So THAT's why Regdar gets no love...

[MrApothecary]

The whole notion of Monte Cook telling us what a good guy he is because he was upset that Redgar, the white fighter, would be the figure head of the artwork, is frankly a little insulting to all the real injustices we have had to endure. Come one. It is art for a game that mostly white folks play.

This isn't a vanity article on Cook's part. He wouldn't need one, people worship him anyway.

What this is, however, is Cook explaining that the marketing team forced the creative team to make the lead iconic a white male human, because they have this stupid idea that white males will be appealed by him more. Which seems silly to me, this is a roleplaying game.

So someone tries to help diversity, even a little bit, and you accuse them of insulting the injustice your ethnic group has gone through? If you want to help improve race relations, Bump2daWiza, you'll get nowhere fast with that attitude.

In response to this thread in general, most of the gamers are white males. But what most of the gamers are not is racist or sexist. They probably wouldn't mind having, for example, Ember as the iconic lead. The vast majority of them would just look at illustrations of her doing some badass things monks do and go "Ooooo! That feat looks cool! I should have my character take it!" There would be some people who would be turned off by D&D because of a different race or sex, but if I was WotC, I'd not want their money. Marketing that takes into account intolerant attitudes does not help at all.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Diversity in the US? Where are you living. I live in a city where all the people are ethnic. Next door is a suburb full of white people. Every well-to do place I have been is full of white folks. Talking in the classroom about how great diversity is campus, how there should be more equal representation of races in media, how hurftul negative stereotypes are does little for the black man who can't afford a college education. By the way I am all for Affirmative Action. Because it is pro-active and it gets more black faces into the work force. But I find it insulting when a product (that appeals mostly to white people with a good education) pats itself on the back for throwing in some colored characters. They want diversity, give inner city kids a discount on the books. Stop putting out splat books every week so us poor folk can't even stay current on the hobby. Use language that appeals to people without a college education. But don't include a black monk and act like you are Malcolm X or something.

Way over the line in terms of "politics".

ENworld is for gaming discussion, not solving (or otherwise) issues of real life such as this.

Any more steps over the line and the thread will be closed.

Thanks

 

[Arnwyn]

I like the Pathfinder iconics:
1) Visually/conceptually

So yeah. This consumer finds value.

What value do you derive from that?

 

[Erik Mona]

While I won't argue against the ease of making art orders for a business, the value of iconics to the consumer is questionable.

Really, AFAIC, iconics are bland, boring, and - most importantly of all - completely and utterly irrelevant. What's the point to the consumer? Branding? Meh. Looks like, for example in Pathfinder's case, some giant nobody/schmoe just plastered on the cover and getting in the way of some artwork that's actually cool.

Sure, Seoni's got a nice rack, but who are these other schmoes? For me, at least, not only are the iconics completely irrelevant, it's getting to the point that it could be seen that we're getting them shoved down our throats (the aforementioned prominent ruining of covers along with two wasted pages of - again, irrelevant - stats of these nobodies in the book itself).

Sounds like WotC made the right decision for 4e, from this particular consumer's point of view.

(But sure - maybe art ordering would have been easier for their business. Meh.)

LOL, you are such a crank it is hilarious.

I can appreciate why a reader wouldn't care about the complexity of art orders, but a publisher should.

And I can appreciate how some readers might not like the iconics, but I'm positive it is a minority opinion.

--Erik

 

[Nifft]

I'm positive it is a minority opinion.

In the racism thread?

Tut, tut! -- N

 

[Vocenoctum]

While I won't argue against the ease of making art orders for a business, the value of iconics to the consumer is questionable.

Really, AFAIC, iconics are bland, boring, and - most importantly of all - completely and utterly irrelevant. What's the point to the consumer?

I think what the Iconics offer to the consumer is consistency and a sense of continuation.

Sure, it can be boring, that consistency. On the other hand, it also means that they won't have to worry about tieflings that look like someone said "hey, make that random human in that artwork a tiefling" and then paint a demon mask there...

In addition, it serves to illustrate the situation rather than the character. If you want to show the new styling armor, Alhana can do so without drawing attention to the character, or worrying about the artist improvising with her looks. If you want an action scene, it's more about the action than the characters, as it were.

Sounds like WotC made the right decision for 4e, from this particular consumer's point of view.

(But sure - maybe art ordering would have been easier for their business. Meh.)

Aside from artwork, WotC needed Iconics for the simple reason of examples to demonstrate character creation and combat. Using the same folks with consistent powers and such to illustrate how the rules work would have been of great assistance.

 

[Scribble]

Iconics tend to make the art seem a bit repetative, but not enough in my eyes that I sit around thinking... "Grrrr hates me some iconics grrrrr!!!"

 

[Vocenoctum]

For the race thing, I think it would have been a more useful comment had he posted BEFORE Lockwood revealed the same thing. Now it just seems like he's reacting to that in a sort of "ooh, me too!" way.

For racial diversity in artwork, you need to figure whether the setting has such racial diversity. In addition, you need to see if your artists can actually... you know, make racially diverse art that doesn't look horrible. I mean, if they can't even draw a white guy sometimes, trying to find more colors to use might be worse than just having the white guy.

(I'd also like to note that gnomes were generally brown, but of course another race that was generally drawn as "tanned" rather than "african".)

 

[Psion]

What value do you derive from that?

Like any good RPG artwork, it helps me visualize the characters in the game and immerse myself in the world. A good illustration gives me ideas. A good characterter illustration gives me good character ideas and gives me a visual bead on the character.

 

[Arnwyn]

LOL, you are such a crank it is hilarious.

I criticize because I love! (No, really!)

And I can appreciate how some readers might not like the iconics, but I'm positive it is a minority opinion.

WotC doesn't think so. (Yeah, yeah, I know - I'm on shaky ground with that assertion already...)

Iconics tend to make the art seem a bit repetative, but not enough in my eyes that I sit around thinking... "Grrrr hates me some iconics grrrrr!!!"

Agreed. I didn't even know what an iconic was until I read ENWorld for a length of time.

But yeah - I think that's the problem I have, that I couldn't put my finger on/articulate for the longest time. It was "why is artwork in the last little while so boring to me?". That's it!