D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[Warbringer]

In context, it actually reads as a reference to *himself* as "some goob on a message board".

Then my apologies to KM for completely misreading

 

[CroBob]

On the sexualization of women in art; I like it. I'm not ashamed. I like pretty things, and unrealistic depictions of sexualized females are pretty. I just want to get this out in the open. I'm not going to lie in order to sound more meritorious or intellectual. However, the flip-side of this is that I also wouldn't mind the sexualization of men in art. Sure, I wouldn't pay as much attention to that as the women, but duh. However, this coin has a third side, and that's that I really don't think the books should support overt sexuality in the first place, thus neither should be part of the rules books. At the same time, I don't especially care if the armor in art for this fantastical, magic-filled world should be realistic in the slightest. If your barbarian gets a +6 armor mechanically, for a pair of leather shorts fluff-wise, I don't give two . If you want to wear just a thong and get a mechanical bonus of the equivalent, whatever. I don't care what your gender is, either.

But the books should only allow for it, not make it apparent in the art! Unless they do it equally for both sexes, but that might require an age restriction based on sexual content depending on the degree to which it's done.

 

[innerdude]

An education is not what is required. Backing up numbers and statistics that you cite with 'great confidence' as the basis for your argument is all that is being requested. This is not an unreasonable request.

What's missed in the argument about "sales numbers," regardless of effect or rationalization, is this basic premise:

The moral high ground, the road of integrity to take regarding over-sexualization and gender bias in D&D, would be to avoid it and promote equality, with a sensibility of fairness and respect, regardless of its actual effect on sales numbers.

Are we okay as a demographic with D&D selling more rulebooks by including sexual stereotyping and pandering? Historically, the answer to this question has been "yes." It's my opinion that there's really no longer any place for this in our hobby, at least in its most obvious, overt forms.

Does this mean art can't represent attractiveness effectively? No, but there's a balance to be had.

 

[Obryn]

But the books should only allow for it, not make it apparent in the art! Unless they do it equally for both sexes, but that might require an age restriction based on sexual content depending on the degree to which it's done.

The issue with "it's okay if it's both sexes!" is simply that the art exists within a cultural context. I don't think it's radical to propose that nearly-naked sorceresses and mighty-thewed barbarians mean something different when found in D&D art. Particularly in D&D culture and in "geek" culture in general, there's simply not an equivalence right now. It'd be awesome for the game to exist in a culture where "nearly-naked men" and "nearly-naked women" mean the same thing, but we don't.

-O

 

[JamesonCourage]

I've said it before and I'm saying it again, WotC should randomly roll all the attributes of all the various characters shown throughout the game, adjusting the random tables for specific requirements if necessary.

I so support this method. Random tables are just too D&D to stop using when it comes to art. As always, play what you like

D&D pronouns being 50-50% male-female pronouns seems a little like pandering to me, frankly.

I agree, honestly. I'm not against the idea, but, I don't know... it just came off as way too obvious. I'd like more subtlety. I saw a pretty even split in White Wolf's Mage book, but it didn't feel like pandering. I know my 3.5 book is almost all "she" and "her", and I don't think I have a problem with that. It just felt... forced, really. I'm not sure how to express why it felt that way, but it did.

I really don't mind an even split (or, one as perceived by me, since it's not like I ever did a tally). But, I'd like it to not be as forced. Then again, my mother -who used to hate D&D as part of a religious craze years ago- seemed to quite like the way they worded things (not that she knows how to play the game). I think there's merit in the split, I just want it to feel natural. And, unfortunately, I'm not sure how to go about making it feel that way; I just know I've seen it before, and it wasn't in any of my D&D books. As always, play what you like

We live in the age of information, anyone can access Wikipedia, and I am going to be a lot more rambly and sloppy in some casual message board conversation than would do the topic justice. I pity the fool that relies on me for their education.

You had time to dig up the Mr. T picture. Maybe next time, you can dig up that easily-accessed Wiki page and link that for the people that ask you to cite your "well-documented" sources that you have "great confidence" in. Just a thought. As always, play what you like

 

[Sunseeker]

Imagining a world that has never existed is kind of the point of playing a game of D&D.

However, it's not the point of being an art director for D&D.

I don't think WotC should confuse the two.

I kinda think it is. I mean, how can we as players be expected to imagine this world, if the art doesn't represent it? Our imaginations will naturally be weighted by the extent or limitations of the creativity within the game.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

While the discussion over what is the right thing to do is interesting, even if there is disagreement on what is right, for WOTC their overriding "right" has to be fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. They are morally obligated to do the best they can for the people who have invested in the company, and I've no doubt that that's what they'll do.

So what are the considerations? There are people that like women in chainmail bikinis who will buy more if they go that direction. There are people that are offended by such. I'd guess that the first group is much larger than the second, whether or not they're willing to own up to it on a public messageboard, so there will be chainmail bikinis.

There are people that would like to see nontraditional sexuality in games. If the game has such, it will make some additional sales to these folks. There are people who are offended by such and will not buy the books if this is included. I'd guess that the second group is much larger than the first and WOTC will act accordingly.

I think it comes down to a choice as to whether they will try to bring in new customers by changing the direction of the game a bit, or keeping current customers happy by staying the course.

 

[bogmad]

The issue with "it's okay if it's both sexes!" is simply that the art exists within a cultural context. I don't think it's radical to propose that nearly-naked sorceresses and mighty-thewed barbarians mean something different when found in D&D art. Particularly in D&D culture and in "geek" culture in general, there's simply not an equivalence right now. It'd be awesome for the game to exist in a culture where "nearly-naked men" and "nearly-naked women" mean the same thing, but we don't.

-O

Exactly. Which is why it would require an age restriction based on the sexual content. You could probably get away with more with just the sexualized females, but put males sexualized to the same extent (and *gasp* make some of them perhaps not even straight), and you'd get slapped with it being salacious and depraved so much faster. It would be awesome if that weren't the case. You're right.

Then the morally right thing to do is declare "That's why we can't have nice things!" and take away the nearly naked sorceress away until a certain vocal segment of the market can grow up a bit.

[* Not that it matters, but this is all devils advocate. I don't really want overtly sexualized men OR women in my standard D&D]

 

[bogmad]

While the discussion over what is the right thing to do is interesting, even if there is disagreement on what is right, for WOTC their overriding "right" has to be fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. They are morally obligated to do the best they can for the people who have invested in the company, and I've no doubt that that's what they'll do.

So what are the considerations? There are people that like women in chainmail bikinis who will buy more if they go that direction. There are people that are offended by such. I'd guess that the first group is much larger than the second, whether or not they're willing to own up to it on a public messageboard, so there will be chainmail bikinis.

There are people that would like to see nontraditional sexuality in games. If the game has such, it will make some additional sales to these folks. There are people who are offended by such and will not buy the books if this is included. I'd guess that the second group is much larger than the first and WOTC will act accordingly.

I think it comes down to a choice as to whether they will try to bring in new customers by changing the direction of the game a bit, or keeping current customers happy by staying the course.

What is the right thing in a business sense and what is morally right are two different things. The trick is to find a balance.

The thing is, are people NOT going to buy D&D just because it's lacking chainmail bikinis? That very well may be the assumption, but I think it's a flawed one. People can get the status quo confused for market reality when changing it is somehow deemed "radical," but I think the D&D brand is bigger than that. If I were going to try and sell it to the pure business guys at corporate I'd say "You can either expand the brand's demographic or cling to a diminishing share, and cheesecake is statistically irrelevant to keeping the core demo loyal anyway, so why bother with it?"

Big corporations love all that "brand identity" talk for some reason.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You had time to dig up the Mr. T picture. Maybe next time, you can dig up that easily-accessed Wiki page and link that for the people that ask you to cite your "well-documented" sources that you have "great confidence" in. Just a thought. As always, play what you like

Honestly, what you really want is in books of marketing research and the like- not well represented on the Internet. And I'm not in the business of tracking down quotes from textbooks to prove a point on the Internet. However, there is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_in_advertising

It points out the history of sex in ads, and some of ths studies that have led to the marketing motto: "Sex sell." It also notes that some recent studies showing the occasional backlash or lack of correlation.

What I learned in pursuing my MBA in marketing was "Sex sells...but it doesn't sell everything." And in some cases, other images are more appealing to the target market. It isn't an accident that you see a lot of dragons on the covers of FRPG products and fantasy novels, for instance.

Still, even the most recent research doesn't overturn the concept that the link between using sexual imagery and attracting males aged 13-21 is pretty solid.