Is it considered insensitive to write a world that doesn't have LQBTQ? I don't feel qualified to run those subjects, and I don't want to offend anyone. I consider it a direct tie to the real world, and I'm trying my best to avoid those at all costs (I've had to rewrite the protagonist city and evil empire, as to avoid connections to the United States and Soviet Union/Russia). Just because the world lacks it doesn't mean the players' characters don't have that freedom, but I mainly just don't want to be the one roleplaying it
Is it considered insensitive to write a world that doesn't have LQBTQ? I don't feel qualified to run those subjects, and I don't want to offend anyone. I consider it a direct tie to the real world, and I'm trying my best to avoid those at all costs (I've had to rewrite the protagonist city and evil empire, as to avoid connections to the United States and Soviet Union/Russia). Just because the world lacks it doesn't mean the players' characters don't have that freedom, but I mainly just don't want to be the one roleplaying it
I think it would be seen as very weird and more than a little homophobic to proactively declare that this fictional world you've created doesn't have any queer people in it. If you're just talking about, maybe the player characters never happen to encounter any queer NPCs or it just never happens to come up, that's probably not a huge deal. But it depends a lot on who's playing.
Is it considered insensitive to write a world that doesn't have LQBTQ? I don't feel qualified to run those subjects, and I don't want to offend anyone. I consider it a direct tie to the real world, and I'm trying my best to avoid those at all costs (I've had to rewrite the protagonist city and evil empire, as to avoid connections to the United States and Soviet Union/Russia). Just because the world lacks it doesn't mean the players' characters don't have that freedom, but I mainly just don't want to be the one roleplaying it
It's fine to not want to have to roleplay anything really (with the caveat that it's not implied by the game - not wanting to RP combat would be pretty close to being deceptive in my opinion). I don't have romance in my worlds. Like it exists, obviously, but I'm uncomfortable RPing it - especially with someone who isn't my wife. So it just gets waved into the background. My characters just don't flirt or make advances or otherwise do things I'm not comfortable with. I also have rules that players don't do it towards my characters.
That's fine. I've yet to have a player get upset about that. Most are in agreement with me and every single one so far has been at least cool with it - cool enough to not even object to it when I make it clear in session 0. LGBTQ+ doesn't get special treatment there - but nor do they get singled out and picked on. It's just a general ban (on the behaviour - if they want an LGBTQ+ character, then I'm fine with it, just like I'm fine with married couples, parents, etc etc) for general reasons.
What would be a ****** move would be to single them out and make a point of it, or demonising them or otherwise using the game as a weapon against them. Trying to make them uncomfortable is a no-no.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Is it considered insensitive to write a world that doesn't have LQBTQ? I don't feel qualified to run those subjects, and I don't want to offend anyone. I consider it a direct tie to the real world, and I'm trying my best to avoid those at all costs (I've had to rewrite the protagonist city and evil empire, as to avoid connections to the United States and Soviet Union/Russia). Just because the world lacks it doesn't mean the players' characters don't have that freedom, but I mainly just don't want to be the one roleplaying it
There is not normally any obligation to show any overt physical attractions regardless of gender combination. Which complete strangers are flirting or sleeping with whom is usually not plot relevant.
If your players do want that kind of campaign, then that is something they should work out, in advance, just what that means and what you and they are looking for and what you and they are comfortable with in the campaign.
Well, there's the point that many action stories involve some kind of romance (if you squint a little), so it must contribute something.
Personally, I get bored and just grit my teeth through those bits so it's not surprising that I don't include them in my D&D stories.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well, there's the point that many action stories involve some kind of romance (if you squint a little), so it must contribute something.
Personally, I get bored and just grit my teeth through those bits so it's not surprising that I don't include them in my D&D stories.
Which is why I said it is not completely off the table, if the table is into a campaign that includes such play. 'The table' most definitely includes the DM. Just like with out of character romances, consent is a vital factor.
If a player wants their character to be gay, lesbian, bi, pan, trans or any other non-cis or het identity, do you
A: Deny those people even existing in your game because it is your game and you are the DM, and the players will do as you say or find another table.
Or
B. Acknowledge that carnal desire, romance, and identity are entirely different things, affirm that LGBTQIA+ people exist and are valid, but carnal desire and romance are not themes in your campaign.
Or
C:Assert that you don't know enough about the identities in question to adequately explore such concepts thematically, but say playing such character doesn't bother you or change anything about your game.
Only 2 of these are responses players like to hear. Only 1 of them is the most correct.
Is it considered insensitive to write a world that doesn't have LQBTQ? I don't feel qualified to run those subjects, and I don't want to offend anyone. I consider it a direct tie to the real world, and I'm trying my best to avoid those at all costs (I've had to rewrite the protagonist city and evil empire, as to avoid connections to the United States and Soviet Union/Russia). Just because the world lacks it doesn't mean the players' characters don't have that freedom, but I mainly just don't want to be the one roleplaying it
try not to remove to much from your world to appease other peoples preferences, without conflict and some questionable activities, situations and environments within the story what do the adventures have to overcome, adversity leads to growth (and great stories)
personally would say that its not insensitive: LGBTQIA+ people are welcome to play dnd, there is no reason why they cant. LGBTQIA+ characters ultimately i dont see any point of it on a character sheet besides some character fluff due to the following reasons:
unless your looking for sexual encounters, your sexual orientation doesnt matters - the story doesnt care which way you swing
unless your looking for some sort of confrontation or exploration surrounding a npc mistaking your characters gender identity, there is otherwise no reason for it - your gender identity doesnt matter to the story.
as for having them apart of your dnd world, due to exposure, theres nothing to guarantee that an adventuring party travels to every single settlement and meets every single individual within your dnd world. so unless its an integral part of the story, i personally think you dont have to think about it one way or the other - the potential for either case are the same
sidenotes: people should fight real world issue in the real world rather then in a game but thats just my personal opinion
If a player wants their character to be gay, lesbian, bi, pan, trans or any other non-cis or het identity, do you
A: Deny those people even existing in your game because it is your game and you are the DM, and the players will do as you say or find another table.
Or
B. Acknowledge that carnal desire, romance, and identity are entirely different things, affirm that LGBTQIA+ people exist and are valid, but carnal desire and romance are not themes in your campaign.
Or
C:Assert that you don't know enough about the identities in question to adequately explore such concepts thematically, but say playing such character doesn't bother you or change anything about your game.
Only 2 of these are responses players like to hear. 1 is the most correct.
This is why discussion is needed up front. Those are all simplistic answers, none of which are really based on what that specific player is looking for and whether that fits in with your campaign at all.
It is rare that any given table is open to 'literally anything' and a discussion of basic expectations (and boundaries) is far more constructive than (a) "My way or the highway," (b) "These aren't themes here" (which either gets into a discussion anyway over 'What do you mean by themes?' or 'Oh, so it is completely ok to be as demonstrative as I want but it won't be plot relevant') or (c) "I don't know much" (which is a lousy position to make any decision either way on).
If a player wants their character to be gay, lesbian, bi, pan, trans or any other non-cis or het identity, do you
A: Deny those people even existing in your game because it is your game and you are the DM, and the players will do as you say or find another table.
Or
B. Acknowledge that carnal desire, romance, and identity are entirely different things, affirm that LGBTQIA+ people exist and are valid, but carnal desire and romance are not themes in your campaign.
Or
C:Assert that you don't know enough about the identities in question to adequately explore such concepts thematically, but say playing such character doesn't bother you or change anything about your game.
Only 2 of these are responses players like to hear. 1 is the most correct.
Been doing this D&D thing a little while for a fair bit of time invested, and i gotta note that one of those responses is pretty mch hostile to everything -- the first one.
I have a group of 56 people as of this last weekend. Ranging in age from 13 years old to 61 years old. The oldest ones have been playing together since 1980. They include: three Bi folks, one gay man, and one trans woman (who is also one of the bi folks). That's just the oldest.
Hell of a lot more of the rst, and part of the reason we are so large is that a lot of folks think the first numbered item is a worthy response. It isn't. It is, quite specifically, unworthy, and there are a lot of better ways to say it and invoke similar baselines.
Because D&D has always had such things in it. Hell, it was started by heterosexuals. Ya just can't even avoid sexuality at all -- I mean, have you looked up the history of the Beauty score, and comeliness? Nah, it been there from the start. It's even in the source material that inspired it, going back to the standard "rescue the maiden in the tower for the reward of her kiss". Sexuality in the heart of the game.
This thread was necro'd b someone wondering if it is insensitive to write a world that doesn't have LGBTQ+ folks in it. The answer is it depends on the audience they are writing for.
For some folks not even a little For others, it is slapping them in the face and spitting on them. ANd for yet others, it has varying degrees of not mattering.
Now, Romance, however, is one of those things where everyone has to be in on it. THe DM and the players wanting romance, both.
I am uncomfortable doing romance. I have some hangups about it (like a dead spouse) and it can be hard on me. Yet, I am willing to do romance storylines with an NPC and a PC if asked -- just don't expect me to get all in character. I got 8 other players at the table, I ain't making googly eyes at ya.
And in at least two cases, I done already made googly eyes a few decades back for real, and it didn't work out, lol. Long term friend groups can get interesting with the drama.
When I do romance, it follows a set plot. One I have laid out and set up in a kind of by the numbers sorts of thing and it is fun to do from both sides. If the romance is between two Players, I'm good withit. However, in all cases, aside from a quick chaste kiss, it is otherwise offscreen because we hae things to do and pausing to narrate someone's eratoic fictionis not one of them.
One of the other DM's in my group pretty much only seems to run romance campaigns. Intrigue, politics, the whole works. I don't do "Player" so I don't know her tricks, but it's a thing and I have learned a few things from her about stuff that isn't romance related. She has a lot of the 20 somethings in her games. She does do the whole deal, I guess -- and I honestly get a bit of the ick from it -- but I mention this because we are two different people that rn two different play styles and ultimately share players -- who get to decide what they want to play and with whom.
And that's ultimately the key thing here: if you and your players want it in the game, it is in the game. If you think the creators of a few of the less appropriate games out there didn't start out playing those things in D&D, well, think again.
This is one of those things that the Zero Session is about -- to figure out what folks do and do not want to do. Everyone knows I am uncomfortable with sch things, so it isn't asked of me often, but it can be and ha been and folks know iI don't mind as long as we work within my limits for it. Because I want my players to have fun, and so I set up (scary word) Boundaries.
So the three possible responses above are not only not the only three, there are only two out of the many that are could be had -- trying to reduce it down to that few and that lacking in nuance an assortment is sorta foolish, and ignores several practical realities about how human beings interact, and the history of the game, and the whole point of the concept of fantasy.
LGBTQ+ folks get and enjoy romance just as much as anyone else -- and should have the same opportunities for such -- so it is entirely fair, if they all agree to it, to say "nah, we won't do that stuff. But if you don't do that stuff you also don't have bards seducing dragons and wenches and random cute orcs. Try telling a groups of teenagers they can't do their horny bard moment.
I mean, yes, a DM could do 1. But that also means that they will not be a DM way more often than they ae until they find a bunch of other people who feel the same way -- and they will usually not have been playing very often either.
Meanwhile, my group, which has a variety of approaches and different ways and different styes, will likely keep growing. And keep playing. Just like we have for the entire lives of most of the players and most of the lives of the oldest ones...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
If a player wants their character to be gay, lesbian, bi, pan, trans or any other non-cis or het identity, do you
A: Deny those people even existing in your game because it is your game and you are the DM, and the players will do as you say or find another table.
Or
B. Acknowledge that carnal desire, romance, and identity are entirely different things, affirm that LGBTQIA+ people exist and are valid, but carnal desire and romance are not themes in your campaign.
Or
C:Assert that you don't know enough about the identities in question to adequately explore such concepts thematically, but say playing such character doesn't bother you or change anything about your game.
Only 2 of these are responses players like to hear. 1 is the most correct.
Been doing this D&D thing a little while for a fair bit of time invested, and i gotta note that one of those responses is pretty mch hostile to everything -- the first one.
I have a group of 56 people as of this last weekend. Ranging in age from 13 years old to 61 years old. The oldest ones have been playing together since 1980. They include: three Bi folks, one gay man, and one trans woman (who is also one of the bi folks). That's just the oldest.
Hell of a lot more of the rst, and part of the reason we are so large is that a lot of folks think the first numbered item is a worthy response. It isn't. It is, quite specifically, unworthy, and there are a lot of better ways to say it and invoke similar baselines.
Because D&D has always had such things in it. Hell, it was started by heterosexuals. Ya just can't even avoid sexuality at all -- I mean, have you looked up the history of the Beauty score, and comeliness? Nah, it been there from the start. It's even in the source material that inspired it, going back to the standard "rescue the maiden in the tower for the reward of her kiss". Sexuality in the heart of the game.
This thread was necro'd b someone wondering if it is insensitive to write a world that doesn't have LGBTQ+ folks in it. The answer is it depends on the audience they are writing for.
For some folks not even a little For others, it is slapping them in the face and spitting on them. ANd for yet others, it has varying degrees of not mattering.
Now, Romance, however, is one of those things where everyone has to be in on it. THe DM and the players wanting romance, both.
I am uncomfortable doing romance. I have some hangups about it (like a dead spouse) and it can be hard on me. Yet, I am willing to do romance storylines with an NPC and a PC if asked -- just don't expect me to get all in character. I got 8 other players at the table, I ain't making googly eyes at ya.
And in at least two cases, I done already made googly eyes a few decades back for real, and it didn't work out, lol. Long term friend groups can get interesting with the drama.
When I do romance, it follows a set plot. One I have laid out and set up in a kind of by the numbers sorts of thing and it is fun to do from both sides. If the romance is between two Players, I'm good withit. However, in all cases, aside from a quick chaste kiss, it is otherwise offscreen because we hae things to do and pausing to narrate someone's eratoic fictionis not one of them.
One of the other DM's in my group pretty much only seems to run romance campaigns. Intrigue, politics, the whole works. I don't do "Player" so I don't know her tricks, but it's a thing and I have learned a few things from her about stuff that isn't romance related. She has a lot of the 20 somethings in her games. She does do the whole deal, I guess -- and I honestly get a bit of the ick from it -- but I mention this because we are two different people that rn two different play styles and ultimately share players -- who get to decide what they want to play and with whom.
And that's ultimately the key thing here: if you and your players want it in the game, it is in the game. If you think the creators of a few of the less appropriate games out there didn't start out playing those things in D&D, well, think again.
This is one of those things that the Zero Session is about -- to figure out what folks do and do not want to do. Everyone knows I am uncomfortable with sch things, so it isn't asked of me often, but it can be and ha been and folks know iI don't mind as long as we work within my limits for it. Because I want my players to have fun, and so I set up (scary word) Boundaries.
So the three possible responses above are not only not the only three, there are only two out of the many that are could be had -- trying to reduce it down to that few and that lacking in nuance an assortment is sorta foolish, and ignores several practical realities about how human beings interact, and the history of the game, and the whole point of the concept of fantasy.
LGBTQ+ folks get and enjoy romance just as much as anyone else -- and should have the same opportunities for such -- so it is entirely fair, if they all agree to it, to say "nah, we won't do that stuff. But if you don't do that stuff you also don't have bards seducing dragons and wenches and random cute orcs. Try telling a groups of teenagers they can't do their horny bard moment.
I mean, yes, a DM could do 1. But that also means that they will not be a DM way more often than they ae until they find a bunch of other people who feel the same way -- and they will usually not have been playing very often either.
Meanwhile, my group, which has a variety of approaches and different ways and different styes, will likely keep growing. And keep playing. Just like we have for the entire lives of most of the players and most of the lives of the oldest ones...
What I meant was "Only 2 of these are responses players like to hear. ONLY 1 of them is the most correct".
Hello there, you may call me Lael. I am a transgender girl interested deeply in the DND environment, but with the biggest concern all my fellow LGBTQIA members have, is it friendly and accepting towards us?
Now, I'm not here to start fights or debates, I'm simply looking for open arms and answers!
Well someone bumped this thread, Kind of shocked I never replied when it was new. But here I am. Been playing D&D since the 80s, and I'm an older trans woman, and a forever DM.
Generally like all things in our society depends on who you are around. The creators of the game are LGBTQAI+ friendly, and WotC has many employees that are LGBTQAI+. Ed Greenwood one of the main creators of the settings we use is a huge ally, and has explored trans themes in his forgotten realms books. He was an ally before the world knew trans was a thing.
Is it considered insensitive to write a world that doesn't have LQBTQ? I don't feel qualified to run those subjects, and I don't want to offend anyone. I consider it a direct tie to the real world, and I'm trying my best to avoid those at all costs (I've had to rewrite the protagonist city and evil empire, as to avoid connections to the United States and Soviet Union/Russia). Just because the world lacks it doesn't mean the players' characters don't have that freedom, but I mainly just don't want to be the one roleplaying it
Insensitive, no, but I would say it's a bad idea to design a world that doesn't reflect our own, esp if you get a LGBTQAI+ player in your group. You don't as DM have to roleplay it, but someone who is trans, Gay, Bi can't just not be who they are at a flick of a switch. People think representation is about fun times with your partner, it's not, it just means you can see yourself in a place. That you can empathize with a setting because you have a point of view.
Sounds good! Avoiding romance as a whole feels generally best in a game where you're supposed to be driving swords into evil monsters
Well, I'm ace, bi, and Trans, so generally I don't set up romance for players, but if they want it, they can have it, but they need to do that in their own time. But saying there is no queer representation is wrong. Being queer isn't about doing the noughties it's who you are. I can not turn off being trans, demi-ace, or bi. But I don't need to deal with adult themes either. Those are a place for personal fan fictions about your character.
sidenotes: people should fight real world issue in the real world rather then in a game but thats just my personal opinion
No.
D&D is a tool and a game, as a tool sometimes people use it to work out personal issues, many transgender people come to terms with their gender by playing DnD, I know I did. Real world issues can be personal and tiny, and D&D is a great place to come to terms with them. People should also be allowed to play idealized versions of themselves in RPGs.
As a DM my job is to allow the players to enjoy the setting in the way that they can best express their enjoyment of the game. My games are usually high combat, with 1~2 RP sessions in between, the RP is 90% driven by the players.
sidenotes: people should fight real world issue in the real world rather then in a game but thats just my personal opinion
No.
D&D is a tool and a game, as a tool sometimes people use it to work out personal issues, many transgender people come to terms with their gender by playing DnD, I know I did. Real world issues can be personal and tiny, and D&D is a great place to come to terms with them. People should also be allowed to play idealized versions of themselves in RPGs.
As a DM my job is to allow the players to enjoy the setting in the way that they can best express their enjoyment of the game. My games are usually high combat, with 1~2 RP sessions in between, the RP is 90% driven by the players.
personally find that with these types of discussion that people tend to blur the lines between the real life person playing the character and the in-game character they created and thats why i said it was my personal opinion "that people should fight real world issues in the real world rather then in a game."
your opinion seems to differ from mine in that regard and thats alright and expected due to each of us having different life experiences, backgrounds and perspectives, none of which gives anyones opinion any more value then anothers.
Is it considered insensitive to write a world that doesn't have LQBTQ?
The simple answer here is no, it's not. It's like asking is Django Unchained insensitive to write as a movie because it has/depicts racism in it.
Now if you made an anti-LGBTQ faction and made them essentially the "good guys", then that'd be insensitive, or if you're going for more of a grimdark angle and spring this on your players without warning them, that'd be insensitive too. Better to float the idea past the players first to see what they're happy with.
Ultimately, a D&D campaign doesn't need to consider sexuality or gender at all, it's really about the players at the table that matters, some people prefer more wargaming types of campaigns while others prefer deep RP campaigns.
Seeing a lot of “considering romantic preference adds nothing to the story” and “why would it matter in most games, unless you are doing romance” posts - I fundamentally disagree with these positions.
Romantic and sexual preference are relevant outside of romance plot lines. A shopkeeper giving preferential treatment; an NPC being shy and awkward.. plenty of small, subtle ways someone’s preferences influence behavior. This need not only be on gender/sex lines - species, physical appearance, and many other player choices would have subtle effects on how NPCs interact with the party or members of the party.
The addition of such reactions, even on minor NPCs makes the world feel more alive. It is one of those subtle ways a TTRPG is superior to a video game - the NPCs are not static programs, but living, breathing entities reflective of their myriad interests and desires. Even if attraction only has subtle effect on the story and NPC interactions, the entire world feels poorer, less realistic, and a little more flat when the DM does not consider this facet of NPC personality.
Here is the caveat - many D&D players are awkward and, if we are being honest, a whole lot of them are downright creepy. The story and world will suffer without this inclusion, but, for some DMs, the damage of including these elements will eclipse the damage of their omission. The DM should do some self-reflection if they are shy about including such elements and figure out what will harm the story less.
Even beyond interactions with NPCs, simply including references to LGBT+ individuals makes the world seem more alive. After all, gay and trans individuals have been a recognized part of society across the entire globe dating back to antiquity - a world without such individuals is simply unrealistic. Simply including subtle references that acknowledge the existence of such folks can add depth to the world in ways that do not really cause the DM to have to act anything out. For example, simply saying “a man and his husband toast their anniversary at the bar” when describing the residents of a tavern adds a degree of ambiance and worldbuilding without asking all that much of the DM.
Seeing a lot of “considering romantic preference adds nothing to the story” and “why would it matter in most games, unless you are doing romance” posts - I fundamentally disagree with these positions.
Romantic and sexual preference are relevant outside of romance plot lines. A shopkeeper giving preferential treatment; an NPC being shy and awkward.. plenty of small, subtle ways someone’s preferences influence behavior. This need not only be on gender/sex lines - species, physical appearance, and many other player choices would have subtle effects on how NPCs interact with the party or members of the party.
This might be how you want to play but that's the thing, that is how you want to play, it is not how everybody wants to play. Other people simply might not be after that and at that point, you're just bogging down a campaign with details that the players of that campaign aren't interested in. The thing about D&D is there are MANY ways to play D&D, the rules are guide lines for setting up the table top experience but two different tables will not play the game the exact same way and limiting the view of what is/is not needed based on your own personal preferences for D&D is a poor position to take in the first part.
It is best to cater a campaign around what the party, the players are after, and nobody should assume any table has to play the game the same way that another table plays the game. As such romance for some tables really isn't important what-so-ever.
The thread had originally been in reply to a 2 year old post, but the current discussion was only tangentially related to it. Please do not make me regret moving this thread and not simply locking it.
Also, going to make this mod voice as well as it seems to need to be said:
LGBTQ+ exist regardless of whether they are centred or not in the story or a society is not particularly progressive. LGBTQ+ identities are not simply romance or whom they are sleeping with- your game might not allow romance plots among the players, but that will not stop those identities existing.
If you mention that a farmer and their wife are looking for their lost child have you brought up romance and sexual themes because you mentioned they were married and had a child? If you feel no, why would that change if the farmer was NB or female? People sometimes have this reaction where something heteronormative (The princess kissing the prince, a child asking where her mum and dad are) is fine, but as soon as it becomes LGBTQ+ in anyway they suddenly feel like it's become more 'adult' themed (The princess kissing the princess, a child asking where their dads are). This is a harmful way of thinking of LGBTQ+ identities.
As for whether you have to include it, or how to include it is another matter. If you have little experience with it, it's natural that you might not feel like you could tell a story based on such themes well and that you'd prefer to stick with stories you have more familiarity with. This doesn't mean you have to exclude all identities you aren't yourself, or that having them in your game means you need to focus on them and tell their story. It's not going to change much if the merchant selling your PCs supplies is male, female or Non-binary, cis or trans. It won't change much if the married couple running the inn are two men. You're not then obligated to tell a story exploring those characters experiences.
Not including it might not matter much to certain groups. You're not the main writers of the game, publishing your content for the masses. You have less pressure to consider who you're representing or how. But it might still be worth thinking about who you're including or not and why- sometimes it's just habit and bias you build up. Most of the older D&D modules barely had any women at all. One famous starting base for an AD&D village in 1e was only about 25% women, and all the enemies were male. One thing a friend told me that sticks with me is "To get better at something you need to start by being consciously bad at it, then consciously better at it, and then you stop having to think about doing it because now it's normal." If designers and players had asked 'Do I have to include women in my game? I'm not a woman and I don't know how to tell their experiences' it'd be a similar thing, but then not much would have changed if the answer was 'No'. You have to start consciously thinking about why you might be favouring a gender, a race, an age, level of physically abled, orientation and so on, and maybe clumsily at the start just throw in one or two things different, then this starts the habit. So you don't have to. No one can force you in your own games. But it might still be worth trying.
I want to share an example from my home campaign. I had run a couple one-shots for my players and they wanted to keep it going as a campaign, so I wanted to give them a little village to call home. I started thinking about how to populate this village. A few farmers, a shopkeep, someone to run the inn, a handful of village folk who would show up regularly, etc. I thought back on TV shows with small towns I'd watched recently - particularly Hart of Dixie and Gilmore Girls, and what made their small-town vibes feel charming and what fell short for me. One of the ideas I really liked was how the town Stars Hollow in Gilmore GIrls had just one house of worship shared by a reverend and a rabbi, who were friends and professional colleagues. I thought it made sense that my little village would also only have one temple shared by a couple priests, and I started to base their relationship on the reverend and rabbi from Gilmore Girls, but adapted them into Conrad, a priest of Lathander, and Ander, a priest of Chauntea. And then I started thinking wouldn't it be neat if they started out sharing the temple and being professional with each other, then developing a friendship, and that friendship eventually deepening into a committed relationship. It only took a couple minutes to get there because I took some building blocks that were already there and used it as their "meet cute" relationship origin story. They're two guys who share the temple and bicker like an old married couple because they are an old married couple.
These are the notes in my document where I keep track of NPCs and plot points in the town:
[Temples]: Just one temple, shared between priests of Chauntea and Lathander. Chauntea being a goddess of grain and agriculture has been perpetually well-served in the village. Lathander has always had a smaller following, mainly from local militia and adventurers who protect the town. Worshipping other gods/goddesses isn’t unheard of and is accepted, though most of the townsfolk are set in their ways with Chauntea and Lathander.
Conrad, the priest of Lathander, and Ander, the priest of Chauntea, have been married for almost 20 years. Their enthusiasm for using the temple to help displaced Neverwintans after the eruption of Mount Hotenow and occasional bickering about how to share it led to an enthusiastic courtship and occasional bickering about what to eat for dinner.
The priests of Chauntea and Lathander take turns using the back room of the temple for community activities. Ander meets with farmers to talk about topics like seed germination, irrigation, crop rotation, etc. Conrad teaches self-defense classes and hosts support groups people who were traumatized by the gnoll attack and other tragedies.
I'm not gay, but I don't have to be to include these two NPCs in my little village who care about their community and each other that my players can interact with. The players don't need to know about the priests' love life - they can simply be "that nice older couple that runs the temple." And, importantly, they have interests and activities that ground them in the community and keep them from being flat, one-dimensional characters.
I added other LGBTQ+ characters as I saw more blind spots and as I started thinking things like "dang, this character from [TV show, movie, or book] would make an interesting villager, but also what if they were ace?" And I can't recommend strongly enough what Elgate said about starting bad and getting better. If we're never daring enough to try something we're bad at, we never improve, and that's just plain disappointing.
Is it insensitive to not include? I mean... yeah. No one is going to stop you from banning it at your table, but it is pretty insensitive to just deny an entire population's existence in your game because it might be "problematic". The whole premise of the "it is part of the 'real world' and I don't want reminders of the 'real world' in my game" is also really just a bad excuse. There will be other "real world" things in your game I'm sure that might also be "problematic", but you will allow them. Unless you are planning on having a D&D game without death/murder, crime, political systems, forms of government, injury, legal systems, etc, then you are just picking things to not be in your world because you find them "bad".
Now of course there are limits we put on our worlds and what we are willing to discuss at the table (things like SA, torture, etc), but all of that should be included in your Session 0 when you go over the Safety Tools. But those shouldn't include denying a population's existence. It would be the same as saying "I don't want any non-white people in my game, because it reminds me of the real world." That's just wrong.
It is fair to not want to have to roleplay romances between players and NPCs. However you should not deny the players to have agency over their characters' sexuality. Sexuality and gender identity are not just "who the character sleeps with", they can be prominent aspects of that character's identity and personality.
There can be representation of sexuality and gender identity without explicitly having to roleplay romantic encounters. A male shopkeeper who introduces you to their husband, a female adventurer who had previously (backstory) been romantically involved with a male member of the party, but now is introduced with her female fiancé, a guard who maybe a member of the party knew in their youth who was John, but is now Jane. These are all very simple ways of including LGBTQ+ people in the world without having to roleplay romance or anything. Just avoid stereotypes (which we should all try to do in many aspects of NPC and character depiction, LGBTQ+ and otherwise) and treat them as real as any other character/NPC in the game. I understand not wanting to portray something incorrectly or offensively, but just a little bit of forethought will make that a non-issue, as well as a willingness to learn and be corrected. If someone at the table says "hey, that's kind of offensive how you portrayed that", take that statement to heart and learn from it. It is not only good for your game and world, but for you as an individual.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Is it considered insensitive to write a world that doesn't have LQBTQ? I don't feel qualified to run those subjects, and I don't want to offend anyone. I consider it a direct tie to the real world, and I'm trying my best to avoid those at all costs (I've had to rewrite the protagonist city and evil empire, as to avoid connections to the United States and Soviet Union/Russia). Just because the world lacks it doesn't mean the players' characters don't have that freedom, but I mainly just don't want to be the one roleplaying it
【 D E S C E N T 】
I think it would be seen as very weird and more than a little homophobic to proactively declare that this fictional world you've created doesn't have any queer people in it. If you're just talking about, maybe the player characters never happen to encounter any queer NPCs or it just never happens to come up, that's probably not a huge deal. But it depends a lot on who's playing.
pronouns: he/she/they
It's fine to not want to have to roleplay anything really (with the caveat that it's not implied by the game - not wanting to RP combat would be pretty close to being deceptive in my opinion). I don't have romance in my worlds. Like it exists, obviously, but I'm uncomfortable RPing it - especially with someone who isn't my wife. So it just gets waved into the background. My characters just don't flirt or make advances or otherwise do things I'm not comfortable with. I also have rules that players don't do it towards my characters.
That's fine. I've yet to have a player get upset about that. Most are in agreement with me and every single one so far has been at least cool with it - cool enough to not even object to it when I make it clear in session 0. LGBTQ+ doesn't get special treatment there - but nor do they get singled out and picked on. It's just a general ban (on the behaviour - if they want an LGBTQ+ character, then I'm fine with it, just like I'm fine with married couples, parents, etc etc) for general reasons.
What would be a ****** move would be to single them out and make a point of it, or demonising them or otherwise using the game as a weapon against them. Trying to make them uncomfortable is a no-no.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
There is not normally any obligation to show any overt physical attractions regardless of gender combination. Which complete strangers are flirting or sleeping with whom is usually not plot relevant.
If your players do want that kind of campaign, then that is something they should work out, in advance, just what that means and what you and they are looking for and what you and they are comfortable with in the campaign.
Sounds good! Avoiding romance as a whole feels generally best in a game where you're supposed to be driving swords into evil monsters
【 D E S C E N T 】
Well, there's the point that many action stories involve some kind of romance (if you squint a little), so it must contribute something.
Personally, I get bored and just grit my teeth through those bits so it's not surprising that I don't include them in my D&D stories.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Which is why I said it is not completely off the table, if the table is into a campaign that includes such play. 'The table' most definitely includes the DM. Just like with out of character romances, consent is a vital factor.
If a player wants their character to be gay, lesbian, bi, pan, trans or any other non-cis or het identity, do you
A: Deny those people even existing in your game because it is your game and you are the DM, and the players will do as you say or find another table.
Or
B. Acknowledge that carnal desire, romance, and identity are entirely different things, affirm that LGBTQIA+ people exist and are valid, but carnal desire and romance are not themes in your campaign.
Or
C:Assert that you don't know enough about the identities in question to adequately explore such concepts thematically, but say playing such character doesn't bother you or change anything about your game.
Only 2 of these are responses players like to hear. Only 1 of them is the most correct.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
try not to remove to much from your world to appease other peoples preferences, without conflict and some questionable activities, situations and environments within the story what do the adventures have to overcome, adversity leads to growth (and great stories)
personally would say that its not insensitive:
LGBTQIA+ people are welcome to play dnd, there is no reason why they cant.
LGBTQIA+ characters ultimately i dont see any point of it on a character sheet besides some character fluff due to the following reasons:
as for having them apart of your dnd world, due to exposure, theres nothing to guarantee that an adventuring party travels to every single settlement and meets every single individual within your dnd world. so unless its an integral part of the story, i personally think you dont have to think about it one way or the other - the potential for either case are the same
sidenotes: people should fight real world issue in the real world rather then in a game but thats just my personal opinion
This is why discussion is needed up front. Those are all simplistic answers, none of which are really based on what that specific player is looking for and whether that fits in with your campaign at all.
It is rare that any given table is open to 'literally anything' and a discussion of basic expectations (and boundaries) is far more constructive than (a) "My way or the highway," (b) "These aren't themes here" (which either gets into a discussion anyway over 'What do you mean by themes?' or 'Oh, so it is completely ok to be as demonstrative as I want but it won't be plot relevant') or (c) "I don't know much" (which is a lousy position to make any decision either way on).
Been doing this D&D thing a little while for a fair bit of time invested, and i gotta note that one of those responses is pretty mch hostile to everything -- the first one.
I have a group of 56 people as of this last weekend. Ranging in age from 13 years old to 61 years old. The oldest ones have been playing together since 1980. They include: three Bi folks, one gay man, and one trans woman (who is also one of the bi folks). That's just the oldest.
Hell of a lot more of the rst, and part of the reason we are so large is that a lot of folks think the first numbered item is a worthy response. It isn't. It is, quite specifically, unworthy, and there are a lot of better ways to say it and invoke similar baselines.
Because D&D has always had such things in it. Hell, it was started by heterosexuals. Ya just can't even avoid sexuality at all -- I mean, have you looked up the history of the Beauty score, and comeliness? Nah, it been there from the start. It's even in the source material that inspired it, going back to the standard "rescue the maiden in the tower for the reward of her kiss". Sexuality in the heart of the game.
This thread was necro'd b someone wondering if it is insensitive to write a world that doesn't have LGBTQ+ folks in it. The answer is it depends on the audience they are writing for.
For some folks not even a little For others, it is slapping them in the face and spitting on them. ANd for yet others, it has varying degrees of not mattering.
Now, Romance, however, is one of those things where everyone has to be in on it. THe DM and the players wanting romance, both.
I am uncomfortable doing romance. I have some hangups about it (like a dead spouse) and it can be hard on me. Yet, I am willing to do romance storylines with an NPC and a PC if asked -- just don't expect me to get all in character. I got 8 other players at the table, I ain't making googly eyes at ya.
And in at least two cases, I done already made googly eyes a few decades back for real, and it didn't work out, lol. Long term friend groups can get interesting with the drama.
When I do romance, it follows a set plot. One I have laid out and set up in a kind of by the numbers sorts of thing and it is fun to do from both sides. If the romance is between two Players, I'm good withit. However, in all cases, aside from a quick chaste kiss, it is otherwise offscreen because we hae things to do and pausing to narrate someone's eratoic fictionis not one of them.
One of the other DM's in my group pretty much only seems to run romance campaigns. Intrigue, politics, the whole works. I don't do "Player" so I don't know her tricks, but it's a thing and I have learned a few things from her about stuff that isn't romance related. She has a lot of the 20 somethings in her games. She does do the whole deal, I guess -- and I honestly get a bit of the ick from it -- but I mention this because we are two different people that rn two different play styles and ultimately share players -- who get to decide what they want to play and with whom.
And that's ultimately the key thing here: if you and your players want it in the game, it is in the game. If you think the creators of a few of the less appropriate games out there didn't start out playing those things in D&D, well, think again.
This is one of those things that the Zero Session is about -- to figure out what folks do and do not want to do. Everyone knows I am uncomfortable with sch things, so it isn't asked of me often, but it can be and ha been and folks know iI don't mind as long as we work within my limits for it. Because I want my players to have fun, and so I set up (scary word) Boundaries.
So the three possible responses above are not only not the only three, there are only two out of the many that are could be had -- trying to reduce it down to that few and that lacking in nuance an assortment is sorta foolish, and ignores several practical realities about how human beings interact, and the history of the game, and the whole point of the concept of fantasy.
LGBTQ+ folks get and enjoy romance just as much as anyone else -- and should have the same opportunities for such -- so it is entirely fair, if they all agree to it, to say "nah, we won't do that stuff. But if you don't do that stuff you also don't have bards seducing dragons and wenches and random cute orcs. Try telling a groups of teenagers they can't do their horny bard moment.
I mean, yes, a DM could do 1. But that also means that they will not be a DM way more often than they ae until they find a bunch of other people who feel the same way -- and they will usually not have been playing very often either.
Meanwhile, my group, which has a variety of approaches and different ways and different styes, will likely keep growing. And keep playing. Just like we have for the entire lives of most of the players and most of the lives of the oldest ones...
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
What I meant was "Only 2 of these are responses players like to hear. ONLY 1 of them is the most correct".
Thanks, I'll fix it
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
Well someone bumped this thread, Kind of shocked I never replied when it was new. But here I am. Been playing D&D since the 80s, and I'm an older trans woman, and a forever DM.
Generally like all things in our society depends on who you are around. The creators of the game are LGBTQAI+ friendly, and WotC has many employees that are LGBTQAI+. Ed Greenwood one of the main creators of the settings we use is a huge ally, and has explored trans themes in his forgotten realms books. He was an ally before the world knew trans was a thing.
Insensitive, no, but I would say it's a bad idea to design a world that doesn't reflect our own, esp if you get a LGBTQAI+ player in your group. You don't as DM have to roleplay it, but someone who is trans, Gay, Bi can't just not be who they are at a flick of a switch. People think representation is about fun times with your partner, it's not, it just means you can see yourself in a place. That you can empathize with a setting because you have a point of view.
Well, I'm ace, bi, and Trans, so generally I don't set up romance for players, but if they want it, they can have it, but they need to do that in their own time. But saying there is no queer representation is wrong. Being queer isn't about doing the noughties it's who you are. I can not turn off being trans, demi-ace, or bi. But I don't need to deal with adult themes either. Those are a place for personal fan fictions about your character.
No.
D&D is a tool and a game, as a tool sometimes people use it to work out personal issues, many transgender people come to terms with their gender by playing DnD, I know I did. Real world issues can be personal and tiny, and D&D is a great place to come to terms with them. People should also be allowed to play idealized versions of themselves in RPGs.
As a DM my job is to allow the players to enjoy the setting in the way that they can best express their enjoyment of the game. My games are usually high combat, with 1~2 RP sessions in between, the RP is 90% driven by the players.
personally find that with these types of discussion that people tend to blur the lines between the real life person playing the character and the in-game character they created and thats why i said it was my personal opinion "that people should fight real world issues in the real world rather then in a game."
your opinion seems to differ from mine in that regard and thats alright and expected due to each of us having different life experiences, backgrounds and perspectives, none of which gives anyones opinion any more value then anothers.
The simple answer here is no, it's not. It's like asking is Django Unchained insensitive to write as a movie because it has/depicts racism in it.
Now if you made an anti-LGBTQ faction and made them essentially the "good guys", then that'd be insensitive, or if you're going for more of a grimdark angle and spring this on your players without warning them, that'd be insensitive too. Better to float the idea past the players first to see what they're happy with.
Ultimately, a D&D campaign doesn't need to consider sexuality or gender at all, it's really about the players at the table that matters, some people prefer more wargaming types of campaigns while others prefer deep RP campaigns.
Seeing a lot of “considering romantic preference adds nothing to the story” and “why would it matter in most games, unless you are doing romance” posts - I fundamentally disagree with these positions.
Romantic and sexual preference are relevant outside of romance plot lines. A shopkeeper giving preferential treatment; an NPC being shy and awkward.. plenty of small, subtle ways someone’s preferences influence behavior. This need not only be on gender/sex lines - species, physical appearance, and many other player choices would have subtle effects on how NPCs interact with the party or members of the party.
The addition of such reactions, even on minor NPCs makes the world feel more alive. It is one of those subtle ways a TTRPG is superior to a video game - the NPCs are not static programs, but living, breathing entities reflective of their myriad interests and desires. Even if attraction only has subtle effect on the story and NPC interactions, the entire world feels poorer, less realistic, and a little more flat when the DM does not consider this facet of NPC personality.
Here is the caveat - many D&D players are awkward and, if we are being honest, a whole lot of them are downright creepy. The story and world will suffer without this inclusion, but, for some DMs, the damage of including these elements will eclipse the damage of their omission. The DM should do some self-reflection if they are shy about including such elements and figure out what will harm the story less.
Even beyond interactions with NPCs, simply including references to LGBT+ individuals makes the world seem more alive. After all, gay and trans individuals have been a recognized part of society across the entire globe dating back to antiquity - a world without such individuals is simply unrealistic. Simply including subtle references that acknowledge the existence of such folks can add depth to the world in ways that do not really cause the DM to have to act anything out. For example, simply saying “a man and his husband toast their anniversary at the bar” when describing the residents of a tavern adds a degree of ambiance and worldbuilding without asking all that much of the DM.
This might be how you want to play but that's the thing, that is how you want to play, it is not how everybody wants to play. Other people simply might not be after that and at that point, you're just bogging down a campaign with details that the players of that campaign aren't interested in. The thing about D&D is there are MANY ways to play D&D, the rules are guide lines for setting up the table top experience but two different tables will not play the game the exact same way and limiting the view of what is/is not needed based on your own personal preferences for D&D is a poor position to take in the first part.
It is best to cater a campaign around what the party, the players are after, and nobody should assume any table has to play the game the same way that another table plays the game. As such romance for some tables really isn't important what-so-ever.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThe thread had originally been in reply to a 2 year old post, but the current discussion was only tangentially related to it. Please do not make me regret moving this thread and not simply locking it.
Also, going to make this mod voice as well as it seems to need to be said:
LGBTQ+ exist regardless of whether they are centred or not in the story or a society is not particularly progressive. LGBTQ+ identities are not simply romance or whom they are sleeping with- your game might not allow romance plots among the players, but that will not stop those identities existing.
If you mention that a farmer and their wife are looking for their lost child have you brought up romance and sexual themes because you mentioned they were married and had a child? If you feel no, why would that change if the farmer was NB or female? People sometimes have this reaction where something heteronormative (The princess kissing the prince, a child asking where her mum and dad are) is fine, but as soon as it becomes LGBTQ+ in anyway they suddenly feel like it's become more 'adult' themed (The princess kissing the princess, a child asking where their dads are). This is a harmful way of thinking of LGBTQ+ identities.
As for whether you have to include it, or how to include it is another matter. If you have little experience with it, it's natural that you might not feel like you could tell a story based on such themes well and that you'd prefer to stick with stories you have more familiarity with. This doesn't mean you have to exclude all identities you aren't yourself, or that having them in your game means you need to focus on them and tell their story. It's not going to change much if the merchant selling your PCs supplies is male, female or Non-binary, cis or trans. It won't change much if the married couple running the inn are two men. You're not then obligated to tell a story exploring those characters experiences.
Not including it might not matter much to certain groups. You're not the main writers of the game, publishing your content for the masses. You have less pressure to consider who you're representing or how. But it might still be worth thinking about who you're including or not and why- sometimes it's just habit and bias you build up. Most of the older D&D modules barely had any women at all. One famous starting base for an AD&D village in 1e was only about 25% women, and all the enemies were male. One thing a friend told me that sticks with me is "To get better at something you need to start by being consciously bad at it, then consciously better at it, and then you stop having to think about doing it because now it's normal."
If designers and players had asked 'Do I have to include women in my game? I'm not a woman and I don't know how to tell their experiences' it'd be a similar thing, but then not much would have changed if the answer was 'No'. You have to start consciously thinking about why you might be favouring a gender, a race, an age, level of physically abled, orientation and so on, and maybe clumsily at the start just throw in one or two things different, then this starts the habit. So you don't have to. No one can force you in your own games. But it might still be worth trying.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
Lovely points, Elgate. Couldn't agree more.
I want to share an example from my home campaign. I had run a couple one-shots for my players and they wanted to keep it going as a campaign, so I wanted to give them a little village to call home. I started thinking about how to populate this village. A few farmers, a shopkeep, someone to run the inn, a handful of village folk who would show up regularly, etc. I thought back on TV shows with small towns I'd watched recently - particularly Hart of Dixie and Gilmore Girls, and what made their small-town vibes feel charming and what fell short for me. One of the ideas I really liked was how the town Stars Hollow in Gilmore GIrls had just one house of worship shared by a reverend and a rabbi, who were friends and professional colleagues. I thought it made sense that my little village would also only have one temple shared by a couple priests, and I started to base their relationship on the reverend and rabbi from Gilmore Girls, but adapted them into Conrad, a priest of Lathander, and Ander, a priest of Chauntea. And then I started thinking wouldn't it be neat if they started out sharing the temple and being professional with each other, then developing a friendship, and that friendship eventually deepening into a committed relationship. It only took a couple minutes to get there because I took some building blocks that were already there and used it as their "meet cute" relationship origin story. They're two guys who share the temple and bicker like an old married couple because they are an old married couple.
These are the notes in my document where I keep track of NPCs and plot points in the town:
I'm not gay, but I don't have to be to include these two NPCs in my little village who care about their community and each other that my players can interact with. The players don't need to know about the priests' love life - they can simply be "that nice older couple that runs the temple." And, importantly, they have interests and activities that ground them in the community and keep them from being flat, one-dimensional characters.
I added other LGBTQ+ characters as I saw more blind spots and as I started thinking things like "dang, this character from [TV show, movie, or book] would make an interesting villager, but also what if they were ace?" And I can't recommend strongly enough what Elgate said about starting bad and getting better. If we're never daring enough to try something we're bad at, we never improve, and that's just plain disappointing.
Is it insensitive to not include? I mean... yeah. No one is going to stop you from banning it at your table, but it is pretty insensitive to just deny an entire population's existence in your game because it might be "problematic". The whole premise of the "it is part of the 'real world' and I don't want reminders of the 'real world' in my game" is also really just a bad excuse. There will be other "real world" things in your game I'm sure that might also be "problematic", but you will allow them. Unless you are planning on having a D&D game without death/murder, crime, political systems, forms of government, injury, legal systems, etc, then you are just picking things to not be in your world because you find them "bad".
Now of course there are limits we put on our worlds and what we are willing to discuss at the table (things like SA, torture, etc), but all of that should be included in your Session 0 when you go over the Safety Tools. But those shouldn't include denying a population's existence. It would be the same as saying "I don't want any non-white people in my game, because it reminds me of the real world." That's just wrong.
It is fair to not want to have to roleplay romances between players and NPCs. However you should not deny the players to have agency over their characters' sexuality. Sexuality and gender identity are not just "who the character sleeps with", they can be prominent aspects of that character's identity and personality.
There can be representation of sexuality and gender identity without explicitly having to roleplay romantic encounters. A male shopkeeper who introduces you to their husband, a female adventurer who had previously (backstory) been romantically involved with a male member of the party, but now is introduced with her female fiancé, a guard who maybe a member of the party knew in their youth who was John, but is now Jane. These are all very simple ways of including LGBTQ+ people in the world without having to roleplay romance or anything. Just avoid stereotypes (which we should all try to do in many aspects of NPC and character depiction, LGBTQ+ and otherwise) and treat them as real as any other character/NPC in the game. I understand not wanting to portray something incorrectly or offensively, but just a little bit of forethought will make that a non-issue, as well as a willingness to learn and be corrected. If someone at the table says "hey, that's kind of offensive how you portrayed that", take that statement to heart and learn from it. It is not only good for your game and world, but for you as an individual.