D&D 5E Mearls and Crawford interview with The Mary Sue

[Melkor]

When did this become about player agency? Sure, PCs can dress how they like. If I have 3 players and of the three PCs, one is dressed like a clown, one is covered in cow dung, and one is stark naked with a duck on his head, wonderful. Doesn't mean we need a picture of that in the book.

Yeah, lets take this as ridiculous as possible an argument based on cow dung, clowns, and ducks. That line of thinking is almost as ridiculous as being able to rationalize a levitating eyeball that shoots death rays, but getting hung up on chafing.

I have three women I regularly play with in my six person gaming group. One of which is an avid comic book and fantasy reader, and is very cognizant of sexism in fantasy art. She was the first person to point me to a link to the Hawkeye Initiative. Even so, all three of them have picked art for their characters over the years(either their own sketches or stuff they have found) that I would say is based on on imagery of 'scantily clad' females. All inspired by various images found in AD&D/3E/3.5/Pathfinder or Frazetta. Why should art they might enjoy seeing (or be inspired by) in game books be restricted to your ideas of 'realism' in a FANTASY game?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Exactly. the game itself shouldn't be limiting. Nor should anyone think they are limited to making their PCs look exactly like something they see in the PH. But the art that is presented should be examples that are inclusive.

.

I agree completely. Inclusive of many different styles, even if you (general you) might not find them appealing.

 

[Agamon]

I have three women I regular play with in my six person gaming group. One of which is an avid comic book and fantasy reader, and is very cognizant of sexism in fantasy art. She was the first person to point me to a link to the Hawkeye Initiative. Even so, all three of them have picked art for their characters over the years(either their own sketches or stuff they have found) that I would say is based on on imagery of 'scantily clad' females. All inspired by various images found in AD&D/3E/3.5/Pathfinder or Frazetta. Why should art they might enjoy seeing (or be inspired by) in game books be restricted to your ideas of 'realism' in a FANTASY game?

And that's great. The internet has a lot of art (go ahead and check, it's true) that can be used as inspiration for any concept. But the art in the actual book should be inclusive. D&D has grown a great deal as a brand since Gary was printing those books in his basement for his wargaming buddies. It's the face of the RPG industry, like it or not. Inclusivity is just smart business. Smaller print games can push the boundaries more, as they aren't in the limelight.

Oh, and I'm afraid I had no input on art direction.

 

[Melkor]

And that's great. The internet has a lot of art (go ahead and check, it's true) that can be used as inspiration for any concept. But the art in the actual book should be inclusive. D&D has grown a great deal as a brand since Gary was printing those books in his basement for his wargaming buddies. It's the face of the RPG industry, like it or not. Inclusivity is just smart business. Smaller print games can push the boundaries more, as they aren't in the limelight.

Oh, and I'm afraid I had no input on art direction.

Your original response to my post was:

"Sure. That doesn't change the fact that chainmail bikinis are the worst idea ever. Just wear a real bikini, seeing as all the mail is doing is causing chafing. If your going to leave the most vulnerable parts of your body open while wearing armor, don't bother with the armor.

That wasn't about inclusiveness, that was an argument for realism, which is what I was responding to. Also why I specifically pointed out that one of the women in my group is big into the whole sexism in fantasy gaming/comic book art/etc., and still enjoys non-realistic character art. I think it is entirely possible to have bare midriff women and bare-chested barbarian men in game book art without considering it non-inclusive

She used this specific image of Tika as inspiration for one of her characters. If you'll notice, Caramon is showing more skin than Tika in this photo, and both sets of armor could be considered unrealistic by your argument. According to her, and in my own opinion, this is inspiring, non-realistic art, and unless you are just looking for things to be offended by, I don't see how you could call this non-inclusive.

 

[nomotog]

This argument often gets painted as realism vs fantasy, but I think that is a bad way to look at it. It's not about trying to be realistic. It's a fantasy game, so fantasy wins 90% of the time. It's more about realizing that fantasy can mean more then just sexy.

 

[Agamon]

That wasn't about inclusiveness, that was an argument for realism, which is what I was responding to.

Nope, it was simply my opinion of what I think is silly (my head, arms, legs, chest, and belly are vulnerable, but at least my boobs are safe). It's not "realism" as much as it is "wtf?" kinda like a dude walking around with a duck on his head. You have a different opinion. Great. The world would be dull if we all thought the same way.

She used this specific image of Tika as inspiration for one of her characters. If you'll notice, Caramon is showing more skin than Tika in this photo, and both sets of armor could be considered unrealistic by your argument. According to her, and in my own opinion, this is inspiring, non-realistic art, and unless you are just looking for things to be offended by, I don't see how you could call this non-inclusive.

Again, you post like I'm saying your players are foolish or something. That's really weird, because I'm not. A player should create the PC they want, the less cookie-cutter, the better, in my opinion. That has zero to do with the specific art in this specific book.

And I have no problem with chain shirts or scale mail. It's the Red Sonja armor that makes me roll my eyes.

 

[Sacrosanct]

So you're for inclusivity unless it's art you don't like?

Do you know what inclusive means?

 

[Agamon]

So you're for inclusivity unless it's art you don't like?

What? I'll guess that this is directed at me, even though I'm not sure where I said that.

I have an opinion, that's all it is. That opinion is that the art direction in the book is great. I'm "for" that. I like how it's not trying to be offensive. It's that simple.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I'm not exactly one for labels, I was introduced to this game when I was a little girl with way too much on my plate (I don't normally talk about what it was like at age 7 or 8). This was always a game that brought people together, at least for me.

During the playtest I introduced the idea of D&D to a woman who I now live with her. I hope that out there in the world when a young kid reads that paragraph and thinks "Hey, it's ok to be me..."

 

[Jester David]

I find it interesting how every time this topic is brought up here or in the WotC boards it descends into arguments regarding the value of inclusion and how it is not completely necassary.

But, two paragraphs or text occupying a sixth of a page have gotten more positive press for D&D and WotC than anything else they've done in the last decade. 5e is getting mentioned on whole different sections of the net that normally wouldn't cover gaming news.
While any publicity is good publicity, positive press that is honestly excited instead of a marketing piece is even better!