D&D 5E (2014) Mearls and Crawford interview with The Mary Sue

[CrusaderX]

I was introduced to the game via Basic D&D. I don't recall very many racy pictures in Basic. I guess you could count Morgan Ironwolf's chainmail bikini-esque outfit.

It was chainmail, but it wasn't a bikini. Only her legs were exposed.

But apparently some people think that the lovely Morgan Ironwolf now equals PORN. That's just sad.

 

[Melkor]

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.

Players might like to imagine their characters in that form of dress, just like the Conan character I mentioned earlier in the loincloth, or players that cosplay in chainmail bikinis. Thankfully, none of my players have to abide by the chafing police in the games I run, but it's good to know their are some games out there that do.

Ah, that old nugget. There's magic, so nothing needs to make any sense. It's called verisimilitude. You can still have that in a fantasy setting.

To clarify, I said "I don't think 'sense' really has to apply." There are many elements of D&D that make no sense at all, so I think you can easily gloss over things like chafing, and allow a player who wants to play a chainmail bikini Elf, or a scantily clad Barbarian, to do so.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'm of mixed opinions when it comes to the art. But I certainly do think the vast majority of cases should include more realistic examples. The survey about art styles was too biased in its depiction by Jon Schindette, that even the middle example between realistic and anime or chainmail bikini was done too gratuitously. Even if I'd certainly go for the middle between those 2 extremes. The idea that all females have to look like they're drawn by Frank Frazetta or Boris Vallejo would not be what I support, but neither would the idea that they all be wearing realistic full plate armor would either. So aiming somewhere between the 2, like it seems they've done would be fine.

I'm sure some of the guidelines about no bare midriffs will be loosened up later on, as they come out with other products like Dark Sun. And also the thing with Chainmail bikinis I noticed is that it's very biased towards a certain body type, I really do hate it when it seems like it's women with very svelte bodies carrying greatswords. Whenever they do put a bunch of chainmail bikinis, they tend to cut out men in loincloths or men just wearing leather kilts, and it's never a fat woman or a very muscular woman in chainmail bikinis.

They should be more diverse in their art, they should go for things like "tribal" warrior women. Like perhaps some traditional African or Celtic depictions. I think they should also try to depict female swashbucklers, even though a leather corset over a lacy blouse isn't realistically full armour. Of course with casters generally wear just clothes, so they can go wild with those.

But the thing is I fully expect them to play it safe with the PHB, it's the core entry point of D&D.

This depiction of Wonderwoman is probably about as far as they should go in the direction of lack of clothing for female warriors.

 

[Lalato]

It was chainmail, but it wasn't a bikini. Only her legs were exposed.

But apparently some people think that the lovely Morgan Ironwolf now equals PORN. That's just sad.

NOBODY is suggesting that it equals PORN. People are suggesting that it doesn't look realistic. That's very different.

 

[Andor]

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?"

Conversely, in a game about murder-hobos commiting often unprovoked genocide upon the ugly peoples of the world why does a bare breast cause any comment at all? It's okay to break into the hobgoblins lair and kill them to the last, but if the mother Hobgoblin nursing her baby in the corner doesn't manage to cover up her bosom before the PCs boot the door, we've suddenly gone too far?

OTOH

just to stake out my position on this...i love d&d and bought the fifth edition (which i also plan on playing )....but you have somewhat proven my point here. the game as written now is safe enough for a five year old and a 50 year old churchgoer . but is this a good thing? playing it safe like this (and it isn't just the illustrations but the tone and tenor of recent editions as well...) is a recipe for boredom and the utterly forgettable.

You're kidding right?

First D&D was never controversial becuase of the art. Jack Chick did not accuse D&D players of satanism because the Slyph in the MM was nekkid, it's because it depicted magic as an acceptable thing to fantasize about. His crowd is not too keen on Harry Potter either.

Secondly the PHB expilicitly calls out gender identity and sexuality as acceptable areas for exploration in game, and that is THE hot button social issue of the day in the US. (Not counting immigration, but swarms of homeless halflings are campaign specific.) You can fully expect news commentary discussing it it mindless ways when someone in the media notices it. The Westbourgh Baptist church would probably be picketing game stores already but I doubt they keep up with 5e news.

 

[Alzrius]

First D&D was never controversial becuase of the art.

I don't know, I seem to remember that the cover of Supplement III: Eldritch Wizardry caused a bit of a stir back in the day.

THE hot button social issue of the day in the US. (Not counting immigration, but swarms of homeless halflings are campaign specific.)

Outside of Tolkien, Dark Sun, and I think Eberron, those dirty halflings don't have a country of their own, so they just go to human countries and steal jobs from the hard-working humans there.

 

[Selkirk]

Conversely, in a game about murder-hobos commiting often unprovoked genocide upon the ugly peoples of the world why does a bare breast cause any comment at all? It's okay to break into the hobgoblins lair and kill them to the last, but if the mother Hobgoblin nursing her baby in the corner doesn't manage to cover up her bosom before the PCs boot the door, we've suddenly gone too far?

OTOH



You're kidding right?

First D&D was never controversial becuase of the art. Jack Chick did not accuse D&D players of satanism because the Slyph in the MM was nekkid, it's because it depicted magic as an acceptable thing to fantasize about. His crowd is not too keen on Harry Potter either.

Secondly the PHB expilicitly calls out gender identity and sexuality as acceptable areas for exploration in game, and that is THE hot button social issue of the day in the US. (Not counting immigration, but swarms of homeless halflings are campaign specific.) You can fully expect news commentary discussing it it mindless ways when someone in the media notices it. The Westbourgh Baptist church would probably be picketing game stores already but I doubt they keep up with 5e news.

the idea that gender identity and sexuality is the 'hot button' social issue of the day is part of the problem... along with the browbeating from mearls and company about how we ought to think about these issues (and how we should morally align our fantasy campaigns along these lines...do we imagine orcs are culturally sensitive to such issues or that medieval humans are ).

to a lot of people the hot button social issues are the things that actually matter...poverty/constant wars/immigration. building campaigns and fantasy worlds around those themes actually leads to thought provoking and relevant roleplay (if one is so inclined..perfectly fine to play hobbit style as well). by framing identity politics as the keystone issue of the day (and again telling us explicitly not only how we should personally feel about these issues...but also how the diverse races and cultures in dungeons and dragons should also 'feel' about these issues) we are running a very limited and safe world.

onward! ... i want more david cronenburg and less ron howard in my dungeons and dragons...more perversity less conformity !

 

[Agamon]

Players might like to imagine their characters in that form of dress, just like the Conan character I mentioned earlier in the loincloth, or players that cosplay in chainmail bikinis. Thankfully, none of my players have to abide by the chafing police in the games I run, but it's good to know their are some games out there that do.

To clarify, I said "I don't think 'sense' really has to apply." There are many elements of D&D that make no sense at all, so I think you can easily gloss over things like chafing, and allow a player who wants to play a chainmail bikini Elf, or a scantily clad Barbarian, to do so.

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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

NOBODY is suggesting that it equals PORN. People are suggesting that it doesn't look realistic. That's very different.

It wasn't the bikini part that got people worked up (since it isn't a bikini), but the fact that you could see her nipples through the chain mail.

While I agree that art like that really has no place in modern D&D, I think it's important not to judge that art through modern glasses either. Mail bikinis and all that were very much part of the times and part of the sword and sorcery genre, just like men with nothing but oiled up hairless musclebound chests and butts.

To slightly shift gears into the "realism" part, I don't put much weight into that. You know why? Because if you want to be "realistic", then you'd put STR penalties back on women. The biggest argument against that is "it's heroic fantasy, so those limitations are dumb." That's actually an argument I can get behind. But I have to apply the same consistency to other things as well or I just become a hypocrite. If someone wants to play with a mail bikini and someone else starts in with "that's not realistic", the same answer applies. "It's heroic fantasy."

 

[Agamon]

To slightly shift gears into the "realism" part, I don't put much weight into that. You know why? Because if you want to be "realistic", then you'd put STR penalties back on women. The biggest argument against that is "it's heroic fantasy, so those limitations are dumb." That's actually an argument I can get behind. But I have to apply the same consistency to other things as well or I just become a hypocrite. If someone wants to play with a mail bikini and someone else starts in with "that's not realistic", the same answer applies. "It's heroic fantasy."

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 find it funny that I have to go from rules discussion threads arguing for inclusive rules that let you play the game you want against people that think the game should be one certain way to an art thread arguing the same thing.