Q. Rogue/Fighter Nudity?

[Dryden]

I would like to precursor this response with the note that i do not have Q. Rogue, nor have i looked through it yet. This comment is based solely on the comments above, as well as the only Mongoose book i have, Chaos Magic.

I believe that the objection to be had is not any sort of equation between Women and Sex, or even the idea that nipples exist on women. We're all naked. Right now. Underneath our clothes we're all naked as a jay bird. Nudity and sex are indeed part of the every day life of most people, that is not in question or under persecution.

The reason i object to art such as what i understand is in Q. Rogue and in Chaos Magic is because it is sexist. Not explicit, just sexist. For example, in Chaos Magic there are 25 human forms easily seen (plus one that's mostly tree shaped, and two purely head shots). Out of these 25 there are 9 Female, 15 Male, and 1 Indeterminate forms. Of those 9 female, there are 3 whom my girlfriend and myself both consider to be wearing realistic clothing (to quote her, "I would not wear a thong to fight evil"). Out of the 15 Male forms, only one was questionable but none were really unrealistic in their dress. The questionable one is on Pg. 28, btw, to which the response was that it was reasonable, as "His *** is covered for one thing". He was only questionable as 50% of his body was uncovered, whereas all the other male figures were at least 80% covered (imho). The indeterminate one was fully covered.

I don't feel i need to say any more. The point truly has nothing to do with nipples or nudity, the point has everything to do with objectifying women and sexist practices in fantasy art. It's a trend i'm ashamed of, up down left and right and wish to change, but for now i'll just try to educate.

Dryden

Final quote from girlfriend: "They would never think of drawing men with their ***es hanging out all over the place"

 

[NLP]

I object to the naked folks because there is no logical reason to include such depictions in a RPG supplement. It's the same thing I say about Avalanche's pointlessly gratutious cheesecake covers.

Have you spent much time looking at historical art or looking into historical dress? If you had, you'd be surprised at how much nudity was involved in people's daily lives. It wasn't uncommon for women in ancient Greece, Egypt or Rome to go either topless or having one breast exposed. So having said that, there is plenty of reason to have nudity in a game book if you want to follow historical fact.

I don't consider the pictures in the Mongoose books to be out of line or distasteful. No matter how much we either like it or don't like it, we do have to accept the fact that RPGs are primarily a male hobby, and as such will always mean that women will be somewhat objectified. This exists in every medium and is part of our culture. Go to the newstand and pick up a copy of a non-porno magazine. I'll bet there's a sexy woman on the cover. Turn on the television and I'll bet you see a sexy woman in the commercial that comes on. Sexual stimuli is part of our society so you might as well get use to it.

Besides that, I still have fond memories of the old TSR succubus pic. That picture was something to giggle about when I was 10. I'm sure the Mongoose pics will be the same for today's younger games.

 

[NLP]

Out of these 25 there are 9 Female, 15 Male, and 1 Indeterminate forms. Of those 9 female, there are 3 whom my girlfriend and myself both consider to be wearing realistic clothing (to quote her, "I would not wear a thong to fight evil"). Out of the 15 Male forms, only one was questionable but none were really unrealistic in their dress. The questionable one is on Pg. 28, btw, to which the response was that it was reasonable, as "His *** is covered for one thing". He was only questionable as 50% of his body was uncovered, whereas all the other male figures were at least 80% covered (imho). The indeterminate one was fully covered.

I don't feel i need to say any more. The point truly has nothing to do with nipples or nudity, the point has everything to do with objectifying women and sexist practices in fantasy art. It's a trend i'm ashamed of, up down left and right and wish to change, but for now i'll just try to educate.

Have you looked at many Conan covers? How many bare-chested men are on the cover of romance novels? There is no double standard at work here. In advertising you cater to your fanbase. That means for RPGs it's primarily male. I don't know the statistics, but I'd guess that 80% of the RPG market is male. This is no different than romance novels catering to its 90%+ female customer base.

Go to Europe and you will see nudity on public television (the first nudity I can remember seeing was Benny Hill reruns on PBS), you'll see it in the newspapers (page 3 girls), it's even on the beaches (damn those topless beaches!). We Americans are just very uptight about nudity (especially in the heartlands). The best thing to remember is that a line drawing of a topless woman is not going to turn a 10 year old into a rapist or abusive male any more than saying that playing D&D will make you a devil worshipper or start planning a Columbine assault.

 

[enrious]

I own the TQR (and indeed, most of Mongoose's stuff).

There is no full frontal nudity in TQR, at least by using the usual definition to mean nudity below the waist.

There is, of course, the usual plethora of topless depictions of women, some even semi-tastful. (Much better at any rate than some of Mongoose's previous illustrations - Necromancy / Amazons anyone?)

I have no objection to the naked female form, in the right venue. Playboy, for example, caters to an audience that enjoys looking at nude women. Myself included.

Gaming materials, on the other hand should be targeted at more than just men and especially more than hormonal teenagers (This means you, Avalanche).

It's hard enough to get women interested in the hobby without them taking a look at a semi-nude women bent over (this means you, Avalanche) or a skeleton grasping a topless woman's breast (Mongoose).

- Nude beaches in Europe are great, so I'm led to understand. They aren't trying to get women interested in role-playing, however.

- Historical art and paintings are in many cases very well done. They aren't trying to get women interested in role-playing, however.

You can say, "No matter how much we either like it or don't like it, we do have to accept the fact that RPGs are primarily a male hobby, and as such will always mean that women will be somewhat objectified."

It's been that way for decades, so it much be good, right? Or is it maybe possible to encourage more women to get involved? Could such artwork make women gamers uncomfortable and not willing to get involved?

I'm not disputing the fact that much of the industry is male-dominated. I'm just wondering if it *has* to be that way.

I look at some products which cover mature topics in a mature manner (such as Maidenheim) and then look at a product that covers a mature topic in a juvenile manner (Slayer's Guide to Amazons. Not slamming the writing or even the illustrators who drew the cheesecake; I'm slamming the editor including it.)

I'd be willing to bet that despite the SGtoA's text, many people took one look at the centerfold and had it reinforce their opinion of women as nothing more than sex objects.

Ye gods, what a rambling rant. Sorry to have put you through it!

 

[NeghVar]

Now if I am mistaken...didn't the original D&D books have a few "bare chest/see through gown" shots? Now I realise that it is no longer 1980, but shouldn't we be more open-minded than we were back then? And if you want to spout that we should be more sophisticated and rise above this type of thing...well you haven't played D&D with my group lately.

I do know that this type of thing does nothing to attract the female gamer...but if you are going to dissect the artwork, also be prepared to dissect the written content as well to see if it is female gamer friendly.

Also, slapping a post-it note over objectionable artwork still works in my house...self-censorship helps overcome most cultural divides.

Oh yeah...now this thread is just as bad as TQR =>
(*)(*)

Later...

 

[Psion]

I have TQR (of course). As Mongoose is alreay perfectly aware, I have issues with their art policy, but from the interview Matthew did that mentioned my mentioning of this in my reviews, he obviously has no intentions of changing because of me.

At any rate, just to weigh in:

No, there is no full frontal nudity. There is an abundance of areola, though. At least they weren't being groped by inhuman monstrosities as they where in two other Mongoose books. That I did find unsettling.

The world is not going to come to an end over it. But I do find it tacky, gratuitous, and juvenile, and I simply would prefer not to have soft porn in my gaming supplements.

 

[NeghVar]

The world is not going to come to an end over it. But I do find it tacky, gratuitous, and juvenile, and I simply would prefer not to have soft porn in my gaming supplements.

I agree that the world will not come to an end...and the artwork might detract from sales of said product...but "soft porn?"

Wow...I must be feeling pretty liberal today, as I have never equated a woman's breast or areola as being "soft porn?" Now the sleeze on "Scinemax" at 11pm is "soft porn..."

If I am on the beach on the "Cape" wearing just my trunks...is that "soft porn?"

????

 

[enrious]

Psion, in part that's my objection to it.

It has the ability to turn a decent, mature product into just another T&A product.

Maidenheim is an Amazon supplement. A dark, mature supplement. The only artwork to be found depicts women wearing full armor and looking a tad more realistic than oh, say, SGtoA's centerpage model.

I never in my life thought I would utter the following sentence, but I think the pictures of scantily clad women detracted from the product.

If I want Heavy Metal artwork, I'll pick up a copy of Heavy Metal. If I want a mature approach to a given subject, I'm initially hesitant to pick up a book that has cheesecake on the cover or spread out through the book.

Why?

Because in the back of my mind is the thought that the book is so bad that it's the only way they can sell it.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Why indeed nudity?

I guess one of my problems with it is that this being the Quintessential Rogue, there is so much more that they could've did with the space on the art. For example, more illustrations (either larger or better drawn) of the weapons and armor. More mundane equipment. More types of locks. Not just magical, but general. Traps. This section could've definatly used more art showing different steps in said construction. Thieves Guild Map?

Like I've said before, use of nudity by an artists in a game aimed generally at a younger audience is weak because it's easy. Use of generally useful art and map aids, etc... would be harder. IMOO.

 

[XCorvis]

Well, all I can say is that my girlfriend would rather see a naked chick in an RPG book than blood and guts smeared all over the place. *cough*whitewolf*cough*