[Dragon] Lord, the cheese...

[Katowice]

I hate having to look sheepish when the mag comes in the mail and my wife says, sarcastically, "Well, isn't that nice?" That said, I don't get the controversy over this cover. I actually thought the Phil Foglio "bare buttocks" art that graced the April Fools 2001 issue was more explicit. Plus, I have more of a problem with depiction of violence and gore. (Remember the infamous "brain-smashing halfling" Dragon issue?)

 

[Katowice]

Not saying whether it's a good or bad thing, but I'd say the strongest impression I'm getting from the argument is that we've been hit with that worst of all curses: "Sound Just Like Your Parents"

Personally, IMHO, speaking only for myself, etc., I see nothing particularly offensive about it, and really can't remember there being a trend of offensive covers. Haven't the last few been big buff guys in armor?

/em gnarlo!

ACK! Where's a cleric with remove curse when you need him?

 

[WizarDru]

I'm no parent, but I feel innocence is over-rated and children should be fostered with ideals of reality and morality in their formative years. Then again, I'm also at odds with the English-speaking world's predeliction for Victorian-era morals, something I fear hasn't really gone that far away and blame for many evils in the English-speaking culture.

It's funny how the folks without children (and I'm not just talking of you, s/LaSH) seem to be so certain about what does and does not affect them. Byan Blackbyrd's assertion that his niece and nephew's perceived ignorance of a Olivia print may or may not be the case...unless he's raising him, I'm not sure he's really seeing any impact it might have. When you live with your children, 7 days a week, you see the ripple effect things can have. Just because they don't freak out at the exact second of an incident doesn't mean it doesn't rattle around for a while. Different children behave different ways. It might not affect them at all...or it could create a lasting impression.

A previous poster mentioned that we "sound like our parents". I've got news for you: your parents weren't always wrong. If being a father has done anything, it's changed my perspectives on my parents dramatically. I see things from the other side of the coin, now, and many times I understand why they did what they did. Why they had to, if they were good parents. I strive to do as good a job with my children as they did with my siblings and me.

I defended the previous issues of Dragon, but this one bugs me, a little. I'm not offended by the cover, but it's exactly the kind of embarassing juvenile sort of material that mutes my enthusiasm for the hobby. Most gamers I know don't advertise the fact outside of gaming circles, due to the kind of perception this sort of material breeds. I did feel the need to hide this issue from my kids. I'm not asking them to stop (although if every issue starts having "I like boobies!" covers, I may not resubscribe), but I pay for my copy of the magazine like others, and I have an equal vote.

If Paizo finds that this cover earns them more than a cover without, that's their perogative. But I think it's a mistake. My wife is a gamer, and she rolled her eyes at the cover. I don't take Dragon into the lunchroom for the same reasons others have mentioned. Comparisons to Cosmopolitan or Vogue are Apples-to-Oranges, IMHO. One is a high-fashion magazines that feature fashion models and the other is a magazine famous for breaking taboos about sexual topics and is specifically geared towards showcasing women's interests, including clothing and fashion. Dragon is a magazine concerned with coverage of a particular table-top game with an emphasis on rules material, historical discussions and social interactions. One features 16-page fashion spreads, another a discussion of breast cancer and the third an article about rules for new kinds of poisons for imaginary characters to use on other imaginary characters.

I frankly find covers like these embarassing. They harken to the image of the 13 year-old nerd who's intimidated by women, and likes to look at sexy pictures of them. That's fine, when I was 13. That was a long time ago for me, and most of Paizo's readership. If they want to do that sort of thing, they can. But I really wish they wouldn't. I don't like having to find a place to keep such materials out of view for my children, in-laws and co-workers. I'd like to be able to proudly mention my hobby, rather than make excuses for it's materials. The inside of the issue is great stuff, too.

While we're on the subject, could we get a little variety going on the covers? I'm a little tired of the 'character study' concept that has been most of the covers (it seems to me) for Dragon under 3E. How about some covers that feature something other than a person (be he Githzerai, Drow, orc paladin or whatever) standing around? I agree with many that Dragon used to have much more dynamic covers. The art quality is fine...just mix it up a bit. Perhaps if the cover wasn't just a study of a leather-dominatrix doled up as a succubus, I wouldn't think it quite as juvenile.

 

[Valanthe the Sleepless]

Grimace to issue 294.

I want someone with dark, short, spikey hair ... actually ... Im hoping Hennet looks a little more hotter in 3.5

Mmmmm Hennet

Speaking of dark, short, spiky hair... I'd really like to see more Kerwin.

Being a female gamer, I'd have to agree with Angelsboi and Dinkledog. I think they really need to even out the cover ratios. Paizo - We need more MEN on the covers now and then. And I'd really like to see more of a variety of other sorts of stuff besides close ups on a character/person. How about more scenes with a number of characters in it?

That aside, I did have to take this away when I found my 2 1/2 year old son had picked this up. This is a bit too much for the younger audience, which is disappointing in a way.

Edit: Oh, I just noticed my husband - Wizardru - posted. He pretty much hit the nail on the head for my thoughts. Way to go Hunney!

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

It's funny how the folks without children (and I'm not just talking of you, s/LaSH) seem to be so certain about what does and does not affect them. Byan Blackbyrd's assertion that his niece and nephew's perceived ignorance of a Olivia print may or may not be the case...unless he's raising him, I'm not sure he's really seeing any impact it might have. When you live with your children, 7 days a week, you see the ripple effect things can have. Just because they don't freak out at the exact second of an incident doesn't mean it doesn't rattle around for a while. Different children behave different ways. It might not affect them at all...or it could create a lasting impression.

Ah well, I've officially been dragged back in.

First I'd like to thank SHARK for bringing some much needed dignity and common sense to this thread. Congratulations.

Now, on to business. My niece also happens to be my goddaughter, and since we only live a few minutes apart I see both her and her brother quite often. I cranked her swing when she was an infant, and I listen to her talk about her homework now. My guess is I know her quite well, and certainly better than you do.
She's been in a local musical, Brownies, Soccer, Softball, a cheerleading camp, etc. She has traveled to quite a few places with her family. Heck, she's more well rounded and has done more than I have. She's seen the print on my wall, and no doubt the art of the old masters in text books (if the school texts haven't been sanitized to utter uselessness yet) and she has not been "damaged" because of this. On the contrary, she is a happy and healthy young girl with a friends and drive.
My point? Maybe when you are brought up well, with a strong moral compass, seeing a drawing that shows less skin than most bathing suits doesn't make that much difference. Why should it?
And after all, it's not the job of Paizo to raise someone else's children and/or shield them from things. If the cover doesn't meet your standards of "child-safety" then don't let them see it. It's that simple. Same thing goes for the television, music, movies and whatever. It's the parents responsibility and should not be foisted off on the rest of society. Hello, video games?
It's funny that the most vocal of parents scream bloody murder about what they see as damaging to children, like video games and movies... drawings; But the really damaging things like the constant teasing and putting down that happens in schools is ignored, because the parents don't see it, and the teachers are too tired to do anything. I guess my priorities are different.

You don't put a blindfold on a child and then send them out into the world, you teach them right from wrong, what to avoid. You give them the tools to live a good life. Maybe so many people like the blindfold because that's how they were raised. What has it gotten us so far?

In my days I have seen plenty of nudity, and a lot of violence. I still enjoy a good nude, I still hate violence. After more than two and a half decades on this spinning chunk of rock I have not been desensitized, and I still care.

Note: Anyone who tries to take what I wrote and say that I advocate bombarding two year-olds with porn will be slapped down by the righteous hand of common sense. You know darn well what I said.

 

[Psion]

My point? Maybe when you are brought up well, with a strong moral compass, seeing a drawing that shows less skin than most bathing suits doesn't make that much difference. Why should it?

This is such a strawman. If I thought (okey, no if, but still) magazine covers were a bad influence on youth, DRAGON would not be my first stop. Cosmo and related magazines have a much more negative impact when it comes to projecting self-doubt in young teens; most teens have never heard of Dragon.

The point is that several customers who WANT the Dragon don't want this sort of low brow cover. It's not going to kill us, or make us into porn addicts. It is simply pandering to a market that is beneath us (in particular, I think the market demographic that this would most appeal to is the precise market graphic that Paizo claims it sells so little to as an excuse to include adult content), disrespects women, and makes the magazine less comfortable to pass around the table in polite company.

AND I don't want to expose my children to it, either.

Edit: Okay, maybe it's not quite a strawman since Dru did beg the subject, but I still think the above point is important.

 

[WizarDru]

Now, on to business. My niece also happens to be my goddaughter, and since we only live a few minutes apart I see both her and her brother quite often. I cranked her swing when she was an infant, and I listen to her talk about her homework now. My guess is I know her quite well, and certainly better than you do.

I should hope you do. Note how I say I'm not sure whether you know or not. It sounds like you do, which I think is wonderful.

My point? Maybe when you are brought up well, with a strong moral compass, seeing a drawing that shows less skin than most bathing suits doesn't make that much difference. Why should it?
And after all, it's not the job of Paizo to raise someone else's children and/or shield them from things. If the cover doesn't meet your standards of "child-safety" then don't let them see it. It's that simple. Same thing goes for the television, music, movies and whatever. It's the parents responsibility and should not be foisted off on the rest of society. Hello, video games?

You're preaching to the converted here. Notice that I didn't ask Paizo to stop, but stated that I just don't like it. I wish they wouldn't do it. But I also said that if it keeps them in business, and makes them money, I don't begrudge them that. It's my personal preference they not do it, and I use my own parenting decisions to guide my choices. I don't expect Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, WotC or Paizo to make those choices for me, and wouldn't want them to. That's my job, and my wife's job.

You don't put a blindfold on a child and then send them out into the world, you teach them right from wrong, what to avoid. You give them the tools to live a good life. Maybe so many people like the blindfold because that's how they were raised. What has it gotten us so far?

It worked for me, and it's what I do for my children. But I was mostly disagreeing with s/LaSH's contention that "innocence is overrated". I'm not trying to force my parenting decisions on anyone else. Neither am I trying to force Paizo to do anything due to some internal moral compass. But I just wish they'd saved that picture for the inside of the magazine, where'd it have better context, if anything.

I'm a strong advocate of giving your children the right tools to function, and they'll work out fine. Events like Columbine don't come out of left field, the come out of a breakdown of multiple levels. Doom 3 doesn't cause violence, a lack of context, support and values does. My parents both were regular church-goers, and made us go every Sunday. But my mother, bless her, looked at the D&D books after I bought them, found them unoffensive and let it go at that. She liked to keep an eye on us while we played, to make sure it was all what it appeared to be, but that was it. She trusted me, because she knew that I knew how to make the right moral choices. It's my goal to repeat that for my kids.

The other thing you have to consider is that I dislike the cover on purely aesthetic grounds. It's like DOA: XBV...it just seems kind of unnecessary and juvenile. If I want porn, I'll go get porn.

 

[buzz]

I'm not offended by the cover, but it's exactly the kind of embarassing juvenile sort of material that mutes my enthusiasm for the hobby.

Dru, you are my hero.

As someone else said, this whole discussion of "offense" and morality is really getting off the subject. My original complaint with the cover wasn't that it was laden with sex. My complaint is that it's puerile cheese best appreciated by "sexually intimidated 13-year olds."

I'm sorry, but my hobby is better than that.

3e-era Dragon was on a roll for a while, with some excellent covers (including the Foglio one, imo). I'd like to see Paizo maintain the tradition.

 

[buzz]

Sorry to break it to you, but... look on page 143 of the Monster Manual.

I know. Just about the worst piece of art in the core books. Thankfully, that and the butt-cheese cover Elmore did for Dragon are about the only appearances he's made in 3e products (barring Sovereign Stone).

And for this I am glad.

 

[Bran Blackbyrd]

... DRAGON would not be my first stop.

Ayup.

The point is that several customers who WANT the Dragon don't want this sort of low brow cover.

Once again though, this is subjective. What is low brow? A lot of people don't think that the cover is low brow at all. You could say that those people have low standards or are low brow themselves, but that would be insulting, wouldn't it. Maybe even snobbery.

It's not going to kill us, or make us into porn addicts.

Ayup.

It is simply pandering to a market that is beneath us (in particular, I think the market demographic that this would most appeal to is the precise market graphic that Paizo claims it sells so little to as an excuse to include adult content), disrespects women, and makes the magazine less comfortable to pass around the table in polite company.

Well, then I guess you should do what some of the other offended people have done and put your money where your mouth is. Quit buying Dragon. If the cover isn't a big enough deal for you to quit buying, then you've essentially voided your argument. We can't all have our cake and eat it too. Until then, Paizo will see what the sales data tells them, That to the majority (no one sells to the minority unless they charge an arm and a leg) of buyers the covers either don't matter, or are appealing.

AND I don't want to expose my children to it, either.

Your prerogative and your responsibility, not mine, not Paizo's. It does not take a village to raise a child, because the other villagers usually have their own crap to deal with.

Edit: Okay, maybe it's not quite a strawman since Dru did beg the subject, but I still think the above point is important.

Yeah, bringing it up pretty much makes it fair game.