I'll note (for the record again, as there are always people willing to try to lie about my opinions on this) that I wholeheartedly support what Mike is saying in this interview. I'll venture to say that so do the vast majority of D&D fans. The Outrage Brigade wants to paint regular roleplaying as a toxic culture of misogyny and homophobia/transphobia because it serves their agenda, but that's certainly not been my experience of the vast majority of people who play D&D. The ones who are raising up an idiotic stink about this (as a couple of people did on theRPGsite) are a small minority, a marginal group (I at least haven't heard of a single person of influence in D&D fandom or the OSR or whatever who have taken the side of "we don't approve of the inclusive language in D&D") whose opinion is being resoundingly rejected by most regular gamers (as indeed it was in theRPGsite).
In particular, the idea that gender diversity or a recognition of the full spectrum of sexual orientation is somehow not appropriate for D&D because it's a "family game" is stupid. The "it will harm the impressionable children" thing is bullshit.
First, there are children who are transgender, and gay. While not necessarily having the words for it at certain ages (in part because the idiotic notions of society hides those words from them from ill-thought notions like the ones some have shown in this thread) all the evidence suggests that these orientations or gender identities are present in childhood, they don't magically spring up sometime post-adolescence. And kids that are "heteronormative" or "cisgendered" aren't going to suddenly not be that way because of two lines in a D&D rulebook.
Second, most kids are already becoming aware of this in this present time; if you're a parent, 'not talking about it' is neither going to make things go away nor prevent your kids from hearing about it from other sources. Trying to hide it is not just stupid, it's rapidly becoming futile. And in fact, I would go further and call it malicious; no kid who isn't transgender is suddenly going to want to become transgender because of a line in an RPG (an argument as stupid as the ones used in the 1980s about D&D and violence or D&D and "satan-worship"), but some kids who are gay, or transgender, just might find some kind of reassurance in a game where they see these things addressed positively.
Finally, for the most part, "the children" are not the ones who give a shit. In my DCC campaign, it's the 10-year old player who's playing a gender-fluid character; and he has no problem with it at all. I have no idea if there's some OOC motivation for it, or if he's just totally comfortable with roleplaying it because he doesn't see it as any kind of big deal; but frankly, either way I think that's awesome.
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Lorenzetti Solitario Horn + Gawith's Navy Flake
I obviously have a religious bias, but frankly I see no place in D&D for any space wasted discussing sexuality at all, hetero or not. This is where the "family game" argument stands for me. If it's for 12 and up, it's not the place to discuss such things. Not that that shouldn't be discussed at all, but that it's the parents who should do the job, for good or ill. It just feels out of place and forced, like a consolation prize to the agenda people.
ReplyDeleteBetter to just leave it and concentrate on the game itself. Leave those incidentals to those that find them interesting; they can publish their own supplements.
Happily, this is a game and not a religion-biased manifesto. As such, where the bulk of humanity live (outside of irrelevant religious dogma), the notion of fostering acceptance of others to facilitate a level of comfort shared among close friends that allows them have fun together is not only welcome, but essential. It's important to understand that no human has the power to change another human and it's far more productive to accept a potential friend as they are.
DeleteAlrighty then. I'm not sure why the exclusion of textual reference to sexual orientation in a game meant for 12-years-old and up would put it in the territory of a manifesto of any kind.
DeleteAlso not sure what to think about a group of close friends that requires the text of their game rules to facilitate their mutual comfort.
And also, if you think the bulk of humanity lives outside of religious dogma, you're quite mistaken. Hence your use of the term "irrelevant" is in support of an unsupportable premise.
I have no issue with the inclusiveness of the language of D&D. Chances are that most 12 year old kids reading the book aren't going to give a damn about any sexual orientation language in the book as they create their character. What I find hilarious about this whole non-issue is that the Uptight Moral Brigade takes so much umbrage inclusive language in a game in which wanton slaughter is one of the primary ways to progress a character, yet there isn't anything being said about that because they lost that fight nearly 30 years ago. Society's opinion on orientation and the equalness of the genders is evolving, and D&D is going with the flow. There's not a single damn thing wrong with that.
DeleteSimply put, if you don't like it, don't play the game. There are many other games out there that don't have the same level of inclusiveness inherent in the rules to choose from.
To be fair (and am I to assume you haven't actually read it, Fr. Chris?) the rules don't go into "sexual orientation" per se; they go into gender identity. They do so for about one paragraph, in the section on character description.
DeleteCome on dude! :) There's no call for the rhetorical guns with me. Of course I've read it, as you well know, having discussed aspects of it with me!
DeleteIn any case, you're right about that, but that's splitting the hair mighty fine. Perhaps the fact that I remember it that way speaks to where my mind is at regarding this issue, as I'm sure you already sussed.
My point is that that one paragraph is totally unnecessary and sticks out like the sop it is. Transgendered folks will do as they will in the comfort of their own gaming group and not feel (or shouldn't feel) disenfranchised in this day and age because a book of role-playing rules doesn't include a paragraph giving them permission to do as they will (in a ROLE-PLAYING game!)! Obviously others disagree.
@Giles Kiser, wanton slaughter? Now we all know that isn't accurate, and I'm surprised Pundit let you get away with that. The reason "they" lost that fight 30 years ago is exactly because it's not accurate. The game where wanton slaughter actually is the primary way to character advancement sounds maybe like "Carcosa", but not like any D&D table I've ever played at.
Society's opinion may be evolving, for good or ill as you see it. My whole point is that it is not the place of our general gaming products to take part in that arena, as much as others would like to drag them into it.
Simply put, I DON'T like it, and yet I WILL play the game, because that one paragraph has no impact whatsoever on the game itself or how it's played. To me it is nothing more than weak-kneed acquiescence to attempt to stave off the outrage brigade, and it failed at that. The game itself remains excellent and worthy of play. The paragraph becomes a weird dated artifact of our time; indicative of nothing more than the politics in the air, and corporate fear.
Pundit, I'm surprised you decided to open this particular can of worms on your blog of all places. I get that you're a nuanced guy with freedom and all that, but my simple and slight dissenting response has already elicited two comments that have both used falsehood and exaggeration to advance their points; tactics of the Pseudo-activists which YOU have rightly excoriated in the past. I'm surprised you let them pass here as yet without comment.
My main response to the "wanton slaughter" argument is that in fact, there are Outrage Brigade Pseudo-activists that regularly try to damn D&D for that, often in absurd ways (e.g., "killing orcs is a substitute for killing black people" or other such bullshit).
DeleteIn any case, I don't see this as a "can of worms", and I think most of society doesn't either.
I think where you might be misinterpreting me, Fr. Chris, is in that the reason I care about this (in spite of being neither transgender nor LGBT) is the SAME reason I care about most of the other issues I bring up: I have a profound aversion to people who think they know "what's best" for other people. Whether that's because they took a Cultural Studies class in a Liberal Arts College, or because they think that God happens to have the exact same prejudices they have is pretty much irrelevant to me.
Unless the person involved wants to have a conversation about God and Jesus Christ and His church, it's irrelevant to me also; most especially in the entertainments I choose to indulge in. I just want the game. And when I express that view people make all kinds of unwarranted assumptions about my motivations. But I'm not trying to discern what's best for people...I just want the game. If it has NOTHING to do with the game, why is it there?
DeleteAgain, though, it DOES have something to do with the game: you're creating a character, and your character's physical description is a pretty important part of that.
DeleteHehe. Wanton slaughter has always been a staple of my games. Kill things, take their stuff, and use that stuff to woo barmaids back in town. That kind of game puts hair on your chest!
DeleteIn seriousness though, I used the term deliberately. The reckless murder and wanton slaughter argument of the day is just as ridiculous as the "family game" argument is today.
Or perhaps more aptly put, the argument that some kid reading that particular paragraph might spontaneously become transgender or gay is as absurd as the argument that playing a first person shooter might spontaneously cause a kid to commit acts of real life violence.
DeleteYou guys, I agree that that argument is absurd. I've spent more words than I should have on this, and for that I apologize. I hope at least my point is taken, whether or not it is agreed.
DeleteY'know, when I was 12-years-old and up, I was sneaking peaks at my parents' copy of the Herald Childe books by Philip Jose Farmer, so stumbling across transgender and gay characters would have been a return to normalcy at that point. D&D was probably the least corrupting (or educational, I leave it to you, gentle reader, to decide) influence I dealt with on a daily basis, and that was when there were more topless chicks in Deities and Demigods than the Monster Manual, and all the Ral Partha figures had to-scale beans and franks between their legs.
ReplyDeleteI'm fine with the inclusivity of the most recent PHB; if that's the first time a kid deals with LBQT acceptance, I hope they keep playing D&D and move someplace cooler.
D&D is an inclusive hobby. It needs inclusive language.
ReplyDeleteIt's an inclusive hobby but no it doesn' t need inclusive language because it's not exclusive.
ReplyDeleteIt's inclusive as every D&D Group makes it it's "own". There is no one true way to play D&D nor is there one True setting to adventure in. D&D can encompass such a wide range of Worlds, Ideas, Philosophies, etc that to try and write every possibility into the books would be impossible.
If you start to use "inclusive" language where does it stop. Which group or gender identity do you add and which do you not. What if you forget a group and they take offence to this.
Do we need to list every Gender Identity, Sexual Preference, Political Affiliation and Religious denomination so that everyone feels welcomed and no one feels left out?
By listing who the game is for, you will always be excluding someone you've forgotten to mention. In an effort to be inclusive you end up being exclusive.
The default msg always has been and should be "D&D is anything you want it to be. Make it your own and play it the way you and your friends want to.
No, you don't need to "list every gender identity, sexual preference, political affiliation and religious denomination", and that's not what D&D 5e did. What they did is precisely the opposite of that: making a general inclusive statement with some examples that implies the openness of the game.
DeleteIf you're really in favor of being inclusive, I don't see how you can have a problem with that.
Honestly, I don't think D&D is the place for agendas, inclusivity or anything of that nature. The issue I take, is that for me, and my group, (A)D&D has always been "just a game", akin to any other board or card game, albeit slightly more involved.
ReplyDeleteAfter AD&D 2e, I argue there was a move from the standard style of dungeon crawl/skirmish style of play to more narrative/story-telling. This is where players began developing and treating their characters more as an extension of themselves, rather than just some pawn on a character sheet. The intricate character details actually mattered in 2e and later editions
For me, D&D will always be the former style, just a game, no different than Monopoly, Risk, or any other board game, whether there is "role-playing" or not. The intricate character details, character development, etc. I can do without. I don't run (A)D&D adventures for players to create some fantasized extension of themselves. If they want that, they're better off playing in another system or with some other DM. I run for players who want to explore unique places, encounter nasty monsters, and earn well deserved treasure; I don't have the time or desire to deal with anything beyond that.
So for me, adding in all the extra "details" is, IMO, a waste of time and space and I'd simply rather see WotC, or whoever, spend their time designing and publishing mechanics and elements which enhance the "game" aspect of D&D, not the RP. This is probably why I still play Basic and 1e, I really don't see the need to progress pass those rules or styles of play. 5e offers me nothing I don't already have.
If I want narrative play, character development and intricate details, I'll pick another system, but for D&D, I want to play (A)D&D and prefer to do so without all the harmful additives and preservatives.
D&D is precisely different from Monopoly, RISK, etc. in that you are creating a character. The section on character descriptions in D&D is thus a useful part of the game.
DeleteI don't even know what gender or sexuality have to with pretending to be elves with magic rings, but maybe the way I always played AD&D was incorrect and we were supposed to check the dragon's genitalia before slaying it.
ReplyDeleteWhat a ridiculous thing to say.
DeleteLook, this is very simple: do your D&D characters have a gender? Can that theoretically come up in a game? It certainly comes up often enough in both mythology and fantasy literature. It even comes up in D&D in terms of certain spells, magic items, and other game rules. So it's pretty clear that this is something that ought to be covered.
Nah. You're being ridiculous now. Really doesn't need a mention aside from "no restrictions" or "ask your GM." Otherwise you're just looking for arguments. But since you like looking for arguments, I can see why you'd think that.
DeleteRegarding "Think of the children!" BS, my daughter's school has a transgendered student - last year she was Chris, this year she is Isabelle... and you know what? NONE OF THE KIDS GIVE A SHIT. There are several kids who are most likely gay/lesbian/whatever... AND NONE OF THE KIDS GIVE A SHIT. The only ones who have issues about it are fuckwad parents. Bigotry is taught - I'm glad that society is changing enough that bigotry is no longer assumed the norm.
ReplyDeleteYes. Not having kids, I wasn't really up on just what were the attitudes of most kids these days. Having become good friends with the family of one of my players, and including his kids (a teen and a pre-teen) in one of my games, I was very much impressed with just how NOT a big deal this is to them.
DeleteWhat I want to know is... where's the "thinking about titties" edition?
ReplyDeleteYou'll have to look to Zak or James for that one. Not that I have anything at all against titties. It's just that they've cornered the market there (each in their own way) and I doubt I could compete.
DeleteI'm just going to come out and say it: the statement in question was not inclusive, and was not intended to be. It was intended to exclude.
ReplyDelete"But how can a statement supporting non-binary gender identification be excluding people?" you ask. By itself, it isn't, really. Most buyers won't care, and those who don't agree just cross out that line and be done with it.
But in the context of Mearl's interview, the meaning changes. He said that although it was pretty much known that WotC was a "progressive" company, he wanted to make that explicit and make a stand. He also made the statement, "I don't worry about offending bigots. The opposite, actually."
That statement he made has two possible meanings. Either A) he enjoys offending those he calls bigots, or B) he is worried that he won't offend those he calls bigots.
Now, remember, this statement of his was in response to a specific question about a line in Fifth Edition that explicitly supports transgenderism.
Hence, it is an indisputable fact that Mearls, and by default, WotC wanted to send the message that if you aren't pro-trans, you're not wanted as a customer.
I think you're wrong in one important detail when it comes to textual analysis of what Mearls said there. His text doesn't suggest that "if you aren't pro-trans, you aren't wanted as a customer"; it suggests that "if you're actively anti-trans (that is, a bigot), you're not wanted as a customer".
DeleteI have yet to meet, hear, or read from a progressive who did not believe and express that "not pro-trans", "actively anti-trans", and "card-carrying Nazi" are interchangeable phrases.
Delete