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

[Hussar]

You could think of it this way: How would you depict a nymph interacting with a party of all female adventurers?

Bow chicka bow wow...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is beyond ridiculous. D&D catering to white men isn't hurting anyone.

So, there's two possible options here. Either you really don't understand how D&D catering to white men hurts others, or you refuse to believe that D&D catering to white men hurts others.

If it's the former case, and you're open to challenging your assumptions, then we can have a discussion.

If it's the latter case, or you're not open to challenging your assumptions, then there's little point in maintaining a conversation, since you've made up your mind already.

So the rest of this post assumes you're open to discussion, and not just soapboxing.

You might disagree with it and want them to expand their market

It's not really about expanding the market for me, it's more about the ethical and moral imperatives of wielding power responsibly.

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.

Without dragging this too far into non-D&D-related stuff, all I'm gonna say is that stereotypes are pretty harmful to everyone involved. If commercials for D&D5e look like Evony, it's pretty much an insult to everyone. Male, female, gay, straight, rich, poor, black, white, other, the marketing makes the world a worse place for simply existing. It's clearly targeted at teenage-to-adult men, and EVERYONE should feel worse about that fact.

That's an example of how marketing insults people, even if they aren't the "target audience."

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.

It sounds foolish to me mostly because "Jocks" is a distinction with little real-world explanatory power. A person isn't defined by being a "jock" by society in general in the same way that a person is defined by being "black" or "a woman" by society in general. Being a jock means you like sports. Being a young african-american man means you can't wear a hoodie in Florida. Being a jock might mean you go to sports bars a lot. Being a woman means you get paid about 75% of what a man gets paid for the same work. It's a very different kind of division.

And, FWIW, my first gaming group was started and hosted by my school's star running back, and a lot of gamers I've known are ripped hyper-masculine military types, and one of my most recent gaming groups had a guy who never missed his gym appointment in it. So I don't think jocks are all that excluded from D&D as it is now, anyway.

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.

This is another one of those "two possible options" points. Either you honestly don't understand many of the reasons that there might not be many women in D&D, or you already have a preconceived notion of why that is, and aren't interested in changing that notion. We're still gonna assume the former for now.

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.)

Women are half of the world's population. About all I think one can reasonably say about an "average woman" is almost entirely biological in nature.

Which is to say, I think you are assuming too much.

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 don't believe there's anything inherent to the idea of D&D that needs to exclude quite as many people as it does now. When Will Wheaton and Vin Diesel and nude model Mandy all delight in the same thing, I think you can cast a pretty dang big net. It's probably never gonna be the Great American Passtime, but it doesn't need to be "that thing teenagers and neckbeards do," either. Mostly because if it is that thing, then I can't do it anymore.

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.

Like almost everything ever, there's not just one simple solution. We live in a complex, messy world. To deny that sexism plays ANY role is just as silly as saying that sexism is the ONLY reason. Especially given the legacy of crazy biases that D&D's source material fully embraces.

Y'know, I think H.P. Lovecraft is a pretty decent horror writer. But I'd never assume that his crazy racism (which was a bit par for the course in his day and age) isn't a problem just because "he's a niche market not targeted at people who aren't white." Same with Herman Melville, come to think of it.

And if he WAS that, well, that would be a problem in and of itself. It's not ethically or morally OK for something to be reserved on the basis of skin color.

Which is to say, if D&D actually is this thing you describe it as -- a niche product that does not generally include women -- then this is a problem for me. It's not ethically or morally OK for something to be reserved on the basis of gender identity.

And if it's not that inherently, then clearly D&D's "women problem" is something that can be and should be addressed.

... and if you ARE just soapboxing, feel free to passionately defend yourself against my heinous "politically correct" madness in an elaborate diatribe designed at winning points rather than coming to a greater understanding.

 

[Sunseeker]

When I ask for a non-sexualized nymph, I mean a nymph that is carrying along with her life without holding her breath waiting for the next man to come her way. You could think of it this way: How would you depict a nymph interacting with a party of all female adventurers?

Edit: I take the person who decided to quit EN World was Balsamic Dragon?

Well, assuming she's not a lesbian...I would expect sexy pillow fights followed by girls going "WWEEEEEWWWW!!!!" Or would that be considered sexist? /rhetorical

 

[I'm A Banana]

Oh! And let me talk a little bit about nymphs!

In my mind, nymphs are beautiful because they personify the beauty of nature. They are lovely because a field of flowers is lovely. They are beautiful because a mountain vista is beautiful. They are bare because nature provides all the clothing nature needs.

There's nothing in my mind inherently female about that. Beauty, power, majesty, nudity, but not femininity.

So in my mind, nymphs should be just as often male as female. And their beauty isn't gender dependent -- a nude man-nymph should blind anyone who beholds their true beauty. At that point, the beauty is a magical force, not an aesthetic.

Succubi fall into a different camp. A succubi might be basically genderless, able to take on any form that suits it, male or female. The point is seduction, and that also has no inherent gender. It must be sexy and seductive, IMO, but sex can be implied in a rakish smile or a noble's wealth just as much as it can be implied with ample bosoms and full lips. The target of the seduction dictates the form -- trying to seduce the queen that loves centaurs is going to be a lot different from trying to seduce the noble boy that loves big burly guys.

 

[Fifth Element]

If she's unable to post in an environment where people might disagree with her without suffering emotional distress, then it's better for her not to post here. I'd recommend RPG.net if she wants a feminist "safe zone."

I think this is a pretty narrow view of the situation, and borders on blaming the victim.

There's no reason the internet has to be a Wild West of denigration and vitriol. If reasonable people are put off by discussions on a forum, then at least part of the problem is likely the other posters on the forum.

 

[steeldragons]

Thank the gods that next week's art column starts a new thread...ya know, about the art.

Looking forward to it.

Carry on.
--SD

 

[Kaodi]

In my mind, nymphs are beautiful because they personify the beauty of nature. They are lovely because a field of flowers is lovely. They are beautiful because a mountain vista is beautiful. They are bare because nature provides all the clothing nature needs.

There's nothing in my mind inherently female about that. Beauty, power, majesty, nudity, but not femininity.

So in my mind, nymphs should be just as often male as female. And their beauty isn't gender dependent -- a nude man-nymph should blind anyone who beholds their true beauty. At that point, the beauty is a magical force, not an aesthetic.

Strictly speaking, I think nymphs can all be female without being the embodiment of feminine. The same as satyrs are all male but are not the embodiment of masculine.

 

[tuxgeo]

< . . . snip . . . >
Succubi fall into a different camp. A succubi might be basically genderless, able to take on any form that suits it, male or female. The point is seduction, and that also has no inherent gender. . . .

Yer Latin's impoverished, Good Sir!
Ex-poverate yer Latin, thus: Schtickopedia says this about succubus: ". . . a female demon. . . . The male counterpart is the incubus."

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yer Latin's impoverished, Good Sir!

Hahaha, yeah, but classic Nymphs were always female, too.

Succubi are female and incubi are male, but does gender even make sense when talking about D&D devils? D&D lore has them created from souls of the dead who have long ago forgotten whatever their original biological gender may have been. It's not like they get pregnant and reproduce with each other and have biological kids (though clearly they're able to with other creatures, given half-fiends and tieflings and suchlike). It's all a put-on for the mortals, no? Are succubi an incubi different, or different names for the same thing?

But anyway, that's probably Thinking Too Much About Fantasy. Still, I like the word "incubi." Feels kinda awesome on my tongue.

 

[Piratecat]

This thread is full of sexism, the obnoxious kind I kick people off the boards for. I don't have time to deal with it right now, other than banning one person in particular. So I'm closing this thread.

I'll be blunt. If you post something about women, and you can replace "women" and substitute in the race of your choice and have it be offensive, don't post it.