Quote from: jhkim;1103666I don't know about you, but I used to play classic modules like Village of Hommlet and Ravenloft where they wouldn't pussyfoot around and would just say "Strahd loved Tatiana" or in Gygaxian "Smigmal is the leman of Falrinth". If you can't stand the mention of romantic relationships, then buy a Sharpie and black out those offensive lines. It's not like they take up much room, so I don't personally see the need - but you do you.

Do you think it's equally likely that someone like Strahd might love the woman Tatianna? as two gay gnome males would ascend to the title of King (which isn't even a thing in the Realms - I guess until now) completely free of any context? Possible? sure. Equal in probability - probably not. But then... you know... there's NO CONTEXT to it.

Quote from: jhkim;1103666This presumes that in order to have a single gay couple, then the entire race has to change gender like others change clothes. If you want to have gnomes change gender in your game, then go right ahead. But it's not like that's necessary in order to have a single gay couple.

No. It presumes the audience has to not care about the fact that this plot concept 1) has no context 2) doesn't really matter - since there is no context 3) that the consumers of this plot won't care there is no context 4) that there isn't some other motive behind not putting any context to this odd outlier of a scenario.

To the degree that one doesn't care about those things is the stretch you're making. With the tacit implication that (though YOU might not say this) the Usual Suspects on the Otherside will most certainly say it: that to question this *at all* means you're a homophobe.

Because it couldn't *possibly* be done for political reasons. Right?

Quote from: jhkim;1103666If you can't stand the mention of romantic relationships, then buy a Sharpie and black out those offensive lines. It's not like they take up much room, so I don't personally see the need - but you do you.

This presumes that in order to have a single gay couple, then the entire race has to change gender like others change clothes. If you want to have gnomes change gender in your game, then go right ahead. But it's not like that's necessary in order to have a single gay couple.

1: I said every NPC, not every important NPC. Try again please.

2: Which is nothing to do with what I put forward. Did you even read it or did you just knee jerk because you need to virtue signal?

Why not make one of the gnomes be half-Deep-gnome too? That's possible. Equally as arbitrary?

Quote from: Omega;1103658No. We do not need to freaking know every damn NPC's orientation. We do not need to know even the important ones orientation unless it somehow impacts the adventure.

So you're saying it is important in this adventure.  Because I think if you're dealing with the king and his lover, you need to know who he loves.

Quote from: tenbones;1103670Why not make one of the gnomes be half-Deep-gnome too? That's possible. Equally as arbitrary?

I noted that before the thread derail.

But that said I think there is room for doubt as to if this is in there for an agenda, or not. Due to the odd lack of anyone at WOTC crowing this. It may be just there because someone thought it was an interesting idea. Or even an artifact of what was once a larger entry. Or something else.

It is so tame and bland that I have a hard time reading agenda into its presence even knowing some of the staff do have agendas that would make this entry suspect.

Again, far as I can tell so far, it is just there. An isolated entry with no meaning assigned. Which may simply be intentional to allow individual DMs to embellish, change, or omit as they may.

Maybee one DM wants a pair of queens?
Another wants THREE kings!
No damn gnomes in my campaign so these are all GNOLLS!
One of the kings is really a clone - takes "love yourself" to new levels.

And so on in keeping with the more freeform approach Essentials takes.

What about a single gnome with Multiple Personality Disorder, who simply thinks he's two different kings (and everyone is too nervous to tell him given that one of his personalities has gone insane, so they feel coerced into playing along)?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1103677So you're saying it is important in this adventure.  Because I think if you're dealing with the king and his lover, you need to know who he loves.

Nooooo. I am saying we do not need to know every NPCs orientation. There is a difference here. Which you seem to have missed.

And in the Essentials Gnome Kings case... It oddly is not important. There is no context that I can come across yet. See my comment above for why that may have been intentional.

Quote from: Omega;1103678I noted that before the thread derail.

But that said I think there is room for doubt as to if this is in there for an agenda, or not. Due to the odd lack of anyone at WOTC crowing this. It may be just there because someone thought it was an interesting idea. Or even an artifact of what was once a larger entry. Or something else.

It is so tame and bland that I have a hard time reading agenda into its presence even knowing some of the staff do have agendas that would make this entry suspect.

Again, far as I can tell so far, it is just there. An isolated entry with no meaning assigned. Which may simply be intentional to allow individual DMs to embellish, change, or omit as they may.

Maybee one DM wants a pair of queens?
Another wants THREE kings!
No damn gnomes in my campaign so these are all GNOLLS!
One of the kings is really a clone - takes "love yourself" to new levels.

And so on in keeping with the more freeform approach Essentials takes.

I want to believe...

But... the truth is I don't. But hey, if people like it... ENJOY!

Quote from: Antiquation!;1103679What about a single gnome with Multiple Personality Disorder, who simply thinks he's two different kings (and everyone is too nervous to tell him given that one of his personalities has gone insane, so they feel coerced into playing along)?

I'm still waiting for my Asian Gnomish representation.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1103679What about a single gnome with Multiple Personality Disorder, who simply thinks he's two different kings (and everyone is too nervous to tell him given that one of his personalities has gone insane, so they feel coerced into playing along)?

You have been watching too much Pandorum haven't you? :eek:

heh. But that is just as valid a spin as any other.

Quote from: tenbones;1103681I want to believe...

But... the truth is I don't. But hey, if people like it... ENJOY!

I think Essentials will easily dethrone Starter as everyones favourite intro to D&D.

Quote from: Omega;1103684I think Essentials will easily dethrone Starter as everyones favourite intro to D&D.

Then... if they keep playing and don't spiral downward into Furry-play or some other silly shit, they will graduate into the clutches of advanced contextual gaming. And there I'll be waiting... handing out Triggers of Glorious Gaming to those that make their Will saves and LEVEL UP!...

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1103648As far as the importance of representation you can find a number of sources to cover it.

The big problem with a lot of this representation, be it in RPGs or broader media, though is that it's painting a very skewed picture of reality. The average estimate by people 18-25 is that 3-in-10 people are LGBT; nearly ten times the actual population. This is because everything from television to movies to woke RPGs is presenting LGBT characters as being everywhere.

It also becomes problematic in that this "inclusive" act is also, by definition, excluding others. Ex. Two gay gnome kings mean there's no representation of women with power in that adventure. Why is WotC being anti-woman? (this is sarcasm; it's sad that I have to actually make that explicit).

I get that LGBT is the current "shiny" of pop culture; but ultimately it being used out of all proportion to reality without an actual plot/adventure-related reason is rather like putting out an Essentials Kit where the only races available are half-elf, half-orc, dragonborn, tiefling and warforged and the only classes are Bard, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Warlock. Sure, it's playable, but it's anything but representative of D&D as a whole.

My feeling is that "performance wokeness" in RPGs is going to age even worse than it will in broader pop culture (mostly because tv and movies and video games are there and gone... RPG books get used regularly for decades.

All sarcasm aside - this is why I, as "POC", find it hilarious that in being performative in ones showing of Wokeness - you're *tacitly* inflicting the very thing you claim is harming the people you're trying to "represent".

It only becomes glaringly worse when you see the largest proponents of this are not even necessarily the people being represented in the first place.

Self-loathing is pretty gross.

This is why I keep saying that if the information is not important for the adventure or setting, do not include it.