D&D 5E D&D Next Art Column Discussion: May

[Lalato]

I'm not sure why anyone would vote "R". When has D&D ever been rated "R"? In fact, when has it ever been rated "PG-13"? At most it has been "PG".

In looking through official D&D art, there are definite differences between the editions, but even so there has rarely been anything spank-worthy (that's a technical term). And yes, I'm including Elmore and the rest.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'm not sure why anyone would vote "R". When has D&D ever been rated "R"? In fact, when has it ever been rated "PG-13"? At most it has been "PG".

I voted "R" to keep the average on the scale as far away from "G" as possible.

 

[Hussar]

I voted "R" to keep the average on the scale as far away from "G" as possible.

Thing is though, most of the art in D&D has been pretty G. I compare the average Disney movie to most art and honestly, there isn't a huge difference. Take a look at some of the iconic D&D art - A Paladin in Hell, for example. That's something I would see in most G movies.

To put it another way, D&D has always been far closer to G than R.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Thing is though, most of the art in D&D has been pretty G. I compare the average Disney movie to most art and honestly, there isn't a huge difference. Take a look at some of the iconic D&D art - A Paladin in Hell, for example. That's something I would see in most G movies.

To put it another way, D&D has always been far closer to G than R.

The 1e Succubus picture had nudity and there are plenty of scantily clad figures. There's also the Book of Vile Darkness itself, and most did show some usually bloodless violence but I do remember some blood and things like shrunken heads and heads on pikes.

And just because a movie is "R" or even "PG" doesn't mean it has a lot of "non-G" material in every single scene.

 

[Libramarian]

The thing is, I'm also an adult who doesn't (currently) play with children, and I have no problem with R-rated art in and of itself. Nor indeed do I have any inherent issue with more explicit material, in and of itself. Still, I don't want present in the D&D core. (I would, however, be fine with it being present in supplements that are clearly marked as being for "Mature Audiences".)

This actually ties in quite nicely with my opinions about sexism in the artwork, and since I can make the argument more clearly that way, that's what I'm going to go with.

Here's the thing: my wife is not a gamer. However, she is a big fan of "Lord of the Rings", is fairly well-read in fantasy literature in general, was recently caught reading the latest Pathfinder book, and is indeed a bit of a geek herself (but don't tell her I said that). In many ways, she is exactly the sort of person that WotC should be aiming to recruit as a player - someone interested in the subject matter, and who might, with the right push, become a gamer.

Now, I don't think that the artwork in the game should be tailored specifically to market the game towards her. To be honest, I'm not actually sure what that would really mean. But what I am quite certain of is that WotC shouldn't fill the books with artwork that will drive her away. So, if the books are full of wall-to-wall cleavage, if every female character is barely dressed and posed for maximum effect, and if the female heroes are constantly being depicted as being in peril (with the big, tough men around to save them, of course), she'll push them aside, roll her eyes, and never take another look at the game.

The extension of that towards the "age rating" of the artwork should be quite obvious - I don't necessarily want the game aimed at 10-year-olds. In fact, that would almost certainly be counter-productive.

But I have a nephew who's nearly six, and who one day may become a gamer. Another parent in my group has children well on the way to becoming gamers. That's the audience of the future. WotC don't need to aim the artwork for them... they just need to not include artwork that will prevent me from giving my nephew a PHB when the time comes.

I don't think that those who would like to see a lot of cheesecake art and the implication of conquest-based sexuality really have a leg to stand on, because D&D have never been about that at all in terms of its tropes and typical adventure content. It's not incompatible with what the game is to depict men and women as being equal in adventuring ability.

However I think it's a fair argument to say that D&D is inherently unsuitable for children. Typical D&D adventures feature horrible monsters with a taste for human flesh, the killing of intelligent beings, stealing others' property, and often taking prisoners and threatening or even torturing them for information. And then when you think about the cognitive demands on the game in terms of reading and mathematics, and organizational ability, I can't see it being a suitable game for children unless fundamental changes were made. I don't support making those changes, so I don't think ensuring the art is suitable for children would have any benefit.

If I wanted to introduce pre-teen children to D&D, I first of all would be running the game myself, and I would plan a specific sort of adventure (PCs and monsters are knocked out rather than killed; PCs are working for the good of some group of people rather than their own wealth and power). I would never just give them the books and tell them to run their own game, so it wouldn't really matter whether I felt that some pieces of art were unsuitable for them.

D&D doesn't need to hook children to have a future audience, it can wait until they're teenagers. I probably wouldn't mind if the art were aimed at older teenagers, because this is a silly game that I play partly in the spirit of my teenage self, let's be honest here.

But for example, I totally want the sort of art that gives children nightmares. Not that I want to give children nightmares, but I don't want the artists to avoid that in order to be inclusive towards children.

 

[Lalato]

Sorry Libramarian, but I started around 10 years of age, somewhere around 1980. Memory is fuzzy on exact dates now. My friend, same age, and I discovered the game at a local model train hobby store... and we were hooked right away.

If the books had anything beyond PG art in them, I would not have been able to spend my small allowance on them... and they would not have made suitable gifts from my parents.

The occasional uncovered breast that might have been found in the Monster Manual doesn't really go much beyond PG... if at all, really. A child can see uncovered breasts in any art gallery without an adult so much as batting an eye.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Some of what is PG-13 now would have been PG then. Conversely, some of what is PG-13 now would have been R then. Oddly, it seems that our standards have moved to being much more permissive of gore, and much less permissive of language and nudity.

You really want an eye opener for that - watch the original then the remake of Bad News Bears.

Original - Smoking, drinking, swearing. No nudity or even much hint of it. The bad coach hits hit kid to knock him down. At the end Buttermaker gives the kids beer.

Remake - Not much smoking (if at all), all alcohol is not in front of the kids (pouring he alcohol into a container off screen is okay) - hooters and busty bikinis not uncmmon, the bad coach knocks hat off with a swipe, but knocks him down with a shove that was a little too strong.

I was really surprised about the difference in mores in just, what 30 years or so.

 

[Dausuul]

However I think it's a fair argument to say that D&D is inherently unsuitable for children. Typical D&D adventures feature horrible monsters with a taste for human flesh, the killing of intelligent beings, stealing others' property, and often taking prisoners and threatening or even torturing them for information.

Little Red Riding Hood. Hansel and Gretel. Goldilocks. Rumpelstiltskin.

And that's just from sanitized modern fairy tales. Go back and read the original Snow White story sometime. *shudder*

 

[Incenjucar]

Eating the flesh of sapient creatures is pretty much the default for children's literature.

"Gobble you up" is an outright cliche.

 

[Hussar]

AD&D was for 10 and up. Said so right on the cover.

The 1e Succubus picture had nudity and there are plenty of scantily clad figures. There's also the Book of Vile Darkness itself, and most did show some usually bloodless violence but I do remember some blood and things like shrunken heads and heads on pikes.

And just because a movie is "R" or even "PG" doesn't mean it has a lot of "non-G" material in every single scene.

"Scantily clad figures" - MTV, Katy Perry, Madonna, etc.

Now, Pirates of the Carribean was PG-13 in the States, which would make it PG in Canada. So, I think there is a bit of miscommunication going on because of the different standards.

I think that's a pretty fair guide for me. Pirates of the Caribbean, Indiana Jones, even the original Star Wars (they did have a severed arm sitting on the floor at one point) are all about where I would like to see D&D at. Heck, even the later Harry Potter movies probably hits it as well. You've got on-screen death, lots and lots of violence, a bit of sexuality (in the last couple of movies anyway).

I could live with my D&D being at that level.

I'd also point out that Book of Vile Darkness did come with a reader advisory on the cover because of the content. I most certainly DON'T want that on my core D&D books.