Dire Bare
Legend
The Warhammer 40K freebie, "Only War: Eleventh Hour" also gets an A. It has a single female image, plus one character in the far background on the cover that is probably female. Both are appropriately dressed and holding weapons, just like the men. The female fighter looks bad@$$ but not ridiculous, like a real woman who seriously lifts weights and runs around the jungle with heavy weapons on her back. She is sleeveless, but so are most of the men, because they are all depicted as running around in a grungy, sweaty, tropical environment. So the assorted states of undress (shirtless for some men, light/sleeveless for the woman) all make sense for the environment.
Good job, Games Workshop. The only reason it's an A rather an A+ is that the male images substantially outnumber the female ones; there were only two of the latter and twelve of the former,, and one of the female images was a small one in the background of a larger image, where the men were the primary focus.
There are women in the Imperial Guard now? Cool. I'm relatively new to the Warhammer 40K universe, but I was beginning to feel like the only women in the grimdark future (at least in the various armed forces of the galaxy's races) were the Sisters of Battle (um, "battle nuns"), who seemed like the token female characters and subsequently aren't all that popular in the game (the miniatures game, at least). While I actually dig the Sisters' miniatures and vehicles, there are just tons of sexist problems with that "faction". But that's a whole other post . . .
Oh, and it isn't really Games Workshop you're giving an "A" too, its Fantasy Flight Games, under license to Games Workshop. I've always been impressed with Fantasy Flight Games, their game design, their writing, and their artwork.
The D&D "Dead In The Eye" module had no character art at all. It did have one advertisement in the back that included a drow in dubiously skimpy armor, but the drow was male. He was depicted as powerful and evil, as well as fit and strong. You could probably argue that this was a sexualized male image, though there was enough else going on that I still saw it as primarily a character illustration. Still, it met the criteria for impractically skimpy armor.
D&D certainly has its history with cheesecake, but the drow, males and females, seem to incorporate cheesecake as a cultural value. Which I'm actually pretty fine with, although many of the "classic" images from the 80s and 90s are pretty over-the-top.
Worst offender: Dungeon Crawl Classics by Goodman Games. There are seven images in total in this book, including the cover, that contain people. The rest are maps, a skull, a house, abstract decor, non gendered monsters, etc. Five of those images show women who are fighting or adventuring with bare cleavage, midriff, thighs, etc. No woman depicted in this sourcebook was in normal, practical or just non revealing clothing.
The choices that Goodman Games made with their art for that product makes me sad. I don't own any of their other products (not enough time and money) but I hear nothing but good things about their roleplaying products. Well, until now. I have a feeling that the art you say today probably reflects on their overall art design. Goodman is all about "old school" gaming, and sadly it appears that they might feel cheesecake is an integral part of the "old school" feel. Someone correct me if my assumption is wrong.
I actually would love to see a company go full 70s Frazetta van-art cheesecake in their art design, with an appropriately matched pulp setting . . . as long as it is marketed correctly . . . to a niche audience of older guys like me with a lot of nostalgia for that era (even if I missed it by a decade). However, that company should not be WotC, and it should not be the D&D game, nor should it be any company who wants to target the same market WotC does, the general gaming community.
What a lot of hardcore gamers tend to forget, is that to most people, gamers and non-gamers, Dungeons & Dragons IS roleplaying. Every single other game out there, including Pathfinder, isn't on the radar. The company that produces D&D products, WotC and any licensees, does have a (sort of) responsibility to push D&D to be more inclusive and into having a wide appeal, as it is the flagship property that carries the industry.
2nd tier companies like Paizo (Pathfinder) and FFG (Warhammer 40K RPG) should also strive to move away from sexist art. They don't "represent" the industry like D&D does, but they do cater to the general gaming community.
And specialist products like I mention above (my desired 70s inspired cheesecake rpg) would have to walk a very careful line . . . or risk becoming the next F.A.T.A.L.
I don't mean to be insulting, but, um, do you actually know any female gamers?
Every single girl rpg gamer I've met (and talked about these issues with) feels the same way you do. That despite their love of the hobby, there is an overpowering feeling of "it's not for you".
Every single girl "nerd" that I've met into video games, cosplay, SCA and other related nerdy activities (who isn't already an rpg gamer) has expressed reluctance to even give it a try . . . and its never been because of all the violence, it's been because of the creepy sexist vibe our hobby gives off, in both artwork choices and male gamer attitudes. Our hobby has made huge strides since I started in the 80s as a kid, but this persists even today.
Also, every non-nerdy (or "normal") women that I've talked about rpgs with has also displayed an aversion to giving it a try due to the creep factor . . . rarely does violence get mentioned, although it has been a factor for a few.
I'm convinced that if the tabletop hobby wants to grow and survive against the onslaught of new media and not be confined to the niche hobby ghetto populated by old beardy fat guys (the one populated by model train enthusiasts), it needs to drop the sexist art. Plus, I see it as the "right" and "moral" thing to do anyway, so positives all around!
Last edited: