Sexism and presumed sexism in RPGs

[Alzrius]

Sure. I use D&D3.5. Ps. I really hate multi-quoting by hand. this site should just quote all your paragraphs for me so I can interject more easily.

Wow that'd be useful, which is probably why we'll never see it.

Players will generally choose the best option for their PC. That usually means maxing their AC to the limits their class allows. Nobody chooses to have a 12AC if they can get a 15AC, ceteris paribus.

I didn't quite say sexy armor doesn't exist. At least not in the way you meant I meant it.
Bikini armor does not exist in the RAW. It's not on the equipment list. Somebody had to make it up.
Whereas, full plate armor that just happens to be full plate armor with some cleavage is not contradicted in the rules. It's no different than saying your armor has shoulder spikes.

I then expounded on the hypothesis that bikini chick was really protected by magic, and not just the physical materials of her chainmail bikini. If she was protected by magic, she could just as soon apply that magic to real armor and get a better AC bonus for just the armor.

I think where we're differing is that I'm saying it's virtually never ceteris paribus, both because things don't work like that in-game, and because of the myriad options and differences in builds that make any sort of "equity of options," in a universal sense, extremely difficult at best.

Likewise, while bikini armor doesn't exist in the Core Rules for 3.X or Pathfinder, simply for the purposes of the discussion we're having we need to agree on some baseline game stats (which we did), simply because if we want to render a picture of a woman so clad into D&D terms, there needs to be some sort of game rules interpretation; if it's not in the RAW, then we just need to create a close approximation or find a supplement that does.

Since the debate was about art in RPGs which is what inspires or dismays players by its depiction of women, my thesis was that we are in effect justifying whether such armor feasible. @Umbran used real world logic. I used game world logic.

I don't disagree, I just don't think that game world logic means that you'll (from an in-game perspective) always have access to everything you'd want either. Sometimes it's not about "what's best?" but "what's available right now?"

Sexy looking armor that is in effect normal armor is a non-issue. It's armor and I wouldn't bother modelling any detrimental impact.

Bikini armor is less than full armor. You have a good example that does make it feasible below. barring that, I stand by my ruling.

That's fine, I wasn't challenging your ruling in that regard; I was just saying that you'll be able to find a build dedicated to making anything useful, no matter how outlandish or useless it may seem.

Once again, actual Bikini armor is partial armor, and falls under partial armor abjudication rules, and not descriptive armor rules which is "if it pretty much performs like the rules say, and looks sexy or spiky its fine"

I don't care to get into metrics on exactly where the line is between descriptive armor and skin slots so big she might as well be in a chainmail bikini. For one, it doesn't actually come up in my games. For two, I'm giving my general approach to how I'd handle a situation that does not come up.

I'd classify it as piecemeal armor under the variant rules in Ultimate Combat myself.

Let's leave off descriptively sexy armor. That is fully functional armor that happens to have some flair or cleaviness to it. It's normal armor as far as I care to model.

Therefore, what remains is partial armor, stereotyped as Bikini Chain Mail.

That's fine, particularly since you don't want to chart any sort of dividing line (though there is a continuum between "form" and "function"), though I wouldn't call it "chain mail" per se (as per the druid build above). For the sake of this discussion we can keep it limited to (non-metal) bikini armor.

That's true. However, I've never rolled up Bikini Chainmail on the treasure tables, so the players aren't likely to find a pair. I assume they might make them, if they should spring into existance.

Fair enough, but this isn't about what you or I would do at the game table. This is about the game interpretation of an existing picture, so we're looking at it as its own thing.

It's a valid point that I hadn't considered the game at the extreme end of stats. I would suspect that this is a high level game. I suppose 20th level people can prance about in chainmail bikinis if it is tactically sound.

Perhaps depressingly, I've seen characters get stats like this while still in the single digits (e.g. by point buying an 18 Dex score, +2 racial bonus, +1 4th-level ability point, +1 8th-level ability point, and a belt of incredible dexterity +6, this can be achieved by level 9).

I imagine though, if I brought in such items, if I would then have backlash from female players for sexualizing the game because I brought in items meant to optimize them tactically while tarting them up.

But again, that's not what you and I are talking about; we're going over the in-game rational for women in skimpy armor, and if magic and other tactics make that viable or not.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

Art is a highly subjective thing...where one person see's a scantily clad, submissive and sexist picture another person could just see it as just a pretty or sexy or erotic or beautiful or, well, a near endless variety of possible perspectives.

When somebody draws a character, we don't know what that person is thinking as they draw it... sure maybe they are drawing a subjugation of a woman... or maybe they are not, but they can't help how others will view it.

I totally respect TanithT's perspective and she feels very strongly, but I know that I would see the same art differently. But I like women, and I like boobs and I know it's all just art but it's possible that because I like women my view is skewed...

Where I do agree with her is that I like art that makes sense. If I am looking at art in the sword and sorcery genre than I know to expect near naked girls wearing provacative clothing and men in loincloths with huge muscles wielding a giant broadsword or near naked women wielding dark magic summoning demons from the underworld and... I could go on.

I know not all sword and sorcery stories include these images, but many do. Blame Conan. I do, but not to his face.

I like art to make sense. I know it's ludicrous to see bikini chainmail and I never think of it in a roleplaying game and the only times it ever came up in a game was when a guy was trying to play a female character and had to be educated on the matter, but it's art. It's one person's inspiration, for whatever reason, and that's it.

It's just art.

Just one woman's opinion. In fact, the only book I found sexist for roleplaying was the Book of Erotic Art... IMO it's worthless and should have. Never seen the light of day. That book is tasteless.

But I like to keep my roleplaying at PG13, maybe R in some games... not XXX.

 

[Elf Witch]

because it is porn. eye cancy or pre-porn. She's wearing sexy armor because sex sells and she looks good in it.

Or she's wearing skimpy outfits because she chose it off the rack. Go to the mall, or just about anywhere. Many of the outfits worn by the females aren't chosen for their practicality or durability. So it is quite possible that a female adventurer MIGHT choose cleavage armor over a proper piece of plate.

And actually, a woman MIGHT tactically choose full plater cups (assuming a proper fit) over a man's plate for comfort, appearance, and psychological impact (a male enemy might spend a little more time oggling your armor, than hitting you). I would agree that faux armor that's really lingerie is stupid. But I have no doubt that a woman would prefer sexy AND functional armor over ugly functional armor or sexy armor.



When was the last time Frazetta's art was used in a modern RPG? Rhetorical question, I'm sure somebody will have a link to his latest work from last week...

Frazetta and his work is from the era of the weak female in need of rescue. Complaining about him is like complaining about not having the right to vote. We all agreed and passed that ammendment already. There's still men who smack their wives around, but we don't much like them either.

What has WotC done wrong lately? Have they used any Frazetta or Elmore paintings (who mostly paints his wife with various hairstyles)?

I have no doubt there's plenty of sexualized content, women who look really good in revealing outfits. But they're no longer sitting at the feet of strong males with abs of steel and beltlines just above their junk.

I can't say if all the sexualization in media is good or bad. But sexualization today does not always equal weak, submissive women.

Woman who dress in skimpy clothes at the mall are not expecting to go into battle. Tell me the last time you saw a female soldier in a combat zone dressed in high heels and mini skirt?

And if she wants to actually stay alive she will soon make sure she has proper armor before the rest of the party get annoyed with her stupidity using up all the healing magic.

As for armor with the big boobs a metal bra is never comfortable. Back in my 20s I wore all kinds of armor and let me tell you full plate that fits is far more comfortable than any chain mail bra.

That armor with the defined breast is going to guide the sword straight into your heart but hey you will look hot as you die.

There has been plenty of roll your eyes in DnD art. Why are most female wizards shown in gowns that are split everywhere. It is one thing if she as to get to her tattoos. In that case I could see her totally naked and covered all over with them and I wouldn't bat an eye.

I think the point Tanith is making is context matters. If every male in the picture is covered in furs in the frozen tundra but the female character is half naked then that is a sexualized portrayal of the woman.

I remember looking through one of the Mongoose books and it has topless female as an example of a sorceresses I was like why.

If I see a half naked succubus that makes sense because she is a demon who uses sex to trap and kill.

But a cleric of Herioneus with the peek a boo armor makes me go why. Do the female clerics have to service the male clerics as part of their order? Which does not fit the the whole chivalry and honor theme.

A woman or a man can look sexy because they are attractive with out being shown in a sexual way.

Sex sells as a woman we are taught very early that looks matter. No one ever wrote that Winston Churchill was looking old and tired but they write those things about Hillary Clinton. Roseanne Barr weight was often talked about not so much her co star John Goodman. If man is attractive it is a bonus but he can get away with not being as attractive if he is smart, powerful, rich a woman will always be judged on her looks as well as everything else. And woman do it to each other as often ans men do it to us.

In most of my fantasy games I prefer a little more equality in my genders. A powerful swordswoman can be as powerful as a male swordsmen. I just like the art for the powerful swordswoman to reflect that.

 

[Elf Witch]

I think that is a mistaken assumption. Most DM's will say they are wearing leather or chain or plate and leave it at that. If a player picks an image for their fantasy character with skimpy tight leather they think is cool or boob window armor they think is cool, or impractical fantasy jumbo plate with lots of parts sticking out they think is cool, I believe most DMs will say "fine, whatever" and not "How functionally impractical, take an AC penalty."

This DM does not. If you bring me a picture of peek a boo full armor that bares any amount of skin I will not allow the full bonus.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

The most recent books I've looked through (and facepalmed at) have all been Pathfinder.

Lol. Oh yes. Some of my friends have jokingly nicknamed some ladies in in recent book in that good gods book "ladies to masturbate to". Not that they do, but bothering to joke about it, tells a lot.

And some of this game from fully dressed pictures, because of facial expression and pose.

Then again I go, ooh, hot guy for some pics, but they are minority compared to ladies.

I like the art though, but some clothes choices feel cartoonish/manga fantasy.
Very colorful, somewhat weird, that sort of thing.

However what Pathfinder does I feel is rather cool and also gives sense of power and cool. My oh-my-god-please-lol-moments all relate recently to MMORPG art. Rifts has some special moments, but more of it belongs to certain logalized asian games. Don't recall the name, have played rifts but not that one.

However I mostly dislike bigger than life swords and shouders. Something MMO:s have a lot.

Putting some sexual innuendo into everything/or suppressing it all seems to be modern trend. And I don't think it's goiing to change until some larger, more relevant troubles hit our culture, when bread and circus isn't enough anymore.

 

[Lwaxy]

Why is it taken for granted that using the female form for purely aesthetic purposes is a sexual fetish? It seems (to me) to be a very puritanical, very prudish way of thinking about it. Either that, or we just have really, really dirty minds.

For one, because this is very likely turning the female into an object.

If you have a very strong female image of someone NOT constantly portrayed as a sex object, a well done image with much skin showing can do the opposite; it can show that this isn't only a fighter/wizard/whatever, but also a woman.

Usually though, you get characters always portrayed in skimpy outfit. And this does not only put females as objects, it also says that if you are a female and you don't look like this, you aren't really a woman. This is of course an issue in all of western society. From all sorts of stupid advertising to the stars and starlets of today.

I'd have a lot less issues with half naked women if they were not slim and large-breasted, but looked like the average population, maybe even on the fat side. Gamers tend to claim that you don't want your PC to be on the fat side even if you are fat IRL, but that's not quite true to my experience. You just need to make it possible for the players.

 

[enrious]

It's been often mused, but I wonder if Marilyn Monroe would have made it into a modern publication.

 

[Umbran]

When somebody draws a character, we don't know what that person is thinking as they draw it... sure maybe they are drawing a subjugation of a woman... or maybe they are not, but they can't help how others will view it.

If you're drawing for your own enjoyment, well, then you do what you like. But, if you are drawing for publication it is your job to communicate what you're thinking to the viewer. That's the point of art!

Now, you're correct in that the artist doesn't have full control of what the audience thinks, but the artist should be able to take a lot of things into account, choosing their presentation to direct the audience and minimize miscommunication.

I'd have a lot less issues with half naked women if they were not slim and large-breasted, but looked like the average population, maybe even on the fat side. Gamers tend to claim that you don't want your PC to be on the fat side even if you are fat IRL, but that's not quite true to my experience. You just need to make it possible for the players.

Well, here we hit another realism problem. Unlike the chainmail bikini, though, realism argues for the current depictions, rather than against.

The Western World is well-known for being well-fed and poorly exercised. If your game takes place in modern America, and the characters are supposed to be average people, then by all means they should look like average people.

But, D&D is typically a game of action-adventure heroes. They make their way through the world running, jumping, lifting, and fighting. Assuming you live through it, that kind of life should leave you pretty darned fit, and looking more like someone who could make it through special forces training without too much trouble, and less like a couch potato.

 

[Elf Witch]

For one, because this is very likely turning the female into an object.

If you have a very strong female image of someone NOT constantly portrayed as a sex object, a well done image with much skin showing can do the opposite; it can show that this isn't only a fighter/wizard/whatever, but also a woman.

Usually though, you get characters always portrayed in skimpy outfit. And this does not only put females as objects, it also says that if you are a female and you don't look like this, you aren't really a woman. This is of course an issue in all of western society. From all sorts of stupid advertising to the stars and starlets of today.

I'd have a lot less issues with half naked women if they were not slim and large-breasted, but looked like the average population, maybe even on the fat side. Gamers tend to claim that you don't want your PC to be on the fat side even if you are fat IRL, but that's not quite true to my experience. You just need to make it possible for the players.

I agree with the big breasts woman come in all sizes and I would like to see this more in art.

But I don't want to see adventurers as fat and flabby not in a fantasy world especially one where the adventures walk or ride horses everywhere. Riding horses gives you well developed thigh muscles. I think Umbran summed it up the fighters should look like they could at least be fit enough for the special forces and the wizards should at least look like they can walk through a dungeon without wheezing.

 

[Janx]

so what can we take from all this?

I'm wary of a "It must change because it offends me" metric. It's too easily a slippery slope argument that we can always find someone with even more restrictive preferences who will object to anything.

We as players and as GMs don't have direct control over the art direction in gaming products anyway. It's just not logical to get mad at your GM for the art in the Pathfinder book that you find offensive, at least not unless he chose to use the Book of Offensive Art Images as his source material which is a bit blatant on his part.

However, this site sits as a crossroads where sometimes game company people do see what's being said. It is not impossible for a top Paizo employee to see the concerns over some of the imagery.

What practical changes would you like to see made to the art in RPGs. Is there a middle ground of what you would accept as an honest change, but not completely as far as you'd like to see things go?

Here's what I think would be fair:

differentiate between art for art books, calendars and posters which may be quite risque, from art used in and on game books.

Game book art should be showing things that are in genre, make sense, and fit with the materials in the book. A sexy woman would not likely be slogging through a swamp with her party in her Prom dress or lingerie, while the rest of the male party is properly atired.

Thus, art in game books should show women wearing gear and clothes appropriate to the activity and scene like her male counterparts.

The evil female sorceress in the middle of her summoning spell should probably dress like she might be interrupted by a meddling adventure party, rather than after she slipped into something more comfortable, summoned a demon, and then was going back into the bedroom to seduce a man.

I don't think we'll get away from armor with cleavage or silly spikes. Artists will want to make stuff spicy, but the art chosen for "picture of adventurers fighting goblins" can at least look like the woman is as prepared for the fight as the men.

Additionally, I think there may be some benefit to having armors depicting some feminine traits. It means the women viewers can tell the women from the men, and be inspired to envision themselves in the scene and game. If you get too practical/realistic with the art, then you shouldn't easily tell the difference, and at that point, it might as well be a guy underneath that helmet.