How do you feel about nudity in RPG books?

[Bedrockgames]

As you say, though, somewhat off topic. To answer the original question, though, nudity as such wouldn't bother me at all, but then I don't have young kids. North America seems to be way more sensitive about nudity than folk I meet over here in Europe, but even that I suspect might be heavily related to proximity to the "religious right" (in geographical, not just political terms, that is).

Oddly enough it doesn't seem confined to one political viewpoint. The reactions against nudity in RPGs I've seen on threads I started on this topic are all over the map.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I don't have a problem with well done nudity, though a book that is focused around nudity or sexual themes isn't something that is going to work at my table as it doesn't fit into what we want from an adventure game.

The 1e monster manual or D&DG books had bits of nudity, breasts, and they weren't gratuitous. Stuff like that is fine. Stuff like the book of erotic fantasy seemed puerile but to each his own.

 

[TreChriron]

Damn. I don't think I wanted to learn that Black Tokyo even existed.

No mature gaming group would ever even entertain the possibility of playing a game like that. ...

I find your all-inclusive statement and admonishment to be absurd. I appreciate that you nor your group wants to play a Hentai game. Awesome! Lots of people don't like sex in their adventure games nor would they like to explore erotic themes in their games.

But if a bunch of adults get together and decide it would be fun to explore the darkly erotic, who are you to judge them "immature"?

It's not a matter of "maturity". Your faux-fact exclamation is speaking for a whole populace of gamers you couldn't possibly speak for. I could suggest someone naively making such a statement is immature; the thought of exploring something that obviously makes them so uncomfortable yielding such a childish response.

You could run a Hentai game with maturity. There are several horror themes that could be explored within such a game outside the obvious erotic themes. There is a reason that such media exists. There are people who find it erotic. Would it be such a stretch that those same people might explore eroticism in their gaming? And of course anyone who did such a "naughty" thing would have to be puerile idiots determined to "circle jerk themselves into oblivion" I guess?

What nonsense.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

Then you're not producing a game. You're producing an art book.

Seriously, even in DnD books, the depictions of violence do serve a purpose; they help highlight the high-fantasy kind of fighting your characters can be doing, and in some cases help highlight what things would actually look like for aiding the player's imagination. They are not just there to be pretty. In other games, the depictions of violence tend to be there to either help a person imagine the introductory story being told, get an idea of what something would look like, or see how it could be described once the results of the dice and rules had been worked out. It's almost never just there to entertain people.

So, yes, it does have to serve a purpose.

No, it doesn't. You want it to, but there's no cosmic rule that says that illustrations in an RPG have to have a purpose beyond sheer entertainment value or window dressing. That's akin to saying that curly vines on the edges of a page (or other design elements) shouldn't be there.

Illustrations can help to set the mood of a game. Fantasy stories (and related things) have used nudity as selling and mood-setting points since the early days of the pulp magazines.

The problem that a lot of people seem to have is that they associate nudity with sexuality, and think sexuality is something bad. It's not. There is nothing that makes sex more "dirty" than eating or sleeping.

I'm not saying that there needs to be nudity in every RPG, any more than I would say that there needs to be elves or castles in every one. There's no reason to shy away from it, though, or to feel the need to justify it.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

Damn. I don't think I wanted to learn that Black Tokyo even existed.

No mature gaming group would ever even entertain the possibility of playing a game like that. (And I'll go ahead and clarify - "mature" and "over the age of eighteen" are not the same thing.) Role playing games are social activities, and NO ONE wants to act out hentai scenes. That's a majorly scary level of creepiness that would not only get you kicked out of my game, but out of my social circles entirely. I'd want to steer wayyy clear of a person who thinks this is okay behavior. Seriously.

Never say never.

There are quite a number of BDSM folks out there who would have no problem playing Black Tokyo in a group of other kinky people. It isn't embarrassing to people who are involved in their local kink scene. If you enjoy whipping and having sex with someone while other people at a dungeon party watch, roleplaying something like Black Tokyo isn't embarrassing or awkward at all. The GMs of those games generally make sure that everybody is okay with such things before proceeding.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I have no problem with it but it seems to be a phobia in our times and culture (U.S.A.) and because of that, I think you have to be careful of your audience. Ask yourself, can this effect be accomplished with non-nude figures.

People here (USA) have always been ridiculously sex-phobic. Things eased up a lot in the 60s and 70s, but we're in another conservative swing, unfortunately.

Most RPG developers will not see much money from their efforts, whether they use nudity or not. When it comes to independent games (as opposed to the juggernauts), ignoring social conservatism and creating something that is different from the standard RPG can gain you an audience where none existed before.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

GMs forcing players into sexual situations and particular sexual outcomes, or players forcing other players, because the rules say so is something that I'd think most people would want to avoid however abstractly we resolve the situation.

Who said anything about forcing things on players? A good GM will go over the general tone and accepted behaviors with the players before starting a mature game. Players who aren't comfortable with it can opt out of playing.

I would say that it is wrong to spring such things on players who didn't consent to it in the first place, though.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

No, it doesn't. You want it to, but there's no cosmic rule that says that illustrations in an RPG have to have a purpose beyond sheer entertainment value or window dressing. That's akin to saying that curly vines on the edges of a page (or other design elements) shouldn't be there.

Illustrations can help to set the mood of a game. Fantasy stories (and related things) have used nudity as selling and mood-setting points since the early days of the pulp magazines.

The problem that a lot of people seem to have is that they associate nudity with sexuality, and think sexuality is something bad. It's not. There is nothing that makes sex more "dirty" than eating or sleeping.

I'm not saying that there needs to be nudity in every RPG, any more than I would say that there needs to be elves or castles in every one. There's no reason to shy away from it, though, or to feel the need to justify it.

If you're looking for cosmic rules to justify anything about human society, you're doing life wrong.

There's no cosmic rule that anything about human society must exist. In fact, by cosmic rules, art shouldn't exist since it serves no purpose in relation to the physics that keep the universe running. So, realistically, by cosmic rules pictures that serve a purpose are more justified than art is; they help to transmit information, after all.

Also, the curly vines that typically appear on some pages? Those actually serve a purpose. You might want to study the history of book decoration sometime; you'll be surprised how much "art" found within certain illustration styles for decorating book pages isn't art at all.

One more thing... illustrations setting the mood of the game? That is pictures serving a purpose. Pictures used to sell a product? Those are pictures serving a purpose.

And the reason why sexuality tends to be bad is exactly what you said about it; people generally do not treat it maturely. That's why most games shy away from it... because the moment they do it, they get immature reactions both from those who support the decision and those who oppose it. That's why it is that extremely niche games like Numenera and Shadowrun get away with including it; they simply don't have the fanbase for such issues to become a problem. Nor are they alone; there's quite a few niche games like them which don't have a lot of customers that do deal with sexuality fully, and do so without hesitation.

Also, RPGs are not artistic endeavors at the end of the day; they are endeavors to sell books that contain rule systems. Art can be extremely expensive to print, so every piece of art has to be considered from the standpoint of "will this help sell my RPG?" in order to justify the cost of including it in the first place. That's why some games, like nWoD, pretty much have abandoned the idea of doing regular color art. Because they do have to justify the cost of printing each picture with the often-limited budget they have to work with. That's why art must serve a purpose in RPGs. It's purely business.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

If you're looking for cosmic rules to justify anything about human society, you're doing life wrong.

That's my point.

Not everything has to have a purpose that you define as a good one. Titillation alone serves a purpose.

Also, the curly vines that typically appear on some pages? Those actually serve a purpose.

I am a librarian/archivist. I know exactly what purpose those serve. My point is that nudity - even if only used for titillation - serves a purpose. It's just not one that you happen to like.

Art can be extremely expensive to print, so every piece of art has to be considered from the standpoint of "will this help sell my RPG?" in order to justify the cost of including it in the first place.

It can be expensive to print, but most RPGs that are put out these days are sold as PDFs. Printing costs don't really have anything to do with whether the art contains nudity or not, though.

That's why some games, like nWoD, pretty much have abandoned the idea of doing regular color art. Because they do have to justify the cost of printing each picture with the often-limited budget they have to work with. That's why art must serve a purpose in RPGs. It's purely business.

So what you really meant to say was that art must serve a purpose to justify the cost in a business context? I won't argue with that, at least when it comes to D&D and Pathfinder, but that's a bit different than saying that it must serve a purpose in general.

As I said before, most RPGs that are put out today are distributed as PDFs. Most will make very little money - certainly not enough to actually cover the effort and time put into making them. Though some people have unrealistic aspirations of making a living off games they create, most are more interested in making something cool and having other people play it. That's why there are so many free RPGs, as well.

It probably doesn't make financial sense for WotC or Paizo to include much nudity in their books, but those two companies bear little similarity to most RPG-producing companies and individuals. They're big and they make money and are the games that are most extensively played, so they have to appeal to the widest possible audience, which is (sadly) generally very nudity-phobic. That's only two games, though. There is a whole world of RPGs out there.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

That's my point.

Not everything has to have a purpose that you define as a good one. Titillation alone serves a purpose.

And my point, at the beginning, was that the artwork should serve a purpose. And to give the artist some consideration that certain purposes may not serve the game product's interests well. However, the OP has since posted what the product will be and the style of artwork, the nudity in the case of that artwork was an item I agreed would serve the work well.

So, overall, we're arguing over the same point

It can be expensive to print, but most RPGs that are put out these days are sold as PDFs. Printing costs don't really have anything to do with whether the art contains nudity or not, though.

Believe it or not, but printing costs remain very much a real concern even with PDFs. In the case of PDFs, the "printing" cost is the cost of hosting it and dealing with downloads, and in that case you tend to have practical limitations on how big you can make the PDF before people start refusing to download it. That's why PDF-oriented companies tend to produce books that are much smaller in size or containing much less artwork than print-oriented companies.

So what you really meant to say was that art must serve a purpose to justify the cost in a business context? I won't argue with that, at least when it comes to D&D and Pathfinder, but that's a bit different than saying that it must serve a purpose in general.

As I said before, most RPGs that are put out today are distributed as PDFs. Most will make very little money - certainly not enough to actually cover the effort and time put into making them. Though some people have unrealistic aspirations of making a living off games they create, most are more interested in making something cool and having other people play it. That's why there are so many free RPGs, as well.

It probably doesn't make financial sense for WotC or Paizo to include much nudity in their books, but those two companies bear little similarity to most RPG-producing companies and individuals. They're big and they make money and are the games that are most extensively played, so they have to appeal to the widest possible audience, which is (sadly) generally very nudity-phobic. That's only two games, though. There is a whole world of RPGs out there.

You're going to find that most RPG companies shy away from nudity. Numenera, which includes what is probably the best-written and most mature book that deals directly with sex that I have ever seen for an RPG supplement, doesn't include a single bit of nudity within any of its books. Including the sex book. Shadowrun has prostitution very much part of its setting, yet also avoids nudity like the plague. Savage Worlds, which frankly very obviously sells itself at least in part on titillation, tends to have less showing of skin than Pathfinder. I think you'll find the most nudity in nWoD, and even then it's maybe two pieces hidden deep in random supplements; the rest of the time, what little artwork there is tends more towards covering. And DnD has gone so far away from it that what little they have actually stands out more as a result.

So, if anything, on the nudity front, Pathfinder is probably the most risque of the major RPGs.

For the minor RPGs, I find most of the ones I've seen tend to either be around the level of Shadowrun or Pathfinder, though quite a few also tend towards DnD and Numenera. It's been a long time since the Book of Erotic Fantasy came out, and these days it seems products like that simply don't seem to be around as much anymore. So, for anyone producing a supplement, they have to deal with a market that is a lot more conservative on the nudity issue than it once was. We've come a long way from when nudity could be found in DnD.

And, the above is not to say that nudity shouldn't be presented; it's to say someone producing a product today has to consider whether or not it would make any money with how the market currently is.