Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8038428" data-attributes="member: 18">Uh-huh, but it's pretty sexist in a dumb way low-brow &quot;hurr-hurr&quot; humour sort of way, especially when combined with other elements (like the &quot;hilarious&quot; way PCs are unable to distinguish housewives and prostitutes), so it is problematic. It's sexist rather than misogynist, but it's not actually funny, and is pretty dim-witted 1980s humour. The sort of reason kids today complain about &quot;boomer humour&quot;.I think good artwork, sexy or otherwise is absolutely key for that audience, and I am completely certain WotC does not get this. WotC have consistently shown, through three editions now, that they're not really interested in D&amp;D having great artwork, or really evocative or stylish artwork (unlike, glaringly, MtG). I've whined about this before, but WotC seems very keen on giving D&amp;D just &quot;okay&quot; art. Not terrible, but not amazing, and particularly not stylish or exciting. Pretty sure every piece I've been excited about in 5E has turned out to be from MtG, which is sad.Also worth noting that sexy art counts for way less in 2020 than it did in 1985 or 1995. Back then it might have been somewhat minorly challenging to find &quot;sexy&quot; art. Now you can have as much of it, and as specific as you like, for an internet search. Whereas quality art that evokes the thing being discussed is much harder to get.Also I think the PHB/DMG needs to present multiple really different takes on D&amp;D, aesthetically, not just one consistent-ish take. They've done a bit of this in every edition, but I think they could go further.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8038428, member: 18"] Uh-huh, but it's pretty sexist in a dumb way low-brow "hurr-hurr" humour sort of way, especially when combined with other elements (like the "hilarious" way PCs are unable to distinguish housewives and prostitutes), so it is problematic. It's sexist rather than misogynist, but it's not actually funny, and is pretty dim-witted 1980s humour. The sort of reason kids today complain about "boomer humour". I think good artwork, sexy or otherwise is absolutely key for that audience, and I am completely certain WotC does not get this. WotC have consistently shown, through three editions now, that they're not really interested in D&D having great artwork, or really evocative or stylish artwork (unlike, glaringly, MtG). I've whined about this before, but WotC seems very keen on giving D&D just "okay" art. Not terrible, but not amazing, and particularly not stylish or exciting. Pretty sure every piece I've been excited about in 5E has turned out to be from MtG, which is sad. Also worth noting that sexy art counts for way less in 2020 than it did in 1985 or 1995. Back then it might have been somewhat minorly challenging to find "sexy" art. Now you can have as much of it, and as specific as you like, for an internet search. Whereas quality art that evokes the thing being discussed is much harder to get. Also I think the PHB/DMG needs to present multiple really different takes on D&D, aesthetically, not just one consistent-ish take. They've done a bit of this in every edition, but I think they could go further. [/QUOTE]

Verification