D&D 5E D&D Next Art Column Discussion: May

[delericho]

You mentioned Lord of the Rings. That's not a bad goalpost, actually. The LotR trilogy had Boromir riddled with arrows, corpses laying about, partly-rotted ghosts, on-screen dismemberment (for Lurtz, in FotR), some bloodshed, but nothing overt (certainly nothing compared to other Peter Jackson movies). That's something I'd aim for in D&D art.

I could buy in to that. Especially if it meant getting a nicely gritty style of art in place of the somewhat cartoonish art that we sometimes got in 4e, the dungeonpunk look of 3e, or something that looks like it's stepped out of a Final Fantasy computer game.

(I don't have anything about those styles in context, but my preference would be otherwise.)

 

[Klaus]

While I certainly voted for significant violence to be allowable, I think the starting age should certainly be teenagers. 10 is too young to play, 12 is pushing it, but smarter and more mature kids of that age starting D&D is fine, but really the game should be intended for those who are at least teenagers. That was roughly where I started to get interested in the game, and that's where I think others should start.

My teenage years is roughly when I also started playing video games with significant violence (with games like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom), so that I feel should be a guideline of age and depictions of violence.

I started to play at age 12, and one of my players' sons has started his own group at age 9.

 

[steeldragons]

I started at age 10, so that's what I put the age at.

That said, what passed for age 10 in 1908 [LOL that's a typo, I meant 1980, but 1908 is sometimes what it feels like!] is most definitely NOT what passes for age 10 in 2012.

My partner's nephews, ages 11 and 7 or 8, are Call of Duty afficianados! It is DISGUSTING, for me, to watch them play the "shoot-em-up/military/covert-ops" video games.

THANKFULLY D&D IS NOT A VIDEO GAME!!!!

As for gore and violence, I don't know how much the art in the books needs to portray this. I voted "Mild" (was that a choice? Maybe it was "Moderate"?).

Should there be depictions of combat? Absolutely! Should I see people clashing swords, denting shields and maybe wounded with some scrapes or [barely!] bleeding cuts? Absolutely! We have to let the players know this is not a "safe" game where they get whatever they want and always "win", after all!

People/creatures shrieking in obvious pain as the recipient of "X" spell? Absolutely.

The section on healing rules, should I see adventurers bandaged with blood seeping through or arms in slings and legs in splints? Absolutely.

Decaying undead and/or disease riddled people? Absolutely.

Maybe someone in a group/market kinda image who is using a crutch because he has no leg from the knee down? Sure.

Someone turned into a pincushion with arrows or monster quills? Sure.

Do I need images in the combat section of someone's arm being removed from their shoulder with blood spurting out? Do I need a "realistic portrayal" of someone being disemboweled?

NO! No no no. Again (in case it wasn't clear), NO!

Dismemberment (portrayed as it happens), decapitations, spurting blood and other gory guts strewn all over the place? NO!

That's the kind of thing I can take care of descriptively IN play at MY table...if I have a table who a) likes that sorta thing and/or b) is mature enough to handle it.

The GAME should be portrayed in the PG-13/Mild-to-Moderate Bloody Guts. It's "Dungeons & Dragons" not "Guts & Gore [literally]."

Also, wanted to second Gold Roger's comment and give props to [MENTION=17608]jon[/MENTION] Schindhette for really tackling the tough questions and really taking an interest in what we have to say...AND for giving us polls where the options are not just "1) What we want 2) What we want anyway, said differentlt 3)What we really don't want, make that clear in the wording and will obviously ignore it anyway."

Thanks for that.
--SD

 

[steeldragons]

I started at age 10, so that's what I put the age at.

That said, what passed for age 10 in 1908 [LOL that's a typo, I meant 1980, but 1908 is sometimes what it feels like!] is most definitely NOT what passes for age 10 in 2012.

My partner's nephews, ages 11 and 7 or 8, are Call of Duty afficianados! It is DISGUSTING, for me, to watch them play the "shoot-em-up/military/covert-ops" video games.

THANKFULLY D&D IS NOT A VIDEO GAME!!!!

As for gore and violence, I don't know how much the art in the books needs to portray this. I voted "Mild" (was that a choice? Maybe it was "Moderate"?).

Should there be depictions of combat? Absolutely! Should I see people clashing swords, denting shields and maybe wounded with some scrapes or [barely!] bleeding cuts? Absolutely! We have to let the players know this is not a "safe" game where they get whatever they want and always "win", after all!

People/creatures shrieking in obvious pain as the recipient of "X" spell? Absolutely.

The section on healing rules, should I see adventurers bandaged with blood seeping through or arms in slings and legs in splints? Absolutely.

Decaying undead and/or disease riddled people? Absolutely.

Maybe someone in a group/market kinda image who is using a crutch because he has no leg from the knee down? Sure.

Someone turned into a pincushion with arrows or monster quills? Sure.

Do I need images in the combat section of someone's arm being removed from their shoulder with blood spurting out? Do I need a "realistic portrayal" of someone being disemboweled?

NO! No no no. Again (in case it wasn't clear), NO!

Dismemberment (portrayed as it happens), decapitations, spurting blood and other gory guts strewn all over the place? NO!

That's the kind of thing I can take care of descriptively IN play at MY table...if I have a table who a) likes that sorta thing and/or b) is mature enough to handle it.

The GAME should be portrayed in the PG-13/Mild-to-Moderate Bloody Guts. It's "Dungeons & Dragons" not "Guts & Gore [literally]."

Also, wanted to second Gold Roger's comment and give props to [MENTION=17608]jon[/MENTION] Schindhette for really tackling the tough questions and really taking an interest in what we have to say...AND for giving us polls where the options are not just "1) What we want 2) What we want anyway, said differently or 3)What we really don't want, make that clear in the wording and will obviously ignore it anyway."

Thanks for that.
--SD

 

[Sunseeker]

I started to play at age 12, and one of my players' sons has started his own group at age 9.

Noone is disputing that people can and do start young when playing D&D. But I do not believe that the average 9-12 year-old should be the target audience of D&D.

I agree with others that D&D should generally be considered PG-13 content(which is honestly a lot more PG than it was 20 years ago) and that 13 should be considered the minimum target age, and the youngest age that should be viewing the content without adult supervision.

If people OVER the age of 13 purchase D&D and want to allow kids under the age of 13 to play, as I assume you were probably interested in D&D by your parents or peers just as your got your kids into it, then that's their business. But products designed for tweens or children are not the area I want D&D marketed into.

 

[Klaus]

Noone is disputing that people can and do start young when playing D&D. But I do not believe that the average 9-12 year-old should be the target audience of D&D.

I agree with others that D&D should generally be considered PG-13 content(which is honestly a lot more PG than it was 20 years ago) and that 13 should be considered the minimum target age, and the youngest age that should be viewing the content without adult supervision.

If people OVER the age of 13 purchase D&D and want to allow kids under the age of 13 to play, as I assume you were probably interested in D&D by your parents or peers just as your got your kids into it, then that's their business. But products designed for tweens or children are not the area I want D&D marketed into.

No one is designing a product for age X, Y or Z. But, as with the sexism issue, you should take care that your product doesn't *exclude* ages X, Y or Z.

And there's a lot of leeway there. AD&D was listed as Ages 10+, after all.

 

[Sunseeker]

No one is designing a product for age X, Y or Z. But, as with the sexism issue, you should take care that your product doesn't *exclude* ages X, Y or Z.

What is generally acceptable viewing is a lot different than what is or isnt sexist. Some folks don't mind if their 5-year-old is playing GTAIII. Some folks would be upset if their 25-year-old daughter was reading Harry Potter.

And I don't think it's realistic that we can include ALL age groups in D&D.

And there's a lot of leeway there. AD&D was listed as Ages 10+, after all.

As I mentioned, what's PG-13 now would have been PG back in the 80's.

 

[delericho]

As I mentioned, what's PG-13 now would have been PG back in the 80's.

Some of what is PG-13 now would have been PG then. Conversely, some of what is PG-13 now would have been R then. Oddly, it seems that our standards have moved to being much more permissive of gore, and much less permissive of language and nudity.

 

[Sunseeker]

Some of what is PG-13 now would have been PG then. Conversely, some of what is PG-13 now would have been R then. Oddly, it seems that our standards have moved to being much more permissive of gore, and much less permissive of language and nudity.

Generally speaking I believe that's true. As a political science major, there are a lot of ties to what's going on IRL that have caused this, but that's neither here nor there, and not content for this forums.

Language doesn't get a lot of representation in D&D, perhaps in the novels, but then I don't read those so I don't know. I don't really think that's going to be an issue, as long as D&D books are written at roughly readers digest level I don't think anyone will complain about it's complexity.

D&D is, will, and must have gore, to some degree, in it's art. You can't write/draw about big battles and then pretend everything is cuts and burises and dramatic blood-drips under the eyes.

I don't think D&D should tip-toe around sexuality, but it probably will have to. I'd like to see some art of heroes rescuing damsels, heroines rescuing dames and a little bit of the same for guy-guy, girl-girl. It's well past the 90's folks. But I'd want all that to stay PG, kissing, hugging, that sort of thing, we don't need a repeat of NU25 Batman and Catwoman. Yes yes I know some sensibilities may be bothered by same-sex romance in art, but lets face it, those folks are likely the ones who still think D&D is Satanic, I doubt they're a market anyone cares about.

 

[Hussar]

I think it is good to remember that D&D has always really been about 10+ for the vast majority of its art. Nothing in AD&D outside of the Fiend Folio would be a problem for the 10+ crowd. Maybe the odd nipple, but, that's about it. Certainly the art in B/X wouldn't cause any eyebrows to raise.

Yeah, I'd agree that Lord of the Rings makes a pretty good baseline. You do have on screen death, and some pretty scary scenes, but, not a whole lot more. I would go with "anything that can be shown on NBC at 8 pm" as a baseline.

And, yeah, I'm showing my age about the comic books. I kinda got out of things in the 90's, so, my knowledge is horribly outdated. My only real connections anymore are animated series and the movies.