Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2021, 04:00:40 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 01:57:48 PM
Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

I feel like this is part of the disconnect here. You're reading "gay characters exist at all" to somehow that sexual orientation is a big part of all my games, which is absolutely not the case.

The disconnect is that no one here is saying that "gay characters existing" is political.  You are saying (in posts above) that having no overtly gay characters in a game is political.  And that is patently false.

Cleaning an error I made. 

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 09:04:12 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 08:50:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2021, 04:00:40 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 01:57:48 PM
Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

I feel like this is part of the disconnect here. You're reading "gay characters exist at all" to somehow that sexual orientation is a big part of all my games, which is absolutely not the case.

The disconnect is that no one here is saying that "gay characters existing" is political.  You are saying (in posts above) that having no overtly gay characters in a game is political.  And that is patently false.

Whut? Nope... That's not what I said at all.

I'll try again... There's nothing 'political' about having gay characters in a game, why would there be? If you'd read what I actually meant, I said from a woke scold's perspective by 'not' including gay characters, or black characters, or having a 50/50 ratio of women (and all that other mumbo jumbo) is a political stance. From their point of view that 'you' are taking even if you're not. And it is a negative one (from their perspective). AKA - They are trying to make any game that doesn't fit their woke criteria politically bad (for it's non-wokeness).

My personal view is, that I don't really give a shit about any of that. That is to say, I will not 'tick boxes' for the sjws. If anything, I go the other direction just just to be contrary, just for a laugh.

I was responding to jhkim.  Reread his posts in this thread.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 09:16:37 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 09:04:12 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 08:50:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2021, 04:00:40 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 01:57:48 PM
Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

I feel like this is part of the disconnect here. You're reading "gay characters exist at all" to somehow that sexual orientation is a big part of all my games, which is absolutely not the case.

The disconnect is that no one here is saying that "gay characters existing" is political.  You are saying (in posts above) that having no overtly gay characters in a game is political.  And that is patently false.

Whut? Nope... That's not what I said at all.

I'll try again... There's nothing 'political' about having gay characters in a game, why would there be? If you'd read what I actually meant, I said from a woke scold's perspective by 'not' including gay characters, or black characters, or having a 50/50 ratio of women (and all that other mumbo jumbo) is a political stance. From their point of view that 'you' are taking even if you're not. And it is a negative one (from their perspective). AKA - They are trying to make any game that doesn't fit their woke criteria politically bad (for it's non-wokeness).

My personal view is, that I don't really give a shit about any of that. That is to say, I will not 'tick boxes' for the sjws. If anything, I go the other direction just just to be contrary, just for a laugh.

I was responding to jhkim.  Reread his posts in this thread.

Sorry. I do apologize, my bad.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 09:17:41 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 09:16:37 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 09:04:12 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 08:50:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2021, 04:00:40 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 01:57:48 PM
Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

I feel like this is part of the disconnect here. You're reading "gay characters exist at all" to somehow that sexual orientation is a big part of all my games, which is absolutely not the case.

The disconnect is that no one here is saying that "gay characters existing" is political.  You are saying (in posts above) that having no overtly gay characters in a game is political.  And that is patently false.

Whut? Nope... That's not what I said at all.

I'll try again... There's nothing 'political' about having gay characters in a game, why would there be? If you'd read what I actually meant, I said from a woke scold's perspective by 'not' including gay characters, or black characters, or having a 50/50 ratio of women (and all that other mumbo jumbo) is a political stance. From their point of view that 'you' are taking even if you're not. And it is a negative one (from their perspective). AKA - They are trying to make any game that doesn't fit their woke criteria politically bad (for it's non-wokeness).

My personal view is, that I don't really give a shit about any of that. That is to say, I will not 'tick boxes' for the sjws. If anything, I go the other direction just just to be contrary, just for a laugh.

I was responding to jhkim.  Reread his posts in this thread.

Sorry. I do apologize, my bad.

No problem.  It's easy to quick read on a message board and lose context.  I've done it many times myself....

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 09:19:28 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 09:17:41 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 09:16:37 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 09:04:12 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 08:50:39 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 12, 2021, 04:00:40 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on September 12, 2021, 01:57:48 PM
Thing is, if you want sexual orientation to be a big part of the game that's totally cool. I've no problem with it at all. But I don't see it as character defining for 'my' games at least. Because when I GM my games tend to be about horror, darkness, violence, action and mystery. Humor, in the fashion of 'Are You Being Served" does not interest me. Black Adder and Alan Partridge was more my thing.

But again, you do you.

I feel like this is part of the disconnect here. You're reading "gay characters exist at all" to somehow that sexual orientation is a big part of all my games, which is absolutely not the case.

The disconnect is that no one here is saying that "gay characters existing" is political.  You are saying (in posts above) that having no overtly gay characters in a game is political.  And that is patently false.

Whut? Nope... That's not what I said at all.

I'll try again... There's nothing 'political' about having gay characters in a game, why would there be? If you'd read what I actually meant, I said from a woke scold's perspective by 'not' including gay characters, or black characters, or having a 50/50 ratio of women (and all that other mumbo jumbo) is a political stance. From their point of view that 'you' are taking even if you're not. And it is a negative one (from their perspective). AKA - They are trying to make any game that doesn't fit their woke criteria politically bad (for it's non-wokeness).

My personal view is, that I don't really give a shit about any of that. That is to say, I will not 'tick boxes' for the sjws. If anything, I go the other direction just just to be contrary, just for a laugh.

I was responding to jhkim.  Reread his posts in this thread.

Sorry. I do apologize, my bad.

No problem.  It's easy to quick read on a message board and lose context.  I've done it many times myself....

Cheers man. 

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 12, 2021, 08:50:39 PM
The disconnect is that no one here is saying that "gay characters existing" is political.  You are saying (in posts above) that having no overtly gay characters in a game is political.  And that is patently false.

Here is specifically what I said:

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2021, 02:41:16 AM
If a single module has no gay characters, it doesn't show anything about the author. But when all of the hundreds of D&D modules in the 1970s and 1980s have zero gay characters -- then yes, I believe that at least some people involved were biased against gay people. I hardly think that's a stretch, given that gay people were blatantly and legally discriminated against at the time by most of society.

Specifically within RPG publishing, I know that Lee Gold said that all of the RPG publishers she worked with would have deleted any mention of homosexuality. Lee Gold was author of Land of the Rising Sun (1980, FGU), GURPS Japan (1988, SJG), and Vikings (1989, ICE). She noted in an essay -

QuoteEventually it occurred to me to wonder whether I'd been wrong to ignore cultural attitudes towards homosexuality. So when I next spoke to management people at my various publishers, I asked them. They said they were very glad I hadn't included the material, and -- yes, indeed -- if I had, it would have been deleted. RPG publishers don't boggle at gaming material featuring amoral bloodshed, torture, drug addiction, vampires, succubi (all strictly heterosexual, in every piece of artwork I've seen), and even demons -- but homosexuality seems to be beyond the pale.

Source: https://www.conchord.org/xeno/censorship.html

I think that just confirms what is perfectly obvious.

Do you disagree with this? i.e. Are you saying that what Lee Gold saw in the industry wasn't political?

The fact that no RPG materials of the 70s and 80s (or very little - I haven't read it all, but then, neither have you) include explicit references to characters' sexuality tells me sweet FA about the political attitudes of the writers.

Another possible (and maybe more plausible) explanation is that society was less open to discussion of sexuality overall than it is now, and therefore publishers probably regarded it as a live rail best steered clear of for commercial reasons, particularly given RPGs as a newish medium were liable to be viewed with a degree of suspicion anyway.

There seems to be what econometricians call a Type 2 error, where the researcher fails to reject a hypothesis that is false.

Dataset: RPG materials of the 70s and 80s.
Hypothesis: lack of references to sexual orientation indicates prejudice on part of authors (supply side explanation)
Model: estimate "degree of prejudice of authors" as an inverse function of frequency of references to sexuality in product
Source of error: model is insufficiently specified as it omits demand side variables (people didn't really want to read about it)

Quote from: jhkim on September 11, 2021, 02:41:16 AM
If a single module has no gay characters, it doesn't show anything about the author. But when all of the hundreds of D&D modules in the 1970s and 1980s have zero gay characters -- then yes, I believe that at least some people involved were biased against gay people. I hardly think that's a stretch, given that gay people were blatantly and legally discriminated against at the time by most of society.

Its even worse then that jhkim, there were no Koreans in any of the hundreds of DnD modules.

So it goes without saying what the bias was against Koreans.

And honestly, fuck them for having no New Zealanders.

I have yet to have representation in gaming based on my ethnic makeup...

And yet I'm over 40+ years into this hobby. Someone tell me out outraged I should be? Whoever will be outraged on my behalf? I'm just a poor helpless POC. Won't someone white-knight me?

Quote from: Marchand on September 13, 2021, 01:38:09 AM
The fact that no RPG materials of the 70s and 80s (or very little - I haven't read it all, but then, neither have you) include explicit references to characters' sexuality tells me sweet FA about the political attitudes of the writers.

Another possible (and maybe more plausible) explanation is that society was less open to discussion of sexuality overall than it is now, and therefore publishers probably regarded it as a live rail best steered clear of for commercial reasons, particularly given RPGs as a newish medium were liable to be viewed with a degree of suspicion anyway.

American society in the 1970s and 1980s was full of heterosexuality - including in the tamest children's material. Disney films nearly all showed a man and a woman in romantic love, and even showed on-screen kisses.

D&D went beyond this, though, and had material like this:



Along with the succubus, dryad, nymph, and sylph in the Monster Manual (not pictured because of pornography restrictions on posting).

Even aside from the more racy material, there are lots of casual references to heterosexuality. Village of Hommlet has dozens of heterosexual married couples as well as at least three unmarried romantic couples. That's just in the earliest D&D publications. Going throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there is of course a lot more.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 12:30:02 PM

Quote from: Marchand on September 13, 2021, 01:38:09 AM
The fact that no RPG materials of the 70s and 80s (or very little - I haven't read it all, but then, neither have you) include explicit references to characters' sexuality tells me sweet FA about the political attitudes of the writers.

Another possible (and maybe more plausible) explanation is that society was less open to discussion of sexuality overall than it is now, and therefore publishers probably regarded it as a live rail best steered clear of for commercial reasons, particularly given RPGs as a newish medium were liable to be viewed with a degree of suspicion anyway.

American society in the 1970s and 1980s was full of heterosexuality - including in the tamest children's material. Disney films nearly all showed a man and a woman in romantic love, and even showed on-screen kisses.

D&D went beyond this, though, and had material like this:



Along with the succubus, dryad, nymph, and sylph in the Monster Manual (not pictured because of pornography restrictions on posting).

Even aside from the more racy material, there are lots of casual references to heterosexuality. Village of Hommlet has dozens of heterosexual married couples as well as at least three unmarried romantic couples. That's just in the earliest D&D publications. Going throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there is of course a lot more.

Worth remembering is that if you're even semi- attempting historical accuracy then homosexuals will generally be "in the closet." In the days when welfare consisted of a large family to care for you in your old age only the wealthy could afford to forego a family and no matter what certain politicos will tell you, there's only one type of sexual activity that produces babies.

This is quite apart from any religious pressure or the fact that, prior to the modern era, marriages were typically arranged by parents for economic benefit rather than any sort of romantic feelings (which is not to say they didn't exist or didn't play some role, just that they were generally secondary and many are the stories of spouses growing affectionate of one another AFTER their marriage).

Throw one of the many apocalypses from various fantasy settings that wipe out vast swaths of the population on top and even heterosexual couples who fail to produce children to "repopulate the world" may be seen as not doing their part for the betterment of civilization.

This doesn't mean homosexual feelings/acts don't exist, just that culturally they are kept discreet and on the side rather than as the primary relationship that a society would recognize.

In short, open homosexuality just doesn't make sense in a lot of historic/faux-historic settings because, for the most part, its open indulgence is a First World luxury.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 12:30:02 PM

Quote from: Marchand on September 13, 2021, 01:38:09 AM
The fact that no RPG materials of the 70s and 80s (or very little - I haven't read it all, but then, neither have you) include explicit references to characters' sexuality tells me sweet FA about the political attitudes of the writers.

Another possible (and maybe more plausible) explanation is that society was less open to discussion of sexuality overall than it is now, and therefore publishers probably regarded it as a live rail best steered clear of for commercial reasons, particularly given RPGs as a newish medium were liable to be viewed with a degree of suspicion anyway.

American society in the 1970s and 1980s was full of heterosexuality - including in the tamest children's material. Disney films nearly all showed a man and a woman in romantic love, and even showed on-screen kisses.

D&D went beyond this, though, and had material like this:



Along with the succubus, dryad, nymph, and sylph in the Monster Manual (not pictured because of pornography restrictions on posting).

Even aside from the more racy material, there are lots of casual references to heterosexuality. Village of Hommlet has dozens of heterosexual married couples as well as at least three unmarried romantic couples. That's just in the earliest D&D publications. Going throughout the 1970s and 1980s, there is of course a lot more.

The bias toward sexualized female fey, demons, and nature spirits comes from mythology, not from the 1970s or 1980s.

In ancient and medieval times, especially when military-adjacent in a pseudo-realistic way (D&D qualifies), camp followers and other female prostitutes were common. Male prostitutes were far less so. Usually they were only referenced as part of a decadent empire, and there were no brothels.

That leaves marriage... and gay marriage wasn't legalized anywhere in the US until more than 25 years later. So of course there weren't any representations.

That's just a terrible argument. It wasn't exclusion, because sexuality simply wasn't a major part of D&D. The parts that slipped through were giggly titties for teenage boys, and one hur durr table with hookers, but that reflects the orientation of the writers and being edgy, rather than being an act of deliberate exclusion. That leaves only one consistent reference to sexuality: Marriage. In addition's to Chris24601's point about the concealed nature of homosexuality through most of history, it's also worth remembering at the time D&D was being written, marriage that involved anything except one man and one woman wasn't even on the mainstream's radar, and was restricted to things like Heinlein novels or Nero's fiddling.

Quote from: Chris24601 on September 13, 2021, 01:07:58 PM
In short, open homosexuality just doesn't make sense in a lot of historic/faux-historic settings because, for the most part, its open indulgence is a First World luxury.

Homosexuality was often restricted and had specific attitudes regarding it in many historical societies. However, there were examples of open homosexuality in many historical societies - from the Greek to the Norse to many others. In general, taking some men out of the gene pool was historically the norm. In Christian Europe that was done mainly via celibate monks and priests. In other societies, though, practices differed.

I linked Lee Gold's essay before. She wrote a number of historical sourcebooks, and in the essay for each, she had a section on their attitudes regarding homosexuality. However, she did not include those in the published sourcebooks - and indeed was told if she had submitted them, then they would have been deleted.

Deleting mention of actual historical attitudes regarding homosexuality doesn't create greater historical authenticity - it creates less.

Quote from: jhkim on September 13, 2021, 01:27:29 PM
Deleting mention of actual historical attitudes regarding homosexuality doesn't create greater historical authenticity - it creates less.

But in a game like D&D (aka-fantasy) historical accuracy is not really a consideration.

If you wanted to play a 'historically accurate' game set in Europe then the Woke Scolds would spit the dummy. They can't handle the truth as the saying goes.