My two cents is that- particularly in the context of something like a tabletop session- there’s a difference between not showcasing something and explicitly excluding it. There doesn’t need to be a checklist of elements that must be featured in a campaign to prove how inclusive you are; that just frustrates everyone because the instances feel patently inorganic and shoehorned. How players want to approach orientation/identity is largely their prerogative, as is how much the DM cares to roleplay. Saying you’re not inclined to do romance/intimacy either in general or particular circumstances or attempt to represent certain characteristics you don’t feel you can do justice is a legitimate option for a DM to exercise and doesn’t intrinsically mean such things do not exist in the setting, anymore than anything IRL doesn’t exist simply because a particular individual or group has not personally experienced/encountered it.
I keep revisiting this thread, and I confess to chuckling a little bit because I can image the response of some folks to the fact that of the 21 or so deities present in my game, one is gay, two are lesbian, three are bi, and four are trans of some sort (including an enby).
My bugbear equivalent includes natively masculine, feminine and eby sorts -- and they are hyena-bear-human crosses. And the folks who are hostile and murderous towards LGBTQ folks are Goblins of Lemuria. Who live in brick houses and have fairly strict sumptuary laws and wear tweed and twill and plaids and wear assorted hats or bonnets. And are the bad guys, without doubt.
meanwhile, the "rebel city" elected a goblin to serve on their leadership council. He has a bugbear type friend.
THis is a fantasy game. the only real limits are what we imagine them to be.
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
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
Nope. Personally, I don't delve into any sexual or sexual identity stuff in my games. I've always left that off the table. It's your game, run it the way you want or are comfortable running. Don't let people tell you that you have to do something. Just be up front with your players what you will and will not be doing so they can decide if your game is right for them.
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
Nope. Personally, I don't delve into any sexual or sexual identity stuff in my games. I've always left that off the table. It's your game, run it the way you want or are comfortable running. Don't let people tell you that you have to do something. Just be up front with your players what you will and will not be doing so they can decide if your game is right for them.
There are no couples in your world? No one is ever attracted to another person? Kingdoms are ruled by solitary leaders? Children always have a single parent? No one ever flirts with anyone?
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
Nope. Personally, I don't delve into any sexual or sexual identity stuff in my games. I've always left that off the table. It's your game, run it the way you want or are comfortable running. Don't let people tell you that you have to do something. Just be up front with your players what you will and will not be doing so they can decide if your game is right for them.
There are no couples in your world? No one is ever attracted to another person? Kingdoms are ruled by solitary leaders? Children always have a single parent? No one ever flirts with anyone?
I find that hard to believe.
I don't have to stray from my social norms if I don't want to. I also don't play up any romance, so no on the expressing attraction or flirting. I remember being in a couple games like that during college and it was creepy. There is no need for me to make some sort of statement in my games or 'explore' things. I'm not running a dating sim for players. Others can do whatever they want in their games. I have a right to run a game in a way that I feel comfortable just as others can run games that makes them feel comfortable. It's a simple concept really.
And I will repeat again- These identities exist whether or not you explore them.
Points like 'The monster's won't care' apply to everything- gender, ethnicity, hair colour, so on. Your players might still care about how their PCs are presented though. It's an RP game. People will RP. Identity is a big part of a character's concept. And if it matters so little, why not allow it anyway? By this logic it will change nothing in the game. Also the implication you will not allow Players to play such characters is simply exclusion. This is against our rules and is not encouraged, and support of such will be moderated as such.
There is a difference between saying 'We don't do romance or flirting at this table' and telling a player 'You cannot say your character is LGBTQ+' (Also note that this is not just orientation, but gender expression as well).
Which is why the 'But I don't do romance, so I don't include any sexual orientation or references to sexuality in my game.' content falls short as an argument.
Because you most certainly already are unless as Maxmius pointed out every single character in your game is a genderless nonsexual being that reproduces via budding. Unless cis heterosexuality is fine, and you'll include mentions of children with parents, and mention husbands and wives, but so long as they're not LGBTQ+? Whereupon we run into the same issue where this is simply, exclusion and bigotry. It is treating LGBTQ+ identities as other and as more deviant than cis heterosexual ones.
There are discussions around how to include such things, and how much one can explore them. There is a difference between saying "I'm not sure I'm capable of exploring experiences of sexism and the stories of women and NB folk, so I'm personally not going to be doing any stories that focus specifically of on that content, and if a player really wanted to explore those themes with their character, I'd have to tell them I don't feel confident doing so. They could still be such, but they may have to change how much they wanted to explore themes relating to that' and going 'Nope, no women or NB in my game. We're doing men only. All men. Every single character in the world must be a man.'
Or doing the same with race, or orientation, mental health, disability, so on. Replace the above with 'I'm not sure I'm capable of exploring experiences of LGBTQ+ characters' and it's the same.
Notes: missed the 'not' in 'do not feel confident'
And I will repeat again- These identities exist whether or not you explore them.
Points like 'The monster's won't care' apply to everything- gender, ethnicity, hair colour, so on. Your players might still care about how their PCs are presented though. It's an RP game. People will RP. Identity is a big part of a character's concept. And if it matters so little, why not allow it anyway? By this logic it will change nothing in the game.
There is a difference between saying 'We don't do romance or flirting at this table' and telling a player 'You cannot say your character is LGBTQ+' (Also note that this is not just orientation, but gender expression as well).
Which is why the 'But I don't do romance, so I don't include any sexual orientation or references to sexuality in my game.' content falls short as an argument.
Because you most certainly already are unless as Maxmius pointed out every single character in your game is a genderless nonsexual being that reproduces via budding. Unless cis heterosexuality is fine, and you'll include mentions of children with parents, and mention husbands and wives, but so long as they're not LGBTQ+? Whereupon we run into the same issue where this is simply, exclusion and bigotry. It is treating LGBTQ+ identities as other and as more deviant than cis heterosexual ones.
Or doing the same with race, or orientation, mental health, disability, so on. Replace the above with 'I'm not sure I'm capable of exploring experiences of LGBTQ+ characters' and it's the same.
Since all "identities" exist regardless of whether or not they are explored, can you explain way they must be highlighted as existing??
Why not include it (sexual preference)? For the same reason there is no reason to put any sexual preferences, there is no need - an NPC or monster won't treat you any different whether your character is attracted to their gender or not and vice versa.
Why not include it (gender identity)? Because game mechanics, NPCs and monster shouldn't treat any character differently to the next based of their identity - they are the main characters no matter how they identify.
That's the point some are trying to make that "if it changes nothing in-game, what makes it necessary?
why do you and others make the leaping assumption that if a character or NPC isn't labelled with their sexual preferences and/or gender identity that they are suddenly genderless nonsexual beings when any combo imaginable is possible until the player character makes contact. So if it's not integral to the story and the character never interacts with that particular NPCs then is there any need to bring up their sexual preferences or gender identity??
The how's and whys surrounding how to incorporate all those things you mentioned (mental and/or physical disabilities, orientation, etc) are stuff that needs to be discussed at the table between the players and the dm so expectations and boundaries are clear between all parties involved.
Not adding/highlighting certain aspects within a world and the people that inhabit it when it's not integral to the story doesn't make that story insensitive, it's just makes it another story
And I will repeat again- These identities exist whether or not you explore them.
Points like 'The monster's won't care' apply to everything- gender, ethnicity, hair colour, so on. Your players might still care about how their PCs are presented though. It's an RP game. People will RP. Identity is a big part of a character's concept. And if it matters so little, why not allow it anyway? By this logic it will change nothing in the game.
There is a difference between saying 'We don't do romance or flirting at this table' and telling a player 'You cannot say your character is LGBTQ+' (Also note that this is not just orientation, but gender expression as well).
Which is why the 'But I don't do romance, so I don't include any sexual orientation or references to sexuality in my game.' content falls short as an argument.
Because you most certainly already are unless as Maxmius pointed out every single character in your game is a genderless nonsexual being that reproduces via budding. Unless cis heterosexuality is fine, and you'll include mentions of children with parents, and mention husbands and wives, but so long as they're not LGBTQ+? Whereupon we run into the same issue where this is simply, exclusion and bigotry. It is treating LGBTQ+ identities as other and as more deviant than cis heterosexual ones.
Or doing the same with race, or orientation, mental health, disability, so on. Replace the above with 'I'm not sure I'm capable of exploring experiences of LGBTQ+ characters' and it's the same.
Since all "identities" exist regardless of whether or not they are explored, can you explain way they must be highlighted as existing??
Why not include it (sexual preference)? For the same reason there is no reason to put any sexual preferences, there is no need - an NPC or monster won't treat you any different whether your character is attracted to their gender or not and vice versa.
Why not include it (gender identity)? Because game mechanics, NPCs and monster shouldn't treat any character differently to the next based of their identity - they are the main characters no matter how they identify.
That's the point some are trying to make that "if it changes nothing in-game, what makes it necessary?
why do you and others make the leaping assumption that if a character or NPC isn't labelled with their sexual preferences and/or gender identity that they are suddenly genderless nonsexual beings when any combo imaginable is possible until the player character makes contact. So if it's not integral to the story and the character never interacts with that particular NPCs then is there any need to bring up their sexual preferences or gender identity??
The how's and whys surrounding how to incorporate all those things you mentioned (mental and/or physical disabilities, orientation, etc) are stuff that needs to be discussed at the table between the players and the dm so expectations and boundaries are clear between all parties involved.
Not adding/highlighting certain aspects within a world and the people that inhabit it when it's not integral to the story doesn't make that story insensitive, it's just makes it another story
You clearly did not actually read the post you are responding to. The post was specifically aimed at individuals who actively excluded sexual preference from consideration, like the number of users on this thread (mostly now deleted) who basically are saying “I don’t want them at my table and think it is okay to tell my players they can’t have LGBT+ identities either.” Those people are a problem, are trying to justify either systemic or active bigotry, and really should have no place in this community.
What you are asking about is completely different “do I have to include them” is the opposite of the “we should be allowed to exclude them” message Elgate was responding to.
Even though it was a non-answer to the post you responded to, sure, I’ll bite. You absolutely should include other identities because your assumption is simply wrong - identity absolute does change something in game. And, even if you do not interact with the NPC in a sexual or romantic way, that does not mean it would not play a part in the game.
Romantic and gender identity is about more than who you sleep with it is, and this should be fairly obvious, a core part of one’s identity. It informs other aspects of one’s person, and therefore can manifest in subtle ways in their behaviors. An NPC with a defined romantic and gender identity is going to be more complex than one where it is hand waived away, and a world with different romantic and gender identities is going to feel more alive and real than one without such.
As for your dismissive “this is a session zero” topic? Session zero is for eliminating problems before the game starts. LGBT+ people are not a “problem” and the very idea their existence is something that should be questioned at session zero alongside the potential problems is nothing short of bigoted itself. LGBT+ individuals have been recognized in historical sources globally for over nine thousand years. “Should we include in our game something that has been a recognized part of humanity since before the Pyramids” is not a discussion that needs to be had… and, if you think that is a discussion worth having.. we don’t really need that kind of exclusionary, ill-informed, and bigoted (though perhaps bigoted through ignorance, not active bigotry) behavior in the community.
Playing someone with different pronouns than me has helped me to grow as a person and to be more comfortable in my own identity as a cis person as well.
I have found it so interesting to think about the "defaults" that we start with in any character or storytelling. What happens to your world if say your default character is an Asian ace woman instead of what we tend to be trained for in the US, a cis white male? Like what if you are populating a ship in Star Trek and every character you don't actively think about is a black woman, how does that change the feel of your story? I have found exercises of this sort to really broaden the depth and assumptions around my worldbuilding and to make it so much richer.
It's not about romance or sex, it's rather about how people make and find family and connect to each other. I love the story of the priests sharing the temple. It's interesting to consider - and there's no sex or romance in this at all - how their relationship would probably be different as a male-female couple from the same premise.
Just try to avoid any character interaction that could lead to romance in general but overall the game is about being in another world that you're comfortable in, alternatively from outright removing LQBTQ just make it so that they never cross paths with any or just not mentioning that there is any.
Playing someone with different pronouns than me has helped me to grow as a person and to be more comfortable in my own identity as a cis person as well.
I have found it so interesting to think about the "defaults" that we start with in any character or storytelling. What happens to your world if say your default character is an Asian ace woman instead of what we tend to be trained for in the US, a cis white male? Like what if you are populating a ship in Star Trek and every character you don't actively think about is a black woman, how does that change the feel of your story? I have found exercises of this sort to really broaden the depth and assumptions around my worldbuilding and to make it so much richer.
It's not about romance or sex, it's rather about how people make and find family and connect to each other. I love the story of the priests sharing the temple. It's interesting to consider - and there's no sex or romance in this at all - how their relationship would probably be different as a male-female couple from the same premise.
The thing I'm noticing is that there are different approaches to how people build NPCs. There are some that are building with sexuality and gender identity as seeds (presumably two among many), and seeing what grows. Others take different approaches.
Personally, I don't. Instead, I take what they need them to have to serve the purpose I have for them in the game. I then build a couple of extra details. I'll give them an appearance, a few mannerisms. Some might be a bit camp, others macho, others feminine, etc, but these details are about making the NPCs unique and recognisable rather than building a cause and effect chain through their life that very few people will explore. I just give them what they need to appear to be a person in the world.
Once they're in play, they can get fleshed out. That can be through rolls ("oh dear, you made a very eloquent speech then rolled a nat1? Well, it seems that André here was bitten by a dog as a child and hates anything canine, so you trying to make yourself appear relatable by talking about your relationship with your dog has backfired") or just roleplay.
The best thing about it is that it leaves the NPCs a canvas for players. Perhaps they get the impression that this woman is a lesbian. Well, she's not not-lesbian! Maybe I can lean into that a bit. Or not. Whatever works for how we're feeling in the game and how things are going. Regardless though, players are free to interpret the world they're exploring. That's not just true of sexuality or gender identity, but of most things that aren't going to be visibly manifest. Maybe they think Rob is a rascal, or that Thomas is a gossip. Maybe Alex is secretly yearning to be a hero. Maybe Carly is being bullied. The best thing about letting the players wonder and interpret the world around them is that I can steal their best ideas and run with them.
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.
I'll roughly categorise some ideas to try and be clearer.
Explicit Exclusion
This is when you say "This won't be included in my game." If you are outright saying that you will not include LGBTQ+ identities and will not allow players to play such, then this is explicit exclusion, and is against our rules and is hateful. There is no justification for this.
Implicit Exclusion
This is a trickier one and one a few people can fall into. This usually isn't intentional, but it occurs when you don't really think about including something and have a bias you don't even realise. It can be in the little ways: when was the last time a random minion was 'she' or 'they' instead of 'he'? When did you last include a same gender relationship? Has any character been trans instead of cis?
And that links back to my earlier post about this being a thing where you'll likely have to be knowingly bad at it before you get better, and it is worth trying at this. And it is somewhat insensitive to not try. But as mentioned before, you're not the main writers. You don't have to worry about perfect representation in your games the same way producers might, and we'll get back to that, but for now the point is that this isn't necessarily malicious exclusion and isn't intended to be harmful. It's just a bias we can pick up- when was the last time the media you consume did the above either? How often does it come up among you and your friend group? We can have blindspots. I know Ihave blindspots.
This really only becomes a bigger issue when you're presented with the option to then include these topics and swap to explicitly excluding (Which, going back to OP, isn't what they were saying they'd do as they'd allow their players to do so if they wished). Such as someone feeling defensive and start coming up with a hundred explanations for why they shouldn't have to, instead of just admitting that they just didn't think to? This is why I keep making a point of 'these identities exist'. Because it's a lot easier to just admit they forgot to include them, or didn't think to specifically mention them, rather than justify why these identities don't exist in their game so they don't have to. (And there is a different between 'not mentioned' and 'don't exist', as the latter goes back to explicit exclusion).
So again, just to be clear as a moderator- Explicit Exclusion or support of is not allowed. Implicit Exclusion ain't great, but there is a conversation here and worth extending some good faith towards, especially when folk are genuinely asking and trying to sort through ideas.
So, how would you include them?
And this is where a discussion can come in. One thing I brought up earlier and is important to remember, is that your home game among your friends that isn't going to be published for the masses doesn't have to stress about 'perfect representation'.
- You can mess up. I mean, you probably should try to avoid to, but it's you and your friends. Hopefully they'll correct you if they notice at all, and if you notice, you can just try to do better next time, don't stress too much.
- You can be a bit lazy. People might criticise a piece of media if the only rep they had was a background character mentioned for 2 seconds, but you don't have to make every instance of LGBTQ+ fleshed out. This is when it comes to 'highlighting' or feeling like if you include an identity you're obligated to explore it or make it important to the story. You don't, and it doesn't have to. The alchemist casually mentions that her wife grows all the herbs for the potions herself. There, done. Literally no different to the throw away lines about any other character who mentions a spouse.
Now there might be some worldbuilding questions that come up, and maybe they might be interesting to think about or just handwaive, like 'How does transitioning work in this society?', 'Does this society have more than just 'man' and 'woman'?', 'does this society support same gender marriage?' and you might go 'Those are the very questions I do not feel ready to think about or answer' and hey, that's fine. You don't have to go in depth into any aspect of worldbuilding. Like with the alchemist and her wife, maybe same gender marriage just exists in this society, don't question the historical and political whys (And remember that fantasy history isn't our history, and 'historical accuracy' doesn't fly).
It might come up if a player asks, and maybe then they'll have a better idea of how to answer it than you- like questions of how a PC wants to transition are going to be personal to that PC anyway, magical options or lack of tech not withstanding. You can probably handwave a lot of stuff by just not going into the why's. A PC is nonbinary because the player wanted them to be. Cool. Continue playing- no different to a PC being male or female, cis or trans. Now you could go into how the player wants that to be handled, and this is when session 0 and discussions can come into this (like does the player prefer than all characters gender their PC properly without asking, or would it feel more realistic to them that some characters have to ask or get it wrong at times? Do they want to worldbuild around this?). Maybe folk here can give advice and tips on how to handle when a player brings up a topic they want to explore you're not confident handling.
Maybe you'll just go 'well they do exist, obviously, but I'm not sure when I'd bring it up?' and hey, fair question, that can have various answers and might depend a lot on the type of game. Maybe think upon when you bring up any gender in the game, or imply an orientation at all. Because you probably already do.
Also worth considering the why there on why certain genders and orientations seem the norm to bring up, but not these ones. Such as why some might feel they're 'modern' and mentions of them break their immersion a bit (and how that might tie back to the earlier point of how the media we've consumed growing up was biased too >.>).
I've played DnD since around 1984 and haven't had romance or sexual orientation come up in game until about 2 years ago with the group I started playing with. It included a trans person, two bisexual non-binary "women" and a queer guy. There was a lot of sexual content in the game, which I wasn't used to. i don't mean that the content offended me because I am a very open person. But DnD , for me, was always about adventure and slaying monsters. Not about fulfilling sexual fantasies and living out desires of being another gender. And before y'all come at me, I have no problem with that. If that is what you want to base your game around? Go for it. I'm just saying for myself, it was totally weird to me because I've never played in a group like that. And for the record, it was a very fun and interesting campaign.
As far as the OP, there is nothing wrong with designing your world in that way. It is your world. You do with it as you like as long as you and your players are happy.
Just to nip in here, while I'm not saying your game did not include sexual content, but that LGBTQ+ identities do not have to include that, same as having cis heterosexual characters wouldn't have to include that. Again people often make a connection between the two when really 'including LGBTQ+ identities' and 'including sexual content' are two very separate things that are not mutual. Plenty of young heterosexual players certainly did use D&D to explore sexual fantasies back then and now too.
Also be careful of the phrasing 'desires of being another gender' or 'NB "women" (You might mean AFAB enbies, or 'Femmes' or perhaps others- I don't know them to say). Trans folk are their gender, but I understand your meaning, and honestly that was a big attraction of D&D for many young queer players- the fact you could play anything you wanted and describe your character however you liked did mean that many players finally had the opportunity to explore their identities in a game where other media wouldn't let them (think about how many video games allowed you to play female PCs, let alone NB).
And have been doing so since the start! Some of the influences of earlier D&D where trans and explored some of those ideas in the game (See the late Jennell Jaquays). Corellon Larethian has been nonbinary since their introduction, with even the use of "he" as a pronoun put in quotes because this was before the times of being comfortable using 'they'. These themes have been in the game since near the start, and now are a lot more explicitly so. They have never equalled sexual content. In fact, honestly, the heterosexual content was a lot more explicitly sexual in some cases.
Your asking about transgender, bi-sexual, homosexual, and otherwise non-heterosexual peoples being represented in your game? I mean the answer is that you do not need to represent them. If I walk outside and go through my neighborhood, I am not going to instantly tell who is gay, transgender, or bi-sexual at all. People generally walk around wearing masks that fill the role they are currently participating in within society.
Also going to be frank that the constant push to represent them has led to a misconception on how common it is. 7.6% of the total population in the real world falls into LGBTQ, and keep in mind that is a total pool of all those sub-groups. We're talking 1% to maybe below something that you'd realistically encounter someone in a typical day that fits LGBTQ standards.
The thing I'd be more worried about is cultural erasure for the sake of trying to represent inclusion.
With respect, that last paragraph is essentially gobbledygook relative to the conversation here, particularly since “culture” in D&D is generally “whatever vibe the DM wants at this point”, given the prevalence of homebrew settings. If a DM wants to explore themes of social stigmatism they can; if they prefer to just keep the story rolling without trying to work those elements into the narrative they can. Nothing is being “erased” because it’s already a departure from the baseline experience I’ve encountered and observed to bring large scale social stigmatism associated with such issues as opposed to more fantastic elements/tropes (elves bickering with dwarves, fear of magic, etc) into a campaign in the first place.
As a note, and as person who works in the field, I have to point out that the assumption that only 7.6% are lgbtq in the world is erroneous and based on three decade old information that explicitly and intentionally excluded large portions of the people in that grouping.
the most recent Williams Institute numbers did exactly the same thing.
In both cases, bisexual persons were grouped into the category based on whom they were with in that moment (erasure of bisexual people) unless they were single. In both cases, only trans men and trans women were counted, and then only for those over the age of 21 (a measure that did not apply to sexual orientation, despite gender identity forming prior to sexual orientation).
the most recent data from six different studies indicate that they underestimated such populations by a full order of magnitude. That is, at a minimum, the full breadth of the whole populations is at least double that number of 7.6%, and likely even then it undercounts based on standard statistical models,
The bias that is represented in this overall conversation and discussion is just as prevalent among researchers, who often are not members of the communities they are studying and discount their input unless they do have someone with effective credentials and awareness to counteract that bias. And be aware, even members of those communities are not immune to the same bias (I mean, they all grew up in the same culture, so they are going to have it, but they are sometimes not as good at overcoming it).
so, when Elgate says they exist regardless, they are doing so very accurately — and it is far more likely to be more than 1 in 10, and not likely to be less. More so, this is a fundamental part of being human, and so if you are going to have boy and girl children and marriage and wives and husbands, then you also have lgbtq people, because if you remove one, you remove all of them — that’s been known for 75 years.
Does that mean that you have to have romance? No.
Does that mean that you have to have a description where you include a couple of women engaged in PDA, or a Queen and her Queen ruling together on thrones? No.
Does that mean that lgbtq folks don’t exist on your world? No.
It does mean that lgbtq folks will look at you like you are perhaps not very well educated, and not considering them as players, and uninterested in their characters, and rather untrustworthy, and that will make them less interested in playing in your game, as a general rule of thumb. They are not a monolith. There are trans homophobes and gay transphobes and bisexual biphobes and all the other combinations.
But collectively, they will find less and less joy in that game. And when they find a game where folks do have even momentary things like that, they will switch to that game. Because there they know they are more likely to have fun, to see themselves, to not feel as if it is them against the world.
Which it always feels like, and when playing a game to escape from that and kick some Vecna butt, not being able to escape from it makes kicking Vecna’s butt a little less fun, and a lot less enjoyable.
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
I'm uncomfortable with the assertion that people shouldn't be represented if they don't meet some arbitrary minimum population percentage. That is erasure, and ethically I can't condone reproducing real-world injustice like that in my game. I'm not going to be the reason someone goes home feeling miserable because the game that is supposed to be fun fantasy escape reproduced the same gross injustice that makes them miserable day-to-day.
And yeah, it's true that you don't know what somebody's deal is just by looking at them. But I'm really glad I included my married priests and a couple other LGBTQ+ NPCs in the little village I made for my players, because one of them brought a guest to one game who belongs to the LGBTQ+ community. A couple days after the game my friend told me his guest loved playing in my game. She had a lot of fun with the story beats and the encounters I set up for them. But also she felt comfortable because I took a few minutes to be inclusive while world building. And I didn't do it just for her; I couldn't have, I didn't even know until after the game. But it made her day that I did the bare minimum.
And I will repeat again- These identities exist whether or not you explore them.
Points like 'The monster's won't care' apply to everything- gender, ethnicity, hair colour, so on. Your players might still care about how their PCs are presented though. It's an RP game. People will RP. Identity is a big part of a character's concept. And if it matters so little, why not allow it anyway? By this logic it will change nothing in the game.
There is a difference between saying 'We don't do romance or flirting at this table' and telling a player 'You cannot say your character is LGBTQ+' (Also note that this is not just orientation, but gender expression as well).
Which is why the 'But I don't do romance, so I don't include any sexual orientation or references to sexuality in my game.' content falls short as an argument.
Because you most certainly already are unless as Maxmius pointed out every single character in your game is a genderless nonsexual being that reproduces via budding. Unless cis heterosexuality is fine, and you'll include mentions of children with parents, and mention husbands and wives, but so long as they're not LGBTQ+? Whereupon we run into the same issue where this is simply, exclusion and bigotry. It is treating LGBTQ+ identities as other and as more deviant than cis heterosexual ones.
Or doing the same with race, or orientation, mental health, disability, so on. Replace the above with 'I'm not sure I'm capable of exploring experiences of LGBTQ+ characters' and it's the same.
Since all "identities" exist regardless of whether or not they are explored, can you explain way they must be highlighted as existing??
Why not include it (sexual preference)? For the same reason there is no reason to put any sexual preferences, there is no need - an NPC or monster won't treat you any different whether your character is attracted to their gender or not and vice versa.
Why not include it (gender identity)? Because game mechanics, NPCs and monster shouldn't treat any character differently to the next based of their identity - they are the main characters no matter how they identify.
That's the point some are trying to make that "if it changes nothing in-game, what makes it necessary?
why do you and others make the leaping assumption that if a character or NPC isn't labelled with their sexual preferences and/or gender identity that they are suddenly genderless nonsexual beings when any combo imaginable is possible until the player character makes contact. So if it's not integral to the story and the character never interacts with that particular NPCs then is there any need to bring up their sexual preferences or gender identity??
The how's and whys surrounding how to incorporate all those things you mentioned (mental and/or physical disabilities, orientation, etc) are stuff that needs to be discussed at the table between the players and the dm so expectations and boundaries are clear between all parties involved.
Not adding/highlighting certain aspects within a world and the people that inhabit it when it's not integral to the story doesn't make that story insensitive, it's just makes it another story
You clearly did not actually read the post you are responding to. The post was specifically aimed at individuals who actively excluded sexual preference from consideration, like the number of users on this thread (mostly now deleted) who basically are saying “I don’t want them at my table and think it is okay to tell my players they can’t have LGBT+ identities either.” Those people are a problem, are trying to justify either systemic or active bigotry, and really should have no place in this community.
What you are asking about is completely different “do I have to include them” is the opposite of the “we should be allowed to exclude them” message Elgate was responding to.
Even though it was a non-answer to the post you responded to, sure, I’ll bite. You absolutely should include other identities because your assumption is simply wrong - identity absolute does change something in game. And, even if you do not interact with the NPC in a sexual or romantic way, that does not mean it would not play a part in the game.
Romantic and gender identity is about more than who you sleep with it is, and this should be fairly obvious, a core part of one’s identity. It informs other aspects of one’s person, and therefore can manifest in subtle ways in their behaviors. An NPC with a defined romantic and gender identity is going to be more complex than one where it is hand waived away, and a world with different romantic and gender identities is going to feel more alive and real than one without such.
As for your dismissive “this is a session zero” topic? Session zero is for eliminating problems before the game starts. LGBT+ people are not a “problem” and the very idea their existence is something that should be questioned at session zero alongside the potential problems is nothing short of bigoted itself. LGBT+ individuals have been recognized in historical sources globally for over nine thousand years. “Should we include in our game something that has been a recognized part of humanity since before the Pyramids” is not a discussion that needs to be had… and, if you think that is a discussion worth having.. we don’t really need that kind of exclusionary, ill-informed, and bigoted (though perhaps bigoted through ignorance, not active bigotry) behavior in the community.
This is where an issue lies, if someone doesn't care how a character defines themselves whether it be lgbtq+ or hetero (same for gender identities) or if they are neutral and don't see it adding anything to gameplay since a lgbtq+ character isn't treated any differently then any other character combo, that it's automatically exclusive in some nature, biased or bigotry.
As for representation, all NPCs not integral to the story are both lgbtq+ and hetero at the same time until the point the player interacts with the NPC, before then it's unnecessary to the story to fully develop that NPC. In most cases I find things start of vague (minimal detail - sometimes just a species and an action) then get defined through interaction with the players character.
If you for some reason treat characters differently based of lgbtq+ and gender identity then I personally question why.. also I'm sorry to say that I don't see lgbtq+ people as a "problem", they won't be treated any different then any other character at the table unless they have voiced that expectation during session 0.
How is it dismissive or bigotry to point out that discussing expectations and boundaries with the players and DM during session 0 is a good idea??
If anything already exists then it's already included, that doesn't make it insensitive if it's not mentioned, its just not a factor in that story.
I'm uncomfortable with the assertion that people shouldn't be represented if they don't meet some arbitrary minimum population percentage. That is erasure, and ethically I can't condone reproducing real-world injustice like that in my game. I'm not going to be the reason someone goes home feeling miserable because the game that is supposed to be fun fantasy escape reproduced the same gross injustice that makes them miserable day-to-day.
And yeah, it's true that you don't know what somebody's deal is just by looking at them. But I'm really glad I included my married priests and a couple other LGBTQ+ NPCs in the little village I made for my players, because one of them brought a guest to one game who belongs to the LGBTQ+ community. A couple days after the game my friend told me his guest loved playing in my game. She had a lot of fun with the story beats and the encounters I set up for them. But also she felt comfortable because I took a few minutes to be inclusive while world building. And I didn't do it just for her; I couldn't have, I didn't even know until after the game. But it made her day that I did the bare minimum.
I love this story of unexpectedly bringing someone joy and delight from such a small choice that you made.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My two cents is that- particularly in the context of something like a tabletop session- there’s a difference between not showcasing something and explicitly excluding it. There doesn’t need to be a checklist of elements that must be featured in a campaign to prove how inclusive you are; that just frustrates everyone because the instances feel patently inorganic and shoehorned. How players want to approach orientation/identity is largely their prerogative, as is how much the DM cares to roleplay. Saying you’re not inclined to do romance/intimacy either in general or particular circumstances or attempt to represent certain characteristics you don’t feel you can do justice is a legitimate option for a DM to exercise and doesn’t intrinsically mean such things do not exist in the setting, anymore than anything IRL doesn’t exist simply because a particular individual or group has not personally experienced/encountered it.
I keep revisiting this thread, and I confess to chuckling a little bit because I can image the response of some folks to the fact that of the 21 or so deities present in my game, one is gay, two are lesbian, three are bi, and four are trans of some sort (including an enby).
My bugbear equivalent includes natively masculine, feminine and eby sorts -- and they are hyena-bear-human crosses. And the folks who are hostile and murderous towards LGBTQ folks are Goblins of Lemuria. Who live in brick houses and have fairly strict sumptuary laws and wear tweed and twill and plaids and wear assorted hats or bonnets. And are the bad guys, without doubt.
meanwhile, the "rebel city" elected a goblin to serve on their leadership council. He has a bugbear type friend.
THis is a fantasy game. the only real limits are what we imagine them to be.
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
Nope. Personally, I don't delve into any sexual or sexual identity stuff in my games. I've always left that off the table. It's your game, run it the way you want or are comfortable running. Don't let people tell you that you have to do something. Just be up front with your players what you will and will not be doing so they can decide if your game is right for them.
There are no couples in your world? No one is ever attracted to another person? Kingdoms are ruled by solitary leaders? Children always have a single parent? No one ever flirts with anyone?
I find that hard to believe.
I don't have to stray from my social norms if I don't want to. I also don't play up any romance, so no on the expressing attraction or flirting. I remember being in a couple games like that during college and it was creepy. There is no need for me to make some sort of statement in my games or 'explore' things. I'm not running a dating sim for players. Others can do whatever they want in their games. I have a right to run a game in a way that I feel comfortable just as others can run games that makes them feel comfortable. It's a simple concept really.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorAnd I will repeat again- These identities exist whether or not you explore them.
Points like 'The monster's won't care' apply to everything- gender, ethnicity, hair colour, so on. Your players might still care about how their PCs are presented though. It's an RP game. People will RP. Identity is a big part of a character's concept. And if it matters so little, why not allow it anyway? By this logic it will change nothing in the game. Also the implication you will not allow Players to play such characters is simply exclusion. This is against our rules and is not encouraged, and support of such will be moderated as such.
There is a difference between saying 'We don't do romance or flirting at this table' and telling a player 'You cannot say your character is LGBTQ+' (Also note that this is not just orientation, but gender expression as well).
Which is why the 'But I don't do romance, so I don't include any sexual orientation or references to sexuality in my game.' content falls short as an argument.
Because you most certainly already are unless as Maxmius pointed out every single character in your game is a genderless nonsexual being that reproduces via budding. Unless cis heterosexuality is fine, and you'll include mentions of children with parents, and mention husbands and wives, but so long as they're not LGBTQ+? Whereupon we run into the same issue where this is simply, exclusion and bigotry. It is treating LGBTQ+ identities as other and as more deviant than cis heterosexual ones.
There are discussions around how to include such things, and how much one can explore them. There is a difference between saying "I'm not sure I'm capable of exploring experiences of sexism and the stories of women and NB folk, so I'm personally not going to be doing any stories that focus specifically of on that content, and if a player really wanted to explore those themes with their character, I'd have to tell them I don't feel confident doing so. They could still be such, but they may have to change how much they wanted to explore themes relating to that' and going 'Nope, no women or NB in my game. We're doing men only. All men. Every single character in the world must be a man.'
Or doing the same with race, or orientation, mental health, disability, so on. Replace the above with 'I'm not sure I'm capable of exploring experiences of LGBTQ+ characters' and it's the same.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
Since all "identities" exist regardless of whether or not they are explored, can you explain way they must be highlighted as existing??
Why not include it (sexual preference)? For the same reason there is no reason to put any sexual preferences, there is no need - an NPC or monster won't treat you any different whether your character is attracted to their gender or not and vice versa.
Why not include it (gender identity)? Because game mechanics, NPCs and monster shouldn't treat any character differently to the next based of their identity - they are the main characters no matter how they identify.
That's the point some are trying to make that "if it changes nothing in-game, what makes it necessary?
why do you and others make the leaping assumption that if a character or NPC isn't labelled with their sexual preferences and/or gender identity that they are suddenly genderless nonsexual beings when any combo imaginable is possible until the player character makes contact. So if it's not integral to the story and the character never interacts with that particular NPCs then is there any need to bring up their sexual preferences or gender identity??
The how's and whys surrounding how to incorporate all those things you mentioned (mental and/or physical disabilities, orientation, etc) are stuff that needs to be discussed at the table between the players and the dm so expectations and boundaries are clear between all parties involved.
Not adding/highlighting certain aspects within a world and the people that inhabit it when it's not integral to the story doesn't make that story insensitive, it's just makes it another story
You clearly did not actually read the post you are responding to. The post was specifically aimed at individuals who actively excluded sexual preference from consideration, like the number of users on this thread (mostly now deleted) who basically are saying “I don’t want them at my table and think it is okay to tell my players they can’t have LGBT+ identities either.” Those people are a problem, are trying to justify either systemic or active bigotry, and really should have no place in this community.
What you are asking about is completely different “do I have to include them” is the opposite of the “we should be allowed to exclude them” message Elgate was responding to.
Even though it was a non-answer to the post you responded to, sure, I’ll bite. You absolutely should include other identities because your assumption is simply wrong - identity absolute does change something in game. And, even if you do not interact with the NPC in a sexual or romantic way, that does not mean it would not play a part in the game.
Romantic and gender identity is about more than who you sleep with it is, and this should be fairly obvious, a core part of one’s identity. It informs other aspects of one’s person, and therefore can manifest in subtle ways in their behaviors. An NPC with a defined romantic and gender identity is going to be more complex than one where it is hand waived away, and a world with different romantic and gender identities is going to feel more alive and real than one without such.
As for your dismissive “this is a session zero” topic? Session zero is for eliminating problems before the game starts. LGBT+ people are not a “problem” and the very idea their existence is something that should be questioned at session zero alongside the potential problems is nothing short of bigoted itself. LGBT+ individuals have been recognized in historical sources globally for over nine thousand years. “Should we include in our game something that has been a recognized part of humanity since before the Pyramids” is not a discussion that needs to be had… and, if you think that is a discussion worth having.. we don’t really need that kind of exclusionary, ill-informed, and bigoted (though perhaps bigoted through ignorance, not active bigotry) behavior in the community.
Playing someone with different pronouns than me has helped me to grow as a person and to be more comfortable in my own identity as a cis person as well.
I have found it so interesting to think about the "defaults" that we start with in any character or storytelling. What happens to your world if say your default character is an Asian ace woman instead of what we tend to be trained for in the US, a cis white male? Like what if you are populating a ship in Star Trek and every character you don't actively think about is a black woman, how does that change the feel of your story? I have found exercises of this sort to really broaden the depth and assumptions around my worldbuilding and to make it so much richer.
It's not about romance or sex, it's rather about how people make and find family and connect to each other. I love the story of the priests sharing the temple. It's interesting to consider - and there's no sex or romance in this at all - how their relationship would probably be different as a male-female couple from the same premise.
Just try to avoid any character interaction that could lead to romance in general but overall the game is about being in another world that you're comfortable in, alternatively from outright removing LQBTQ just make it so that they never cross paths with any or just not mentioning that there is any.
Good luck with the story!
The thing I'm noticing is that there are different approaches to how people build NPCs. There are some that are building with sexuality and gender identity as seeds (presumably two among many), and seeing what grows. Others take different approaches.
Personally, I don't. Instead, I take what they need them to have to serve the purpose I have for them in the game. I then build a couple of extra details. I'll give them an appearance, a few mannerisms. Some might be a bit camp, others macho, others feminine, etc, but these details are about making the NPCs unique and recognisable rather than building a cause and effect chain through their life that very few people will explore. I just give them what they need to appear to be a person in the world.
Once they're in play, they can get fleshed out. That can be through rolls ("oh dear, you made a very eloquent speech then rolled a nat1? Well, it seems that André here was bitten by a dog as a child and hates anything canine, so you trying to make yourself appear relatable by talking about your relationship with your dog has backfired") or just roleplay.
The best thing about it is that it leaves the NPCs a canvas for players. Perhaps they get the impression that this woman is a lesbian. Well, she's not not-lesbian! Maybe I can lean into that a bit. Or not. Whatever works for how we're feeling in the game and how things are going. Regardless though, players are free to interpret the world they're exploring. That's not just true of sexuality or gender identity, but of most things that aren't going to be visibly manifest. Maybe they think Rob is a rascal, or that Thomas is a gossip. Maybe Alex is secretly yearning to be a hero. Maybe Carly is being bullied. The best thing about letting the players wonder and interpret the world around them is that I can steal their best ideas and run with them.
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.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI'll roughly categorise some ideas to try and be clearer.
Explicit Exclusion
This is when you say "This won't be included in my game." If you are outright saying that you will not include LGBTQ+ identities and will not allow players to play such, then this is explicit exclusion, and is against our rules and is hateful. There is no justification for this.
Implicit Exclusion
This is a trickier one and one a few people can fall into. This usually isn't intentional, but it occurs when you don't really think about including something and have a bias you don't even realise. It can be in the little ways: when was the last time a random minion was 'she' or 'they' instead of 'he'? When did you last include a same gender relationship? Has any character been trans instead of cis?
And that links back to my earlier post about this being a thing where you'll likely have to be knowingly bad at it before you get better, and it is worth trying at this. And it is somewhat insensitive to not try. But as mentioned before, you're not the main writers. You don't have to worry about perfect representation in your games the same way producers might, and we'll get back to that, but for now the point is that this isn't necessarily malicious exclusion and isn't intended to be harmful. It's just a bias we can pick up- when was the last time the media you consume did the above either? How often does it come up among you and your friend group? We can have blindspots. I know I have blindspots.
This really only becomes a bigger issue when you're presented with the option to then include these topics and swap to explicitly excluding (Which, going back to OP, isn't what they were saying they'd do as they'd allow their players to do so if they wished). Such as someone feeling defensive and start coming up with a hundred explanations for why they shouldn't have to, instead of just admitting that they just didn't think to? This is why I keep making a point of 'these identities exist'. Because it's a lot easier to just admit they forgot to include them, or didn't think to specifically mention them, rather than justify why these identities don't exist in their game so they don't have to. (And there is a different between 'not mentioned' and 'don't exist', as the latter goes back to explicit exclusion).
So again, just to be clear as a moderator- Explicit Exclusion or support of is not allowed. Implicit Exclusion ain't great, but there is a conversation here and worth extending some good faith towards, especially when folk are genuinely asking and trying to sort through ideas.
So, how would you include them?
And this is where a discussion can come in. One thing I brought up earlier and is important to remember, is that your home game among your friends that isn't going to be published for the masses doesn't have to stress about 'perfect representation'.
- You can mess up. I mean, you probably should try to avoid to, but it's you and your friends. Hopefully they'll correct you if they notice at all, and if you notice, you can just try to do better next time, don't stress too much.
- You can be a bit lazy. People might criticise a piece of media if the only rep they had was a background character mentioned for 2 seconds, but you don't have to make every instance of LGBTQ+ fleshed out. This is when it comes to 'highlighting' or feeling like if you include an identity you're obligated to explore it or make it important to the story. You don't, and it doesn't have to. The alchemist casually mentions that her wife grows all the herbs for the potions herself. There, done. Literally no different to the throw away lines about any other character who mentions a spouse.
Now there might be some worldbuilding questions that come up, and maybe they might be interesting to think about or just handwaive, like 'How does transitioning work in this society?', 'Does this society have more than just 'man' and 'woman'?', 'does this society support same gender marriage?' and you might go 'Those are the very questions I do not feel ready to think about or answer' and hey, that's fine. You don't have to go in depth into any aspect of worldbuilding. Like with the alchemist and her wife, maybe same gender marriage just exists in this society, don't question the historical and political whys (And remember that fantasy history isn't our history, and 'historical accuracy' doesn't fly).
It might come up if a player asks, and maybe then they'll have a better idea of how to answer it than you- like questions of how a PC wants to transition are going to be personal to that PC anyway, magical options or lack of tech not withstanding. You can probably handwave a lot of stuff by just not going into the why's. A PC is nonbinary because the player wanted them to be. Cool. Continue playing- no different to a PC being male or female, cis or trans. Now you could go into how the player wants that to be handled, and this is when session 0 and discussions can come into this (like does the player prefer than all characters gender their PC properly without asking, or would it feel more realistic to them that some characters have to ask or get it wrong at times? Do they want to worldbuild around this?). Maybe folk here can give advice and tips on how to handle when a player brings up a topic they want to explore you're not confident handling.
Maybe you'll just go 'well they do exist, obviously, but I'm not sure when I'd bring it up?' and hey, fair question, that can have various answers and might depend a lot on the type of game. Maybe think upon when you bring up any gender in the game, or imply an orientation at all. Because you probably already do.
Also worth considering the why there on why certain genders and orientations seem the norm to bring up, but not these ones. Such as why some might feel they're 'modern' and mentions of them break their immersion a bit (and how that might tie back to the earlier point of how the media we've consumed growing up was biased too >.>).
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
I've played DnD since around 1984 and haven't had romance or sexual orientation come up in game until about 2 years ago with the group I started playing with. It included a trans person, two bisexual non-binary "women" and a queer guy. There was a lot of sexual content in the game, which I wasn't used to. i don't mean that the content offended me because I am a very open person. But DnD , for me, was always about adventure and slaying monsters. Not about fulfilling sexual fantasies and living out desires of being another gender. And before y'all come at me, I have no problem with that. If that is what you want to base your game around? Go for it. I'm just saying for myself, it was totally weird to me because I've never played in a group like that. And for the record, it was a very fun and interesting campaign.
As far as the OP, there is nothing wrong with designing your world in that way. It is your world. You do with it as you like as long as you and your players are happy.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorJust to nip in here, while I'm not saying your game did not include sexual content, but that LGBTQ+ identities do not have to include that, same as having cis heterosexual characters wouldn't have to include that. Again people often make a connection between the two when really 'including LGBTQ+ identities' and 'including sexual content' are two very separate things that are not mutual. Plenty of young heterosexual players certainly did use D&D to explore sexual fantasies back then and now too.
Also be careful of the phrasing 'desires of being another gender' or 'NB "women" (You might mean AFAB enbies, or 'Femmes' or perhaps others- I don't know them to say). Trans folk are their gender, but I understand your meaning, and honestly that was a big attraction of D&D for many young queer players- the fact you could play anything you wanted and describe your character however you liked did mean that many players finally had the opportunity to explore their identities in a game where other media wouldn't let them (think about how many video games allowed you to play female PCs, let alone NB).
And have been doing so since the start! Some of the influences of earlier D&D where trans and explored some of those ideas in the game (See the late Jennell Jaquays). Corellon Larethian has been nonbinary since their introduction, with even the use of "he" as a pronoun put in quotes because this was before the times of being comfortable using 'they'. These themes have been in the game since near the start, and now are a lot more explicitly so. They have never equalled sexual content. In fact, honestly, the heterosexual content was a lot more explicitly sexual in some cases.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
Your asking about transgender, bi-sexual, homosexual, and otherwise non-heterosexual peoples being represented in your game? I mean the answer is that you do not need to represent them. If I walk outside and go through my neighborhood, I am not going to instantly tell who is gay, transgender, or bi-sexual at all. People generally walk around wearing masks that fill the role they are currently participating in within society.
Also going to be frank that the constant push to represent them has led to a misconception on how common it is. 7.6% of the total population in the real world falls into LGBTQ, and keep in mind that is a total pool of all those sub-groups. We're talking 1% to maybe below something that you'd realistically encounter someone in a typical day that fits LGBTQ standards.
The thing I'd be more worried about is cultural erasure for the sake of trying to represent inclusion.
With respect, that last paragraph is essentially gobbledygook relative to the conversation here, particularly since “culture” in D&D is generally “whatever vibe the DM wants at this point”, given the prevalence of homebrew settings. If a DM wants to explore themes of social stigmatism they can; if they prefer to just keep the story rolling without trying to work those elements into the narrative they can. Nothing is being “erased” because it’s already a departure from the baseline experience I’ve encountered and observed to bring large scale social stigmatism associated with such issues as opposed to more fantastic elements/tropes (elves bickering with dwarves, fear of magic, etc) into a campaign in the first place.
As a note, and as person who works in the field, I have to point out that the assumption that only 7.6% are lgbtq in the world is erroneous and based on three decade old information that explicitly and intentionally excluded large portions of the people in that grouping.
the most recent Williams Institute numbers did exactly the same thing.
In both cases, bisexual persons were grouped into the category based on whom they were with in that moment (erasure of bisexual people) unless they were single. In both cases, only trans men and trans women were counted, and then only for those over the age of 21 (a measure that did not apply to sexual orientation, despite gender identity forming prior to sexual orientation).
the most recent data from six different studies indicate that they underestimated such populations by a full order of magnitude. That is, at a minimum, the full breadth of the whole populations is at least double that number of 7.6%, and likely even then it undercounts based on standard statistical models,
The bias that is represented in this overall conversation and discussion is just as prevalent among researchers, who often are not members of the communities they are studying and discount their input unless they do have someone with effective credentials and awareness to counteract that bias. And be aware, even members of those communities are not immune to the same bias (I mean, they all grew up in the same culture, so they are going to have it, but they are sometimes not as good at overcoming it).
so, when Elgate says they exist regardless, they are doing so very accurately — and it is far more likely to be more than 1 in 10, and not likely to be less. More so, this is a fundamental part of being human, and so if you are going to have boy and girl children and marriage and wives and husbands, then you also have lgbtq people, because if you remove one, you remove all of them — that’s been known for 75 years.
Does that mean that you have to have romance? No.
Does that mean that you have to have a description where you include a couple of women engaged in PDA, or a Queen and her Queen ruling together on thrones? No.
Does that mean that lgbtq folks don’t exist on your world? No.
It does mean that lgbtq folks will look at you like you are perhaps not very well educated, and not considering them as players, and uninterested in their characters, and rather untrustworthy, and that will make them less interested in playing in your game, as a general rule of thumb. They are not a monolith. There are trans homophobes and gay transphobes and bisexual biphobes and all the other combinations.
But collectively, they will find less and less joy in that game. And when they find a game where folks do have even momentary things like that, they will switch to that game. Because there they know they are more likely to have fun, to see themselves, to not feel as if it is them against the world.
Which it always feels like, and when playing a game to escape from that and kick some Vecna butt, not being able to escape from it makes kicking Vecna’s butt a little less fun, and a lot less enjoyable.
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
I'm uncomfortable with the assertion that people shouldn't be represented if they don't meet some arbitrary minimum population percentage. That is erasure, and ethically I can't condone reproducing real-world injustice like that in my game. I'm not going to be the reason someone goes home feeling miserable because the game that is supposed to be fun fantasy escape reproduced the same gross injustice that makes them miserable day-to-day.
And yeah, it's true that you don't know what somebody's deal is just by looking at them. But I'm really glad I included my married priests and a couple other LGBTQ+ NPCs in the little village I made for my players, because one of them brought a guest to one game who belongs to the LGBTQ+ community. A couple days after the game my friend told me his guest loved playing in my game. She had a lot of fun with the story beats and the encounters I set up for them. But also she felt comfortable because I took a few minutes to be inclusive while world building. And I didn't do it just for her; I couldn't have, I didn't even know until after the game. But it made her day that I did the bare minimum.
This is where an issue lies, if someone doesn't care how a character defines themselves whether it be lgbtq+ or hetero (same for gender identities) or if they are neutral and don't see it adding anything to gameplay since a lgbtq+ character isn't treated any differently then any other character combo, that it's automatically exclusive in some nature, biased or bigotry.
As for representation, all NPCs not integral to the story are both lgbtq+ and hetero at the same time until the point the player interacts with the NPC, before then it's unnecessary to the story to fully develop that NPC. In most cases I find things start of vague (minimal detail - sometimes just a species and an action) then get defined through interaction with the players character.
If you for some reason treat characters differently based of lgbtq+ and gender identity then I personally question why.. also I'm sorry to say that I don't see lgbtq+ people as a "problem", they won't be treated any different then any other character at the table unless they have voiced that expectation during session 0.
How is it dismissive or bigotry to point out that discussing expectations and boundaries with the players and DM during session 0 is a good idea??
If anything already exists then it's already included, that doesn't make it insensitive if it's not mentioned, its just not a factor in that story.
I love this story of unexpectedly bringing someone joy and delight from such a small choice that you made.