Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 9381853" data-attributes="member: 7023887">No. It's your attitude towards newer art styles that's offensive, which bleeds into whichever terminology you would use. A euphemism that is used the same way as a purposefully offensive term expresses the same meaning. I reject the premise that older D&amp;D art was uniformly &quot;serious, tough, manly, gritty, and cool&quot; and that newer post-Tasha's D&amp;D art is uniformly &quot;cute, childish, Disney/Marvel, twee, and unserious.&quot;These sorts of discussions are filled with tons of older art that is &quot;twee&quot; and newer art that is &quot;cool/gritty/serious.&quot; However, your &quot;side&quot; always rejects or outright ignores these examples and hides behind &quot;it's just my opinion, opinions can't be wrong&quot; whenever it's proven that your view is wrong. We've done this dance before. I'm sick of it. I think your perception of this trend is a rose-tinted nostalgic view of D&amp;D art that's divorced from the reality of the situation. Older D&amp;D had cute or silly art work and newer D&amp;D has serious and cool art work. There is a diversity in the style and content of art in both forms of D&amp;D. This is demonstrable. The trend of gatekeepers that label newer art as overwhelmingly &quot;cute&quot; reeks of an immature urge to put down newer art styles in order to try and give themselves a personal justification for why it's &quot;cool&quot; to play a make-believe fantasy game. This is just a theory, but my opinion is that some people haven't gotten over the Satanic Panic and the bullying they faced as a teenager decades ago for playing the game and need to use &quot;gritty&quot; art work and grimdark playstyles to make up for their adolescent insecurity over liking an elfgame.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Levistus's_Leviathan, post: 9381853, member: 7023887"] No. It's your attitude towards newer art styles that's offensive, which bleeds into whichever terminology you would use. A euphemism that is used the same way as a purposefully offensive term expresses the same meaning. I reject the premise that older D&D art was uniformly "serious, tough, manly, gritty, and cool" and that newer post-Tasha's D&D art is uniformly "cute, childish, Disney/Marvel, twee, and unserious." These sorts of discussions are filled with tons of older art that is "twee" and newer art that is "cool/gritty/serious." However, your "side" always rejects or outright ignores these examples and hides behind "it's just my opinion, opinions can't be wrong" whenever it's proven that your view is wrong. We've done this dance before. I'm sick of it. I think your perception of this trend is a rose-tinted nostalgic view of D&D art that's divorced from the reality of the situation. Older D&D had cute or silly art work and newer D&D has serious and cool art work. There is a diversity in the style and content of art in both forms of D&D. This is demonstrable. The trend of gatekeepers that label newer art as overwhelmingly "cute" reeks of an immature urge to put down newer art styles in order to try and give themselves a personal justification for why it's "cool" to play a make-believe fantasy game. This is just a theory, but my opinion is that some people haven't gotten over the Satanic Panic and the bullying they faced as a teenager decades ago for playing the game and need to use "gritty" art work and grimdark playstyles to make up for their adolescent insecurity over liking an elfgame. [/QUOTE]

Verification