Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Comeliness and Representation in Recent DnD Art
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9309724" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>I gotta say I feel like these are the sort of very specific requests a total non-artist might make without even slightly considering how difficult and unlikely it is some of them could really be represented in any meaningful way in dynamic/heroic/adventurer-oriented fantasy art, as opposed to a bunch of extreme-close-up full-page headshot portraits.</p><p></p><p>Like teeth, I get what you're saying, let's have more British teeth (and I say that as a Brit, we really do tend to eschew braces and whitening and so on relative to Americans - but then so does much of the world), but how many images is that even going to come up in? I can't even think of an image of a character showing their teeth enough that I could tell whether they'd "had braces" or not.</p><p></p><p>Likewise combat-vs-non-combat scars? How on earth would we even know? Scarring is extremely complex and variable, and many non-combat scars potentially look like combat scars and vice-versa. That's a backstory element much more than something to be represented in art. Most of the few "distinctive" non-combat scars are likely to be covered in conventional situations, too.</p><p></p><p>Acne scars/pox-marks and so on are something actually seen sometimes in "gritty" fantasy art (and again, it's not easy to distinguish the two), but how often are we going to be zoomed in enough to see that kind of thing? No often, I'd suggest. And many art styles just don't really go for that kind of detail - it's usually only seen once you get into a certain kind of "realist" style, which is no longer prevalent in fantasy art. So it's a thoughtless demand, I'd say.</p><p></p><p>In general I think this sort of request without really thinking it through isn't very helpful, not even to the groups it purports to encourage representation for.</p><p></p><p>HOWEVER!</p><p></p><p>I do think that there is a <em>lot</em> of stuff that could be represented better - weight is one area that really could be done better. I don't think your "un-athletic" comment makes any real sense for classes reliant on STR/DEX/CON, unless you mean "not looking like track and field athletes". Like we could definitely do with more art of characters who have the rope-y muscles and weathered skin of a seafarer (rather than perfectly toned gym muscles), we could also do with people who have both muscle and fat - something actually videogames have been getting better at - like this is Thor in the most recent God of War - and he's not a figure of fun or a joke or anything (unlike "fat Thor" in the MCU), he's quite a threatening and powerful character (also sorry I could find a better picture - in game he looks less conventionally attractive than he might read here - but has great presence).</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]356052[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Ethnicity and gender diversity and ambiguity and so on are also obviously very possible to represent well and don't require zoomed-in portraits to likely to be noticed (and to be fair, fantasy art has a long history of ambiguously gendered characters).</p><p></p><p>Body hair levels could also probably stand to go up - that can be difficult to represent well, depending on art style, but I do think that is an area that more likely to be possible, and it'd be nice to see fewer waxed chests, not more. This is also something that I think actually some "pro-diverse" art absolutely misses on, because the artists are unconsciously rejecting overly "traditionally masculine" imagery, despite the fact that many trans-masc and other people are actually keen on looking that way, and many hirsute masc people being somewhat excluded from conventional representations of attractiveness for the last three decades (a non-binary podcaster I'm a fan of is hirsute as hell for example, face, head and body). Also hair on femme characters is skipped when thinking "diverse", seemingly because it's seen as sexualized, which, frankly, is a bit pathetic. Sure, some people inevitably are howling like a wolf when they see femme armpit hair or the like, but more are howling like wolves at a pretty face or a good figure, so that shouldn't really be a reason. It's a sort of unconscious bias that I don't think has really been addressed yet by mainstream progressive ideas.</p><p></p><p>Re: attractiveness, whilst I concur completely with rejecting Hollywood-specific ideas of attractiveness, I think it's important that most characters that appear to be player characters should be, on some level, to at least some people, attractive, because to be real - almost everyone thinks they are attractive, and most people have evidence to support that, in the form of lovers/friends/fans whatever! It's notable to me that the only people I've ever come across who intentionally self-described "unattractive" characters (rather than character they found attractive but some might not) were the most down-the-line hetero-cis-white-male players and usually they were often playing pretty nasty characters. That's obviously very different from "not Hollywood hot", but I think it's worth noting. It's also worth noting that, being real, standards of attractiveness in 2024 are just a lot broader than they were in say, 1984. Being thin is no longer a requirement for men or women. Thicc is broadly a compliment, for example. Facial hair on masc people is neither a crime nor a requirement as it has flipped between in earlier decades. Neither long hair nor short is unacceptable on masc or femme people. Darker skin could still do with more representation, but the standards are still broader than they were. So a ton more diversity here whilst being attractive should be highly doable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9309724, member: 18"] I gotta say I feel like these are the sort of very specific requests a total non-artist might make without even slightly considering how difficult and unlikely it is some of them could really be represented in any meaningful way in dynamic/heroic/adventurer-oriented fantasy art, as opposed to a bunch of extreme-close-up full-page headshot portraits. Like teeth, I get what you're saying, let's have more British teeth (and I say that as a Brit, we really do tend to eschew braces and whitening and so on relative to Americans - but then so does much of the world), but how many images is that even going to come up in? I can't even think of an image of a character showing their teeth enough that I could tell whether they'd "had braces" or not. Likewise combat-vs-non-combat scars? How on earth would we even know? Scarring is extremely complex and variable, and many non-combat scars potentially look like combat scars and vice-versa. That's a backstory element much more than something to be represented in art. Most of the few "distinctive" non-combat scars are likely to be covered in conventional situations, too. Acne scars/pox-marks and so on are something actually seen sometimes in "gritty" fantasy art (and again, it's not easy to distinguish the two), but how often are we going to be zoomed in enough to see that kind of thing? No often, I'd suggest. And many art styles just don't really go for that kind of detail - it's usually only seen once you get into a certain kind of "realist" style, which is no longer prevalent in fantasy art. So it's a thoughtless demand, I'd say. In general I think this sort of request without really thinking it through isn't very helpful, not even to the groups it purports to encourage representation for. HOWEVER! I do think that there is a [I]lot[/I] of stuff that could be represented better - weight is one area that really could be done better. I don't think your "un-athletic" comment makes any real sense for classes reliant on STR/DEX/CON, unless you mean "not looking like track and field athletes". Like we could definitely do with more art of characters who have the rope-y muscles and weathered skin of a seafarer (rather than perfectly toned gym muscles), we could also do with people who have both muscle and fat - something actually videogames have been getting better at - like this is Thor in the most recent God of War - and he's not a figure of fun or a joke or anything (unlike "fat Thor" in the MCU), he's quite a threatening and powerful character (also sorry I could find a better picture - in game he looks less conventionally attractive than he might read here - but has great presence). [ATTACH type="full" width="262px" alt="1712320093867.png"]356052[/ATTACH] Ethnicity and gender diversity and ambiguity and so on are also obviously very possible to represent well and don't require zoomed-in portraits to likely to be noticed (and to be fair, fantasy art has a long history of ambiguously gendered characters). Body hair levels could also probably stand to go up - that can be difficult to represent well, depending on art style, but I do think that is an area that more likely to be possible, and it'd be nice to see fewer waxed chests, not more. This is also something that I think actually some "pro-diverse" art absolutely misses on, because the artists are unconsciously rejecting overly "traditionally masculine" imagery, despite the fact that many trans-masc and other people are actually keen on looking that way, and many hirsute masc people being somewhat excluded from conventional representations of attractiveness for the last three decades (a non-binary podcaster I'm a fan of is hirsute as hell for example, face, head and body). Also hair on femme characters is skipped when thinking "diverse", seemingly because it's seen as sexualized, which, frankly, is a bit pathetic. Sure, some people inevitably are howling like a wolf when they see femme armpit hair or the like, but more are howling like wolves at a pretty face or a good figure, so that shouldn't really be a reason. It's a sort of unconscious bias that I don't think has really been addressed yet by mainstream progressive ideas. Re: attractiveness, whilst I concur completely with rejecting Hollywood-specific ideas of attractiveness, I think it's important that most characters that appear to be player characters should be, on some level, to at least some people, attractive, because to be real - almost everyone thinks they are attractive, and most people have evidence to support that, in the form of lovers/friends/fans whatever! It's notable to me that the only people I've ever come across who intentionally self-described "unattractive" characters (rather than character they found attractive but some might not) were the most down-the-line hetero-cis-white-male players and usually they were often playing pretty nasty characters. That's obviously very different from "not Hollywood hot", but I think it's worth noting. It's also worth noting that, being real, standards of attractiveness in 2024 are just a lot broader than they were in say, 1984. Being thin is no longer a requirement for men or women. Thicc is broadly a compliment, for example. Facial hair on masc people is neither a crime nor a requirement as it has flipped between in earlier decades. Neither long hair nor short is unacceptable on masc or femme people. Darker skin could still do with more representation, but the standards are still broader than they were. So a ton more diversity here whilst being attractive should be highly doable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Comeliness and Representation in Recent DnD Art
Top