Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6344227" data-attributes="member: 2067">I dunno, man, I get less of a &quot;scandal!&quot; vibe than a &quot;WTF?&quot; vibe. It's not &quot;OMG these pics are TOO SEXY&quot; its &quot;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?&quot;And &quot;Because some straight dudes think breasts are maybe kind of sexy&quot; isn't really a good enough reason. Kids these days with their rock and roll music, amirite? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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&amp;D playing populace. If Mearls was editing a book like, I dunno, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/SuicideGirls-Hard-Girls-Soft-Light/dp/1934429953/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top" target="_blank">this little number</a>, 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&amp;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 &quot;cover the shame!&quot;, the goal is, &quot;We want everyone to play D&amp;D,&quot; and pictures that focus on the awesomeness of D&amp;D, and when I think of the awesomeness of D&amp;D, I don't think of nakedness, since most games of D&amp;D I've played keep everyone fully clothed. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6344227, member: 2067"] 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. 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, [URL="http://www.amazon.com/SuicideGirls-Hard-Girls-Soft-Light/dp/1934429953/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top"]this little number[/URL], 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. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification