Composer99
Hero
This is coming across as claiming that sartorial choices equal a willingness to be objectified.
That... isn't a good look.
D&D 5E D&D and who it's aimed at
- Thread starter Morrus
- Start date
That... isn't a good look.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
The trouble is that's never been D&D's vibe.LOL yes, and 95% naked dudes with huge swords.
I've been very clear here.
The closest you can get from 2E onwards is Dark Sun, but even that has a more Mad Max than Conan The Barbarian vibe. So it's not really reasonable to expect WotC to do that kind of art in 5E, when TSR didn't in 2E, and WotC didn't in 3E, and didn't in 4E.
There's definitely a market for the "everyone is almost naked, totally ripped, and maybe a little oiled-up" kind of fantasy. And I'm not going to lie and say I hate that look, because I definitely do not. But I don't think it makes sense for D&D.
I do think D&D right now is playing it a little too safe artistically, on multiple levels, but that's not really new - WotC has always had a fairly narrow vision of acceptable D&D art, and one that has been narrowing over time. I'd push for distinctive art before I pushed for more risque or risky art myself. At least WotC regularly publishes very distinctive and stylish artwork - just for MtG, not D&D.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
What never?!
Well, hardly ever.
I think it was a bit before your time, but in the early 80s there was a lot of that sort of imagery around. In White Dwarf for example, which introduced us to the Houri class, which could stun males by using it's Drop Clothes power.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Yeah I actually edited my post for length and clarity before posting (for once in my life lol) and took out a bit where I basically said "from 2E onwards", because there was a bit of it in the '80s and very early '90s (including stuff like the Ravenloft cover). Though not nearly as much some other RPGs.
D&D doesn't do Sword and Sorcery setting outside of Dark Sun. It does the the character archetypes. Bare chested barbarian. Grimey rogue. Soldier of fortune fighter. Disgraced, ousted, or down on his luck knight. Grey mage.
There no money in a S&S setting unless you go HAM or add a twist like Dark Sun.
So once nerddom grew, there was no point of constant focus after the PHB.
There no money in a S&S setting unless you go HAM or add a twist like Dark Sun.
So once nerddom grew, there was no point of constant focus after the PHB.
Greg Benage
Legend
Yeah, I definitely don't agree with that interpretation. In REH, it's cyclical, not some kind of linear "progress": Civilizations rise out of savagery, grow corrupt and decadent, decline and fall, rinse and repeat. The Hyborians aren't "more civilized" than the Atlanteans; the Thurian Age, too, had its decadent civilizations and upstart barbarians (e.g. Kull). A second cataclysm will end the Hyborian Age and make way for our own...and the rise and fall of civilizations will continue in our history.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Cyclical, yes. But during the Hyborian Age the wheel is on it's way up, not on it's way down.
Greg Benage
Legend
During every age, the wheel is on its way up for some civilizations, and on its way down (or already all the way down) for others. Many of Conan's adventures are set amongst the ruins of the latter.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
You don't need a setting to do Sword and Sorcery. According to wikipedia:
Sword and sorcery - Wikipedia
So you can do it in most D&D settings (apart from Dragonlance, which is pretty much the antithesis). It's defined by more what you don't have, not what you do. Don't have a world threatening danger. Don't have black and white morality. Don't have a bunch of do-gooders as PCs. Don't have an overcomplicated plot.
And of course, at least one of those depends on the players. If the players decide they want to be The Fellowship or The Avengers, there's nothing the DM, the module, or the setting can do to turn it into Sword and sorcery.
Last edited:
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Yeah part of the issue is simply that S&S as a genre has basically been erased by "epic fantasy" in the modern fantasy-reader's consciousness. If you're not publishing a trilogy or even better a series of dead-minimum 300, preferably 500-page plus novels, do you even write fantasy, bro? Certainly the average fantasy fan today will say "No". The idea of reading short stories (THE HORROR) is particularly repugnant, when they're used to immense rolling novels. I mean, I can't entirely blame them - a lot of fantasy works really well in that format, but it also means that older S&S doesn't stand a chance. Even amazing writers like Le Guin, who did write multi-book series are gradually getting forgotten because there aren't literally thousands of pages of blather about Sparrowhawk, only a few hundred, and it's insufficiently power-fantasy-ish. And it's becoming increasingly clear that quantity might be more important than quality though I will not name names re: the authors making this evident!
