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

[Micah Sweet]

This is absolutely true, and I would expect the style to be different for every game. However, when you are putting a book together you need to have a coherent style so it hangs.

The solution, of course, is not to give the art much weight, it’s only one example out of infinite possibilities.

Which is what I do, of course. Art isn't very important to me as you know. And I agree that a particular book probably benefits from a reasonably uniform style.

 

[LesserThan]

The Planescape product Fiends: Faces of Evil published almost 30 years ago makes such a connection, when they discuss gender and/or sex and sexuality for Tieflings.

I have never seen or heard of that, thanks.

If you can post a quote from that so we, me, you, Charlequn, can see if it is the possible origins I woukd be helpful.

I still wonder how that would affect the art. How do you depict a trans character in such a way one would know it is trans?

 

[LesserThan]

Well, yes and no. It really depends on the player, most specifically, but also, generally speaking on the tone and tenor of the campaign they're in. One way or the other, it's not at all universal, and thus both cases are equally valid.

Interesting, yet a bit confusing.

To others prior to the 2 post I am commenting to, and have not responded to recently, I have no interest in conversing with you further, and if there was a way to block both of you, I would have done so after your first replies to me.

Not supposed to name names, so I will have to let my responses or lack of speak for me.

 

[LesserThan]

They aren't telling you what to think, they are just requesting you not speak for everyone,

At no time did I say I did speak for everyone, and your insinuations that I did puts you sqaurely in the place of the other 2 slanders that wish to put words into peopkes mouthes in order to start a fight just so you can argue on the internet. I have no reason to converse with you any longer either if that us your sole purpose for being on the internet.

 

[LesserThan]

Well, yeah, because a pawn is too abstract to identify with. If you gave the pawn a name and a backstory and hopes, fears, likes, and dislikes, people would start identifying with it. That’s just human nature.

This isn’t really about the design of the game, it’s about the art in the books.

That is the nature of the game. There is nothing in the rules that provides those things, nor the art. The player must provide them.

Art is part of the design, or there would not be the compkaints about the art, and/or the art could all be removed.

Glad I found your reply in here, since I am enjoying our conversation in the noisy room that most forum threads become with 300 conversations per page.

 

[LesserThan]

A lot of people buy gaming books specifically for the art, so no it’s not a waste of space.

If they are buying game books just for art and not the game mechanics, wouldn't art books be better?

TSR made a few, and calendars. Does WotC not make art books?

 

[Argyle King]

Not wanting cheesecake--or let's face it, it's sort-core erotica--in an RPG book that isn't about that sort of thing isn't dismissing peoples' desires due to their gender identity (or their sexuality).

I should also hope that most people, regardless of their gender or sexuality, are capable of reading books that don't have cheesecake in them. If they can't, if their ability to enjoy an RPG book is literally diminished because there aren't acres of skin on display, well, that strikes me as a them problem.


But now imagine that that was the sort of thing nearly every male character was drawn like, no matter what. For decades. Terrible weather? Middle of battle where they're in the front line? In the of a royal court, where everyone else is dressed in formal clothes? Nope, it's pin up-palooza, all day long. And then, when it became more common for male characters in outfits that are actually dressed appropriately for the circumstances, other people complained about it and called the art "sanitized."

Should it be gotten rid of entirely? Nah. But c'mon. There's a time and a place for everything, and most of the time, that sort of art is just gratuitous.


This I agree with completely. A few scars as well. One of D&D characters has a fencing scar on her face and a missing horn.


Nymph, probably not. It would be inappropriate for the monster type.

But, well... this is a piece of old D&D art:

Spoiler

View attachment 356473

This next art is from Thirsty Sword Lesbians. Ignore the art style and imagine it was painted like the picture above.

Spoiler

View attachment 356474

The D&D art may be more "medieval," but it's otherwise basically the same thing: a female spellcaster in not very much clothing at all. I kind of wonder how many people would be cool with cheesecake that looks like the TSW art (and weren't cool with it just because they have type and/or fetish), and how many would suddenly start wanting women to be more fully dressed if this was the type of women that was being drawn.

And for the record, TSW has a great variety of physical female bodies, ranging in body sizes and how much they're clothed. It's the kind of variety I'd like to see, for characters of all genders, in D&D books. I was, for example, quite pleased to see the following bit of art in the Level Up Adventurer's Guide, as the illustration for the cleric entry:

View attachment 356475

For me personally:

The piece of old D&D art isn't something that I find sexually appealing. If anything, it seems out of place. Even if it was intended to be cheesecake or pinup art, it doesn't seem quite right. It seems more like a JC Penny underwear catalog trying to cosplay D&D. There's no sense of adventure or contextual clues to invite any sense of wonder. I can't speak for anyone else, but -even if the intent was to invoke cheesecake aesthetics- part of a fantasy is the mental aspect. It's a bit like an exotic dancer with no personality and no character: visually, they may be beautiful, but the lack of substance begets a lack of attraction.

I'm not sure what to say about the "sword lesbian" artwork. The character looks like they'd belong to one of the cliques that hangs out at one of the pubs near me. Doesn't particularly do anything for me, but if it makes them feel good then cool I guess.

The chubby friar still seems as though he'd have some level of competence in adventuring. I like that photo.

Some of the physically strongest people I know don't look like body builders. One of my friends is a power lifter. To the untrained eye, he looks like a chubby bearded guy. Most likely wouldn't guess that he competed in power lifting competitions.

Still, he doesn't look unhealthy or inept. I think that's the borderline for me. I'm cool with unattractive adventurers. I'm fine with a variety of body types as well. However, even a slightly chubby or unconventionally attractive adventurer should still look like they are capable of being where they are.

 

[Charlaquin]

If they are buying game books just for art and not the fame mechanics, wouldn't art books be better?

you’d have to ask them. I would guess most people who are primarily interested in the art also find some value in the game content, but it’s not their primary reason for getting it.

TSR made a few, and calendars. Does WotC not make art books?

They do. I assume people who buy the game books just for the art buy the art books too.

 

[LesserThan]

You mean "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations," right? The basis of Vulcan philosophy?

I said logic, not philosophy.

Is the internet only for one person to misquote others and claim they said something they did not?

Charlequn, I again thank you for answering my misunderstanding of your Conan to sanitized settings posts and how they were a bit confusing, and understood it was confusing, rather than twisting the words of my question as so many ithers are straining what I am posting.

 

[Charlaquin]

I said logic, not philosophy.

Is the internet only for one person to misquote others and claim they said something they did not?

I suspect @Faolyn was genuinely asking for clarification, rather than trying to insinuate you meant something other than you intended to say. While rhetoric is the argumentation style of choice for the vast majority of the internet, I find that online conversations are at their most productive when you assume good intent from your fellow interlocutors until given clear evidence to the contrary. The nature of the text-based medium makes misunderstandings common.

Charlequn, I again thank you for answering my misunderstanding of your Conan to sanitized settings posts and how they were a bit confusing, and understood it was confusing, rather than twisting the words of my question as so many ithers are straining what I am posting.

You’re welcome.