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

[Dausuul]

Have you read what Mearls has said about it? He has said that creatures that are sexual (think Succubus) will be scantily clad as it fits their function. Why would a female warrior wear armor that has her boobs popping out and most of her chest uncovered? What kind of protection is that? They are trying to make the art more realistic. Also you point about people in deserts not walking around fully clothed is funny as most desert dwellers are covered head to toe as it protects them from the sun. I believe what Mearls is going for is a realistic portrayal of the characters/monsters, so they will be scantily clad when it fits but if it doesn't fit then they will be dressed more realistically.

Well said. This is not complicated. Does it make sense for this character, in this scene, to be dressed sexy? If yes, then the character should be dressed sexy. If not, then not. A female fighter in the midst of battle should not have cleavage spilling out of her breastplate. The same fighter attending a ball at the royal court? Sure, portray her in a low-cut gown.

I personally would even be okay with having the succubus portrayed stark naked*; but keep in mind that what's good for the goose is good for the, ah, gander. If you want R-rated succubi, then you better be prepared to flip a page in the Monster Manual and see full frontal incubus. If you don't want to see that, then maybe the sex demons ought to keep a few clothes on.

[size=-2]*I do not pretend to speak for everybody when I say this. If I were a parent contemplating introducing my kids to the game, I would probably feel differently.[/size]

 

[pkt77242]

I would sum it up this way.

Gratuitous


Appropriate


But to each their own.

 

[Jynx_lucky_j]

I appreciate staring at a scantily clad image of the human form as the next person (quite possibly a bit more than the next person).

However, I would be willing to place a sizable bet that there are more people out there that that would refuse to buy a product because it featured scantily clad image, than there are people that would refuse to buy a product because it dosen’t have scantily clad images.

Therefore, I would rather WotC make a more inclusive product and get more people playing the game. After all I have access to the internet and I can always do a search for “chainmail bikini” or “sexy sorceress” if I felt the need and get all the images I could possibly want. And there is nothing stopping someone for copying and pasting one of said images to their character sheet and introducing the rest of the group to his new character, Ivana Humpalot the half succubus sex warrior (assuming the rest of you group is cool with that kind of content as well of course).

-----

Oh and while I'm at it. I might as well leave these here...

...Damn. Apparently I can't post links yet...just do a search for the following

"Repair Her Armor" - A tumbler site dedicated to posting examples of ridiculous female armor, and fixing them to be more appropriate.

"The Hawkeye Initiative" – A site dedicated to highlighting the disparity between the portrayal of men and women in comics by giving the men equal treatment.

 

[Nellisir]

Links for ya.

"Repair Her Armor" - A tumbler site dedicated to posting examples of ridiculous female armor, and fixing them to be more appropriate.

"The Hawkeye Initiative" – A site dedicated to highlighting the disparity between the portrayal of men and women in comics by giving the men equal treatment.

http://repair-her-armor.tumblr.com/

http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/

 

[I'm A Banana]

i'm really not calling for semi-porn (altho i wouldn't be upset if they were ). but we have reached a point where the old d&d books (which are very tame) are now considered scandalous (deities and demigods in particular would cause mass faintings within the blogosphere ).

I dunno, man, I get less of a "scandal!" vibe than a "WTF?" vibe. It's not "OMG these pics are TOO SEXY" its "Why do we have to see bare breasts in a book for people to pretend to be magical elves? Why is that a thing that happens?"

And "Because some straight dudes think breasts are maybe kind of sexy" isn't really a good enough reason.

i loved the art in the old books (the old jeff dee and bill willingham stuff was awesome)...this new art is a digitized mess. shapeless/faceless blobs...where we used to have character! we could actually see the character's limbs...arms/legs and yes even boobs. armor and clothing didn't define these characters (although it could) but instead they were defined by great figure work.

now, we have hopelessly complicated character designs and one has to wonder why?..as if in the southern lands or the forest or the desert these characters are tromping around clothed head to toe. did frazetta need to have his characters decked out like this to create drama? of course not...

and...this style of dungeons and dragons argues against it's own history. the games were at one time considered dangerous (they weren't but they did wad the panties of the right people...churchgoers, moral prudes, bluenoses etc...) , now they are played so safe it is almost caricature. gygax and company would have openly sneered at the concerns of the moral minority of today-and even if forced to make a concession or two it would have been through gritted teeth. but with 5th edition, mearls and his mates are not chomping at the bit looking for something challenging (and yes sexy) they are instead championing the new prudishness ...this isn't just giving in-it is collaboration .

Kids these days with their rock and roll music, amirite?

Again, I don't think it's prudishness as much as it is a consideration of the purpose these things serve. The purpose of the art isn't to titilate some subset of the D&D playing populace. If Mearls was editing a book like, I dunno, this little number, the calculus as to what kind of images you want in your product is different.

It's not prudish to omit nudity that doesn't serve the purpose of the product. D&D is something that we want 8 year old girls and 12 year old gay kids and 50 year old church nuns to be playing, and sexy sexy sex isn't a necessary part of playing the game, so including it is just going to put a barrier to entry there that doesn't need to be there.

The goal isn't "cover the shame!", the goal is, "We want everyone to play D&D," and pictures that focus on the awesomeness of D&D, and when I think of the awesomeness of D&D, I don't think of nakedness, since most games of D&D I've played keep everyone fully clothed.

 

[Mouseferatu]

when I think of the awesomeness of D&D, I don't think of nakedness, since most games of D&D I've played keep everyone fully clothed.

Indeed, for as long as I've been working on them, the rules for Strip D&D remain tantalizingly unplayable.

 

[TarionzCousin]

D&D is something that we want ... 50 year old church nuns to be playing....

I am really looking forward to this particular supplement.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I am really looking forward to this particular supplement.

It's difficult to get them started on the game, but once you do, nuns very quickly get into the habit.

...

I'll show myself out.

 

[Vael]

It's difficult to get them started on the game, but once you do, nuns very quickly get into the habit.

...

I'll show myself out.

Get thee to a punnery.

 

[Melkor]

The problem is that it makes no sense. The people you see on the street aren't expecting to be attacked by a horde of orcs or a dragon. Chain mail bikinis are just silly.

Didn't the playtest Barbarian have decent AC without wearing any armor? The way the rules were written, I remember thinking that you could easily do Conan in only a loincloth with them when I read that class description.

I don't think 'sense' really has to apply when you are playing a game with levitating eye-balls that shoot magic rays, unicorns, and undead dragons.