Dragon’s-Eye View 3/28/2012... now with ENW poll!

[Lwaxy]

That's a fair point, but JS's post is about realism and styles of armor, not depictions of women.

But the depiction is very unrealistic. Objectifying, too.

Maybe they should have done examples with males.

 

[Sunseeker]

But the depiction is very unrealistic. Objectifying, too.

Maybe they should have done examples with males.

I would love to start a discussion to sexual objectification of males. It wouldn't end well though.

 

[delericho]

Problem is, "powerful" is "sexy" for males.

There's more to male sexiness than simply the 'idealised' hulking badass. See Han Solo, Captain Jack Sparrow (or, indeed, Captain Jack Harkness), or Colin Firth's Darcy for examples. Not to mention Spike, Eric Northman, or Edward of "Twilight" fame.

I could also talk about posture, and specifically the frequency of 'dominant' and 'submissive' poses in artwork, but I'd rather offer up a litmus test: Dragon #294.

That was the issue that tied in to the new 3e "Deities & Demigods" book, and had a "surfer dude" picture of Hermes. It's not the scowling, over-muscled hulk-man, but it was very definitely intended as a 'sexy' cover.

And the nerdrage was incredible. You would have thought the editors had come round to subscribers' houses and kicked their pets, for all the vitriol that was poured over that cover.

(From the letter's page in issue #296, referring to that cover: "I overheard a group of male gamers saying, "What the hell is this? I can't buy this!"", and "Although the cover art on issue #294 is excellent from a technical viewpoint, showing Ms Nielsen's great skill and panache, it's a subject that frankly makes me a bit queasy. If you're going to show someone in very little clothing on the cover, please make it a lady, in deference to the 98 percent male readership of your magazine.")

Anyway, that's my challenge to the WotC art team. If they're going with the standard hyper-sexy, absurdly-posed female characters of previous editions*, then I want to see a reappearance of "surfer dude" Hermes, or similar. Or I want an explanation as to why they feel it is appropriate to portray female characters one way, but not males.

* I should qualify that: that sometimes occur in previous editions - not every depiction falls into this mould, of course! Indeed, the majority do not. But enough do to be notable.

 

[Sunseeker]

There's more to male sexiness than simply the 'idealised' hulking badass. See Han Solo, Captain Jack Sparrow (or, indeed, Captain Jack Harkness), or Colin Firth's Darcy for examples. Not to mention Spike, Eric Northman, or Edward of "Twilight" fame.

While these guys lack physical might(edward has your typical "vampires are superman" power), that doesn't mean they lack power. Han Solo oozes "cool" as is a badass behind a blaster or a space ship. He's basically your "hot guy in a hot car" trope with a little bit of John Wayne mixed in. Sparrow has the same kind of feeling in a bit more goofy way, Spike is basically Han Solo.

So sure, power isn't just about physical might, but for a man to be sexy they usually have power of some kind.

I could also talk about posture, and specifically the frequency of 'dominant' and 'submissive' poses in artwork, but I'd rather offer up a litmus test: Dragon #294.

That was the issue that tied in to the new 3e "Deities & Demigods" book, and had a "surfer dude" picture of Hermes. It's not the scowling, over-muscled hulk-man, but it was very definitely intended as a 'sexy' cover.

And the nerdrage was incredible. You would have thought the editors had come round to subscribers' houses and kicked their pets, for all the vitriol that was poured over that cover.

(From the letter's page in issue #296, referring to that cover: "I overheard a group of male gamers saying, "What the hell is this? I can't buy this!"", and "Although the cover art on issue #294 is excellent from a technical viewpoint, showing Ms Nielsen's great skill and panache, it's a subject that frankly makes me a bit queasy. If you're going to show someone in very little clothing on the cover, please make it a lady, in deference to the 98 percent male readership of your magazine.")

I'm not familiar with that particular instance, but I think it's patently ridiculous. I mean if I had to provide a list of my ideas of a "sexy woman" there'd probably be 1 out of maybe 10 or 20 images who comes off anything like our earlier "fantastic realism" image.

Anyway, that's my challenge to the WotC art team. If they're going with the standard hyper-sexy, absurdly-posed female characters of previous editions*, then I want to see a reappearance of "surfer dude" Hermes, or similar. Or I want an explanation as to why they feel it is appropriate to portray female characters one way, but not males.

* I should qualify that: that sometimes occur in previous editions - not every depiction falls into this mould, of course! Indeed, the majority do not. But enough do to be notable.

I agree that if we've got sexy-posed women, we should have sexy posed men, but then, taking from 4e as an example, browsing through the book there are probably only half a dozen pictures with "sexy poses" as opposed to positions that could be taken as realistic to it's effect. I think that's a fine number of "sexy" images considering the dozens of images in any given book.

 

[El Mahdi]

Tarzan doesn't coexist with Charlemagne. In any marginally-realistic world, he finds himself cut down in seconds...

I don't know about this. I think I can see Tarzan coexisting in a world with Charlemagne. Sure, Tarzan in France is going to get cut down in a conflict with Chalemagne's Paladins. But likewise, I think Tarzan would win in a conflict in his environment against the same opponents.

Unfortunately though, such differentiation is poorly modeled with D&D.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Thinking into Fantastic Realism, I'd say that spikes on armour would actually be valid when you consider how many monsters out there have tentacles with grapple attacks. I'd think a Mind Flayer might be a little hesitant trying to eat the brain of someone with a spiky helmet in combat (but that's what mind blast is for). Though realistic spikes wouldn't be spikes the size of daggers.

 

[Lwaxy]

I don't think I want "sexy" in the game at all, at least not in the way of too much naked skin. The depiction of females in the fantasy arts was a big obstacle to getting the girls to play here, and from the younger ones (boys and girls), some were not getting parental permission because of the "porn style" pictures of women.

The parents didn't want their kids involved with anything "sexy" even if it was just the chance of being exposed to such pictures. Bit weird seeing how they are probably more exposed to such pictures in the pop and fashion world but still. For some not familiar with the whole topic, fantasy gaming seems to equal half naked women and sweaty men. And it doesn't help if I explain that there is no sexy in my games for kids when the official books contain the same style of pictures.

 

[delericho]

Thinking into Fantastic Realism, I'd say that spikes on armour would actually be valid when you consider how many monsters out there have tentacles with grapple attacks. I'd think a Mind Flayer might be a little hesitant trying to eat the brain of someone with a spiky helmet in combat (but that's what mind blast is for). Though realistic spikes wouldn't be spikes the size of daggers.

To be fair, the idea of a Mind Flayer eating anyone's brain while in combat is rather silly. Subdue first, then dine.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think I want "sexy" in the game at all, at least not in the way of too much naked skin. The depiction of females in the fantasy arts was a big obstacle to getting the girls to play here, and from the younger ones (boys and girls), some were not getting parental permission because of the "porn style" pictures of women.

The parents didn't want their kids involved with anything "sexy" even if it was just the chance of being exposed to such pictures. Bit weird seeing how they are probably more exposed to such pictures in the pop and fashion world but still. For some not familiar with the whole topic, fantasy gaming seems to equal half naked women and sweaty men. And it doesn't help if I explain that there is no sexy in my games for kids when the official books contain the same style of pictures.

I agree that sexy art should be minimal, but I still want d&d to retain mature art. I would be dishonest if I felt that didn't include sexual subjects, but it would absolutely kill my love for the game if the art became neutered and childish in an attention to appeal to children. I consider d&d to be on average a pg-13 game and it's target market appropiately aged.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I agree that sexy art should be minimal, but I still want d&d to retain mature art. I would be dishonest if I felt that didn't include sexual subjects, but it would absolutely kill my love for the game if the art became neutered and childish in an attention to appeal to children. I consider d&d to be on average a pg-13 game and it's target market appropiately aged.

The problem isn't nudity or indeed "sexual subjects." The problem is when art that doesn't call for it unnecessarily focuses on the T&A. That is what I call childish.

If the art can handle it maturely, it's fine. A semi-good example is the races page from the 3.5 PHB. A bad example is the front cover of the 4e PHB (Wayne Reynolds, surprise surprise).