Sexism and presumed sexism in RPGs

[Alzrius]

I think there's very little room for that.

If the art makes clear that the magic is present - like with the magical tattoos - I think we are good. But, invoking invisible magic that may or may not be present to justify skin will sound like weak rationalization, and rightfully so.

It would be like saying, "Yeah, that scantily clad woman is wrapped around Conan's leg there, but that's just to lull the dragon into a false sense of security. Actually, she has a massive sword of her own off frame, and in two seconds she's gonna go get it and cleave it's head off!"

No, that isn't gonna work at all...

Then how does one portray magic (items) with passive, rather than active, magical effects?

How do you visually illustrate "plusses" on magic armor, or things like the fortification magic quality? How do you show that someone's wearing bracers of armor, a ring of protection and an amulet of natural armor instead of just mundane bracers, a ring, and an amulet? Particularly in illustrations specific to games like D&D, where a great deal of magic items (e.g. the Christmas Tree effect) is not only assumed, but implied by the game itself?

Seoni's tattoos are glowing and clearly magical in one picture; but there are plenty of others where they're just there, with nothing magical-looking about them. I agree it certainly seems weak to project things that aren't visually represented into a still image, but isn't there a flipside to that argument?

 

[TanithT]

But some people aren't insulted by ridiculous images, even overtly sexual ones. I understand your dislike for them, but it's not fair to characterize people who aren't bothered by them as unintelligent.

Okay, point taken. If you are amused by silly stuff in your fantasy world, impractical clothes, cartoon physics or the cartoon physics of bewbies (yeah, they mostly don't work that way in the real world), you have every right to be.

The issue is where Gamer A's rights end and Gamer B's rights begin. Should you be able to use porn or silly stuff in your RPG source material if you want to? Absolutely. Should other people have the same right not to use it, and to have realistic source material for female characters that are not made of porn? Also yes.

Thing is, I'm aware that what goes into RPG sourcebooks, comics and video games will always be market driven rather than 'fairness' driven, so I really expect no changes any time soon. In my lifetime I do not expect to ever be able to open an RPG sourcebook without facepalming multiple times over a lot of female imagery that is a) nonsensically sexualized and b) does not serve my needs in depicting female characters who actually spend most of their time doing normal adventurer stuff.

Makes sense to who? And what kind of sense?

I think I've covered this repeatedly, but basically if it is stupid, dangerous, suicidal, harmful or just completely illogical/out of context for her to be nude or wearing skimpy clothes, then the sexualization is gratuitous and it detracts rather than adds to building the character.

I agree there trouble with certain depictions becoming the 'default mapping'. And by 'trouble' I mean cliche. If there's going to be sexualized images in commercial art -- and there will be-- I'd like to see, well, more kinds of sexuality depicted.

Yay.

This is interesting. It suggests a lot of compartmentalization is going on: sex depicted in outright pornography is okay; viewers will keep that segregated in a relatively airtight mental container labeled 'porn'. But sexual imagery in game books will 'spill over' onto the gaming table/into real life interactions.

I am generally sex positive and porn positive. Nudity and sexuality *makes sense* in the context of porn. It belongs there. If you don't want any, don't look at porn.

However, porn generally makes pretty poor RPG source material, because OMGBEWBIES does nothing for character building. Actually it can be a pretty big detractor from character building, because you've resorted to stereotyped shorthand rather than supporting a well drawn character who happens to be female.

I don't keep porn in an airtight mental container, I just don't think it has a whole lot of utility in a nonsexual RPG campaign.

There is also the social issue of what happens when gamers are subtly or not so subtly socialized to ignore everything *but* sexiness in a female while treating male characters (and other male gamers) as normal people. It doesn't happen everywhere or to everyone, but I've run into it enough times to have a permanent metaphorical dent in my skull from all the facepalming.

Why are certain commercial sexual images (most interestingly, the ones found outside of the sex industry) more damaging than others? I'm not criticizing, I'm just curious.

I don't know; I'd have to consider the specific images and the contexts they are presented in. I don't think that porn is damaging, but I do think that pornification is.

 

[Loonook]

And anyone has the right to say that they don't particularly want porn as the default setting for their RPG source material, not when it's a detriment to how the source material is actually supposed to function and the mostly nonsexual storylines you want to support.

I mean, there's always the Book of Erotic Fantasy if you WANT to run an adult campaign. Which sounds pretty cool to me. But if you don't happen to be playing a sexually oriented campaign because you're focusing on a really neat political intrigue storyline, sexing up the female characters by default is not a net asset in your source material.

There is a great David Cross bit that, if we were free to link, would make my argument here... It discusses the covering of Lady Justice. But I'll try to go with it. Also, I am just going to ignore the condescension of how my personal experience means nothing.

None of the images we personally have discussed are porn. Not a one. Now, again, you're bringing up a dead artist who hasn't had anything produced since 2006 (per Wikipedia, the dates seem to take into account major/commissioned works) and whose last work I can recall showing up in relation to D&D back in AD&D.

'Porn' is not my setting. I don't do erotica... Mature consenting adults have relationships with members of the opposite sex, same sex, different creature types. People kiss and special cuddle ! Some people even have babies!

Yes... I have storks heavily featured in my games. Half-outsiders and draconics get to the house by their own wingpower.

The Book of Erotic Fantasy, if we ignore the schlock, has an excellent section discussing procreation, dimorphism, and some interesting twists and turns. While I have never have characters come out and rebuild the Rod of Seven Parts onscreen I consider that, in times of conflict, there is a pretty high proclivity for the level of busy-getting to rise.

I'm depicting life. A small facet thereof in a world of my creation, but it is there. There are people who will walk around in clothing that may offend, or nothing at all. Fire-callers, shapeshifters, those who have protection from their native elements, monsters?

Well, I am sorry to say that they may not have clothes. But hey, Donald Duck didn't wear pants... I'm not sitting around and comparing him to Mr. Holmes. To paraphrase War, I have short ones, tall ones, thin ones, green ones, fat ones, big ones, scaly ones... And they all happen to need to reproduce. In fact, they live with a biological imperative to do so.

So yes, sexuality/sensuality is part of my game, and each culture has a different view. A Zajan would probably agree with your ideas on skimpy clothing, but an Isledoro would look, laugh, and continue to walk about in whatever they are pleased enough to wear.

Again, I agree with the concept of play what you like, but if I have an issue with a rule or a monster, a feat or a spell? I turn it off. If I don't want katana or meteor hammers or multi-tool polearms? Gone.

I'm just not seeing how my personal enjoyment or lack thereof should affect the overall gaming populace. And by extension... Who is making you follow any of the ideas set out in this art-that-is-associated-with-pornography? You have the privilege, right, and duty to change it as you see fit. But again... You can find a lot of women in sensible armor and robes. . .

Follow your own example, but let us make this interesting. Try going through all of the Core Rule Books, and splats. Label all of the offensive art.

Now, count up how many minorities you see. How about positive depictions of non-heteronormative characters? I don't mean sexless or off-screen, but an honest-to-Mystra count of those characters in comparison to the 'porn' in the source.

Magic can explain the armor. What explains the racism and homophobia?

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[nedjer]

This lady (video) gamer received the same kind of hate as the earlier one. Her reply is here.

 

[Janx]

Are the images of men in armor not fun to make or look at?

Beats me. I know what I'd rather look at, and I suspect that'd influence what I'd prefer to draw if I was an artist.


I also concur with your point about scanty armor being explained as sexy armor.

If Scanty Armor has a magic bonus +2, let's say that's equivalent to Padded armor (+2 AC) with the magic (+2AC), getting us a +4 total to AC.

Most players would game the stats and go get better armor with the same magic on it. So instead, they'd run around with Plate armor and the magic bonus to get an even better AC.

I'm pretty sure a practical GM would rule that Bikiini Plate is really just partial armor like Dark Sun used to have, and that would dial it back down to a lower AC bonus.

The short of it is, in D&D, no PC is actually running around in Bikini Plate because the rules would make that suck versus Full Plate.

Bikini Plate is a fashion statement or a salvaged armor that happens look good statement. It's not on the rack at ArmMart.

 

[Halivar]

Are the images of men in armor not fun to make or look at?

I'd say yes. Historical plate armor is bulky and downright goofy-looking. No one draws it realistically, that I have seen.

Men in armor in fantasy art are depicted in slim, body-hugging armor no less designed to accentuate gender body types than female armor depictions.

 

[Alzrius]

I also concur with your point about scanty armor being explained as sexy armor.

If Scanty Armor has a magic bonus +2, let's say that's equivalent to Padded armor (+2 AC) with the magic (+2AC), getting us a +4 total to AC.

Most players would game the stats and go get better armor with the same magic on it. So instead, they'd run around with Plate armor and the magic bonus to get an even better AC.

I'm pretty sure a practical GM would rule that Bikiini Plate is really just partial armor like Dark Sun used to have, and that would dial it back down to a lower AC bonus.

The short of it is, in D&D, no PC is actually running around in Bikini Plate because the rules would make that suck versus Full Plate.

It's more complicated than this, though. There are issues of availability, of cost, of armor proficiency, of max Dex bonuses and armor check penalties, of % casting failure, of donning and removal times, of different armors not having the same bonuses, and more.

I've seen players choose a lighter armor over a heavier armor for all sorts of reasons.

 

[Janx]

The issue is where Gamer A's rights end and Gamer B's rights begin. Should you be able to use porn or silly stuff in your RPG source material if you want to? Absolutely. Should other people have the same right not to use it, and to have realistic source material for female characters that are not made of porn? Also yes.

I don't know about Rights. For one thing, neither Gamer A or Gamer B is in direct control of what WotC puts in the Player's Handbook.

Most GMs aren't putting together custom players materials with art for any player to get offended at.

So if we're a D&D 4e group, and you really want to play, any offensiveness of the gaming materials is on WotC's part, not the GM's.

And if we're talking a mainstreamier game like 4e, rather than some obscurer game that the GM chose possibly for its risque art, then it's not likely an intentional act by the GM to set any sexism tone. The GM is just trying to run a D&D game.

 

[Janx]

It's more complicated than this, though. There are issues of availability, of cost, of armor proficiency, of max Dex bonuses and armor check penalties, of % casting failure, of donning and removal times, of different armors not having the same bonuses, and more.

I've seen players choose a lighter armor over a heavier armor for all sorts of reasons.

If you were making a female PC (and maybe a woman), would you choose:
Magic Bikini Armor = Padded Armor +2 (+4AC)
Elven Chain armor + (=5AC give or take, too lazy to look it up)
Bikini Plate Armor = partial plate (+2AC)
Studded Leather = (+3 AC)

With no magical bonuses, you're almost always likely to choose a full suit over a partial suit (sexy armor). If magic bonuses are involved, you'll still probably take the full suit in the wieght class you want with the magic bonus.

 

[TanithT]

Yes, well, I already said that completely eliminating sexual content entirely is absurd. Flat and complete prohibition is a non-starter. That removes the "every" argument.

The questions are instead more about how much is too much, and when and where is it appropriate?

If you like it, then it is appropriate for you and in your RPG source material. If I don't like it, then it is not appropriate for me and in my RPG source material. If you are underage, it is probably not appropriate for you and in your RPG source material.

Which would make it an utter non issue if there was such a thing as a wide choice of RPG source material that did not sexualize a lot of its female imagery. In my experience, it just ain't out there, because the market supports OMGBEWBIES strongly enough to make anything else a non starter.

It is what it is. Do I object if other gamers, even ones at my table, want to use those books? Not really. I'd be happier if I had ones I personally liked better, because boobies do nothing for me, but that doesn't mean I begrudge other people having what they like.

I do object if they are socially clueless enough to apply what they may see in those books and images - the idea that if it's female, it gets sexualized rather than humanized - to my characters, or worse, to me. That's a social skills issue rather than a "porn is bad" issue, but it is definitely influenced by the meme that pornification is the normal default setting for females.

Are you familiar with the Esther Friesner, "Chicks in Chainmail" books? If so, what do you think of the cover art, given the content of the books?

Yes. I feel about these books about the same way as I feel about African-Americans using the "n" word. I think it's an attempt to reclaim and empower a label that was previously derogatory or hurtful. A woman who proudly chooses to be a gamer chick or a chick in chainmail has the right to do that, just as an African-American can say the "n" word without being hurtful.

If you point those words at someone when they don't belong to you, they have a whole other meaning and they carry the weight of a different history. Be careful of them.