Chainmail Bikinis & other Cheesecake art in the 4th Edition Core Books.

[Lord Fyre]

I guess what I'm saying is that in my experience I've never seen a girl who was offended by the art. In fact, at my table its been the girls who are interested in getting the most revealing clothing possible to cover their character's "assets", even going so far as bringing in "cheesecake art" because what was in the books wasn't "sexy" enough for their characters.

Since we are talking about the three (or so) CORE rulebooks, it might be better for WoTC to use a more "neutral" style for the art. :\

My experience with female gamers has been similar. This counters the people arguing that it is offensive or explotive (to a large degree), so Cheesecake style art definitely has a place in D&D.

I would hope that the suggestion that moving such rules, images, etc. beinging moved to suppliments and setting specific material would be an acceptable compromise. But, I haven't been seeing that from either side.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

My experience with female gamers has been similar. This counters the people arguing that it is offensive or explotive (to a large degree), so Cheesecake style art definitely has a place in D&D.(

Isn't this extending the specific experience to a general assumption? I'm all for good art if not cheesecake art, but not everyone is, especially in a book with such a widespread audience. (The Exalted picture? Turned me off when I saw it. Like it couldn't make up its mind between cheesecake and soft pr0n, and got neither right.)

 

[S'mon]

(The Exalted picture? Turned me off when I saw it. Like it couldn't make up its mind between cheesecake and soft pr0n, and got neither right.)

The fetishistic groin-centred pics like that Exalted one (or Pozas' #1 pic, for a milder example) seem incongruous to me in a swords & sorcery type game, in a way that a traditional Red Sonja style Valkyrie pic doesn't. I think this started with '90s California pornography industry & and entered the mainstream culture through the likes of 'Baywatch'. The idea of all the waxing & plucking necessary to wear such outfits harms my Suspension of Disbelief.

I do agree with the point that plenty of female players want to play Amazons in chainmail bikinis, just as many male players want to play loincloth-clad barbarians. I think it tends to be mostly a slightly older, post-college demographic though. Most female (and male) players want their PCs to be attractive, but basically fully dressed. Also it depends on the setting - when I ran Conan RPG, female players whose D&D PCs wore heavy robes & armour were playing female barbarians with loincloth & broadsword, just like the guys.

 

[Lord Fyre]

Isn't this extending the specific experience to a general assumption? I'm all for good art if not cheesecake art, but not everyone is, especially in a book with such a widespread audience. (The Exalted picture? Turned me off when I saw it. Like it couldn't make up its mind between cheesecake and soft pr0n, and got neither right.)

Not quite, I am extending it to a "counter assumption." It simply says that "all women" type generalizations cannot be used either for or against.

And, I responded to the Exalted image in a separate response.

 

[IanB]

Not quite, I am extending it to a "counter assumption." It simply says that "all women" type generalizations cannot be used either for or against.

And, I responded to the Exalted image in a separate response.

But on some level, it doesn't really matter if some women don't mind that there's objectifying/just plain silly art in the game; the real question is would they be upset if it was removed.

If there is a significant number of new customers who would be made happy by keeping the art focused more towards the "actual armor someone not completely self-destructive would wear to a fight" side of things, and another chunk of customers who are not bothered by such things but also wouldn't be really angry if they were changed, then it makes business sense to cater the art towards the tastes of that first group, because it probably means more sales overall.

I suspect the game would stand to gain more customers by giving more emphasis to the plate in breastplate than it would lose by doing so; I'm betting the number of people who would actually quit because there's no pin-up art in their RPG books is pretty tiny.

 

[Lord Fyre]

But on some level, it doesn't really matter if some women don't mind that there's objectifying/just plain silly art in the game; the real question is would they be upset if it was removed.

Unknown. But I think it is unlikely that they would be upset enough to not by the books.

If there is a significant number of new customers who would be made happy by keeping the art focused more towards the "actual armor someone not completely self-destructive would wear to a fight" side of things, and another chunk of customers who are not bothered by such things but also wouldn't be really angry if they were changed, then it makes business sense to cater the art towards the tastes of that first group, because it probably means more sales overall.

Technically a speculation, but a reasonable one. And, since this thread is about the CORE rulebooks, your assertion is - in my opinion - a valid one.

B.T.W., I find you quote "actual armor someone not completely self-destructive would wear to a fight" mildly annoying since - clearly - not everyone shares your preference any more then mine.

This is why I made my compromise suggestion in a previous posting on this thread.

I suspect the game would stand to gain more customers by giving more emphasis to the plate in breastplate than it would lose by doing so; I'm betting the number of people who would actually quit because there's no pin-up art in their RPG books is pretty tiny.

Not to mention, that there is a 99% chance the 3rd party publishers would "fill that void" in any case.

(But if so, I hope that they have more "class" then the "Sages and Sorcerers" artist. )