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

[Argyle King]

This depends heavily on who's choosing the chainmail bikini. When you have guys drawing women in chainmail bikinis primarily for cheesecake, no. If a woman decides her character wears it because darnit, she'll wear what she wants, then yes.

And of you have male-identifying artists drawing women for female-identifying players or non-binary artists drawing cheesecake art?

 

[Hussar]

People are right that there are perfect contexts where a character in a state of undress makes sense. Like the aforementioned barbarian. Or a monk. Sure. No worries. No one should say that it's impossible to have those contexts. 100% correct.

But, and you knew there was going to be a but here right, here's the rub. You have X number of images in your spiffy new book that you are selling. As in, there are only a limited number of images you can include. Now, if you include a character in a state of undress, you will make a certain group of fans happy and a certain group of fans unhappy. And both of those groups tend to be REALLY loud.

OTOH, you can just... not include those images. Include great art - because we're all going to be happy with good pictures (cough 5e halfling cough). No one is going to complain about this image:

even if it would make sense for an elf ranger to not be heavily dressed in certain contexts.

So, what's in it for the publisher to court controversy?

 

[Scribe]

So, what's in it for the publisher to court controversy?

Nothing, so safe and sanitized it is.

 

[Hussar]

Nothing, so safe and sanitized it is.

And that's why you're not getting what you want. Anything that isn't directly servicing you is "sanitized". When fans do nothing but take things in the most negative light, why would you bother courting them?

I mean, good grief, 5e art is GORGEOUS. These books really, really are pretty. They just are. That's some top notch fantasy art by some of the biggest names in the business.

But it's "sanitized"?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It makes sense for the market leader to play it safe, and that unfortunately might sometimes also lead to boring blandness. But also sometimes being safe and reliable is good.

Risk taking and courting more niche markets makes more sense for smaller operators.

 

[MGibster]

Sigh. Why does every discussion of art in RPG's go circling around the same talking points. Is it 2004 again? Or 1994? Or 1984?

I'm kind of reminded of the original Star Trek series and the uniforms worn by women. A lot of people look back at those uniforms today and remark how ironic it is that such a progressive show was still rooted in the sexism of the day. But if you asked Nichelle Nichols and some other women, rather than being sexist, those uniforms were a symbol of sexual liberation. What changed? Nichelle Nichols was born in 1932 and her experience was very different from a woman born in 1982 or 2002. The thing with art, is that what we find acceptable, old fashioned, cheesy, or new and interesting changes. It could be that in thirty years time D&D art might be more risque than we would like in 2024. People born in 2034 will likely have different standards than those who were born in 2002.

I think after more than 40 years it's time to recognize that these conversations will never end because we cannot possibly reach a definitive answer. We will continue to be in a constant state of reevaluation within the context of a culture that is perpetually in flux. In an earlier post I joked about chainmail bikinis in D&D, but in truth I don't really expect nor want that. I wouldn't rule it out entirely because I'm the type of guy who believes context is important. If WotC released a new tongue-in-cheek setting where silly fantasy tropes were played to the hilt then a barbarian in a chainmail or fur bikini wouldn't be out of line. But in the PHB or part of Forgotten Realms or Eberron? Probably not.

 

[Scribe]

And that's why you're not getting what you want. Anything that isn't directly servicing you is "sanitized". When fans do nothing but take things in the most negative light, why would you bother courting them?

I mean, good grief, 5e art is GORGEOUS. These books really, really are pretty. They just are. That's some top notch fantasy art by some of the biggest names in the business.

But it's "sanitized"?

Some of it is technically great, I agree.

Is it absolutely safe, and clean, and avoiding even a sniff of what could be called a risk? Well you outlined exactly why. Yes.

That's sanitized. It is what it is.

 

[MNblockhead]

That people in general don't seems to drive much of modern media. What is left out by the common "good looking" stereotype? If they're missing now, would it be bad if the people in the art looked a bit more like more of the actual players than their hollywood stand-ins?

If any of the suposedly heroic and rugged adventurers looked like me, it would totally break immersion. And if I were portrayed dressed like Conan...well I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.

 

[Hussar]

A lot of people look back at those uniforms today and remark how ironic it is that such a progressive show was still rooted in the sexism of the day. But if you asked Nichelle Nichols and some other women, rather than being sexist, those uniforms were a symbol of sexual liberation.

The issue truly is, both points of view are true. People really seem to struggle with the idea that things can be more than one thing. (very much not directed at you personally - a general observation and 100% not meant as a shot)

 

[jayoungr]

Is it absolutely safe, and clean, and avoiding even a sniff of what could be called a risk?

What do you consider "risky"?