The Proper Use of Nudity in FRPG Art

[Reynard]

I think we can certainly make some allowances for "cool factor" without overly fretting about realism.

 

[Hussar]

I don't get the mindset that thinks because someone is uncomfortable with something in a book that the publisher should select another picture. Well, let's back that up a little, because, like I said, context matters. For a game like D&D where the publishers want to attract a broad audience, it matters a whole lot. But not every publisher is trying to attract the broadest audience possible and it's okay to release something even knowing some people will find certain images uncomfortable.

Thing is, all you have to do is look at the OP in this thread. It's not "some publishers" that's being called for here. It's for D&D.

Funny thing. Look at the reactions through this thread. People have compared the moral panic of the 80's to the reactions we're seeing from women. But, there's a significant difference. The moral panic folks had zero interest in actually joining the hobby. They were never, ever going to be players or customers.

OTOH, women have been saying for years that they actually would like to join the hobby, but, they are being made to feel unwelcome because of the objectifying art. And, being made to feel unwelcome because any calls for not having that art in the game immediately sees folks crawling out of the woodwork to defend the art and praise artists like Boris Vajello as the high point of fantasy art. It's a very different dynamic at play.

Heck, probably the largest collection of fantasy art would have to be Magic the Gathering. That's a huge trunkful of fantasy art but, again, not a whole lot of beef/cheese cake. And a player base that is apparently about 40% women (and has been so for nearly 10 years). It's almost as if being welcoming and listening to potential customers is a good idea.

Think about it this way. The two, hands down, largest fantasy properties are Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Note the complete and utter lack of chainmail bikinis or beefcake.

It should be no surprise to anyone that D&D is going the same route.

It isn't just about the person reading the book. What if the people publishing it prefer that picture?

Well, what a publisher wants to do is entirely up to the publisher. But, I don't really think publishers need protecting here. If a publisher chooses to use this kind of art in their product, the public will determine if it was a good idea or not.

 

[MNblockhead]

I like the bland 5e art in the core books, I think the broadest broad church approach is well suited to what aims to be the generic go-to game of heroic fantasy adventure. But I would not want to see the same art style imposed on every work created for 5e. A Howardesque sword and sorcery setting should have Frazetta and similar art. Ravenloft I think should have Hammer Horror style art, like those 1e Caldwell Ravenloft covers - I am very much not a fan of the art in 5e Curse of Strahd. A Tolkienesque high fantasy or Game of Thrones low fantasy should have matching art. I appreciate that WotC' main aim is to avoid giving offence to favoured audiences but I do think this can sometimes get in the way of best presentation. I'm glad that eg Odyssey of the Dragonlords has a more adult feel than WotC stuff and I look forward to seeing how Raiders of the Serpent Sea turns out.

Agree with the general point, but I don't find the 5e core-book art bland. It really hit the sweet spot of nolstalgia with more modern sensibilities. I was looking into getting back into TTRPGS before the PHP came out for 5e, but nothing grabbed me. When the PHP came out I paged through it and BAM. I was hooked. Bought it immediately and haven't looked back. Maybe it is too much of a broad tent for some people, especially those who have been playing continuously for decades who have have more fine-tuned sensibilities or who seek novelty against their long experience playing various systems and editions. But for me it was an incredibly effective gateway back into TTRPGs and the art has a lot to do with that. It has obviously been very effective in attracting a new generation of gamers as well.

Also, when first looking at the art in the 5e PHP, after having not played D&D since 1e (though I paged through the 2e books, I never bought them), I did notice the more inclusive artwork which I appreciated and none of it felt shoehorned it. It all fit in perfectly with the overall aesthetic of the book. Overall, despite a few missteps, I think that WotC threads the needle well.

That said, I am also a free-speech fundamentalist. Purposefully trying to offend people seems like poor business, but at the same time, people have the right to publish and read/play things that bother other people. Easy enough for me to not buy, read, or play it. If someone wanted to create a TTRPG with a hard-core porn aesthetic they are free to do so. I don't think I would enjoy reading it and highly doubt I would enjoy playing it, but, who knows, maybe some gifted artists and game designers could pull it off. I certainly enjoy watching movies and TV series that at times have soft-core porn scenes with varying levels of gratuitousness.

 

[S'mon]

A

Agree with the general point, but I don't find the 5e core-book art bland. It really hit the sweet spot of nolstalgia with more modern sensibilities. I was looking into getting back into TTRPGS before the PHP came out for 5e, but nothing grabbed me. When the PHP came out I paged through it and BAM. I was hooked. Bought it immediately and haven't looked back. Maybe it is too much of a broad tent for some people, especially those who have been playing continuously for decades who have have more fine-tuned sensibilities or who seek novelty against their long experience playing various systems and editions. But for me it was an incredibly effective gateway back into TTRPGs and the art has a lot to do with that. It has obviously been very effective in attracting a new generation of gamers as well.

Also, when first looking at the art in the 5e PHP, after having not played D&D since 1e (though I paged through the 2e books, I never bought them), I did notice the more inclusive artwork which I appreciated and none of it felt shoehorned it. It all fit in perfectly with the overall aesthetic of the book. Overall, despite a few missteps, I think that WotC threads the needle well.

That said, I am also a free-speech fundamentalist. Purposefully trying to offend people seems like poor business, but at the same time, people have the right to publish and read/play things that bother other people. Easy enough for me to not buy, read, or play it. If someone wanted to create a TTRPG with a hard-core porn aesthetic they are free to do so. I don't think I would enjoy reading it and highly doubt I would enjoy playing it, but, who knows, maybe some gifted artists and game designers could pull it off. I certainly enjoy watching movies and TV series that at times have soft-core porn scenes with varying levels of gratuitousness.

As I said, I like the 5e core book art. I like it a lot better than the 3e art. Compared to the 4e core book art I don't find it very memorable, looking through the 5e DMG recently I was struck by how little of the art I remembered. It rarely makes much impression on me, but I think it makes a good baseline that is both inoffensive and evocative of high fantasy adventure.

I think WoTC could take a risk and show the occasional belly button, bare shoulder or hint of cleavage in campaign-specific art. The complete removal of sensuality works fine in the core but l don't like it as a universal norm. I fear WoTC are afraid of the kind of people who find Aleena's tabard a mark of sexual objectification.

 

[CapnZapp]

In every other avenue of art and culture, there is space for BOTH the inclusive and friendly, AND the risque, daring, and, yes, offensive or incorrect. The instinct to get personally insulted, and accuse others of not being inclusive, is what I hope we can get past. Just like art, literature and moving pictures, I want our role-playing game hobby to tolerate what we find obnoxious or risque, simply by ignoring it and focusing on what we do like.

That does not mean I secretly want hate crimes or right-wing propaganda.

Other cultured folks are able to separate the hateful from the merely provocative, and so should we.

But getting all riled up because fantasy races that get bonuses to Strength but not to Intelligence exists, or to return to the subject of this thread, that warrior princesses are depicted nearly nude, just isn't good for the hobby. No, these creators did not in fact publish those modules to insult or exclude you. No, really. That just weren't their motivations. The proper way of handling something you don't want to look at is to look away, not start a witch hunt. Wanting inclusive nonracist content with modern sensibilities is perfectly fine. Wanting others to stop consuming content that doesn't cater to those sensibilities of yours is not.

Jumping to the conclusion I must be a hateful racist just because I might enjoy a game full of inequality or misery is, on the other hand, utterly unacceptable. Concluding these other people must be misogynistic or hateful because they want something else than you is a serious error that threatens our entire industry. If you watch horror movies or read 50 shades of gray I would never in my life accuse you of being a murderous sadist or a masochistic slut. But for some reason it has become commonplace to assume you must be what you play in ttrpgs.

This despite how we should be the most experienced and trained people in being able to separate reality from fantasy. There are even big popular RPG forums that bunch you together with extremists and trolls and simply ban you if you voice concern over this semi-recent narrow-mindedness. So in short, if I should enjoy nekkid warrior princesses in my gaming supplements, I really need you to not take that as a personal insult, or conclude I must hate all women, or the like.

That is the point. So far this discussion is faintly hopeful, since for every "call to arms" post there's at least one voice of calm and reason.

Zapp

PS. If anything of the above makes you go "Zapp the fracker makes my blood boil" I assure you, it's YOU and not me. No, nope and njet. I simply don't harbor any of the malicious motivations you think I do - it's you projecting that naughty word on me, and this entire post is me suggesting you maybe stop doing that. For your own sake, for the entire hobby's sake. Thanks. DS

 

[S'mon]

In every other avenue of art and culture, there is space for BOTH the inclusive and friendly, AND the risque, daring, and, yes, offensive or incorrect.

The instinct to get personally insulted, and accuse others of not being inclusive, is what I hope we can get past.

Just like art, literature and moving pictures, I want our role-playing game hobby to tolerate what we find obnoxious or risque, simply by ignoring it and focusing on what we do like.

That does not mean I secretly want hate crimes or right-wing propaganda.

Other cultured folks are able to separate the hateful from the merely provocative, and so should we.

But getting all riled up because fantasy races that get bonuses to Strength but not to Intelligence exists, or to return to the subject of this thread, that warrior princesses are depicted nearly nude, just isn't good for the hobby. No, these creators did not in fact publish those modules to insult or exclude you.

No, really. That just weren't their motivations.

The proper way of handling something you don't want to look at is to look away, not start a witch hunt.

Wanting inclusive nonracist content with modern sensibilities is perfectly fine. Wanting others to stop consuming content that doesn't cater to those sensibilities of yours is not.

Jumping to the conclusion I must be a hateful racist just because I might enjoy a game full of inequality or misery is, on the other hand, utterly unacceptable. Concluding these other people must be misogynistic or hateful because they want something else than you is a serious error that threatens our entire industry.

If you watch horror movies or read 50 shades of gray I would never in my life accuse you of being a murderous sadist or a masochistic slut.

But for some reason it has become commonplace to assume you must be what you play in ttrpgs.

This despite how we should be the most experienced and trained people in being able to separate reality from fantasy. There are even big popular RPG forums that bunch you together with extremists and trolls and simply ban you if you voice concern over this semi-recent narrow-mindedness.

So in short, if I should enjoy nekkid warrior princesses in my gaming supplements, I demand that you don't take that as a personal insult, or conclude I must hate all women, or the like.

That is the point. So far this discussion is faintly hopeful, since for every "call to arms" post there's at least one voice of calm and reason.

Zapp

PS. If anything of the above makes you go "Zapp the fracker makes my blood boil" I assure you, it's YOU and not me. No, nope and njet. I simply don't harbor any of the malicious motivations you think I do - it's you projecting that naughty word on me, and this entire post is me suggesting you maybe stop doing that. Thanks. DS

Well the ENW moderation, while certainly often annoying to me, is overall a lot more moderate and inclusive than some other forums. Everyone needs to tread carefully though if you don't want a thread lock. Plenty of space for polite disagreement and even some common ground I hope!

 

[Dioltach]

He has updated stats in Dungeon #105, where he's said to wear a +3 moderate fortification adamantine ceremonial spiked half-plate, which must win some sort of award for the most modifiers to a single piece of equipment.

To be fair, I can't recall any description of half-plate specifying which half of the body it covers.

 

[MGibster]

Thing is, all you have to do is look at the OP in this thread. It's not "some publishers" that's being called for here. It's for D&D.

Okay. Mainly I'm pushing back against the idea that just because an image makes someone uncomfortable that it's wrong for the publisher or anyone else to want to keep it in.

Funny thing. Look at the reactions through this thread. People have compared the moral panic of the 80's to the reactions we're seeing from women. But, there's a significant difference. The moral panic folks had zero interest in actually joining the hobby. They were never, ever going to be players or customers.

I do agree that comparing the moral panic of the 1980s to reactions we're seeing from people regarding cheesecake is silly. And it's not just women, Avalanche Press lost my business primarily because their cover art alienated me. You're right, on one hand we had people who wanted to end the hobby and on the other hand you have people who just want to participate and feel as though they're welcome. Big difference.

Think about it this way. The two, hands down, largest fantasy properties are Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Note the complete and utter lack of chainmail bikinis or beefcake.

Well it would be tough to have a lot of chainmail bikinis in a property that has very few women to begin with or one where they all start out as children. Of course both Harry Potter and LotR are also head and shoulders above a lot of fantasy offerings in terms of their literary quality which likely has a lot to do with their success.

It should be no surprise to anyone that D&D is going the same route.

Going? They went that route a long time ago. At least since 3rd edition in 2000, it seems to me that the majority of women have been depicted as being appropriately attired. And, like I said earlier, I'm not exactly chomping at the bit to see them add nudity to anything in D&D. I don't need illustrations of topless succubi, lamias, or nymphs in the Monster Manual. I'll save the Frazetta illustrations of women with glorious asses and buff dudes with axes for the appropriate venue; Airbrushed onto the side of my '77 Chevy Van.

 

[Blue Orange]

Well the ENW moderation, while certainly often annoying to me, is overall a lot more moderate and inclusive than some other forums. Everyone needs to tread carefully though if you don't want a thread lock. Plenty of space for polite disagreement and even some common ground I hope!

I have to say, I quit rpg.net over largely this problem. (There was a right-wing forum I quit as well, but we won't mention its name.)

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Jumping to the conclusion I must be a hateful racist just because I might enjoy a game full of inequality or misery

I am GM'ing an Eberron campaign and playing into one. Both GMs are drawing inspiration on 19th century authors. The other GM emphasises Jules Vernes and Doyle, I dig Zola and Disraeli's social works. Keith Baker once said the Jorasco (healers) do swear an oath of not curing anyone before getting paid in full... That gives you an idea of how I see the Houses. I feel the darker the situation, the brighter the PCs can shine. [especially as defeating a social problem is harder than a great wyrm]. Both playstyles are equally enjoyable.