I'm a generic AF cishet white dude DM who has two tables, one is 3 cishet white men and 1 cisbi white woman. My other table is 2 cishet white men and 2 cishet white women. Not the most diverse group, but that being said, I'm not going to go out looking for marginalised folx to fill a quote to make myself feel good, that's not the point. I will however do everything I can to make my table a safe, welcoming and inviting space.
I think as far as this thread goes, there's likely a multitude of factors. I honestly hope D&D is becoming more inclusive and that this thread is representative of that, and my experience does seem to reflect that. I also think there's a correlation between the kind of people that feel there's a value sharing in a thread like this and those people having diverse tables. It's a self-selection bias a bit.
This is definitely worth keeping in mind. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the "Five Cishet White Dudes Sitting at a Table and Playing D&D" adventuring group. Those five cishet white dudes want to play D&D, they shouldn't need to find a token 'Other' before they're allowed to play. if those five Generic White Guys are the group that comes together to play? Awesome. Good fortune in their gaming.
There is something beneficial in hearing stories of 'Other' folks finding success and acceptance at their tables though, and people who play with a diverse band of nonwhite and/or gender-atypical folks. Often, simply hearing that someone else has done it is all one needs. I know I've taken succor from threads like this in the past, here and elsewhere. The goal should never be "what have you personally done to empower diversity, huh?!" - that's a terrible way to go about the issue, and life in general. It should always be more "hey! do you have any cool stories where diversity happened? Let's hear them and celebrate them!"
The group I DM for started as a randomly assigned table at our local gaming store's D&D events, so none of us really hang out except to play. It also means I don't really know a lot of non-visually obvious details about our group, but from observation alone the core returning group are all white, all but one of my players are male, and one has indicated they are neuro-divergent. Ages range from teenager to middle age (parent and child). While the group was meeting in the store we had various visitors/guests/one off players of varying demographic persuasions. My one rule for conduct (outside of the game) is respect and kindness towards each other no matter the circumstance.
If I were starting a game online with complete strangers I would take diversity into account when building up a group, not in a box ticking/tokenism way but I would make a strong effort to avoid a homogeneous group vis a vis gender identity, race, sexual orientation, class, or neurodiversity.
I respect your intentions here, but how would you do that or, more accurately, how would you engineer that? I mean sure, online DMs these days can be as selective as say a college admissions officer (whose principles you're reflecting consciously or unconsciously) when it comes to who they admit into their games. And sure while the college admissions process does seem to solicit (with some debate within the admissions profession) very intimate portraits from applicants so much that writing coaches exist for a performative genre and "one's future" does encourage someone to put a lot on the line in their personal statement for an educational opportunity or even some jobs (particularly within creative industries and arts). But for a game, how much are you going to ask, and what happens where your indicators suggest strong player (I'm assuming you'd vet with something beyond diversity demographic markers) but they say to you, "You know, a stranger on the internet asking me some of these questions crosses some intimacy thresholds so I'm not going to answer them."
Further curious whether you outlined this practice as something you'd do online because it's the only way you'd see yourself playing with randoms or this is a vetting practice you'd be uncomfortable doing if the game met at a physical table (maybe something associated with the local game store, or a community center, or a social club, or ooo, what about a convention?).
Not only do I believe it to be the right thing to do, I also genuinely believe it makes the game better and (provided everyone is open) enriches the experience by exposing people to different views and life experiences.
Again you're speaking like an admissions councilor, who I do believe engages in such considerations in sincere service of the good intention of building a community. There's value to both cohort and broader culture in such admissions and hiring processes. However, I don't think this kinda technocratic approach is really viable for tables because the nature of the work is very different. It's a presumption that people bring some sort of authentic identity to a table ... in a game which is more readily played by broadly accessible tropes and many options to go a literally inhuman route in your characterization. If your game was somehow grounded in reflection of real world cultural exchange (which does happen, even some contributors to WotC products have claimed to have tried to do so though found those aspect surprisingly excised during the editorial process) sure, but while there are some passionate players who want to see that sort of play I'd say the main thrust of D&D official production and most of the supporting industry is overwhelmingly escapist. And I write that as someone who actually likes playing games that wind up topically resonating to the degree player comfort zones allow.
As an aside one of the female players in my mixed groups is playing a male character and one of the male players is playing a female character and both RP it very well and very respectfully and I can’t help but think it’s due to the diversity of the group. In contrast when one of the players in the all male group plays a female character it’s offensive and sexist and I struggle with curbing that behavior.
Boys will be boys with latent misogyny happens if a player and DM allows it to happen. And, yes, a certain toxic masculinity style of play that indulged in misogyny is in the background of D&D though I'd say the hobby is actually more ahead of the curve in addressing that than the U.S. culture at large. However the presumption that a cis-het male group would play women PCs in some sort of denigrating fashion is asserting universals out of presumptions and is actually a sort of "just so" essentialist narrative that your play style is supposed to rise above. I've seen what I call immaturity and insensity exhibited by all sorts. The good groups aren't intentionally diverse recipes. Rather, welcoming in a way that encourages brave gaming comes from actually getting to know players, not the presumption that marked differences is simply enriching, and that "getting to know" is a vulnerable moment for all parties in the (table building) encounter.
I just fired up a session of Critical Role. As far as I can see, of the 8 people at the virtual table, all are white, 4 are a pair of married hetro couples, and from what I gather, at least two of the other men are happily married with wives and kids.
Given that Fandom obviously supports them (30 second plug to start the show), why is Fandom not pushing Mercer et al to "diversify" the table? Reading the comments here, if they are are indicative of the true demographics of the D&D player base, Critical Role is wildly out of step with the D&D customer base.
... I'm somewhat baffled. Where in "we want to make everyone welcome" do you see any sort of initiative to manipulate anyone's table? Who is doing that? Why do you look at efforts to remove things that serve as pain points to people and see some sort of conspiracy to .. what? Mandate player quotas? Who even does that or is thinking that? How do you even get to that conclusion?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You play the game with people that are compatible in playstyle with the DM and each other. That is the only thing that matters when putting together a group to play D&D.
I can agree with this, with the addition that it is also valuable to check one's own biases regularly, to make sure that one isn't inadvertently making the table a hostile one for current or potential players. Accidentally making a hostile environment is sadly easy to do. So when you make the effort to make it explicitly clear, though words and actions, that your table is a safe gaming space for people no matter their background, you tend to attract a more diverse player base. Both because they feel safer with you and because of solidarity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I just fired up a session of Critical Role. As far as I can see, of the 8 people at the virtual table, all are white, 4 are a pair of married hetro couples, and from what I gather, at least two of the other men are happily married with wives and kids.
Given that Fandom obviously supports them (30 second plug to start the show), why is Fandom not pushing Mercer et al to "diversify" the table? Reading the comments here, if they are are indicative of the true demographics of the D&D player base, Critical Role is wildly out of step with the D&D customer base.
... I'm somewhat baffled. Where in "we want to make everyone welcome" do you see any sort of initiative to manipulate anyone's table? Who is doing that? Why do you look at efforts to remove things that serve as pain points to people and see some sort of conspiracy to .. what? Mandate player quotas? Who even does that or is thinking that? How do you even get to that conclusion?
From an earlier post: "If I were starting a game online with complete strangers I would take diversity into account when building up a group, not in a box ticking/tokenism way but I would make a strong effort to avoid a homogeneous group vis a vis gender identity, race, sexual orientation, class, or neurodiversity. "
So at least one person here does.
But I think we agree, what people say "they want" is not what happens in reality. For online games, where people ask for players, or conventions, no DM gets to say 'I am looking for a neuro-diverse non-cis person to fill out the table." That is precisely the opposite of "inclusiveness". And if playing with friends, I would love to hear the conversation where the DM says "listen Martha, I would love to have you at my table to balance my table with females, but I don't have room for Bill, your husband., or "Bill, if you can get Peter, your gay brother-in-law to play, you can play." And yes, both those "friends" scenarios are absurd. You play the game with people that are compatible in playstyle with the DM and each other. That is the only thing that matters when putting together a group to play D&D.
I"m thinking you direct replied to the poster who you later quoted. On the board it looks like you're making a broad claim that the sentiment held by that poster is how promoters of inclusiveness in gaming look to building their table make ups. "So at least one person here" means you're taking issue with one person, I wouldn't call that poster's approach representative of a consensus expressed on this thread. But again, I think/hope this is more a matter of who you not specifying who you're addressing rather than you presuming a universal out of one poster's instance.
Re: CR, are you watching the finale, like the whole 7+hour deal in one go? Best to you.
From an earlier post: "If I were starting a game online with complete strangers I would take diversity into account when building up a group, not in a box ticking/tokenism way but I would make a strong effort to avoid a homogeneous group vis a vis gender identity, race, sexual orientation, class, or neurodiversity.
I don't think we need to get passive-aggressive about it. If you want to call out that post for being massively toxic, just do so.
I'm a generic AF cishet white dude DM who has two tables
I just want to say, Davyd, you should never discount yourself as a generic knock off. You definitely got your own sincere, authentic brand going on and consistently show up to this board with it, mod hat or no. Top shelf. ;)
I just fired up a session of Critical Role. As far as I can see, of the 8 people at the virtual table, all are white, 4 are a pair of married hetro couples, and from what I gather, at least two of the other men are happily married with wives and kids.
Given that Fandom obviously supports them (30 second plug to start the show), why is Fandom not pushing Mercer et al to "diversify" the table? Reading the comments here, if they are are indicative of the true demographics of the D&D player base, Critical Role is wildly out of step with the D&D customer base.
Not that they need defending, but CritRole has had many guest players of other ethnicities and (without digging too deep into this, since it's not something they make a big deal of) you're incorrect if you think they're all straight hetero. One player who left early in campaign one has mixed ethnicity. At least one of them is vegan too, by the way.
Regardless, why ascribe the motivations/intentions of one user here to Fandom as a company?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm a firm believer that "Diversity" is the enemy of "Inclusion".
"Diversity" implies several things which I dislike:
that you should even consider someone's ethnic origin, gender, identity, sexuality etc. when making decisions about them.
that there is a level to aim for when creating a group of people.
Diversity is implying that having groups where one trait of the people is more or exclusively represented is in some way wrong. If I am in a group of people playing dnd, I won't call off the session because we're all men, or try and get someone from a different ethnic origin to join the group to "support diversity".
Instead, I support Inclusion. The only basis for excluding someone from a group is their own actions. I would never try to change the group to "achieve diversity".
I currently DM online for a party of 5. One is my fiancee, and of the other four, I know that at least one of them is non-binary, and the rest of them? I didn't even ask. I don't know what their sexuality or their race is, having only played online. Why? Because it doesn't matter. I won't base any judgement on these things, so I don't even need to know.
It really gets my goat when you apply for a job and you get:
"For the purposes of Diversity & Inclusion, please tell us your gender, race and sexuality!"
The whole point of "Inclusion" is that these factors shouldn't matter, at all. So the only logical reason for asking is for "Diversity", which in these cases seems to be in order to make sure that they have a "diverse" mix of employees. Which is then to say to someone "sorry, you didn't get the job, not because of your skills, but because we didn't have enough people of >X< race working here, so we employed one of them to help with inclusion!". Excellent, for the sake of equality you picked someone based on their race! woohoo!
When it comes to representation, the idea that Critical Role is not representing >insert race/belief/diet/sexuality/gender here< because they don't have someone fitting that description playing is an issue with the people watching, not the people presenting. If you see a group of men and assume that women aren't represented, that's on you for first deciding that men & women aren't equal, and then deciding that men cannot represent women.
Apologies for the rant. This is something I feel very strongly about, and I feel that the entire concept of "Diversity and Inclusion" is being inherently handled wrongly. In case it didn't come across clearly, I do not think that people should try to make diverse groups, because in order to make a diverse group, you first have to separate people into different categories, and by doing that, you are adding to the problem, not reducing it. The idea that >this type of person< is not represented by >that type of person< is an issue in the entire concept that these "types" of people are not compatible, not because of the lack of one or the other in a group.
Apologies for the auxiliary rant, I tried to keep it to a minimum. No more rant now.
I'm a generic AF cishet white dude DM who has two tables
I just want to say, Davyd, you should never discount yourself as a generic knock off. You definitely got your own sincere, authentic brand going on and consistently show up to this board with it, mod hat or no. Top shelf. ;)
Oh, I don't consider myself a knock off, just that I am cognisant that I represent the historic majority of the game in a tongue-in-cheek, self deprecating kind of way. Basically I'm very aware of my privilege of basically having the game designed for 'me and mine' for a large portion of its history. And you know what? That's boring! I want a game designed for everyone because it's cool and interesting to experience all sorts of different world views and scopes. I have genuinely experienced the game getting better and better, more interesting and 'real' as it has moved towards an increasingly inclusive and representative experience. I can't wait to see where it goes, I'm excited!
But thank you for your kind words, everyone needs kindness in their lives!
I just fired up a session of Critical Role. As far as I can see, of the 8 people at the virtual table, all are white, 4 are a pair of married hetro couples, and from what I gather, at least two of the other men are happily married with wives and kids.
Given that Fandom obviously supports them (30 second plug to start the show), why is Fandom not pushing Mercer et al to "diversify" the table? Reading the comments here, if they are are indicative of the true demographics of the D&D player base, Critical Role is wildly out of step with the D&D customer base.
I think you've maybe missed the point of this thread; diversity is not a check-box exercise to ensure you meet a quota for fear of being judged 'un-diverse'. The praxis of diversity is about being aware of how inclusive and welcoming your game is. About not putting up barriers, intentional or unintentional, to people who are different from yourself for whatever reason.
Critical Role as a group live that praxis; they make their table welcoming and inclusive. They may be a bunch of cis white folx (not all of them are hetro and it behooves you not to assume that they are just because of their relationship status), but they play diverse characters with sensitivity and thoughtful representation. They have created a welcoming space where a plethora of people from all backgrounds have come onto the show to play characters, as well as a space that is famous for making folx of all backgrounds feel comfortable.
So if you're trying to play the "they're bigots because they don't meet the diversity quota", well, I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. And if you think it is, you might want to re-read this thread again.
This is definitely worth keeping in mind. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the "Five Cishet White Dudes Sitting at a Table and Playing D&D" adventuring group. Those five cishet white dudes want to play D&D, they shouldn't need to find a token 'Other' before they're allowed to play. if those five Generic White Guys are the group that comes together to play? Awesome. Good fortune in their gaming.
I don't think anyone implies that it would be wrong either.
I just fired up a session of Critical Role. As far as I can see, of the 8 people at the virtual table, all are white, 4 are a pair of married hetro couples, and from what I gather, at least two of the other men are happily married with wives and kids.
Given that Fandom obviously supports them (30 second plug to start the show), why is Fandom not pushing Mercer et al to "diversify" the table? Reading the comments here, if they are are indicative of the true demographics of the D&D player base, Critical Role is wildly out of step with the D&D customer base.
I'm quite certain the posts in this thread in no way indicate the typical demographic of D&D players.
Also, we shouldn't be pushing anyone at all to "diversify". People should be tolerant, but they shouldn't seek out "token" players in any shape or form. Diverse groups should be created dynamically because a bunch of people think they're awesome and they'd like to play together, regardless of however they label themselves.
To me (and this is only my opinion), a large benefit to threads like this is to help people to think about diversity and inclusivity.
There is nothing wrong with a bunch of cishet white guys playing D&D together. If that's the group you have found to play with and you are all enjoying yourselves, then that's great. However, reading a thread like this can help people to consider whether there is an underlying reason. Is it just because that's who turned up, or who your friends were who wanted to play? Or is there some factor you missed which has made your game less welcoming to people who are not cishet white guys? If a woman, a black person, a homosexual or a trans person turned up at your table tomorrow, would they feel welcome and comfortable there? Is there anything you are doing which would be found off putting, are you aware of it, and would you be willing to adjust if the makeup of the table changed?
These are all important things to ask. I don't think it is necessary (or even particularly healthy) to force diversity, nor is a diverse table necessarily better, more welcoming or more inclusive than a homogeneous one. I also don't think it is necessary to stop all practices which could be considered off putting to a potential new member to the table. However, I think it's very important to think about these issues, be aware of where your game may have issues for others, and be prepared to discuss and change if the makeup of the table changes.
There's an important distinction between diversity and inclusivity
Diversity is a principle you keep in mind; you should be cognisant of the diversity of your environment and not just accept that your surroundings represent a 'norm'.
Inclusivity is something you practice; you should act in a way to not make people feel unwelcome or excluded just because of who they are.
It's principle and praxis. Through inclusivity, you create environments where diversity is given room to flourish and grow. You don't force diversity, but you also shouldn't hinder it either.
My table is 3 cishet white males (including me, the DM) and 3 cishet white females. As I only run RPGs with friends, I have for now, no other alternatives of people interested in Pen & Paper. But this demographic is also rather normal for pen & paper in Germany, especially for the generation around their mid 30s to 40s.
Back in my home-city Berlin, where I am not living anymore, I would have a much more diverse group of people, interested in playing D&D.
The online groups I play with include a diverse array of people from all sorts of backgrounds, opinions, interests, etc.
Oh, you wanted to know the real character defining stuff like their skin colour and who they like to have sex with? In truth I haven't asked.
No one here is saying, or implying, that race, sexuality, gender or any other attribute defines a person. Implying that is the sentiment of the thread might read as antagonistic.
It's about being cognisant of the different experiences people have as a result of the various facets that make up who they are, and being respectful and understanding of those experiences. My experiences as a cishet white man are going to be very different from that of a woman of color, or a trans man, or a non-binary person. Keeping diversity in mind is about not assuming "My experience is representative of the sum total of experiences and thus is the only frame of reference to consider".
My experiences as a cishet white man are going to be very different from that of a woman of color, or a trans man, or a non-binary person. Keeping diversity in mind is about not assuming "My experience is representative of the sum total of experiences and thus is the only frame of reference to consider".
Understood and agree to a level.
That said I find that experiences can be moulded and set by a number of different things - economic background, cultures, geographic location, etc. I genuinely believe that I have more in common with my work colleague (who may be of a different race / gender / sexuality) than say a Bill Gates, or Lebron James, or anyone else of a different economic level. I think my point, albeit made inarticulately, is that sometimes we focus on the more surface-level attributes than delving much deeper.
We like to talk diversity and inclusion. But if someone was to come out with a vastly different religious, political, or world view to our own would we still be in favour? In my experience these are the things that knit people together and create 'groupings' of sorts. Its all food for thought. Hopefully we can all (myself included) take the time to consider the individual rather than the group.
This is definitely worth keeping in mind. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the "Five Cishet White Dudes Sitting at a Table and Playing D&D" adventuring group. Those five cishet white dudes want to play D&D, they shouldn't need to find a token 'Other' before they're allowed to play. if those five Generic White Guys are the group that comes together to play? Awesome. Good fortune in their gaming.
There is something beneficial in hearing stories of 'Other' folks finding success and acceptance at their tables though, and people who play with a diverse band of nonwhite and/or gender-atypical folks. Often, simply hearing that someone else has done it is all one needs. I know I've taken succor from threads like this in the past, here and elsewhere. The goal should never be "what have you personally done to empower diversity, huh?!" - that's a terrible way to go about the issue, and life in general. It should always be more "hey! do you have any cool stories where diversity happened? Let's hear them and celebrate them!"
Please do not contact or message me.
The group I DM for started as a randomly assigned table at our local gaming store's D&D events, so none of us really hang out except to play. It also means I don't really know a lot of non-visually obvious details about our group, but from observation alone the core returning group are all white, all but one of my players are male, and one has indicated they are neuro-divergent. Ages range from teenager to middle age (parent and child). While the group was meeting in the store we had various visitors/guests/one off players of varying demographic persuasions. My one rule for conduct (outside of the game) is respect and kindness towards each other no matter the circumstance.
I respect your intentions here, but how would you do that or, more accurately, how would you engineer that? I mean sure, online DMs these days can be as selective as say a college admissions officer (whose principles you're reflecting consciously or unconsciously) when it comes to who they admit into their games. And sure while the college admissions process does seem to solicit (with some debate within the admissions profession) very intimate portraits from applicants so much that writing coaches exist for a performative genre and "one's future" does encourage someone to put a lot on the line in their personal statement for an educational opportunity or even some jobs (particularly within creative industries and arts). But for a game, how much are you going to ask, and what happens where your indicators suggest strong player (I'm assuming you'd vet with something beyond diversity demographic markers) but they say to you, "You know, a stranger on the internet asking me some of these questions crosses some intimacy thresholds so I'm not going to answer them."
Further curious whether you outlined this practice as something you'd do online because it's the only way you'd see yourself playing with randoms or this is a vetting practice you'd be uncomfortable doing if the game met at a physical table (maybe something associated with the local game store, or a community center, or a social club, or ooo, what about a convention?).
Again you're speaking like an admissions councilor, who I do believe engages in such considerations in sincere service of the good intention of building a community. There's value to both cohort and broader culture in such admissions and hiring processes. However, I don't think this kinda technocratic approach is really viable for tables because the nature of the work is very different. It's a presumption that people bring some sort of authentic identity to a table ... in a game which is more readily played by broadly accessible tropes and many options to go a literally inhuman route in your characterization. If your game was somehow grounded in reflection of real world cultural exchange (which does happen, even some contributors to WotC products have claimed to have tried to do so though found those aspect surprisingly excised during the editorial process) sure, but while there are some passionate players who want to see that sort of play I'd say the main thrust of D&D official production and most of the supporting industry is overwhelmingly escapist. And I write that as someone who actually likes playing games that wind up topically resonating to the degree player comfort zones allow.
Boys will be boys with latent misogyny happens if a player and DM allows it to happen. And, yes, a certain toxic masculinity style of play that indulged in misogyny is in the background of D&D though I'd say the hobby is actually more ahead of the curve in addressing that than the U.S. culture at large. However the presumption that a cis-het male group would play women PCs in some sort of denigrating fashion is asserting universals out of presumptions and is actually a sort of "just so" essentialist narrative that your play style is supposed to rise above. I've seen what I call immaturity and insensity exhibited by all sorts. The good groups aren't intentionally diverse recipes. Rather, welcoming in a way that encourages brave gaming comes from actually getting to know players, not the presumption that marked differences is simply enriching, and that "getting to know" is a vulnerable moment for all parties in the (table building) encounter.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
... I'm somewhat baffled. Where in "we want to make everyone welcome" do you see any sort of initiative to manipulate anyone's table? Who is doing that? Why do you look at efforts to remove things that serve as pain points to people and see some sort of conspiracy to .. what? Mandate player quotas? Who even does that or is thinking that? How do you even get to that conclusion?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I can agree with this, with the addition that it is also valuable to check one's own biases regularly, to make sure that one isn't inadvertently making the table a hostile one for current or potential players. Accidentally making a hostile environment is sadly easy to do. So when you make the effort to make it explicitly clear, though words and actions, that your table is a safe gaming space for people no matter their background, you tend to attract a more diverse player base. Both because they feel safer with you and because of solidarity.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I"m thinking you direct replied to the poster who you later quoted. On the board it looks like you're making a broad claim that the sentiment held by that poster is how promoters of inclusiveness in gaming look to building their table make ups. "So at least one person here" means you're taking issue with one person, I wouldn't call that poster's approach representative of a consensus expressed on this thread. But again, I think/hope this is more a matter of who you not specifying who you're addressing rather than you presuming a universal out of one poster's instance.
Re: CR, are you watching the finale, like the whole 7+hour deal in one go? Best to you.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't think we need to get passive-aggressive about it. If you want to call out that post for being massively toxic, just do so.
I just want to say, Davyd, you should never discount yourself as a generic knock off. You definitely got your own sincere, authentic brand going on and consistently show up to this board with it, mod hat or no. Top shelf. ;)
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Not that they need defending, but CritRole has had many guest players of other ethnicities and (without digging too deep into this, since it's not something they make a big deal of) you're incorrect if you think they're all straight hetero. One player who left early in campaign one has mixed ethnicity. At least one of them is vegan too, by the way.
Regardless, why ascribe the motivations/intentions of one user here to Fandom as a company?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm a firm believer that "Diversity" is the enemy of "Inclusion".
"Diversity" implies several things which I dislike:
Diversity is implying that having groups where one trait of the people is more or exclusively represented is in some way wrong. If I am in a group of people playing dnd, I won't call off the session because we're all men, or try and get someone from a different ethnic origin to join the group to "support diversity".
Instead, I support Inclusion. The only basis for excluding someone from a group is their own actions. I would never try to change the group to "achieve diversity".
I currently DM online for a party of 5. One is my fiancee, and of the other four, I know that at least one of them is non-binary, and the rest of them? I didn't even ask. I don't know what their sexuality or their race is, having only played online. Why? Because it doesn't matter. I won't base any judgement on these things, so I don't even need to know.
It really gets my goat when you apply for a job and you get:
"For the purposes of Diversity & Inclusion, please tell us your gender, race and sexuality!"
The whole point of "Inclusion" is that these factors shouldn't matter, at all. So the only logical reason for asking is for "Diversity", which in these cases seems to be in order to make sure that they have a "diverse" mix of employees. Which is then to say to someone "sorry, you didn't get the job, not because of your skills, but because we didn't have enough people of >X< race working here, so we employed one of them to help with inclusion!". Excellent, for the sake of equality you picked someone based on their race! woohoo!
When it comes to representation, the idea that Critical Role is not representing >insert race/belief/diet/sexuality/gender here< because they don't have someone fitting that description playing is an issue with the people watching, not the people presenting. If you see a group of men and assume that women aren't represented, that's on you for first deciding that men & women aren't equal, and then deciding that men cannot represent women.
Apologies for the rant. This is something I feel very strongly about, and I feel that the entire concept of "Diversity and Inclusion" is being inherently handled wrongly. In case it didn't come across clearly, I do not think that people should try to make diverse groups, because in order to make a diverse group, you first have to separate people into different categories, and by doing that, you are adding to the problem, not reducing it. The idea that >this type of person< is not represented by >that type of person< is an issue in the entire concept that these "types" of people are not compatible, not because of the lack of one or the other in a group.
Apologies for the auxiliary rant, I tried to keep it to a minimum. No more rant now.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Oh, I don't consider myself a knock off, just that I am cognisant that I represent the historic majority of the game in a tongue-in-cheek, self deprecating kind of way. Basically I'm very aware of my privilege of basically having the game designed for 'me and mine' for a large portion of its history. And you know what? That's boring! I want a game designed for everyone because it's cool and interesting to experience all sorts of different world views and scopes. I have genuinely experienced the game getting better and better, more interesting and 'real' as it has moved towards an increasingly inclusive and representative experience. I can't wait to see where it goes, I'm excited!
But thank you for your kind words, everyone needs kindness in their lives!
<3
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I think you've maybe missed the point of this thread; diversity is not a check-box exercise to ensure you meet a quota for fear of being judged 'un-diverse'. The praxis of diversity is about being aware of how inclusive and welcoming your game is. About not putting up barriers, intentional or unintentional, to people who are different from yourself for whatever reason.
Critical Role as a group live that praxis; they make their table welcoming and inclusive. They may be a bunch of cis white folx (not all of them are hetro and it behooves you not to assume that they are just because of their relationship status), but they play diverse characters with sensitivity and thoughtful representation. They have created a welcoming space where a plethora of people from all backgrounds have come onto the show to play characters, as well as a space that is famous for making folx of all backgrounds feel comfortable.
So if you're trying to play the "they're bigots because they don't meet the diversity quota", well, I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. And if you think it is, you might want to re-read this thread again.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I don't think anyone implies that it would be wrong either.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I'm quite certain the posts in this thread in no way indicate the typical demographic of D&D players.
Also, we shouldn't be pushing anyone at all to "diversify". People should be tolerant, but they shouldn't seek out "token" players in any shape or form. Diverse groups should be created dynamically because a bunch of people think they're awesome and they'd like to play together, regardless of however they label themselves.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
To me (and this is only my opinion), a large benefit to threads like this is to help people to think about diversity and inclusivity.
There is nothing wrong with a bunch of cishet white guys playing D&D together. If that's the group you have found to play with and you are all enjoying yourselves, then that's great. However, reading a thread like this can help people to consider whether there is an underlying reason. Is it just because that's who turned up, or who your friends were who wanted to play? Or is there some factor you missed which has made your game less welcoming to people who are not cishet white guys? If a woman, a black person, a homosexual or a trans person turned up at your table tomorrow, would they feel welcome and comfortable there? Is there anything you are doing which would be found off putting, are you aware of it, and would you be willing to adjust if the makeup of the table changed?
These are all important things to ask. I don't think it is necessary (or even particularly healthy) to force diversity, nor is a diverse table necessarily better, more welcoming or more inclusive than a homogeneous one. I also don't think it is necessary to stop all practices which could be considered off putting to a potential new member to the table. However, I think it's very important to think about these issues, be aware of where your game may have issues for others, and be prepared to discuss and change if the makeup of the table changes.
There's an important distinction between diversity and inclusivity
Diversity is a principle you keep in mind; you should be cognisant of the diversity of your environment and not just accept that your surroundings represent a 'norm'.
Inclusivity is something you practice; you should act in a way to not make people feel unwelcome or excluded just because of who they are.
It's principle and praxis. Through inclusivity, you create environments where diversity is given room to flourish and grow. You don't force diversity, but you also shouldn't hinder it either.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
My table is 3 cishet white males (including me, the DM) and 3 cishet white females. As I only run RPGs with friends, I have for now, no other alternatives of people interested in Pen & Paper. But this demographic is also rather normal for pen & paper in Germany, especially for the generation around their mid 30s to 40s.
Back in my home-city Berlin, where I am not living anymore, I would have a much more diverse group of people, interested in playing D&D.
The online groups I play with include a diverse array of people from all sorts of backgrounds, opinions, interests, etc.
Oh, you wanted to know the real character defining stuff like their skin colour and who they like to have sex with? In truth I haven't asked.
DM - The Call of Strahd (CoS); Feyrealm Campaign, Chapter 0 - Bleak Prospect (BP), Chapter 1 - Destination Unknown (DU)
No one here is saying, or implying, that race, sexuality, gender or any other attribute defines a person. Implying that is the sentiment of the thread might read as antagonistic.
It's about being cognisant of the different experiences people have as a result of the various facets that make up who they are, and being respectful and understanding of those experiences. My experiences as a cishet white man are going to be very different from that of a woman of color, or a trans man, or a non-binary person. Keeping diversity in mind is about not assuming "My experience is representative of the sum total of experiences and thus is the only frame of reference to consider".
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Understood and agree to a level.
That said I find that experiences can be moulded and set by a number of different things - economic background, cultures, geographic location, etc. I genuinely believe that I have more in common with my work colleague (who may be of a different race / gender / sexuality) than say a Bill Gates, or Lebron James, or anyone else of a different economic level. I think my point, albeit made inarticulately, is that sometimes we focus on the more surface-level attributes than delving much deeper.
We like to talk diversity and inclusion. But if someone was to come out with a vastly different religious, political, or world view to our own would we still be in favour? In my experience these are the things that knit people together and create 'groupings' of sorts. Its all food for thought. Hopefully we can all (myself included) take the time to consider the individual rather than the group.
DM - The Call of Strahd (CoS); Feyrealm Campaign, Chapter 0 - Bleak Prospect (BP), Chapter 1 - Destination Unknown (DU)