D&D (2024) Comeliness and Representation in Recent DnD Art

[Umbran]

The needs are the shareholders, not the players, in the case of games.

The needs of the shareholders are only met by way of meeting needs of players.

This is common for entertainment products - failing to satisfy the customers works if the customers really, meaningfully cannot do without your products. But, these books are luxury entertainments, and we can do without them.

 

[LesserThan]

There is a lot of daylight between “my character is me and I die if they die” and “I don’t care if I can relate to my character’s experiences or not.”

This is what I mean. We did not try to relate to them. They are game pawns like the iron on a Monopoly board. They are not us nor extensions of us.

When one plays MegaMan, are they trying to relate to an android cyborg, or just getting cool weapons to use to solve puzzles.

The pawn of the game means nothing, it is about how you personally play it.

If the character in a TRPG is ever untelatable to you, yhen it is not the fault of design, but how you choose to play it.

As I entered this based on Conan and "sanitized settings", the setting can be changed to allow you to play any way with the proper group. It needs not for the setting to be changed for everyone in order for you to change it. That was the problem always had with the comilness score. It requires a setting conform to an objective mechanics standard for a subjective value. Settings have no way to do this compared to every other ability score than can be objectively measured.

Charisma objectivity is subject to scrutiny though, but can be abstracted for its minimal game functions, as roleplaying should do the heavy lifting.

In the interests of the beauty standard, art and mechanics of the game, some will always be persecuted based on subjective assumptions in any setting, and can be altered from published works.

It is just a number in the game value, not the worth of the player. Ergo, "Debbie does not die because Blackleaf did", since one is not the other. Character is not the player, just a soulless playing piece in a game that the player must add life to.

 

[LesserThan]

By 'persecuted' do you mean 'attempted to explain the flaws in their thinking'?

No, that is what the internet is for.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Just wish the entire entertainment industry, games, movies, books, etc, would go back to Vulcan logic.

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one."

Am I the only one who read that scene as Spock speaking directly to Kirk in that he was thinly disguising his emotional choice to save the people he cared about in logical language?

Because that's Spock's character arc as a half Vulcan coming to terms with the emotional side of his nature?

 

[ezo]

Both can be present on the same character. There's "I want my character to be a good looking, buff barbarian" and "I'd also like them to be my gender and approximate ethnicity". These are not exclusive.

So, the point of this response and quoting me is.... what?

It is very much opposites most of the time:

1. Having art that is representative of the people who play.
2. Having art that is representative of what people want their PCs to look like.

Unless you want your PC to look like you, not simply represent you, the two don't really meet well IME.

Of course, both types can be present in the game.

So, sure, both can be present in the same character: I never said they couldn't or even implied it was mutually exclusive.

I mean, it seems like you are agreeing with me and disagreeing with me at the same time...

 

[LesserThan]

Who don't appear to be particularly athletic?

Apologies, I got caught up on tieflings and forgot this thread was about art depictions.

While not WotC, I think Albert (Presto) from the cartoon depicted an average teen nerd during the 80s, as best as animation could at the time. He was clearly not athletic, and with the exception if his item of power, his friends were entirely supportive of him. Eric on the other hand was a piiece of work and his friends were not afraid to call him out for it. Eric was depicted like Daniel Lurusso from Karate Kid. The semi-preppy look while not being the blonde like Hank.

So, I do not think the hulking beefcake and slutty seductress was all the art TSR had to offer. Thinking differing looks and body styles as modern only fails to take into account that most internal art in D&D was black and white until right before WotC purchased TSR. Depictions of things were harder in black and white which lacks color depth, but you had some very "not Hollywood" looking adventurers in those older products.

The cartoons character art diversity in the 1980s was way greater than when WotC took over in 2000s.

Sorry, for not answering your actual thread topic before taking the discussion AWOL about teiflings.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, I am glad I misunderstood you and you do NOT think settings should be sanitized for everyone because a few might get upset. We can't put rubber and foam on all the pointy things in the world after all.

Just wish the entire entertainment industry, games, movies, books, etc, would go back to Vulcan logic.

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one."

Everyone has a right to change any setting in any game, but the "sanitization" I assumed being spoken of just destroys individuality in settings AND people with what video games call a "meta" that everyone is expected to follow, which is the opposite of diversity.

When it comes to publishing an official setting, there's a bit of a paradox in this choice.

Because by allowing one thing, you cause people who don't like that thing to avoid it.

You could have chainmail bikinis in your art, and those who don't like it would then avoid your product. But if it's not important to your product, then why are you choosing to do something off-putting? If your goal is to appeal to a broad base of potential players, why would you choose to put that art in your product, knowing it would cut off a potential fanbase? What are you gaining with that tradeoff?

It's not sanitization to recognize that a broad appeal is going to require you to avoid things that are likely to give people a bad experience.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This is what I mean. We did not try to relate to them. They are game pawns like the iron on a Monopoly board. They are not us nor extensions of us.

When one plays MegaMan, are they trying to relate to an android cyborg, or just getting cool weapons to use to solve puzzles.

The pawn of the game means nothing, it is about how you personally play it.

If the character in a TRPG is ever untelatable to you, yhen it is not the fault of design, but how you choose to play it.

As I entered this based on Conan and "sanitized settings", the setting can be changed to allow you to play any way with the proper group. It needs not for the setting to be changed for everyone in order for you to change it. That was the problem always had with the comilness score. It requires a setting conform to an objective mechanics standard for a subjective value. Settings have no way to do this compared to every other ability score than can be objectively measured.

Charisma objectivity is subject to scrutiny though, but can be abstracted for its minimal game functions, as roleplaying should do the heavy lifting.

In the interests of the beauty standard, art and mechanics of the game, some will always be persecuted based on subjective assumptions in any setting, and can be altered from published works.

It is just a number in the game value, not the worth of the player. Ergo, "Debbie does not die because Blackleaf did", since one is not the other. Character is not the player, just a soulless playing piece in a game that the player must add life to.

Okay, so if it 'shouldn't' matter, what's the problem with just doing the representation for those to whom it does matter, and why do people who say it shouldn't matter get mad when it gets done?

 

[Fifth Element]

and why do people who say it shouldn't matter get mad when it gets done?

So very common when dealing with representation in media. "Just cast the best actor" quickly becomes "why would you cast that kind of actor" when it's a kind they don't like.

 

[Cadence]

Sorry, for not answering your actual thread topic before taking the discussion AWOL

Fitting right in to posting on ENWorld!