LGBT in D&D products

[fearsidhe]

Here's something I posted before on the D&D forums, and I think this would be a good place to discuss the questions I ask. On those forums, it was moved to the Mature Topics division. ouch! I don't think any such fate will befall the thread here.

***************

So I'm wondering about something, and I have yet to develop a real opinion about it.

Many have been discussing the depiction of females in art and character concepts and how that succeeds or fails at drawing new people into gaming. What are people's thoughts about the depiction of gay people?

It's not something that one would normally expect in most fairy tale-style storytelling. And I understand if WotC is uncertain about what backlash they might receive from more socially conservative members of their audience.

I do remember two depictions of homosexual content, both in (Mature Audiences Only) Book of Exalted Deeds. One was a picture of a paladin confronting two succubi who are in each other's arms, with the caption "A paladin must decide between fighting evil and honoring love," indicating that the female-female love is not wrong in and of itself. The other is Morwel, Queen of Stars, with two consorts--Faerinal and Gwynharwif. Openly polygamous and bisexual in a very loving way--exactly what I'd expect of chaotic good! Of course she's *drawn* just with Faerinal, but the mention of her relationship with Gwynharwif definitely caught my attention.

Does anybody think that there should be more allowances of homosexual inclinations into the conceptual presentation? Or is that a topic that's too taboo for WotC to tackle? Too much social politics?

*****************

So I think it's very important to go keep asking the question "what would the representation of homosexuality in DND products look like?" So far, what we've suggested is:

1) Pictures of people who are somehow clearly LGBT, based on the picture.

2) Presenting characters who are LGBT in settings and adventures.

Number 1 presents a difficulty, in that the actual artwork of DND rarely depicts romantic or sexual situations. I can see how trying to explicitly place a "Gay picture" into DND books would come across as overly political and out of place. But I could envision a large tavern picture with lots of people doing lots of things, demonstrating people using their different skill ranks in the DND world. I thief is picking a pocket [sleight of hand] while his partner is having a charming conversation with the victim to keep him occupied [bluff]; meanwhile a woman with a sword on her backs gives the look of death to an annoying man who is hitting on her [intimidate], while a young wizard is using his adorable squirrel familiar as a tool to flirt with a handsome bard [diplomacy or pure Cha check]; across the room, two adventurers are arguing against each other to convince a third, who is trying to figure out whose plan to follow [opposed diplomacy, gather information]. Plenty going on there, nothing "adult" in nature, and it is clear that LGBT people are also potentially members of the DND world.

Another element that has been brought up in Astrid's Parlor (where this thread began), is the inclusion of male eye candy to match the female eye candy. There was a cover of Dragon (I think) magazine that depicted a remarkable attractive (and scantily but brightly clad) warrior on the cover. You might think it is shallow of me to want to see eye candy like that on a DND magazine cover, but I honestly do get the feeling that the editors are kinda thinking about me (and a good majority of women) by going ahead and printing that cover along with the chainmail-bikini-clad warrior-princesses.

Number 2 (presenting gay characters in settings and adventures) is probably more likely to gain ground in the future, and there have been a few examples such as those that Zandilar has mentioned. I'd love to see those continue and to grow somewhat.

Are there any other ways to increase inclusion? I'm sure there could be other ways for this to be done.

[Reinboom]

Fiendish Codex 2.
I have assumed that the statement "Up until now, the situation suited Fierna just fine. But thanks to her flowering relationship with Glasya, she has become interested in taking Phlegethos in more than just name." to be read between the lines - as in, a full relationship between Glasya and Fierna.

Of course, the book of vile darkness and the fiendish codex 2 hints at/states that there may be pleasure taken between Belial and Fernia (father and daughter).. so.. that might not be so great of a comparison situation here. :smalltongue:

[averagejoe]

It seems to me that this should not be, for the most part, something dealt with very strongly by the products, as romance in general is something that isn't governed by the rules. A few illustrations depicting homosexual relationships is alright (or, indeed, heterosexual relationships; as far as I know, there's nothing in the products which directly advocates straight love either) but for the most part I think discussions of romance of any sort should be left to the players. After all, human romantic/sexual relationships is something that could fill a book unto itself, let alone incorporating any sort of rules or discussing romance when there are multipule sentient species living among each other. There is no concievable way that they could deal with all this satisfactorily with just a blurb in the players handbook, and no one would buy a book devoted to it.

Also, I would more cynically note that the two instances of homosexual content you've mentioned both involve girl-girl relationships, which would incline me to believe that it is just as possible that they were added as a sort of male fanservice rather than to be progressive. Maybe that's unfair, but I don't see it as impossible, at least.

[The Extinguisher]

After all, human romantic/sexual relationships is something that could fill a book unto itself, let alone incorporating any sort of rules or discussing romance when there are multipule sentient species living among each other.

It already did.
Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Which I think, if I remember correctly, mentions homosexual relationships as well.

[FoE]

Generally speaking, I think the decision whether to include sexuality in their campaigns should be left up to individuals and DMs. If you want an erotica-heavy campaign, go buy the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

[Pandaren]

Flame, you are correct. And I definetly don't know because i own it. What would give anybody that idea?

[Vuzzmop]

A little off track, but, since when has there not been female eye candy in D&D? Pretty much all the males are attractive and athletic in appearance, and the same can be said for the women. Almost all of these pictures depict them doing something like casting a spell or using some sort of skill, not just standing there looking hot.
with lazers coming out of them and...exploding. Get the reference, win the internet.

But to get back on subject, I think that sexuality is really more of a roleplay thing, although, since I follow the branch of psychology that deems sexuality to be liquid rather than completely genetic, whenever my players are say, confronted by a succubus, all genders suffer the same affect etc. I don't see why homosexuality should be kept out of D&D art, but I don't see why it should be put in especially either.

[Talya]

Realmslore is packed with examples of Homosexual/Bisexual characters. And amazingly, Ed Greenwood didn't write most of them.

[mercurymaline]

In most campaigns (in my experience,) sexuality is moot, as it doesn't really come up in play. But in pre-made adventures, it is cool to see mention of homosexuality, in my opinion. Especially in the few instances where I have seen it, where it's sort of mentioned in passing, but not made a big deal of. Sort of an acknowledgment that it does exist in the world, but isn't a big deal.

I remember a piece in Dungeon that had a gay villain, I didn't even pay it that much attention til there was an interview with the author later. He said he expected to get hate mail for making the BBEG homosexual, but was pleasantly surprised that he instead got thanks just for writing an openly gay character.


morbid

[FoE]

Sexuality is somewhat irrelevant when you're staring down the windpipe of a red dragon or facing off with five thousand orcs. Then you get into what D&D is really all about: gratuitous violence!

*Departs thread*

*Runs into the room full of axe-swinging zombies*

LEEEEEEEROY JENKINS!

[Vuzzmop]

My gaming group have never played openly gay characters, which i've always thought was a little strange considering how secure we are in our heterosexuality ie we can act gay and know it means nothing. Most girls seem to be able to do it, but I guess guys generally lack that kind of physicality with friends.:smallconfused:

Still, adventure fantasy has always left romance as little more than a B plot. There has never erwally been an explanation for saving the princess from the cult of the beast other than "oh no, my love has been taken by the cult of the beast!", so I dont see how sexuality can ever form a big part of it as long as people act with a little maturity.

[Mattarias, King.]

:smallconfused: F.o.E. has a point. D&D is all about killing things and taking their stuff. Any romance, straight, homosexual or otherwise, is a sidenote that the PCs or DM have to incorporate into the plot.

On a sidenote, I currently play a necromancer, that, on a scale of "one to straight", as my DM put it, is "yes".

[Reinboom]

Sexuality is somewhat irrelevant when you're staring down the windpipe of a red dragon or facing off with five thousand orcs. Then you get into what D&D is really all about: gratuitous violence!

*Departs thread*

*Runs into the room full of axe-swinging zombies*

LEEEEEEEROY JENKINS!

...how attractive is the Red Dragon? :smalltongue:


Not quite D&D.. but a quote from a friend describing his character (while in character) during a Deadlands game (quote not exact):
"In my family, the men like women, the boys like women... even the women like women."
His timing and set up was perfect for it...

Aside, there is not much to really depict that often, in reality. I think for what little there has been, the flavor team has done a decent job at describing that it's there I guess..
The game isn't really about that though, as said.

[averagejoe]

It already did.
Book of Erotic Fantasy.

Which I think, if I remember correctly, mentions homosexual relationships as well.

Yes, but no one actually uses it, for the most part, and I'm pretty sure the people who do use it do so mostly for the feats that give you ginormous buffs for having sex, or something.

Anyways, I meant a book of a more achedemic type. As valient an effort as it makes, the BoEF is far from exhastive.

That said, in such a book homosexual relationships are, of course, perfectly appropriate. However, I would hesitate to call such a book appropriate for most DnD games. Sex is hardly taboo in my games, but we don't need a book of rules telling us what to do with it. Heck, one of my players once slept with and married an exact replica of himself. Doesn't mean such a thing has a place in the rules.

[FoE]

I think homosexuality is really the tip of the iceberg in a fantasy world. Remember, we're dealing with worlds where you can not only mate with a variety of different "mortal" races, but also artificial lifeforms, undead, fiends, fey, dragons ....

And as I said, it's kind of moot in a lot of situations.

Player 1: Hey guys, I'm gay.
Players 2-6: Well, that's great. In the mean time, what do you say we do something about the rain of fire hurtling down from the heavens and the gate to the Seven Hells that just opened up in market square, hmmm?

*Grabs a battleaxe in each hand*

*Runs out swinging at the nearest osyluth*

AT LEAST I HAD CHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICKEN!

[Brickwall]

If you've ever picked up a game by White Wolf, they tend to treat all sexualities with attention (if a bit more emphasis on lesbians/bisexual females because of the male writing staff). Wizards probably avoids it because it wouldn't add any to sales, and they don't need more people telling them that their books are evil.

[mercurymaline]

White Wolf core books have examples of how you would make certain skill checks, one of which is seduction. Goes something like:
Appearance vs. Perception (seeing and attractive person)
Wit vs. Willpower (pickup line)
Intelligence vs. something, can't recall (conversation)
Etc.
I remember there being something about actual sexual interaction, pretty glossed over, stamina checks and whatnot. Don't know why the hell this would ever be important to gameplay.

[Brickwall]

This has absolutely nothing to do with mechanics. Just talking about their flavor text. Also, where I game, we use Performance rolls :smallwink:

[FoE]

FoE: AH! Oh gods! My brain! IT BURNS!

Everybody Else: What's the matter? Psionic blast? Feeblemind? Some sort of brain parasite?

FoE: Worse! I just thought about Brickwall having to roll a 'Performance' check! AAAAAH!

@V: Aw, is widdle Brickie offended? I'm saww-ry. :smallamused:

[Brickwall]

At least I'm not the guy who has a cheerleader representing so nobody knows about his low score.

This is why you take ranks in stuff that has no clear mechanical advantage for you, people. As much as you may think not, there's more to the game than combat.

[averagejoe]

On the other hand, nothing says "I love you" quite like a greatsword to the head.

[Hell Puppi]

On the other hand, nothing says "I love you" quite like a greatsword to the head.

I digress. nothing says 'I love you' like taking soemone's weapon and beating them over the head with it.

Happened in one of my games, though the person in question did break my char's weapon =).

Ummm...yes....not sure about the LGBT in D&D just because I think games are more dictated by gm's and their players than by what the pretty pictures in books show...but that's me...

[Ichneumon]

I don't know. When I look at how awfully dnd depicts all women as supermodels, I do not think they could handle LGBT in their art without going to far with the stereotypes.

[Trog]

*Walks in eating a Bacon, Lettuce, Tomato and Garlic sammitch*

LGBT? Trog's Tavern serves those. They're tasty. *munch munch munch*

[Vaynor]

...how attractive is the Red Dragon? :smalltongue:

Now now, let's not bring bestiality into this...

[Mattarias, King.]

*Walks in eating a Bacon, Lettuce, Tomato and Garlic sammitch*

LGBT? Trog's Tavern serves those. They're tasty. *munch munch munch*

:smallconfused: Now we're talking something better than controversy! *wanders off looking for this tavern...*

[Ichneumon]

Now now, let's not bring bestiality into this...

You mean to say that dragons are inferior to humans?

[Pinnacle]

I don't know. When I look at how awfully dnd depicts all women as supermodels, I do not think they could handle LGBT in their art without going to far with the stereotypes.

Now, now, the men aren't that much better. And some of the new art looks like equal-opportunity ridiculousness to me (I'd have preferred the other way around, though...).


You mean to say that dragons are inferior to humans?

Other way 'round.

[ArlEammon]

:smallbiggrin: Well.... For the paladin and two succubi example, I would kill the lesbian demons not because they are gay, but because they are both creatures made out of 100% evil.... :smallbiggrin:

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

:smallbiggrin: Well.... For the paladin and two succubi example, I would kill the lesbian demons not because they are gay, but because they are both creatures made out of 100% evil.... :smallbiggrin:

Just a little off topic. But what you're saying is that, the succubi have no chance of being anything bad, when in the very same book as aforementioned picture talks about the redeemed villain. I guess it's all in how you interpret things.

On topic, I've never had this line of conversation come up in a game before, a a party I've been in has pretty much seen anything and everything under the sun. Quite frankly, I think it's a non issue.

[Illiterate Scribe]

Now now, let's not bring bestiality into this...

Nah, forget that, there's the sheer amount of furry stuffs - I'm sorry, but with catfolk, the guardinals, and now the dragonborn as player races, I need to start statting out the F40PH.

Also, beloved of Valarian ... :smalleek:

On topic - there was quite a bit of drama (the most heated stuff's been deleted now) here (http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0786931361/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_next_3?%5Fencoding=UTF8&pageNumber=3&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending), concerning LGBT in the BoED. There is, a little, but there's nothing wrong with it.

[Pinnacle]

Just a little off topic. But what you're saying is that, the succubi have no chance of being anything bad, when in the very same book as aforementioned picture talks about the redeemed villain. I guess it's all in how you interpret things.

Well, demons and devils are a little different, since they're literally made of evil.
Doesn't mean that they're entirely beyond redemption, but I'm not sure how two evil creatures (that the caption seems to indicate that the paladin would have otherwise attacked) being in love causes him to pause. Yes, love is nice, but would anyone expect the paladin to have hesitated if it was a succubus and an incubus together? It almost seems like "Look! We don't have a problem with homosexuals!"

Of course, considering what succubi are known for doing, being in love with an individual might be an indicator of reform and redemption...



In general, DnD books don't focus on anything outside of the context of action and adventuring. The pictures are mostly of cool-looking individual heroes, monsters, and villains or of fighting. Given that, there isn't any indication that none of the characters in the books are straight anyway. I don't know how sexual orientation could be called out without relying on offensive stereotypes, which wouldn't actually establish anything anyway (Almost all of the straight men I know are pansies compared to most of the women and gay men I know; these stereotypes are hardly universal).
And adventurers are generally a hardy lot that have more in common with each other than anyone else.

[Amotis]

In general, DnD books don't focus on anything outside of the context of action and adventuring. The pictures are mostly of cool-looking individual heroes, monsters, and villains or of fighting. Given that, there isn't any indication that none of the characters in the books are straight anyway. I don't know how sexual orientation could be called out without relying on offensive stereotypes, which wouldn't actually establish anything anyway (Almost all of the straight men I know are pansies compared to most of the women and gay men I know; these stereotypes are hardly universal).
And adventurers are generally a hardy lot that have more in common with each other than anyone else.

I agree with this. I hardly see any real subtle details on characters in D&D books, especially on sexuality or gender. So have LCBT in the books would have to rely on some over the top stuff for the most part. And this usually means stereotypes. I kinda see LGBT stuff in D&D being handled like gender equality in it. Time period wise, setting wise, it was hardly what they portray in the book. But for the most part they leave it up to the DM and the group to deal with how they want to approach it, wether it be more modern focused equality of genders, middle age/renn approach to genders, or mixing it up a bit for some roleplaying goodness. Whatever the case I think WotC leaves it up to the gamers to decide how they want to approach modern ideals of equality. Bringing it back to the point of: it's a game, have fun. Use what you want and add what you want. I also think some blatent LGBT characters/flavor/crunch in the books wouldn't be exactly what I want to see. It's about equality not pointing out people or lifestyles. Subtle inclusions or openess about the whole thing would be good but I hardly see that anyway in the books when other things are invovled.

[Talya]

You know, I've never played any RPG that more than 25% of the time is spent in combat. And I've mostly played 3.5. There's a lot of room for non-action elements.

[Pinnacle]

In the game, yes. But the rulebooks are mostly about the actual heroics and action--the part that needs rules.

[Vaynor]

You mean to say that dragons are inferior to humans?

No, I mean to say they are more like animals... err.. I was joking, ok? :smalltongue:

[AtomicKitKat]

Not really an "official" D&D thing, but the Temple of Elemental Evil(Return to?) computer game had that one gay pirate that the party members could get into a relationship with...:smallsmile:

[Lolth]

Well, on our chat, some players choose to pursue relationships, etc., and we don't discriminate between gender preferences, though of course individual player or DM tastes may vary.

I've long wanted to have a male-male PC relationship, sigh. One day...

[KindaChang]

I don't know. When I look at how awfully dnd depicts all women as supermodels, I do not think they could handle LGBT in their art without going to far with the stereotypes.

Don't forget the 2 hours in a gym minimum per day muscle men that are either attractive if they're good guys or ugly if they're the BBEG. Unless the BBEG is supposedly to be a sleaze, in which case he's attractive physically.

[TRM]

Now now, let's not bring bestiality into this...
My response. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/halfDragon.htm)

[Sleet]

There was a lesbian NPC in the Dragonlance 3.5 module Key of Destiny. It never made it into her character writeup because the author decided it was irrelevant to the story, but he's said in public that he thought she was gay.

[Corolinth]

As a general rule, you don't have LGBT products, because there's nothing to distinguish a gay PC from a straight PC except for role-playing elements. A gay cleric still requires wisdom to cast spells, still advances spells at the same rate, still has good fortitude and will saves, still has 3/4 BAB advancement, etc. The only difference is that such a cleric may have different deities available (depending on the dogma of the various gods in your pantheon), but that's a role-playing element. It's also no different than the restrictions in place for clerics of different genders or races (for example, certain canonical deities discourage male priests).

Romance is something that's handled through role-playing character interaction, and not through game mechanics. The Book of Erotic Fantasy does not have game mechanics for romance, it has mechanics for the consequences that stem from romance.

[Vuzzmop]

You know, I've never played any RPG that more than 25% of the time is spent in combat. And I've mostly played 3.5. There's a lot of room for non-action elements.

True, but whats your point? In a typical D&D or any RPG setting, sexuality doesn't really enter into the plot in any way other than a c-storyline, and even then, it is almost never handled appropriately ie as something that matters bugger all in a fntasy setting. Why is this thread here again?

[Kneenibble]

True, but whats your point? In a typical D&D or any RPG setting, sexuality doesn't really enter into the plot in any way other than a c-storyline, and even then, it is almost never handled appropriately ie as something that matters bugger all in a fntasy setting. Why is this thread here again?

(my bold)
Interesting word choice in this context sir. :smallwink:

Personally, I always thought the male sorcerer in the 3.0 PHB was a fox.

I do remember one distinctly gay image in a DnD book.
I forget what book and what edition it was in: it may have been the Manual of the Planes handbook for Baator in 2nd edition.
There was a picture of a huge, fat devil in a loincloth sitting in a chair playing with a little male fairythe size of his hand on his knee trying to escape - anyone remember it? He was holding one of the fairy's disembodied wings in his other hand, and while he was probably going to just eat the little fellow, there was a really disturbing sexual subtext.

[Lolth]

I'm happily queer myself (I know, yay me), so I'll probably get some flack for this, but...

I kind of get tired of stuff like this being politicized (sp). I mean, the company doesn't cater to penguin lovers, or fatty fans, or any other niche either. The RPG market is probably small enough overall that risking alienating the straight majority to attract more love from a minority of buyers is probably poor business.

Count me in the camp that says that the rules are no place for gender preference issues, and that the fluff, well, if you want more than the safe as houses imagery you're gonna get from a company whose main clientele probably don't want to see two hot guys making out on the cover of a book, there's always your imagination, or fanfic/fanpics.

Please don't take this as hostility, just an alternate viewpoint.

[Cobra_Ikari]

I'm happily queer myself (I know, yay me), so I'll probably get some flack for this, but...

I kind of get tired of stuff like this being politicized (sp). I mean, the company doesn't cater to penguin lovers, or fatty fans, or any other niche either. The RPG market is probably small enough overall that risking alienating the straight majority to attract more love from a minority of buyers is probably poor business.

Count me in the camp that says that the rules are no place for gender preference issues, and that the fluff, well, if you want more than the safe as houses imagery you're gonna get from a company whose main clientele probably don't want to see two hot guys making out on the cover of a book, there's always your imagination, or fanfic/fanpics.

Please don't take this as hostility, just an alternate viewpoint.

I think this is a very good point.

...that is all.

[Vuzzmop]

I agree with Lolth, why must the world try and be PC for those who are queer? Hell, I'm not even sure if its PC for a happily straight man to call LGBT people queer. Its kinda like how other minorities can use an insulting word to describe a member of there own minority, and not get any flack for it.
(Man, being a white, straight, male makes it really hard not to insult paople:smalleek: ).

Back on subject: Why should we treat people sapecially, no matter what minority they belong to? Let people deal with their own problems, and the world is a better place.:smallsmile:

[Lolth]

Back on subject: Why should we treat people sapecially, no matter what minority they belong to? Let people deal with their own problems, and the world is a better place.:smallsmile:

That would be simply fabulous, if in return said minorities weren't often discriminated against.

Please don't take my saying that I don't think a niche hobby is the place to demand representation to mean that I think the world is an especially tolerant place.

I happen to be half Arab in addition to Jewish and queer. My experiences, especially while I was in the US, were... not conducive to me believing things are all fine and dandy, and I am NOT an especially political sort, nor wear my beliefs or practices on my sleeve.

[Vuzzmop]

That would be simply fabulous, if in return said minorities weren't often discriminated against.

Please don't take my saying that I don't think a niche hobby is the place to demand representation to mean that I think the world is an especially tolerant place.
I happen to be half Arab in addition to Jewish and queer. My experiences, especially while I was in the US, were... not conducive to me believing things are all fine and dandy, and I am NOT an especially political sort, nor wear my beliefs or practices on my sleeve.

No, no, I agree with you there, but really, aren't all groups discriminated against by someone? I do my best to stay logical and even handed, and even I get discriminated against simply because I am a teenage, white, heterosexual male, and are therefore the reason for all of the worlds many problems:smallmad: . (angry face not directed at you( see how hard I try?:smalleek: ). However, I find myself sympathising with you. You are unlucky in that you found yourself being the three most discriminated things in the USA.

Anyway, to clarify, I don't think that anywhere should be a place where LGBT paople get special representation simply because they are LGBT. Since when did it matter for anything meaningfull?

I did once play a bisexual PC though, just didn't make a big deal out of it.

[YPU]

You know, I am suddenly looking really forward to getting my fantasy ground game going. Knowing that one of the (male) players is openly gay and one of the female is openly bi would make role-play somewhat more interesting in the least. Why? Because now I know it will come up as a regular thing, something that’s ok and everyday. And of course it doubles the number of possible romantic relations in the game.

[Rachel Lorelei]

No, no, I agree with you there, but really, aren't all groups discriminated against by someone? I do my best to stay logical and even handed, and even I get discriminated against simply because I am a teenage, white, heterosexual male, and are therefore the reason for all of the worlds many problems:smallmad:
NO. They're really not. As a white, heterosexual male, you are privileged in ways people who aren't white, heterosexual males aren't, and I really, really doubt the "discrimination" you experience is anything like what, say, Lolth had to deal with.
For example, whenever something "heterosexual" gets depicted in a D&D book, you probably don't even notice it, it's so normal. And it does happen, all the time, from images of flirtation to mentions of relationships to etc.

"Oh, everyone gets discriminated against" is a pretty classic way of shutting down conversation about actual problems. Not that that's the intention here, but be careful of that line of dismissive thought.


Anyway, to clarify, I don't think that anywhere should be a place where LGBT paople get special representation simply because they are LGBT. Since when did it matter for anything meaningfull?

I did once play a bisexual PC though, just didn't make a big deal out of it.
What makes proportional representation "special"?

One sees "special" get thrown around a lot--for example, accusations that gay people want "special privileges" when what's in question is, y'know, equality.

[Lolth]

What makes proportional representation "special"?

One sees "special" get thrown around a lot--for example, accusations that gay people want "special privileges" when what's in question is, y'know, equality.

Lemme address this as basically as I can manage:

Places like Ptown can emphasize their queer-friendliness as a vacation spot because, basically, lots of people take vacations, and there are lots and lots of options, so making the decision to chase the queer dollar (which is as green as any other) makes economic sense because they're distinguishing themselves in a manner they wouldn't otherwise. Probably not too many people who would go there otherwise will avoid it because it's gay friendly, and lots of gays who otherwise wouldn't consider it as a destination will.

RPGs have a small, even tenuous commercial viability. Proportionally representing homosexuality (what, ten per cent of imagery?) isn't going to attract more gay players, but may well turn off a lot of straight ones. End of commercial viability then.

Maybe someone will produce an "openly queer" game some day. Be interesting to see if it flourishes or vanishes without a trace (all questions of quality being considered equal for the sake of this imagining).

[Sleet]

Maybe someone will produce an "openly queer" game some day.

Check out Blue Rose (http://bluerose.greenronin.com/) from Green Ronin. It's explicitly gay friendly with many examples of gay NPCs, gods, etc.

It's a great game, great setting - the system gave rise to the True 20 system.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Maybe someone will produce an "openly queer" game some day. Be interesting to see if it flourishes or vanishes without a trace (all questions of quality being considered equal for the sake of this imagining).

There's a difference between an "openly queer" game and proportional representation.

Also, Blue Rose--which is openly queer-friendly at the very least--is a great example.

[wadledo]

If I may solve all your problems:

Play Exalted!:smalltongue:

That is all.

[Brickwall]

If I may solve all your problems:

Play Exalted!:smalltongue:

That is all.

Expansion: check out the artwork in forums devoted to Exalted.

That is all. Have bleach convenient for your brain.

[wadledo]

Expansion: check out the artwork in forums devoted to Exalted.

That is all. Have bleach convenient for your brain.

Further expansion: Check out the fanfic.

That is all. Have mustard gas for your brain ready.

[Lolth]

There's a difference between an "openly queer" game and proportional representation.

Also, Blue Rose--which is openly queer-friendly at the very least--is a great example.

Yes, yes there is. But I have to say, and it seems this doesn't sink in too well, that "proportional representation" means that the by-far largest proportion of the market may be offended, and while people can argue how horrid it is that people aren't more tolerant, if I'm a game designer, I REALLY don't want to run the risk of losing 90 per cent of potential buyers to satisfy a small fraction of the remaining ten per cent who might be in a knot over "lack of representation."

How to put this? I seriously doubt that many queer gamers don't play because they don't feel "represented," they play anyhow. Maybe the gamer gene is more compelling than the queer one? <- JOKE.

But it seems to me, without a single statistic at hand to back me up, that there is a significant portion of straight gamers who would, in fact, get up in arms about the aforementioned boy-boy snog, should it appear prominently in their game's art.

I haven't looked at Blue Rose yet, will do so, but the fact that I haven't heard of it seems to indicate that it's not exactly taking the gaming world by storm.

*Braces for response to that one*

[Sleet]

I haven't looked at Blue Rose yet, will do so, but the fact that I haven't heard of it seems to indicate that it's not exactly taking the gaming world by storm.

Well, it's a niche game, no question (arguably, though, anything not coming from WoTC or White Wolf can be described that way). But it made quite a splash back in 2004 or 2005 when it was released, and more for its innovative twist on d20 rather than for its explicit inclusion of LGBT characters and issues.