Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dalisprime" data-source="post: 8029210" data-attributes="member: 6800183">DMG caved in, pure and simple. That's a question of what mob pressure and having a member of staff who agrees with the criticism did. The art comparisons were not nearly as eroticised it's pure and simple. They were in many cases drawing parallels on monsters in combat poses for crying out loud - image composition makes all the difference in establishing just how lewd it presents itself. His creatures were naked, in suggestive poses and with very erotically expressive face expressions. Comparable art always was missing at least one of those three aspects which drastically changes how far it pushes the envelope. I've gone through the succubi images in MMs for 3.0 3.5 and 4.0 and they are either not shown at all, or clothed. The panty wearing succubus mini can be best described as prancing - i did not find the matching art in any of the books.Clegg had a very easy way to deal with the art issues - applying a warning label or disclaimer (like many,  if not all the other brought up products do). he not only chose not to, but went one step further and decided to insert snarky childish commentary when he got told to soften up two pieces of art in the product. Both those actions got his product banned, resulting in him rallying a mob on twitter because apparently that's the grown up thing to do. Lastly, nice work being dismissive/patronising like that. Really strengthens your authority as a member of staff. I should perhaps go cry on twitter and perhaps rally a mob in retaliation. Sounds like something you're perfectly fine with.</blockquote>

Verification