D&D General “‘Scantily Clad and Well Proportioned’: Sexism and Gender Stereotyping in the Gaming Worlds of TSR and Dungeons & Dragons.”

[TerraDave]

Sexy fantasy art is great, and being sexy is the fantasy for many. But yes early D&D was asymmetric, with males almost always dressed and armored in more practical terms.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sexy fantasy art is great, and being sexy is the fantasy for many. But yes early D&D was asymmetric, with males almost always dressed and armored in more practical terms.

The more subtle point that a lot of people have made is that even when the males weren't wearing more practical outfits, they still tended to be depicted in ways that were about pleasing men, in the ways the guys were built, the postures they adopted, and so on. Boris Vallejo, for example, is fairly equal-opportunity when it comes to making people nearly naked - but male characters in his works tend to be in dynamic/aggressive or protective (of a woman) poses, whereas women are often in more sexualized ones. That said, Vallejo does have at least some pieces which are clearly "for the ladies" in a real if Chippendales-ish way. Unlike Caldwell, say, I can't think of a single piece of Caldwell's where a man is depicted in a way that's aimed at pleasing women. This is particularly striking because Caldwell's cheesecake, whilst often less naked by inches of fabric than Vallejo, is somehow more contrived.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

One of the reasons I like Heroforge is that it allows me to easily make female characters who are wearing practical and realistic gear.

It's not quite so bad these days, but back when I started playing miniatures games, finding female minis which were not scantily clad was extremely difficult. While a large portion of the male minis had realistic clothing and armour.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And what does this have to do with art that treats the feminine body as something to be ogled at and to be titillated by?

It is a side issue around the Satanic Panic, but it also relates in that the question is how taboo we ought to make things, how we ought to evaluate art, in these kinds of moment when art or media comes under scrutiny for content

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think the more relevant distinction is that the satanic panic was founded on misinformation. There was no Devil-worshiping cabal using subliminal messaging in popular media to corrupt the youth, so any and all attempts to censor these alleged corrupting influences were fruitless from the start. The objectifying way in which women have overwhelmingly been depicted in fantasy art was genuinely making women uncomfortable within fantasy roleplaying communities, and the shift in the way women are depicted in fantasy art has led to a lot more women getting involved in fantasy roleplaying.

Some moral panics are grounded in reality, some aren't. You can start with a legitimate concern and it can reach a point where we read everything through the prism of that concern

 

[FrozenNorth]

Nobody is judging this art for the aggregate. This art is fine. I’d even say I quite like it. But, if most of the art of women in D&D books were still of its ilk, that would be extremely off-putting, even if each individual piece was of excellent quality. Nobody is docking points from their assessment of any particular artwork. They’re saying, all the art of women within the hobby being sexualized sure makes it feel uncomfortable to be a women around people who are into the hobby.

Definitely remember the Mystara Gazetteer series. Virtually every Gazetteer had a woman with a plunging neckline on the cover.

 

[Steampunkette]

Something that actually kind of tapped into the female gaze: George of the Jungle.

 

[TiQuinn]

Well, I don't know. I mean I have problem with people raising the issue of the aggregate. But I also wouldn't want to judge one work because of an aggregate. I mean if someone manages to make a very impressive piece of art, I don't think that work should lose points because other people operating in that genre are doing too much beefcake for your liking. We should take each work on its own.

It’s possible for a piece of art to be fine individually and without context but also part of the larger problem.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It’s possible for a piece of art to be fine individually and without context but also part of the larger problem.

This is where I would disagree. If the art itself is fine, then I don't think the problem you are finding surround it should apply. If there is a movement of crude film makers making types of movies you find disgusting, but there is a brilliant film that doesn't disgust you, but is either lumped in with them due to shared aesthetics or emerges in some way from that movement's influence, I don't see why we ought to judge that piece so harshly (also I am generally pretty forgiving of artistic intent, because I think people frequently misread the messaging of art, especially around these kinds of issues)

 

[Steampunkette]

It’s possible for a piece of art to be fine individually and without context but also part of the larger problem.

The article is about the prevailing tendency to treat women in a disrespectful manner, on the aggregate, and Bedrock wants to ignore the aggregate and focus exclusively on individual examples of problems?

There's no forest, here, friends. Just a lot of individual trees!