter.

Darth Ultron
2016-06-12, 05:47 PM
Stuff like what, precisely?

The ''social stuff''.


Well, if your assumption is that anyone including LGBT+ elements in any way, no matter how slight, is only doing so because they want to go on rants about them in the middle of the game, this "civil discussion" is pretty doomed from the start.

I'm not saying anyone who uses the social stuff is a supporter. I'm not. And I use it like any other stuff: like ''social stuff'' is just like saying ''rock''. But if your entrenched on the one pro side, then yes, you should not use the social stuff.



There is nothing about them that makes them inherently disruptive to gameplay, unless of course one of the players happens to get upset by their simple inclusion, but that's why every gaming group should operate however works best for them.

This is only true of the DM is not on the side of the social stuff, otherwise you get the problem. And a lot like any sensitive, possible offense topic, you should just avoid it in general or at least ask everyone if it's ok before you do it.




I've got one player for whom D&D revolves around romantic relationships, and all that combat adventure business is secondary. As far as I'm concerned, sleeping your way through all my NPCs is just as legitimate a game experience as stabbing your way through them.

Well, sure it's no different then any other crazy house rules. Though if you really want to play ''Roses and Romance'' I wounder why you would not play a game with that in the rules? You'd have a ''Base Flirt Bonus'' to get past someones ''Shell Class'' and such. Sure you could just free from lots of romance and then ''play D&D for like five minutes'', but why would you want too?

Comissar
2016-06-12, 05:58 PM
The ''social stuff''.

Given you haven't addressed the rest of my post, am I safe to assume you agreed with it? Also, can you try being more specific? What is 'social stuff' to you. The way you're stating it right now is unbelievably vague. Do your NPC's exist solely to hand out quests?


I'm not saying anyone who uses the social stuff is a supporter. I'm not. And I use it like any other stuff: like ''social stuff'' is just like saying ''rock''. But if your entrenched on the one pro side, then yes, you should not use the social stuff.

Ah, so you didn't agree with it, but just ignored it. Cool. Like I said in my previous post, and leaving aside the obvious problems with a statement like 'if you have a view on something, you shouldn't ever include it', it's possible for a person to entertain views they don't agree with, and you can also present views you do agree with without dogmatically throwing them at people.


This is only true of the DM is not on the side of the social stuff, otherwise you get the problem. And a lot like any sensitive, possible offense topic, you should just avoid it in general or at least ask everyone if it's ok before you do it.

Except, as you yourself said earlier, it should not be an issue any more than 'the sky is blue' is an issue.


Well, sure it's no different then any other crazy house rules. Though if you really want to play ''Roses and Romance'' I wounder why you would not play a game with that in the rules? You'd have a ''Base Flirt Bonus'' to get past someones ''Shell Class'' and such. Sure you could just free from lots of romance and then ''play D&D for like five minutes'', but why would you want too?

To check, you're aware that social interaction in D&D is rules supported, right? And that 'hit it hard' is not the only legitimate means of securing victory. People all look for different things in their games. As has been said multiple times in this thread, the classic 'Slay the dragon, save the prince' style of play is perfectly legitimate. But not everybody wants to play that.

Cizak
2016-06-12, 06:03 PM
The ''social stuff''.

Care to give some insight on what this "social stuff" consists of, or should I just assume it's made entirely of straw?


This is only true of the DM is not on the side of the social stuff, otherwise you get the problem. And a lot like any sensitive, possible offense topic, you should just avoid it in general or at least ask everyone if it's ok before you do it.

I am not going to ask you if you are okay with LGBT+ people existing. If you aren't, the door is over there and you may join the game again when you've entered 2016.

Darth Ultron
2016-06-12, 06:06 PM
{scrubbed}

Themrys
2016-06-12, 06:23 PM
Well, sure it's no different then any other crazy house rules. Though if you really want to play ''Roses and Romance'' I wounder why you would not play a game with that in the rules? You'd have a ''Base Flirt Bonus'' to get past someones ''Shell Class'' and such. Sure you could just free from lots of romance and then ''play D&D for like five minutes'', but why would you want too?

Actually, The Dark Eye has rules for that.

I consider them silly. If you flirt against someone instead of with them, you are doing it wrong. (Granted, they might be useful for things like flirting with people to get information out of them. But not for roleplaying.)

But since you read OotS, presumably, as you are on this forum ... do you think the Order of the Stick are playing D&D all wrong and should not waste time with all this romance stuff? Or even this talking to pets stuff we got a lot of lately?

Comissar
2016-06-12, 06:30 PM
{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Ok, cool, we're starting to get somewhere then. Do you want to address the points I brought up? Because if the discussion is going to progress, that's a thing that will need to happen.


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Allow me to be clear here. You are the one being vague and dancing around the topic, deliberately using euphemisms rather than addressing what it is you mean. 'Social stuff is the vague subject we're discussing' does not clarify anything. If you're unwilling to clarify it yourself, we can try doing yes/no questions.

Are you objecting to the inclusion of backstory in general for NPC/PC's?

If no, are you objecting to including non-combat related situations in your RPG's?

If no, are you objecting to these non-combat related situations involving potentially romantic implications (even something as simple as an NPC bringing up that they're married)?

If no, are you specifically objecting to the inclusion of a relationship other than a heterosexual relationship (even something as simple as an NPC bringing up that they're married)?


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I generalised it away from the topic at hand because you decided to do so as well with your Drizz't example. It had little to nothing to do with how LGBT+ individuals are represented in RPG's other than to imply that you felt the inclusion of them was inherently pushing forward an agenda, and therefore should not be a thing. Given that was my reading of it, I decided to take your example to an extreme to highlight the absurdity of such an argument. If you were truly not intending to make that point, then I apologise.


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

A hardcore fanatic of what? You keep saying this as though it's a point worth consideration, but you're not being clear. A hardcore fanatic of representing the full spectrum of human diversity? What would the hardcore supporter of LGBT+ rights do in a campaign that would push you away from it? Try and be specific.



{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

There are literally entire skills whose only purpose is for non-combat use. There are spells for the same. There are magic items, mundane items, class features, feats, all of which are only useful for non-combat situations. To say D&D is a monster killing simulator is, while not technically inaccurate, focusing on only a subset of the full range of games available. If you've only ever played in combat heavy games, all I can do is recommend you at least try an RP heavy campaign. The forums are a good place for that.

Darth Ultron
2016-06-12, 06:32 PM
{Scrubbed}

goto124
2016-06-12, 06:58 PM
And no, I don´t want to find out the sexual practices of druids once they gain Wild Shape or learn how the Half-Fire-Elemental Treeant came to be.

Why not? Just joking :smalltongue:

Comissar
2016-06-12, 07:00 PM
Why not? Just joking :smalltongue:

So... Druids are behind Owlbears?

Steampunkette
2016-06-12, 07:06 PM
MOGAI people are normal, "Darth". And we belong in every place society holds, not some corner far away from others. Passive bigotry is still bigotry, even if you're not throwing around slurs. Your dog whistles and feigned politeness fool only yourself.

I suggest you actually surround yourself with MOGAI folks rather than villifying and ignoring them. Especially considering what just happened in Orlando.

Honest Tiefling
2016-06-12, 07:07 PM
MOGAI people are normal, "Darth". And we belong in every place society holds, not some corner far away from others. Passive bigotry is still bigotry, even if you're not throwing around slurs. Your dog whistles and feigned politeness fool only yourself.

Given that this is the SECOND topic I've encountered about tree-diddling on these forums, I think there's a greater argument that RPGers are the abnormal ones.

goto124
2016-06-12, 07:11 PM
So... Druids are behind Owlbears?

Gasp! Just when I thought those were caused by crazy wizards experimenting wildly! Wait.

Siosilvar
2016-06-12, 07:12 PM
{scrubbed}

I am existing right the **** here. You can't even bring yourself to name me, or to name why you're uncomfortable with me. If anybody is sitting in a "self-made bastion", I don't think it's me.

Steampunkette
2016-06-12, 07:24 PM
I am existing right the **** here. You can't even bring yourself to name me, or to name why you're uncomfortable with me. If anybody is sitting in a "self-made bastion", I don't think it's me.

Threadwinning post right here.

All of my likes.

Cizak
2016-06-12, 07:36 PM
{scrubbed}

Comissar
2016-06-12, 07:41 PM
MOGAI people are normal, "Darth". And we belong in every place society holds, not some corner far away from others. Passive bigotry is still bigotry, even if you're not throwing around slurs. Your dog whistles and feigned politeness fool only yourself.

I suggest you actually surround yourself with MOGAI folks rather than villifying and ignoring them. Especially considering what just happened in Orlando.


I am existing right the **** here. You can't even bring yourself to name me, or to name why you're uncomfortable with me. If anybody is sitting in a "self-made bastion", I don't think it's me.


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

All of this.


Gasp! Just when I thought those were caused by crazy wizards experimenting wildly! Wait.

So... Wizards have been experimenting with Druids..?

Steampunkette
2016-06-12, 07:48 PM
Circle of the moon druid. Not even once.

Phoenixguard09
2016-06-12, 08:08 PM
I don't think I've ever had an openly homosexual character in my games. I approach my games like real life in a sense, that behind closed doors I don't really want to know what you do.

I won't hold it against you, as long as you don't hold your bits against me so to speak. :P

As a heterosexual myself, playing in a group of pretty well all heterosexuals (one player has dabbled in bisexuality, another could well be asexual for all I know), I would say that heterosexuality would be the 'default' in my games. If a player wanted to play an openly homosexual character I would allow it, but I would inform the player, just as I inform all my players, that romance is unlikely to come up in game and that I would not spend much, if any time, on the mechanics of intimate encounters. I prefer the classic 'fade to black' in these circumstances, as would I am pretty sure, my players.

Roland St. Jude
2016-06-12, 10:17 PM
Sheriff: This thread seems to be out of hand. Locked.