D&D 5E D&D Next weekly art column!

[Klaus]

Quick note:

When the next Dragon's Eye article comes out next Wednesday (May 9th), I'll start a new thread for it. And then I'll start a new thread every month, to keep thread sizes manageable.

Back to the topic at hand:
Saying that female adventurers should never dress sexy is as sexist as saying they should always dress sexy. I prefer if the character's clothing and pose *make sense*, whether it's a no-nonsense, utilitarian garb for a serious character or a titillating, provocative garb for a character that revels in her physical attractiveness.

There's this saying*: The bigger your brush, the less accurate is the painting you make.

* - which I totally made up.

 

[Kaodi]

If there were Iconics (and I hope there are), would it make sense for them to have two standard garbs: adventuring clothes and non-adventuring clothes? Contrary to much D&D art, I kind of doubt it would be particularly desirable to sit around in the tavern all night with anything heavier than a chain shirt.

 

[mudbunny]

In the end, as Klaus said, the art needs to make sense.

Also, I think that it is important to distinguish between art that is sexy and art that is sexist. The two overlap some, but it is not a perfect overlap.

 

[B.T.]

On this, you want to be very careful. There is an immense difference between someone who thinks you might be insensitive, and you publishing a D&D book with stripperrific ladies. It's a power dynamic -- you being accused of being insensitive doesn't hurt you that much, socially (among other things, you have a chance to prove your innocence, and a platform willing to hear it). A fourteen year old hispanic girl picking up her first PHB and seeing, well, that PHB cover, has already been told in a hundred different ways that she should be a pale-skinned sex object to boys. And then D&D tells her that, too. There's not much of a chance to be something else. Society has a place for 50 year old white men who struggle to overcome bias. Society has a much smaller, less secure place for fourteen year old hispanic girls who struggle with body image issues. Your position probably won't lead you to depression, eating disorders, and self-loathing, for one. Hers might.

All that is just to say what Uncle Ben said much better: with great power, comes great responsibility. You're a 50 year old white man who directs the art on one of the biggest brands in fantasy. You're at least middle class, you live in the developed world, you probably heave health insurance, a savings account, a modest retirement fund, possibly a family. You have great power. If you don't use it responsibly, people will get hurt. Maybe in ways you can't readily see, and that are only to the smallest degree something you can affect, but you won't be doing anyone any favors with it.

This is beyond ridiculous. D&D catering to white men isn't hurting anyone. You might disagree with it and want them to expand their market, but to say they are causing harm is preposterous. That would be like saying that the NFL and NBA catering to men who like sports is hurting men who don't like sports, or that romance novels catering to women is hurting men. (Hint: I don't like sports or romance novels. My life is not in any way worsened by the existence of those two things.)

Using that sort of reasoning, you could claim that D&D was hurting jocks because it wasn't marketed at them, which I think we'll all agree is...foolish. D&D was created out of a predominantly male culture that focused on strategic wargaming. This was primarily a male pursuit because, on the whole, women aren't that interested in simulating fights between dudes stabbing each other. Given that D&D focuses on simulating fights between dudes stabbing each other, women are less interested in the hobby than other, traditionally feminine pursuits. It's not because of sexism or "power dynamics"; it's because D&D is a niche hobby catering to male interests involving math and killing things.

Now, you personally might know a woman who is interested in D&D. Good for you. I know several. I also realize that if I were to go up to the average woman and say, "Hey, you want to play in this fantasy game where you make a character and kill trolls and ogres and get treasure?" she would look at me funny and go back to whatever it is women do in their spare time. (That last bit is a joke.)

Niche markets have always existed. They will continue to exist. Lorraine Williams tried to turn D&D from a niche market product into a product for everyone. It failed because turning a game that focuses on trolls, wizards, and d20s is not a product that will appeal to everyone. Turning it into something else might be well-intentioned, but it is foolhardy.

I have no issue with including more "diverse" art in D&D. But let's not pretend that the reason there are few female D&D players is because of sexism.

At the very least, you'll have a situation where my stridently race-and-gender-aware and slightly dorky girlfriend isn't interested in D&D because it continues to be a thinly veiled white middle-class adolescent male power fantasy, and leave me try to overcome things like the 4e PHB cover.

I suspect the problem here is not with D&D.

 

[Incenjucar]

D&D catering to white men isn't hurting anyone.

History proves otherwise. Thankfully, WotC is aware of that, and is constantly working toward trying to make the game for people regardless of their genetics.

 

[B.T.]

History proves otherwise.

Really? I'm interested in hearing how.

 

[Incenjucar]

Really? I'm interested in hearing how.

D&D is a very visible property. It affects gaming and geek cultures in the short and long term, despite the myriad other influences that tend to overshadow it. If it presents a strong bias that makes a group uncomfortable, it discourages that group from participating in the culture, which may add conflicts to their relationships that are formed within that culture. Moreover, the depictions, being visible, reinforce discomfort people have with their place in the larger culture. Ultimately, this restricts the value of the property, eliminating a portion of its present and likely future audience.

An RPG should cater to people who like RPGs. RPGs are enjoyed by people of all sexes and races. Moreover, there are plenty of white men who dislike things being catered to white men, so this would make them uncomfortable as well.

I mean cripes man, read the Astrid's Parlor forums for a tiny sample.

 

[B.T.]

D&D is a very visible property. It affects gaming and geek cultures in the short and long term, despite the myriad other influences that tend to overshadow it. If it presents a strong bias that makes a group uncomfortable, it discourages that group from participating in the culture, which may add conflicts to their relationships that are formed within that culture. Moreover, the depictions, being visible, reinforce discomfort people have with their place in the larger culture. Ultimately, this restricts the value of the property, eliminating a portion of its present and likely future audience.

An RPG should cater to people who like RPGs. RPGs are enjoyed by people of all sexes and races. Moreover, there are plenty of white men who dislike things being catered to white men, so this would make them uncomfortable as well.

I mean cripes man, read the Astrid's Parlor forums for a tiny sample.

D&D catering to white men isn't hurting anyone.

History proves otherwise.

I should clarify: I was asking for empirical evidence to prove the above claim, not assertions that D&D caused racial conflicts.

 

[Incenjucar]

I should clarify: I was asking for empirical evidence to prove the above claim.

Courtney Stoker on Feminist Geek - The Sexist

It's regarding a Dr. Who forum, but it's an example you can find all over the place, including here:

" lasted a whole week or two before being told that I was a crazy, over-emotional lady, using my crazy, over-emotional lady problems to ruin everyone's good-natured fun. I avoided forums after that, but still listened to podcasts and found a few Doctor Who blogs that weren't overly upsetting."

 

[B.T.]

Courtney Stoker on Feminist Geek - The Sexist

It's regarding a Dr. Who forum, but it's an example you can find all over the place, including here:

" lasted a whole week or two before being told that I was a crazy, over-emotional lady, using my crazy, over-emotional lady problems to ruin everyone's good-natured fun. I avoided forums after that, but still listened to podcasts and found a few Doctor Who blogs that weren't overly upsetting."

When I say "empirical," I mean actual studies, like when a scientist has a hypothesis, performs a reproducible experiment, and draws conclusions based on the results of that experiment. Not a blog article where a woman complains about "douchey white dudes with entitlement issues" who were irritated that she started disrupting the forum. (Ironic that a feminist who thinks that a show should cater to her whims is calling others entitled, but that is beside the point.)

Chances are, the assessment that she was using her "crazy, over-emotional lady problems to ruin everyone's good-natured fun" was accurate. If you come screeching into a forum where people are discussing the plot of a television show and start accusing the show of racism and sexism and classism, you are ruining things. This is especially true when her attitude is ugh, douchey white dudes. (Hypocritically sexist and racist, of course--if someone wrote "douchey black chicks," the author would be up in arms about it.)

If, on the other hand, the author had simply joined the Dr. Who community and posted sans the snark and feminist deconstruction, I'm sure there would have been no problems with her fitting in.