D&D 5E Elements in a new official setting

[Cadence]

And not surprisingly, I didn't tick any votes for options below that because it would be pure speculation as to what I was supposedly voting for. E.g., choosing "future/space". Since I ASSUME this is for a D&D setting, am I voting for mixing fantasy with magical-as-technology, star wars-ish sci-fi, or just something like Spelljammer? Or is this a suggestion for creating a sci-fi setting for use with modified D&D rules INSTEAD of a fantasy setting that is otherwise btb? I can vote for what -I- think it means, but that isn't going to necessarily be what anyone else thinks it means

One might make a post explaining what they mean by their vote, and thus add to the conversation...

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Part of the symmetry is.

If men find problematic the way men are being depicted, it is probably a sign that the way women are being depicted is equally problematic.

Two things to remember:

The first is that sexy does not inherently equal little or no clothes. Somebody can be fully clothed and still be oozing sex appeal from the way they move and talk. In fact, excessive amounts of skin being shown in a situation where it isn't appropriate can be a turn-off. At some point, shoving barely covered boobs and butts in my face with little to no context or subtlety just feels cheap and makes me roll my eyes. Whereas if those same characters were rocking a well-fitted suit... whew.

Secondly, the big issue here is objectification, as opposed to sexualization. The two often go hand in hand, but they can be separated from each other by a skilled, mindful, and respectfully horny writer. It's primarily about the level of agency a character has, both from and in-universe perspective and from a metanarrative perspective.

A lot of times, especially in male-oriented media, female characters are written as passive objects as opposed to agents with an active influence on the plot. They're the prize to be won at the end of the advetnure, or the damsel in distress that the hero must rescue along the way, or the tragic death that motivates the hero to keep going in their quest. Their entire existence as fictional characters is directly tied to the protagonist's motivations and desires; their identity outside of their relationship to the protagonist is extremely weak. And in more fanservice-oriented works, the protagonist often serves the role of being a generic and inoffensive stand-in for the audience. Male characters can suffer a similar fate of being reduced to a living and breathing object of desire, but it's not as common, even in female-oriented works, due to just how pervasive the Male Gaze is in our media culture.

Think about the times in movies, TV, video games, etc. that a man is going around with their shirt off. Are they attractive? Yes, but very often in a way that's empowering as opposed to objectifying, and also in a way that they're primarily acting as a power fantasy for straight men. Even at their most vulnerable, they still exude auras of power and control, as opposed to being helpless and "available" for the viewer, as many female characters are presented in media.

Is this perception of power and control a turn-on for many women and gay men? Yes, definitely; something can exist, or even be designed to simultaneously evoke reactions of "that's awesome" and "that's hot" from different parts of the audience. But then we have to ask ourselves: why do men get to be sexy while still holding onto their agency, while sexy women are often reduced to passive objects to be at the mercy of the audience? And more broadly, why do we associate masculinity with agency and proactivity, and femininity with lack of agency and reactivity? It's definitely something conditioned into us by our patriarchical media culture and isn't something we can just instantly turn off in our heads (unless you can, or weren't exposed to this framework while growing up, in which case I envy you).

In short, more assertive women who don't exist solely to serve the whims of the protagonist or of the male cast please.

Don't really know how to cap this off, so I'm just gonna a shoehorn an endorsement for Hades by Supergiant Games here. Play Hades. Seriously, everybody is smokin' hot in that game, and not in a way that's grossly objectifying too.

look as far as I can tell finding men sex makes little sense, it would be like finding an explosive oil drum sexy

Um, what?

Plenty of people find men sexy. Here's two examples of men widely considered "sexy":

Chris Hemsworth

And Jimin from BTS

Chose these pictures based off of the shot composition and general aesthetic appeal as opposed to amount of skin showing (see my above point about how more skin doesn'tautomatically mean sexier), but there's definitely pictures of both of them showing off their abs if you search for them.

 

[Yaarel]

@PsyzhranV2

Regarding the image of Hemsworth. It strikes me as too passive to be sexy in a masculine way. Things like: the viewer looks down at the figure (submissive), head tilted (submissive), holding ones head (submissive), spreading ones legs (invitation). These can all be sensual, even erotic, yet are not in a way that exhibits a masculine posture.

Regarding the image of Jimin. The posture, more active, more empowered, viewer looking up, reads as more masculine.

A woman can be in a masculine posture and be sexy. I am noting the difference in posture.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Interesting thread. One thing that these themes and tropes arranged in this poll and the discussion of what support would it require to do them reminds me of the sort of game book I'd want to see. Not a setting book, but a GM toolkit book. Sure, the DMG has all these optional rule ideas and gear for different tech levels and such, but they seem rather half baked. So I would want to have a book full of well constructed plug-ins for the game you could use to modify the experience. Rules for running differnt tech levels, complete with differnt equipment tables, rules for them, new class options and feats that are appropriate. Rules for running more low-magic setting. Rules for running horror.Rules for running more gritty games where injuries matter more. Stuff like this. Things that make it easier to run something that is not just the basic medieval high magic heroic fantasy kitchen sink D&D usually assumes. I don't want new settings, I want better tools for building settings.

 

[Minigiant]

Heroic Fentasy: Focus on heroism and action

Swords and Sorcery: Swords typically grey Sorcery typically evil

Epic/Noble Fantasy: People are good or evil. Focus on their conflict.

Grim Fantasy: People suck. They are terrible and selfish. Changing that is HARD.

Dark Fantasy: There are monsters. People are monsters too. The world is terrible. Horror and dread.

Bright Fantasy: Whether or not it really is, the world is bright and hopeful. Threats are on the fringes.

Intrigue: Well you're walkin' and a-talkin', And a-movin' and a-groovin'
And a-stabbin' and a-jabbin'

Mystery:

Mythic Fantasy: Heroes and Monsters are special, supernatural, and usually unique.

Grounded Fantasy: Heroes and Monsters are basic, ordinary, and common.

Swashbuckling: Do I have to explain this?

Modern: Fantasy set in worlds similar to the modern times. The last 3 eras or so.

Future/Space: Fantasy set in worlds similar to the speculated future.

Cultural Fantasy: Fantasy heavily tilted to a single or a few cultures or nation.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

One might make a post explaining what they mean by their vote, and thus add to the conversation...

It's a poll. I'm happy to discuss what my choices are on any poll, and why - but I can't properly make choices on that poll if I have to first retroactively explain/define the poll options. Take the set of options of industrial, modern, future/space, stone age, and classical. Are these meant to be non-fantasy options? Is it meant to be industrial-fantasy (i.e. steampunk?), or NON-fantasy industrial of a real-world kind of setting but simply set in the industrial age? Is it modern-fantasy (i.e. maybe more like Shadowrun), or just adventure gaming set in 2021 Earth? Is it future/space fantasy (like Star Wars?), or just adventure gaming but in real-world 2300AD? Is it plain old stone age like... Clan of the Cave Bear or Quest for Fire, or One Million Years BC; or stone age settings with magic and the usual monster manual? Is classical-fantasy meaning perhaps a Greco-Roman inspired world setting, or one that also includes magic and orcs and actual dragons?

Not meaning to keep hitting this so hard, but a poll that is apparently trying to explore which general genre is most appealing is different than just stepping into the comments and saying, "I want to choose between D&D-Meets-The-Wild-West and Expedition-To-The-Barrier-Peaks as a new D&D setting." Setting up a poll is different than just a first post that lists: industrial, modern, future/space, stone age, and classical; then asks you to speculate on a possible setting under that name.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Heh, if you want to work with stereotypes. Men go for sex appeal, women go for success appeal.

If a woman is looking at a mans wallet, not at the man, that can feel dehumanizing.

you act like there are not a million bad jokes with that very premise.

@PsyzhranV2

Regarding the image of Hemsworth. It strikes me as too passive to be sexy in a masculine way. Things like: the viewer looks down at the figure (submissive), head tilted (submissive), holding ones head (submissive), spreading ones legs (invitation). These can all be sensual, even erotic, yet are not in a way that exhibits a masculine posture.

Regarding the image of Jimin. The posture, more active, more empowered, viewer looking up, reads as more masculine.

A woman can be in a masculine posture and be sexy. I am noting the difference in posture.

you seem to be mixing up a passive vs controlling for lack of masculinity it is a common error and led to a terrible line, but it is simply a difference of how controlling someone appears to have of the situation.

 

[Minigiant]

Take the set of options of industrial, modern, future/space, stone age, and classical. Are these meant to be non-fantasy options? Is it meant to be industrial-fantasy (i.e. steampunk?), or NON-fantasy industrial of a real-world kind of setting but simply set in the industrial age? I

It's all fantasy.

If you choose Stone Age, you are saying I'd like D&D with Stone Age elements. Dragons. Dungeons. Wizards. But your paladin is riding a mammoth and your holy avenger is a bonespear.

Is classical-fantasy meaning perhaps a Greco-Roman inspired world setting, or one that also includes magic and orcs and actual dragons?

The first one.

 

[Faolyn]

The negative, perhaps obviously, are the racism and misogyny that pervaded the genre in the 1930s through the 1980s. These need to be ass-kicked into touch and replaced with positive role models of ethnicity, sexuality, gender, ability and more. To pull this trick off whilst maintaining The Sword & Sorcery atmosphere would be a worthwhile exercise, and would be throwing out a lot of nasty bath water, whilst keeping a beautiful baby.

I don't think that it would be hard at all to get rid of the negative aspects of S&S. The most difficult part, I think, would be the disability-inclusiveness, at least for those with physical disabilities, simply because neither the time frame you suggested (CE 500-800) nor the general level of magic in a typical S&S setting would support a lot of useful assistive devices. I think you'd have to rely more on having assistants than on prosthetics.

 

[Yora]

Is that a requirement for fantasy settings now?