My Only Major Problem with D20 (some concerns that are hopefully in good faith)
By - oggser
I am 100% here for this breakdown of characters and reading of the series. And have a lot of sympathy for what you’re articulating. I don’t have much to add really other than I think the players themselves play a big role in the type of importance given to the PCs and NPCs. By that, I mean that it would be a big difference if we had a MLM player playing a MLM PC as well. Until we get that, I think (in some ways to me) it’s always gonna feel like MLM isn’t represented successfully/faithfully.
Pre-knowing what Mice & Murder would be, certainly thought that Grant could have played an awesome, comedic MLM PC.
I’d also add though I know it’s a small moment… the Garty and Jack scene is awesome for male love if it’s implied to only happen in that one night and fleeting (haven’t finished Pirates so don’t know if that comes up again).
Isn't Garthy canonically non-binary? I remember they use they/them pronouns but not exactly what their gender identity was
Correct. I was thinking from the Jack side considering that Garty seemed to be the vehicle through which he “awakens” back to his life and sort of accepts himself for what’s been happening and that he’s worthy. I mean in my mind Jack is totally MLM (at least I think you could support that reading).
i honestly wouldn't count garthy and jack, even though theyre a lovely bit of representation. this isn't about me being picky, it's more about how you can't really immediately tell someone's sexuality when they're dating a nonbinary person. plenty of nonbinary people are fine dating both gay men and lesbians, or really anyone of ANY orientation, so you can't really confirm any of the people garthy's slept with (ie. jack, sandralynn) as any sexuality.
Oh, I totally get that. Which is why in a comment below I also iterate that it’s from Jack’s perspective that I was focusing on when thinking about that particular scene/interaction. But yes, I completely see your point. I think it’s even more confusing for me as a viewer because what I see in that moment is two men talking/enacting a romantic scene. (Edited to add thought.)
So here's the thing. I agree with this about 95%, it's obviously not done with malice and as far as PCs go I'm pretty sure it's just because the players never actually felt that kind of connection to an NPC (Fig noticeably doesn't show interest in or attraction to women at all before Ayda, but Emily clearly found something there that she latched on to at the time), but that doesn't mean the lack of representation isn't a problem and you're absolutely valid for feeling ignored and unrepresented here.
With that being said, I kind of take issue with calling Evan and Jammer queerbaiting? Seeing two male characters, both of whom are very distinctly masculine in non-toxic ways, having a close, open, and emotionally supportive friendship and saying "they must be gay" is its own massive issue that frankly heavily permeates all corners of fandoms. If you saw romantic chemistry there that I didn't that's absolutely fine, shipping is one thing, but calling it queerbaiting suggests they were implying a romantic tone to the relationship without pulling the trigger on it and that's disingenuous to what Lou and Brennan were actually doing.
I kinda got the impression that Ayda was retconned a bit in response to Emily’s decision to make Fig attracted to her. I could be wrong, but the way Ayda was introduced made me feel like there was kinda a big age gap between her and the PCs; considering Fig’s previous character attractions were all problematically older than her, that’d fit the pattern.
I think every NPC is typically introduced as kind of an archetypical shell that gets developed into a three-dimensional character with personality based on what the players choose to focus on and how often they choose to interact with them. There is always a bit of ad-hoc retconning in the moment as the table improvises the world-building, their character’s interactions and what they choose to focus on and heighten. Gilear was introduced as this low status, down on his luck character and was developed into a comically pathetic sadsack because of how the characters interacted with him, what they focused on and how often they brought him back. There’s a world in the first season where Emily decides to focus more on her relationship with Sandra Lynn instead of Gilear and he just remains as this undeveloped character in the background.
Yeah, that’s probably a good explanation of what happened. I just get the feeling that Ayda was older in Brennan’s imagination when he first introduced her
I mean there is a huge age gap ayda has lived many lives already kind of
Fair, what I meant was the way Brennan was originally playing the current incarnation of Ayda, it made her seem like her current incarnation was older than the PCs. I never went back to check, so I could be wrong. I just remember feeling like Ayda's personality was was "aged down" after Fig started flirting with her.
>I kinda got the impression that Ayda was retconned a bit in response to Emily’s decision to make Fig attracted to her.
Ooh interesting, I always thought the opposite! I felt like Brennan was positioning Ayda as a love interest for Fig, and Emily didn't get it until Brennan really hit her over the head with it. (At which point Emily totally was down.)
It’s been a while, so it’s possible I’m misremembering. My memory was that Brennan had Ayda call Adaine and Fig her “best friends” as a joke, and Emily latched on to her because of that.
i explained this in another comment, but i'm not saying that it was intentional queerbaiting, i'm saying that i *felt* queerbaited. it's absolutely because i was so starved for important MLM in the show, which is why i made a point about not going too much further into it.
it honestly might have been the wrong move to include the fact that i felt a little queerbaited in the post at all-- i wrote a lot of this when i was kinda pissed i'm not gonna lie, and i'm not nearly as mad anymore.
that being said... i really take issue with this line.
*"Seeing two male characters, both of whom are very distinctly masculine in non-toxic ways, having a close, open, and emotionally supportive friendship and saying "they must be gay" is its own massive issue that frankly heavily permeates all corners of fandoms."*
the reason people see this as an issue is because of homophobia. the reason men are afraid of being seen as gay is because of societal homophobia, or, in less sympathetic cases, their own homophobia. it honestly leaves a bad taste in my mouth to say that the fault is on LGBT people here, and not on the societal/unconscious homophobia that effects straight men.
They never said or implied that the fault is on LBGT people. I feel like you may have missed the point they were making if your take away is homophobia. The point was that seeing two male characters having a close, open, and emotionally supportive friendship, and thinking "they must be gay" is in many ways an affirmation of toxic masculinity.
See also: Falcon and the Winter Soldier. Anthony Mackie tried to make the same point (somewhat clumsily).
I think we are coming at this from different angles. If I implied that I was dismissing the idea that they might or could be gay, I apologize, that was simply not what I was trying to convey. I do take issue with the idea that I was "wildly dismissive" however. I can understand how some degree of dismissal could be inferred through genuine misunderstanding, but to claim I am intentionally and flagrantly dismissive is a bit much. The operative word in both my post and the original commenters post was "must" ('they must be gay'). This came from the idea of being, or feeling, queerbaited by the portrayal of a close, open, and emotionally supportive male friendship. Of course there is nothing to say that, at that point, they weren't going to engage in a romantic relationship, the point is that assuming they were to the point of feeling queerbaited is itself dismissive of the existence of non toxic m/m friendship.
And while yes, male-male friendship is pervasive across media, obviously far overshadowing m/m romance, I think the point is that it is rare to see close, open, and emotionally supportive male friendship free of the shackles of toxic masculinity. I want to be clear that this is not a broad conflict between portrayals of platonic vs romantic relationships, but is instead a narrow argument based on that idea of "must"
Aah, I'm so sorry!! I realised I may have worded things unclearly when I wrote "wildly dismissive". I wasn't thinking about you at all, but the kind of vitriol you see on other fanspaces, like Western-hero-comics twitter and forums. I'm very, very sorry for that! I see how it could be read that way and should have been more careful about how I phrased it, and I really didn't mean to single you out as being dismissive of gay relationships at all.
Ah dang, I see I've misunderstood you in much the same way I claimed you misunderstood me haha. No need to apologize for my misinterpretation, I think we can chalk this one up to trying to have a fairly nuanced conversation within the constraints of a text thread
Haha, I could have phrased it better for sure, though.
Rereading the thread, it does seem like I was approaching it from a misunderstanding. I do agree that seeing a close, healthy male friendship and thinking "the *only thing* these characters can be is gay" is reductive and damaging, so on that point we completely align -- I think I just didn't read the OP as saying exactly that, which is likely where my misunderstanding started.
see, i would agree with you if they were real people? seeing a real life pair of male friends being open and intimate and going "these guys are gay" is bad, like, i agree with that 100%, but fictional characters are, like, fictional. their orientations and personality traits can be retconned whenever, like how ragh was definitely straight until ally bugs bunny'd him into being gay.
i'm seeing now that my comment got SUUUUUPER downvoted so i just wanna clarify: i'm talking about fictional characters. i think shipping real life straight men is weird. don't do that.
Maybe it's just a semantics thing. Feeling disappointed that they didn't end up together or wishing that they did is 100% cool. Feeling queerbaited implies that their behaviour was indicative of a gay relationship, which is where the problem lies because their behavior was no more gay than it was straight. At that point they could have been either.
If I may derail from your (valid, specific) concerns for a bit since there's been some good discussion on that front already, I feel this post is a good example of the philosophical tension that emerges when we talk about representation in media. Basically, there is a sort of push-pull dynamic between what fans want and benefit from (like representation they can positively identify with) and what is fair to ask of creators. In general, we want creators to be free to tell stories that they are excited about and comfortable telling. I think problems can emerge if we the audience have expectations of what's okay to portray that are too restrictive, or alternatively if there is strong demand for a story that the creator struggles to tell.
In this case, I think your concerns are totally fine and valid and I hope the D20 team hears and acts on this feedback because they're pretty explicitly invested in and excited about doing positive representation of the LGBTQ community. I feel confident in guessing that Brennan would be happy to play a thriving MLM romance, especially opposite a cast member who was equally excited and comfortable about it. That said, like others have discussed already, I feel a little more conflict in saying "Lou and Brennan should have portrayed an MLM romance between Evan and Whitney." I know I just said Brennan would be cool with playing an MLM romance, but I think asking him to play Evan specifically, a character he is pretty directly identified with and aiming to tell a particular story about childhood trauma with, is a notably more creatively imposing demand than "include positive MLM romances in your worlds and plots". I, like others, also really enjoyed Evan and Jammer having an emotionally open and supportive relationship and I would be disappointed to have those kinds of relationships portrayed less often for fear of queerbaiting.
In an ideal world, I think the solution would be that we support as many creators as possible telling the widest possible variety of stories so that everyone has equitable access to stories that they identify with and feel validated by, (but also stories that challenge them and encourage them to grow and blah blah blah because fiction shouldn't exclusively be a tool for comfort) thus taking some of the pressure off any particular story to get it exactly right. In the real, non-perfect world, not all creators are given equal access to platforms, and that means that shows like D20 have extra pressure on them to deliver on their promise of positive representation because audience members like you want and deserve for at least this one great show to get it right. Thus the tension I have outlined persists.
I really understand your desire to see more MLM in D20, especially for player characters, but please keep in mind, that this is a non-scripted game. Brennan can't force these players to forge a MLM relationship, and if they don't feel comfortable to do it, for whatever reasons, they won't do it. And as a DND DM myself, I think that is the correct approach, don't force players to romantic relationships, in fact don't force players to any relationships at all. They decide how to react and connect with an NPC.
I don't disagree with the core of what you're saying, and obviously your feelings are valid. I do think this is kind of a player thing, though. Like, if the people playing male characters don't engage in male-male romances, then we won't have MLM romances on center stage. I feel like Brennan/the DMs try to let romances happen based on PC comfort and interest, and I'm not sure I'd want them to say, "Hey players, I want to really heavily encourage some MLM romances in this season," you know?
I see your point but I find it hard to agree with 100 percent because we're not dealing with a straight up movie or show. We're dealing with an actual play of people just making decisions so I don't think we're going to get an actual M/M relationship until a gay or bi guy goes on the show. Which is on a whole very plausible. Granted maybe that's me being pessimistic, because Zach seemed fine with kissing Ragh and Ally would probably be fine with playing those scenes as well but I don't know them personally.
I'm sorry to hear you don't feel represented. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not super on the ball about the representation of sexuality, but I'm hoping for a PC M/M relationship in the future on your behalf!
Also, I just wanna say that you shouldn't feel bad for having a criticism of the show. Sometimes I think this sub leans a bit too heavy on the "no bummers" side of things and it can veer into toxic positivity. I find it ironic that a show so heavily focused on media criticism (they just did a whole season focused on critiquing Harry Potter, and most of their side quests involve a genre parody of some kind) has fans that are so against criticism of media they consume. You are totally entitled to have opinions on any media that aren't 100% positive, and anyone who interprets that as an attack is, imo, the one acting in bad faith.
Thank you for articulating the "no bummers" (and toxic positivity) thing. I've had that feeling for some time, and strangely especially with Misfits. I'm not completely sold on this season, but it's not something I would feel comfortable expressing in this sub. Maybe in fear of people misunderstanding (perhaps on purpose) my viewpoints as just being against change in cast or systems.
I'm glad I'm making sense lol. I think it's a huge issue with fandoms for internet creators in general, not just D20. When you combine close fan/creator interactions and the parasocial relationships that arise from the creators being part of the entertainment as well as the characters they play (as well as a huge chunk of the internet being shitty because it is the internet) it's really difficult to maintain a healthy fan space. I honestly think the mods here are doing a great job considering the line they have to walk there.
In no way trying to criticize your opinion or feelings, but this does genuinely raise a question for me. I feel like BLM and the cast/crew have created worlds and story's where anyone could feel comfortable playing a PC with any orientation, there never feels like a barrier to playing anything that a player doesn't internally have. So with a world where you can be anything/everything, and welcomed as such, is there a responsibility to have, or encourage PCs to represent all those potential choices? Admittedly I'm no expert and I genuinely don't know. If the MLM characters introduced in the show, regardless of their role feel genuine, and aren't making fun of that community, than I feel like as a show they've done their job. This show is probably one of, If not the most inclusive shows Im aware of, and I feel like if any PC was MLM, they would be welcomed to play as such, and BLM would happily play a PC relationship MLM.
Just here to say I also had a moment in Misfits & Magic where I thought Evan / Jammer was going to be a thing - as did, I was pretty sure, members of the cast? Because Dream did a moment of fangirling over the idea of it if I remember correctly.
But obviously it's an improv-ed plot and opportunities for different alternative universes come up all the time etc etc.
Just wanted to say I am with you on the 'it's not queerbaiting but can leave you *feeling* queerbaited'.
I agree with you... I’m desperately hoping for some good and healthy MLM Ragh content in the next season of FH.
yeah.......... love you ragh <3
> So, Bloodkeep commits the cardinal sin of confirming your LGBT characters outside of text with a MLM. Ify has confirmed that Markus St. Vincent is pansexual (or at least a "pansexual kind of guy", paraphrasing), and Leiland is confirmed gay in the text of the show. Apparently, also confirmed off-screen that they considered a romance between their characters, but sort of just, didn't?
I'm not sure what you're thinking is wrong here... A gay character doesn't have to make that their whole identity, and maybe it never even comes up between the characters because it's not relevant to the story. Half of my friends are gay and I'm bi myself, but you wouldn't necessarily know hanging out with us. I thought this was what we've been fighting for, being just a normal part of society.
This constant berating of creatives that they aren't getting some aspect of their already vastly superior representation compared to most media, is just going to hasten it's decline.
Not OP, but I think they're exhausted by and referencing the very specific and pretty common trend of creators to only confirm LGBTQ diversity outside of the actual content put out. Notable example, gay Dumbledore.
There's nothing explicitly wrong with it, but the point isn't that the characters story needs to revolve around their sexuality. It's more like... Hard to appreciate a diversity win if you have to go on someone's twitter for it?
Edit: I had to explain to grown-up friends, in 2016, why Rowling saying Dumbledore was gay outside the books and then not putting that or ANY gay characters in any of the subsequent movies/plays did not count as gay representation. They had a really, really hard time with it.
i am op, basically this. i'm happy that markus is pan, but ify (as much as i think he's great) doesn't really make it clear in the show, so it's hard for me to actually *appreciate* it or see it as representation.
I feel fairly sure Sylvester Cross is at least implied bisexual
sorry that i missed him, that's not my point. my point is that romantic relationships between men aren't really shown as being as important as other relationships, and sylvester ends up with daisy.
obviously i'm glad that bi men are being represented, but bi/pan guys in d20 pretty much always end up with women-- in fact, *all of them do,* unless one of the less important npcs in a m/m relationship is bi.
if you're talking about me forgetting him on the list i made, sexuality isn't really as discussed in mice and murder since there's no societal homophobia/transphobia, so characters being lgbt isn't as blatant as it would be if there were. i'm glad that they went that direction, since if there was period-typical homophobia in a campaign set during the 1900s, that'd be a TRAIN WRECK, but it definitely makes it harder to recognize lgbt characters that aren't actively showcasing their orientation
I dunno, some of your points seem a little iffy. Like, calling Evan and Jammer “queer baiting” doesn’t make sense to me, since it’s pretty clearly explicit that that’s a projection on the part of Dream and Sam.
I think ultimately, it’s a series in which PC’s take prominence, and generally speaking, players tend towards playing characters that fit their own sexuality. Ally plays characters who end up in relationships with women because Ally is romantically interested in women. Of course there are exceptions (I don’t believe Matt Mercer is gay, and I think Emily has said her characters tend to be higher on the Kinsey scale then herself, but I could be wrong), and there’s valid discussion about why women have more cultural lenience in exploring their sexuality than men. More queer male players would definitely help the issue, but I think the motivation involved in casting is primarily working with people whose work the producers like.
i didnt say it was queer*baiting*, i said i *felt* queer*baited.* the difference is in it's intention, because i 100% believe that brennan and lou didn't do that on purpose. which is also why i made it a point to *not* discuss that any further than mentioning it, since that really wasn't a fault on the team's part, even if it did motivate the post.
the problem with the logic of "the characters are extensions of the players, and the players are mostly straight" is just how many characters *don't* share an identity with their player. to my knowledge, emily and siobhan are both straight women, but siobhan plays the very bi/pansexual misty moore and emily plays fig, who's also probably bi. ally, who's made it pretty clear they're only into women, plays lars, and while they're both nonbinary, lars is attracted to men.
it really isn't much of an excuse when several players *have* played characters with orientations incongruent to their own-- they just happen to not include mlm, or if they do, it's on a level that's frankly miniscule.
Like I said, there’s valid discussion about why society allows women more lenience in exploring their sexuality than men; it’s a systemic problem which goes far beyond this show
I’ve definitely noticed something similar in home games as a queer woman with gender - the women at my tables can play female/male/nb characters quite happily, and tend to choose the gender that fits their character idea. The men tend to start with baseline male and not edit that.
I don’t want them to feel like they have to question it if they don’t want to, so I’ve never asked anyone why, but I just think it’s interesting that one of the women has gone:
1) Female Julie d’Aubigny reskin
2) NB corrupt cop/spy
3) Male effete scholar
4) Female grande dame and journalist
While the guys have had just as interesting a range of characters… but all male.
It’s definitely something men are conditioned to feel less comfortable exploring. Myself, I tend towards male, and when I don’t plan a character as being male, there is a part of me that feels anxious about the perception of performativity to it.
Then again, even in Dimension 20, the player matches the character’s gender the majority of the time. Ally obviously likes to explore gender and sexuality in their characters, but other than them, Katie Marovitch is the only other player to play a gender other than her own.
I'm DMing for the first time and since I only have two players, both cishet guys, I had them both play multiple characters. All their characters are different genders!
I've played with them before and I've only ever seen them play male characters--which, nothing wrong with that, I've always played my own gender too. But independently they each made a man, a woman, and a nonbinary or agender character, and I thought that was really cool.
I think some men, even if they're not hung up on masculinity shit, might be nervous about playing female characters because they're worried they'd wind up "imitating" a woman and it's like an accent they're not confident in, yknow?
I think its a number of pressures, in my home game, one of my very cis very straight players had been writing up a story for a female elf spy for months but was super nervous about actually playing her because he didnt want to look like a neckbeard "playing his waifu".
but for a show with representing LGBT people practically baked into its core, it seems really ironic that they don't challenge that system. especially when so many other systemic problems (including ones related to this) are challenged in every season.
like i said, i'm sure it's not intentionally made to put down MLM, but since a large portion of the cast/crew are cis and straight, they're probably going to make us out to be less important than other LGBT groups by completely accident if no one brings it to their attention.
Can't force it...
It'll either happen organically or it won't.
The great thing about d20 is they hear stuff like this and go "oh shir, you're right" and then junior year ragh has a cannon boyfriend, or is dating fabian, or they do something to adress this criticism. Also I've never thought about it, and I tend to be kinda hard to convince of criticism like this, (I remember someone was saying gorgug and zeldas relationship was a bad portrayal because they treated zelda like she was wrong, even though the whole plot was gorgug fucked up and that's the plot) but yeah I'd agree with this.
This is a good call--and I was always a little uncomfortable with Ragh's whole "the bully turned out to be a closet case" trope. (Though I have no idea if Brennan planned that, or just rolled with the players' insinuations--which I think mostly came from Ally if memory serves.) I was glad that they brought Ragh back and made him a well-rounded character since all that was pretty cliche. But I hope his character doesn't get re-flattened into "party gay who's always hooking up with a different dude."
oh yeah, i honestly think there's no way they planned that, but to be honest i actually really enjoyed Ragh's version of the trope (as a gay guy). he wasn't a bully because he was gay, being gay is what makes him *stop* being a bully, because he's finding himself.
i have no worries that ragh is gonna stay well-rounded, brennan seems to love playing him and a few players (ie. lou) think hes a riot, and interactions between characters is what keeps them all looking shiny
That's a great call about the spin on the trope. (And I don't think Ragh's bullying was particularly homophobic anyway.)
There's definitely room for improvement. Maybe try contacting BLM online I'm sure he'd take it as good constructive criticism. And TBH I'd like some blow for some of the darker decisions made by the core cast. Fig's gag of making out with older by pretending to be another person is pretty F'ed, it feels like assault to me.
This might sound like deflecting, but I have a pretty bad anxiety disorder, so even making this post was kind of A Bit Much For Me. I actually almost never use Reddit, but I know the cast and crew do occasionally check the show's Reddit, so I was hoping that one of them would see and bring it up. A little dumb, but I didn't know how else to do it without directly contacting one of their social medias.
I gotta say, I agree with you. To Dimension 20’s credit, this isn’t a problem unique to them: I’d be willing to bet 99% of LGBT representation in media is F/F. I can literally only think of one M/M relationship I’ve *ever* seen depicted in any healthy way, and it was still just two barely relevant side characters in a kid’s show.
Still: with how genuinely amazing D20 is at depicting LGBT characters and relationships and the like, this really does feel like a gaping hole. And I’m usually not the kind of guy to complain about lack of LGBT representation, but when there are more LGBT characters than straight characters and yet NONE of them are part of a healthy, long-term, m/m relationship, that really sticks out like a sore thumb.
The example of Ragh is especially poignant, because part of his whole deal in Freshman Year was his unhealthy, one-sided love for Dayne that kept him stuck in a cycle of toxicity. He finally breaks free from that… only to jump right into another bad relationship with Fathethriel (if it can even really be called a “relationship”) that’s played exclusively for comedy.
As a bi man, I’m really happy for some good bi representation in Fig (and to a lesser extent Garthy/Jawbone), as that too is exceedingly rare, but it does still feel odd that even the bi characters are all shown only really interacting seriously with women, with their male relationships either being entirely offscreen (such as Jawbone and Garthy) or played for comedy (Fig and her little disguised escapades).
As for the whole queer baiting thing: I’ve only seen the two Fantasy High seasons, so I can’t comment on that.
I feel your frustration, and I trust Brennan and crew to eventually give us that good MLM business we want.
I completely agree. I think a big problem d20 has is it will have a season then not think about some facet then it relies on the fandom to say "hey that's wrong" and then fix it. Which is great that they're this receptive to fan discomfort representation wise but like I wish they thought about it while making the season rather than after the fact lol
Well the seasons are made in just a few days before they get published, so there is no way to react to fan feedback during the season.
No I fully get that I'm saying I wish they thought about different facets of representation before they made the season or had the sensitivity consultants be a bit more active in the process so they aren't constantly reacting to fan feedback after the fact
But I think it is best listen to the fans to change to what the fans want. But this functions only between seasons. I think their approach is appropiate.
Touch grass, I beg you
we are both on a subreddit for a niche collegehumor dnd show we both need to touch some grass
Like others have said, while your concern is valid, a lot of this is most likely due to the fact that of the cast members, as far as we know the only lgbt members are Siobhan and ally, with Emily possibly being bi curious. When playing dnd we tend toward making characters that are at least somewhat similar to us. As a straight cis male, I’ve only ever played one character who didn’t also fit that description.
Hey you don't have to denigrate f/f relationships to uplift m/m especially when gay women are heavily demonized for being gay and have their stories censored all the time.
Ah, I'm getting in trouble again.
At the risk of Math the more Trans, Aro, cyber, Gals and NB Pals we include the fewer Cis MM pairings will be available. This isn't about intent it's, at worst, about choosing which groups are in most need of representation (amongst the cast's awareness). This is, perhaps, not about inherent value but about perceived representation/previous personal play experience.
Unless it \_is\_ about intent, I'm no expert.
The players aren’t obligated to play characters in any relationship configuration. Brennan as DM has introduced characters of many backgrounds, intersections of identities, and experiences. Romances are going to be primarily at the discretion of the players, who are going to have the most genuine experiences for their characters in that moment. Across media cis gay men have dominated spaces at the expense of other members of the queer community. If they take a backseat because players feel more organic as trans, lesbian, non-binary, etc. then that’s okay. And to hammer the point, this isn’t a scripted show. It’s a game, that focuses on personal choices and organic self expression. They aren’t going to make arbitrary decisions to give half assed representation.