Nudity in RPG books?

[Oni]

Just out of curiosity what are opinions of the illustration of the Harpy in the MM. Do you think it would have the same grotesque aspect if it were covered. Should even the description have been changed so there was no danger of an exposed breast?

What about the Bog Hag in OA? Is it inappropriate that it's quite obviously not wearing any clothing? Is there no valid reason for that illustration?

What about the topless Atha'an Miere windfinder from The Wheel of Time RPG? In appropriate to illustrate a social norm of the setting?

What about some of the beginning of the chapter illustrations in the BoVD? Are these not appropriate the the tone of the book?

I'm sure there are many more examples if you wanted to look around for them, but I think people only want to remember the offensive cheesecake because it's easier for them to dismiss the topic that way.

 

[Henry]

I just think people that don't like that stuff or don't want it as part of their gaming experience should simply not buy those books.

Your comment leads to a very good question, one that I think some people (and not others) think is being asked here:

1: Does nudity have a place in the D&D Core rules?

2: Furthermore, does nudity have a place in the Core rules of any RPG?

3: Does nudity have a place in any RPG supplement where the topic is NOT healthy sex, sex in general, sexual perversions, or sex of any sort?


For #1, I say no: I revisit my supposition that it creates barriers between players, and between players and their PRG material. I would have a far harder time justifying the 3E core books had there been naked peasants working in fields in it. I know of at least two or three people who either would not have played or been allowed to play if there were.

For #2, I say no: same reasoning. If it includes it, a company is narrowing their market to a certain portion of it. If it's the sement they are focusing on (BoEF, F.A.T.A.L. or B.o.V.D. for examples) then that's fine.

For #3, I say yes - someone mentioned the medieval peasants thing as an example, or in a work about savage peoples in a jungle setting - that's the author's and reader's choice. Ditto for works where this IS the focus - otherwise, the work would be too tame for the subject matter it seeks to portray. However, the work will also be clearly marked as such, either by topic, or by some form of notification by the vendor. It doesn't take a lot of perception to know what the Book of Erotic Fantasy will be like without even cracking the cover.

 

[Psion]

Cross out or blank over the pictures and use the resulting white space for notes on house rules or something. . .

Don't think yellow sticky bikinis haven't been contemplated.

But seriously, I'd rather there be good, appropriate artwork there.

Write in my books? Heathen!

 

[WizarDru]

The issue is that most RPG products present women in a much more polarized fashion than men. My experience has always been that women are either presented as hag or venus, with little variation in between. Male characters generally are allowed to run more of a gamut. Granted, this is fantasy we're discussing and fantasy primarily targetted at a young male demographic, which drives the preferred depictions. However, not wanting to see unneccesarily sexually charged images when reading a book which has nothing to do with such images doesn't sound unreasonable, to me.

Scantily-clad or naked women and men in the Conan setting? Sounds fine. Unclothed characters in a supplement about some greek cultures, sure...but in those cases, why not use the actual artwork of the period? Is a lot added to the material by depicting people without clothes? If not, why bother? Often the nudity is embarassing because it's so obviously pandering. I only wish the old Mialee fashion review of Avalanche's covers was still active (a search will reveal the thread, but the actual website is tied to older pages here, when nutkinland was still hosted hereabouts), as it highlighted all the kinds of problems with such art.

Yes, nudity isn't the same thing as sex, but in fantasy artwork, nudity is usually presented with sexual overtones. Men, like it or not, tend to respond to visual sexual stimuli strongly (moreso than women, who tend to respond more to mental stimuli, if I recall my studies correctly), and an attractive, naked woman is going to evoke some of those overtones, intentionally or unintentionally. I don't think that real world nudist practices intersect so directly with depictions in a fantasy RPG supplement, honestly.

A better question might be to ask, "What supplements or gaming materials do you think have used nudity effectively?"

Currently, I can think of the Book of Erotic Fantasy and the Monster Manual as having done it. There may be more, but none are coming to mind, just now. I don't have the Conan book, so I can't comment on that title. EDIT: I'll also add the Wheel of Time sourcebook to that list.

 

[Ibram]

Lots, actually. Some of it published in gaming books, some of it merely posted on the artists web site.

But, as to the approximate age and vital statistics... Well, considering the youngest Playboy Playmate was a few days shy of her 18th birthday when she posed (Elizabeth Ann Roberts, January 1958) and the oldest was 35 when she posed (Rebecca Stamos, January 2003) you run a wide range of ages there, although the average age is 22 and so you do have something of a point, only on the age/appearance though.

The average vital statistics is 35-23-35, though there have been a number of playmates with smaller breast sizes (Miss May 2004 was a 32B, if I remember correctly). Interestingly enough, since the 1960s the average weight has increased about a pound since, and the average height increased about two inches. The average bust size has dropped about an inch, waist size has increased an inch and hip size has remained about the same.

Just something to put it in persepctive, for either side really, as this can be interpreted in many ways.

Hunter, who now has to go to work.

wow, you sure do know alot about your Playboys...

 

[BiggusGeekus]

You know, if everyone who wanted nudity in these books so badly would just publish the issue would take care of itself.


There are no rules for farting in D&D, I see no need for farting pictures.
There are no rules for clucking like a chicken n D&D, I see no need for clucking like a chicken pictures.
There are no rules for wedgies in D&D, I see no need for wedgie pictures (Krusk excpeted)
... and I fail to see how other people's gaming enjoyment is ruined by the lack of this kind of artwork. Seriously, just commission the dang stuff or do it yourself if you have the ability.

 

[diaglo]

wow, you sure do know alot about your Playboys...

actually some of his facts are incorrect. there is an older playmate than Rebecca...

i happen to have every Playboy centerfold from beginning to present....

 

[Zappo]

There are no rules for farting in D&D, I see no need for farting pictures.
There are no rules for clucking like a chicken n D&D, I see no need for clucking like a chicken pictures.
There are no rules for wedgies in D&D, I see no need for wedgie pictures (Krusk excpeted)

There aren't rules for sitting around a campfire either, does that mean that the famous, beautiful Dragonlance boxed set cover should not have been made? Or that it doesn't add to the game?

Or do you mean that nudity, unlike every other subject, requires additional justification? If so, why?

 

[BryonD]

There aren't rules for sitting around a campfire either, does that mean that the famous, beautiful Dragonlance boxed set cover should not have been made? Or that it doesn't add to the game?

Or do you mean that nudity, unlike every other subject, requires additional justification? If so, why?

I think that many reasonable people would agree that sitting around a campfire does not compare well to nudity.

Further, his statement did not demand any justification. He was simply saying that it is not required. I think that twisting that into requireing justification is an unfair characterization.

The only justification needed is that the author wanted it.

But the focus of the debate is whether the overall population feels that it adds or detracts value (gaming-wise or other) to the product. If it is A) not needed (campfire sitting AND nudity) and B) is going to be a negative factor for a notable portion of the audience (nudity BUT NOT campfire sitting) then it is entirely reasonable to claim that it is an overall negative.

If the author is fine with accepting the negative, then it is their call. But it would be quite naive for that author to expect no negative feedback.

 

[jester47]

[censored, for no good reason] (its humor, moderators have nothing to do with this)

Well, as [Cencored for religion] goes, I think that [Cencored for Religion] is really kind of [Cencored for religion and politics] because [Censored for politics] is [Censored for religion] in a way. Or it seems to be getting that way. Now if we had [Cencored for religion] and [Cencored for politics] (not exchanging one for the other or using one in polace of the other, but both at the same time) we would have some serious flamewars. But rather than that those who are [Censored for religion, politics and just plain wrongness!] are really just asking for it. In that case I prefer that those [Censored for religion] or [Censored for politics] just get jiggy with it.

But thats just my [censored for humor] opinion...


Aaron.

PS this is in no way a criticism of our hard working moderators. More like a tribute.