D&D 5E Should the next edition of D&D promote more equality?

[TanithT]

My point is only that prudery is contrary to the essence of this hobby, it's counter-cultural. The idea that I should listen to people on this message board tell me what ideas are acceptable to express is ludicrous.

So you would totally support it if the industry switched over to appeal to women's eyes and started publishing only yaoi manga games with hot young men in sexy or homoerotic poses? While fighting Orcs? Because not to support that free expression of sexuality would be prudery?

I suspect by 'counter cultural' you mean that you've been privileged to have the direction of sexual gaze in RPG's catering to you at the expense of making women look ridiculous, and you are angry at the idea that anything might change about that. Because you like having it all your way, and you don't care who that excludes or alienates as long as you get to continue having it all your way.

You'd think that with how easy it is to get whatever flavor of porn you like over the Internet, people wouldn't mind keeping their in-game porn to non stupid contexts and depicting female adventurers as if they were actually normal and sane.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Yes, absolutely, if anything showing guys and gals both, in semi-naked poses ala Boris Vallejio would attract more gamers of all persuasions, IMO. (or maybe not...who knows?)

A bit of the old' rumpy pumpy is the least of the filthy things we've done in our D&D games over the years. But you're right, if showing some cleavage and some nips is fair game for us guys, then surely what's fair's fair. My girlfriend 5 years ago loved the raw sexuality of my Conan barbarian character. Why not? Bring it.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Yes, absolutely, if anything showing guys and gals both, in semi-naked poses ala Boris Vallejio would attract more gamers of all persuasions, IMO. (or maybe not...who knows?)

A bit of the old' rumpy pumpy is the least of the filthy things we've done in our D&D games over the years. But you're right, if showing some cleavage and some nips is fair game for us guys, then surely what's fair's fair. My girlfriend 5 years ago loved the raw sexuality of my Conan barbarian character. Why not? Bring it.

This is just my opinion as somebody who has been playing D&D since the last 70s. Since the illustrations/artwork has become less sexual/sexist in nature, especially in regards to "chicks in chainmail," the amount of women in gaming has correspondingly gone up. (not saying the artwork is perfect by any stretch, but it's better than it was in the 70s and 80s) My college had a big D&D club on campus in the mid 80s and I only remember one woman out of over 100 gamers. Nowadays, it seems like it's pretty common for gaming groups to have at least 1 or 2 women in it.

 

[NewJeffCT]

But, I do think that at over 50 pages, we may have reached this stage by now:

 

[Gorgoroth]

Are you serious? I don't think a single person in this thread has said anything about how sex and nudity is bad, except for a few people who pointed out that it made the game less kid-friendly. Which it does, but that's beside the point - they can still publish material aimed for an adult audience. No one in this thread has expressed any problem with that. Nudity and sex in a non ridiculous in-game context is not a problem in an adult game and no one cares.

Yes, I am serious. Prudery is the surface manifestation of deeply ingrained bigotry. And I maintain, some of the biggest prudes are also the worst hypocrites with their own skeletons. My wisdom over the years has taught me to ignore liars completely.

Mod Note: See my post below. ~Umbran

I think by 'prudes' you mean 'people who object to the unnecessary sexualization of women as a general theme in RPGs', because I suspect you would probably start hollering pretty loud if the genders were switched and suddenly only males were depicted in inappropriately sexualized or homoerotic poses and looking ridiculous in every fight with arched backs and hipshot poses and come-hither sexy looks. And making out with other hot, scantily dressed men. Hey, this is really starting to sound like a game made for my entertainment, at the expense of putting every single bit of sexy man-flesh on display for me whether it makes sense in context or not. No male is allowed to be depicted in my game unless he's showing skin for my amusement. That's what men are for, my personal amusement. They aren't allowed to be anything but pretty sex toys, even if they're supposed to be strong adventurers. Never mind that, put him in a cute stripper thong and nipple tassles and have him fighting monsters that way. I want his hot abs showing. Armor? Pffft. Hot men don't need armor. So what if it's stupid to go into combat with your belly button showing? It's much more important that I get my eye candy than any man in the game be dressed sensibly.

Human beings are sexual though, both men and women. It's the basic truth of the matter. Art should reflect that, we are all animals who find various aspect of each other either attractive or repulsive. But neither did I say we need or should want outright pornographic art in the rules books (because, frankly, some DMs already have enough of a hard time keeping their player's focus!!)

If you would have a problem with the entire industry switching to this model overnight and your being unable to buy any material that doesn't look like this, would that make you a prude?

I'm neither a prude, nor a hypocrite, so I wouldn't have any such problem. D&D is not a child's game, children play with iPads these days, and have ready access to far more filthy material a few clicks away. Nobody's tender young mind is going to be blown to hell from seeing a nipple (sheesh).

Tasteful nudity would (should) even be OK, but that's not even what I'm advocating. I want art to have a variety of subjects represented, from the seductive succubus to the swarthy pirate. Denying attractive model's attractiveness is removing one of the central themes of art, in general though, and that's as old as the human race. Painting beautiful art of attractive models is hardly new or controversial.

Considering I used to work in raves, the things I've seen (and participated in), would make you blush. It would take a LOT to shock me, but if we're going to let D&D be D&D, we shouldn't expect it to change social norms for us. I'm already liberal enough, I don't need a lesson on gender equity, or tolerance for other people's sexuality. In terms of middle-of-the road art, though, there should be nothing wrong in portraying the occasional bikini chainmail or pirate with his shirt off. That's all I meant about shying away from prudery.

I feel sad for the human species if we are so easily offended at the prospect of seeing beautiful or disturbing subjects portrayed in art. It's art, nobody ever died from opening their eyes (and their minds).

 

[Gorgoroth]

This is just my opinion as somebody who has been playing D&D since the last 70s. Since the illustrations/artwork has become less sexual/sexist in nature, especially in regards to "chicks in chainmail," the amount of women in gaming has correspondingly gone up. (not saying the artwork is perfect by any stretch, but it's better than it was in the 70s and 80s) My college had a big D&D club on campus in the mid 80s and I only remember one woman out of over 100 gamers. Nowadays, it seems like it's pretty common for gaming groups to have at least 1 or 2 women in it.

I hope that's true, but I'm skeptical. 1 or 2 women, in a group of 4? or 6? From my experience at various gaming stores, there are women there, but they usually aren't playing D&D. It's not incredibly rare, but it's more rare than you make it out to be, and I don't think it's changed much since 3e, when they really went full bore to appeal to girl gamers and it barely made any difference at all. Who'd want to be subjected to sexism? Not I.

But saying the art or the language needs to be refined further than it already is, in the goal of attracting more women to the game, is delusional IMO. I think we're already at saturation point, who knows maybe I'm wrong. Almost every woman I've known has tried it once, and does otherwise pretty much what they want, but don't keep playing for long. I know a few girl-only gamer groups too, so who knows? Maybe there is an entire world out there of gamer girls playing together that we're not privvy to. I don't have that data, all I have is asked women to join us over the years and they sort of yawned, maybe tried it once or twice.

Art and language are not turning women off D&D, it's just D&D itself. It always makes me smile when I hear people say -- or imply -- that all discrepancies in hobbies or professions are due to The Man, keeping women down. It's just not true.

 

[El Mahdi]

But, I do think that at over 50 pages, we may have reached this stage by now...

Legos never die...

 

[TanithT]

I'm neither a prude, nor a hypocrite, so I wouldn't have any such problem. D&D is not a child's game, children play with iPads these days, and have ready access to far more filthy material a few clicks away. Nobody's tender young mind is going to be blown to hell from seeing a nipple (sheesh).

We're not even speaking on the same subject here. I don't consider sexuality or any depiction of it 'filthy'. My issue is solely with the mandatory sexualization of women in fantasy art to the detriment of all other qualities of the character being depicted. Eg, she is suicidally stupid because she dresses in lingerie and makes provocative poses on the battlefield. Lingerie has a really sucky armor class. The problem here is not nipples, or sex. The problem here is showing one gender and not the other as being stupid, and prioritizing their sexual attractiveness over their survival and their effectiveness in accomplishing anything except looking hot. While being riddled with Orc arrows and freezing to death. Sexuality is good, but stupid is bad. How hard is that to comprehend?

Considering I used to work in raves, the things I've seen (and participated in), would make you blush.

Let's just say I have significantly more experience than that in the alternative lifestyle department and there is nothing you could possibly do to make me blush. Yawning would be more likely. Way to go making assumptions about other people, there.

The issue is not about sex or sexuality or nudity in any way, and it is seriously weird that you refuse to see that and keep talking as if you were arguing with the Moral Majority. You aren't, not by a long shot.

 

[Obryn]

Yes, absolutely, if anything showing guys and gals both, in semi-naked poses ala Boris Vallejio would attract more gamers of all persuasions, IMO. (or maybe not...who knows?)

And I take it you'd be totally okay if WotC filled the pages with semi-naked men rescuing totally naked men? Like, no women anywhere.

-O

 

[El Mahdi]

Prudery is the surface manifestation of deeply ingrained bigotry...

D&D is not a child's game...

First, D&D IS a childs game. That it's also a game for adults does not exclude that.

Second, sexual mores are different from place to place, and person to person...and nobody's preferences on that are wrong, whether conservative or liberal. WotC needs to be able to market their game to as wide of a group as possible, so as to maximize their sales. Alienating portions of their potential customer base so as to satisfy someone that just wants to spit in the eye of those they think are less enlightened or more repressed than them, would be phenomonally stupid.

Also, it's incredibly inappropriate and offensive for you to say that those who aren't as "liberal" as you must be prudes or bigots. The owner of this site asked you to stop doing that, yet you keep doing so. I'm asking also: PLEASE STOP!

With the right to express your opinion also comes the responsibility to use it with the respect it deserves.

Human beings are sexual though, both men and women. It's the basic truth of the matter. Art should reflect that...

You are right that Humans are sexual beings, but wrong that Art should reflect that. Art should only reflect that which the artist wants it to reflect.

You are not the authority on what art should or shouldn't reflect! With the exception of any art which you personally create.

 

[TanithT]

And I take it you'd be totally okay if WotC filled the pages with semi-naked men rescuing totally naked men? Like, no women anywhere.

Well, I would be. That would be hot. However, I recognize that as much fun as it would be to have D&D cater to my personal tastes in who gets sexualized, it's not really appropriate to depict people who are supposed to be adventurers in a way that trivializes them into sexy objects for my viewing pleasure who aren't good for much of anything else.

 

[Alzrius]

First of all, pictures in D&D books aren't Art, they are Illustrations (this is a very important distinction, artists speak for themselves, Illustrators speak for their clients), despite they being commonly called art, illustrations aren't speech, they are instead communication tools, calling for more tame representations detracts nothing from the person drawing and painting them, they are free to depict whatever they want on their spare time.

You seem to be saying that any artwork that's created for commercial purposes isn't actually art at all. I fundamentally disagree - illustrations, even if made on commission, are artwork. Da Vinci is currently believed to have painted the Mona Lisa on commission from Francesco del Giocondo (who wanted a portrait of his wife, Lisa) - does that mean that it's not art?

I believe that any creative endeavor, regardless of the circumstances of its genesis, is speech (though to be clear, how understandable that speech is is something else again).

 

[Obryn]

Well, I would be. That would be hot. However, I recognize that as much fun as it would be to have D&D cater to my personal tastes in who gets sexualized, it's not really appropriate to depict people who are supposed to be adventurers in a way that trivializes them into sexy objects for my viewing pleasure who aren't good for much of anything else.

PRUDE!!

No, but really, I want to hear the answer here.

-O

 

[The Choice]

Yes, I am serious. Prudery is the surface manifestation of deeply ingrained bigotry. And I maintain, some of the biggest prudes are also the worst hypocrites with their own skeletons. My wisdom over the years has taught me to ignore liars completely.

I am not a hypocrite when I say I want fewer pieces of cheesecake art in D&D books. I am not a bigot out to put women in garb that covers them from the top of their heads down to their ankles. What I'm saying (and I believe others in this thread and others like this one across the internet are saying) is that in a game where you play as explorers of dark places filled with angry critters, the art should portray that reality in what those characters wear. You know, more of this: http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/

Less of this: http://w.mawebcenters.com/static/ec...6319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/s/a/savant.jpeg

Human beings are sexual though, both men and women. It's the basic truth of the matter. Art should reflect that, we are all animals who find various aspect of each other either attractive or repulsive. But neither did I say we need or should want outright pornographic art in the rules books (because, frankly, some DMs already have enough of a hard time keeping their player's focus!!)



I'm neither a prude, nor a hypocrite, so I wouldn't have any such problem. D&D is not a child's game, children play with iPads these days, and have ready access to far more filthy material a few clicks away. Nobody's tender young mind is going to be blown to hell from seeing a nipple (sheesh).

Nobody in this thread is advocating for removing any mention of sexuality in D&D (heck, I'm all for diversifying the portrayal of romantic relationships in D&D so that it includes same-sex couples). I simply think, most of the time, it isn't genre appropriate to have illustrations depicting that (when it is, by all means, fire away).

I started playing this game when I was 11. If I ever have kids, chances are they'll sit at my table at around that age. I don't want to turn my (potential) daughter away from a game I love because she can't find a picture that represents the image of a character she has in her mind.

Tasteful nudity would (should) even be OK, but that's not even what I'm advocating. I want art to have a variety of subjects represented, from the seductive succubus to the swarthy pirate. Denying attractive model's attractiveness is removing one of the central themes of art, in general though, and that's as old as the human race. Painting beautiful art of attractive models is hardly new or controversial.

Again, context is everything: that succubus is a-okay, and so's that pirate. But Seoni's "dress" (robe?), for exemple (http://www.black-book-editions.fr//contenu/image/Images_divers/JDR_Pathfinder/Icone_PF2_Seoni.jpg) is inappropriate for a woman who goes down into dark, underground ruins where she's liable to get stabbed, punched, clawed, bit by a host of critters. I'm fine with everybody looking attractive and pretty, just be practical with your apparel when it's required.

I feel sad for the human species if we are so easily offended at the prospect of seeing beautiful or disturbing subjects portrayed in art. It's art, nobody ever died from opening their eyes (and their minds).

Nobody's being offended. The only reason any of us are advocating for greater diversity in art and actual equal portrayal of men and women in art and prose is so that it more accurately portrays the reality of the game world and so that the game appeals to a wider audience who might be turned away from it otherwise.

It's time D&D stepped away from being the sole province of straight, white males, period.

 

[TanithT]

PRUDE!!

No, but really, I want to hear the answer here.

-O

As far as I can tell, his working definition of prude is 'anyone who doesn't want D&D to be all het male porn, all the time, even when it's stupid to porn up adventurers while they are actually adventuring.' Because women always wear makeup and the finest lingerie to fight kobolds three days underground into a dungeon, and their hair should also be perfect. Same goes for fighting remorhaz on a frozen glacier. Because, magic nipple tassels grant +5 to armor and full protection from elements. Or something like that.

The answer he gave was pretty disingenuous, but I don't think he actually has the concept of what D&D would look like if it cartoon-sexed-up all the males with ridiculous clothing and poses on the battlefield, to the point that none of them could be taken seriously as real adventurers. The Hawkeye Initiative has the right idea for showing what that would actually look like in comic book form. And no, I don't think most men would consider that product to be for them, or want to buy it, or consider it a realistic depiction of the kinds of heroes they might want to play or tell stories about.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Inclusiveness should fit--I don't want it to feel artificial. I'm currently in an Oriental Adventures campaign that I cooked up. Caucasians have absolutely no place in that campaign. I might allow some turkic ethnicities for some Mongolian-esque characters if a player really wants to, but otherwise human ethnicities are all loosely east, southeast, or south asian.

In the same manner, if I'm running a european flavored campaign, the only time I want other ethnicities is when it makes sense (such as a rare traveller).

My OA campaign is likely set on an entire asian-themed planet, and I have no problem making entire such planets based on other cultures. I usually include more than one (sometimes many) human ethnicities on a world, but I don't want to express the entire range of human diversity unless the world is based on expressing all that.

So I guess what I'm saying is that my idea of believability is a bit more historical than video gamey.

As far as art, I like having a non-representative degree of diversity--since PCs and iconic NPCs often stand out as different. For scenes of regular citizens of the world though--make the art representative. I'm also not expecting strict historical accuracy. It's okay if weapons and armor are a little more stylized than they should be, but don't overdo it.

As far as representing sexuality, I'm with those who say it need not be represented at all in official publications.

I guess people's expectations for what they want their D&D to look like are influenced by the fantasy they are familiar with. My early exposure was through Tolkien, and the rare fantasy movie like Willow or Ladyhawke, or Conan the Barbarian (80s version) that was available. So I have a certain image in my head when I think of traditional fantasy, and D&D settings follow many of the same conventions.

For those whose initial exposure to fantasy is completely different, the style of fantasy that I expect from a (traditional) D&D experience is probably some foreign yesterday's style. I like other styles, genres, setting conventions too, but when I think D&D, I think of the traditional fantasy it came from and want it to default to it's roots and branch out to additional alternatives.

 

[El Mahdi]

As far as I can tell, his working definition of prude is 'anyone who doesn't want D&D to be all het male porn...

As far as I can tell, his working definition of prude is anyone who doesn't share the same opinion or preference as he does...

 

[The Choice]

Inclusiveness should fit--I don't want it to feel artificial. I'm currently in an Oriental Adventures campaign that I cooked up. Caucasians have absolutely no place in that campaign. I might allow some turkic ethnicities for some Mongolian-esque characters if a player really wants to, but otherwise human ethnicities are all loosely east, southeast, or south asian.

In the same manner, if I'm running a european flavored campaign, the only time I want other ethnicities is when it makes sense (such as a rare traveller).

My OA campaign is likely set on an entire asian-themed planet, and I have no problem making entire such planets based on other cultures. I usually include more than one (sometimes many) human ethnicities on a world, but I don't want to express the entire range of human diversity unless the world is based on expressing all that.

So I guess what I'm saying is that my idea of believability is a bit more historical than video gamey.

The problem with this idea of racially homogenous societies is that it makes no sense when you consider the practical implications of magic; scrying and teleportation makes it possible for inhabitants of different areas of the world to travel to other parts of that same world. So a wizard from fantasy not-Africa is likely to be found in the court of a ruler of fantasy not-England, etc. And that's not even considering inter-planar travel.

As far as representing sexuality, I'm with those who say it need not be represented at all in official publications.

It already does (background characters have lovers, husbands, wives, etc.). The problem is that it only presents one form of sexuality. I don't think people would riot in the street if, in some setting book, the king of Somesuch land had a husband. I certainly wouldn't bat an eye at that.

I guess people's expectations for what they want their D&D to look like are influenced by the fantasy they are familiar with. My early exposure was through Tolkien, and the rare fantasy movie like Willow or Ladyhawke, or Conan the Barbarian (80s version) that was available. So I have a certain image in my head when I think of traditional fantasy, and D&D settings follow many of the same conventions.

For those whose initial exposure to fantasy is completely different, the style of fantasy that I expect from a (traditional) D&D experience is probably some foreign yesterday's style. I like other styles, genres, setting conventions too, but when I think D&D, I think of the traditional fantasy it came from and want it to default to it's roots and branch out to additional alternatives.

The problem is that D&D isn't traditional fantasy. It really never was, because its magic changes the entire structure of the world. It was inspired by it, but the level, breadth and depth to which magic suffuses the system makes a lot of traditional assumptions from those sources completely incorrect.

In a much less magical system, those assumptions would be fine, but in any game with teleportation and scrying, they simply don't work.

 

[Hussar]

In the same manner, if I'm running a european flavored campaign, the only time I want other ethnicities is when it makes sense (such as a rare traveller).

Huh?

What time period Europe are you talking about? And what part of Europe. I mean, Roman Empire? You're going to have some serious ethnic diversity there. Southern Europe? Lots of ethnic diversity.

The idea that Europe has ever been ethnically homogeneous hasn't been true since the advent of the Roman empire. You've got Silk Road merchants traveling back and forth. Romans brought back lots of non-white people for a couple of hundred years. I'm pretty sure that people with much better grasps on history than me could point to other eras as well.

And that's without all the fantasy stuff added in.

 

[Sunseeker]

Huh?

What time period Europe are you talking about? And what part of Europe. I mean, Roman Empire? You're going to have some serious ethnic diversity there. Southern Europe? Lots of ethnic diversity.

The idea that Europe has ever been ethnically homogeneous hasn't been true since the advent of the Roman empire. You've got Silk Road merchants traveling back and forth. Romans brought back lots of non-white people for a couple of hundred years. I'm pretty sure that people with much better grasps on history than me could point to other eras as well.

And that's without all the fantasy stuff added in.

About the only part of Europe that is even semi-close to "ethnically limited" is probably England even then you've got the Welsh, Scots, Vikings/Scandanavian-types, Moors, Celts, Normans, and any number of other northern European peoples.