Eltab
Lord of the Hidden Layer
Fellow player has a half-orc Barbarian who wears only a loincloth (sometimes even less).I had a player that played a path of the Berserker Barbarian that wore a lemon yellow mankini, does that count.
Fellow player has a half-orc Barbarian who wears only a loincloth (sometimes even less).I had a player that played a path of the Berserker Barbarian that wore a lemon yellow mankini, does that count.
The quote is usually attributed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stewart Potter's dissent in a 1964 obscenity case.Has anyone used the Tipper Gore definition of pornography for this art. She was the vice president's wife back in the 90s and on a panel for explicit lyrics in songs. She said something along the lines of; "I cannot define it, but I know it when I see it."
It’s an old conundrum for the artist- as old as the first art purchase: doing what you want Vs doing what you can sell.Don't really need an objective one for this discussion - just a functional one, meaning, a definition of the function of art, as used in RPG products. Heck, we don't even need an explicit definition, but we ought to agree that there's some specific functions in mind. And, for RPG products, they mostly depend on the opinion of the person buying the product.
(edit)
Yes, and I was trying to put that into a useful context for discussion on an RPG board, in which creative freedom is not the sole, or necessarily even the largest, consideration. This lofty "I am an ARTISTE!" stuff is largely immaterial when talking about selling RPGs, because there's that annoying bit about selling - which means making something that people want to buy.
Wow, 18 pages of thread, and here I am replying to the first one. Whew. Should I?We MUST have nudity, and we MUST NOT have nudity.
"Huh?"
Look at the illustrations in the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide. They don't shy away from featuring nudity IN MONSTERS. Succubi don't wear clothes! Harpies don't wear bras! Etc. It would be a shame to illustrate them wearing clothes. You might as well draw a picture of a red dragon wearing a sweater.
On the other hand, in the AD&D core rulebooks there is not a single adventurer running around in a chainmail bikini or similar nonsense. That is NOT how an adventurer dresses. (The only possible exception is the cover of the DMG, with that scantily-clad girl in the efreeti's clutches. I do not interpret her to be an adventurer, though. I interpret her to be a slave girl.) So no "adventurer babes", PLEASE. And no "pumped-up" men, either. Look at the adventurers in the old MM encountering that giant spider. Look at the adventurers in D2: Shrine of the Kuo-toa. Look at the adventurers in the AD&D Fiend Folio. All of them are lean and mean and roughed-up. They look like they are fighting their way through dungeons. They do not look like they just finished working on their six-packs at the gym.
Please note that I have taken my examples from the old AD&D books simply because that is what I have. I do not own the 2nd or the 3rd edition rulebooks. This thread isn't for Edition Wars.
Well: gotta make things fair. BRING EM ALL ON!Well, where are the centaur schlongs? Ogre balls? Ettin junk?
Hmmmm given how a huge percentage of the religious population consider the gender of someone else's love interest deeply offensive I find that not such a valuable measure of what to avoidThere are numerous occurrences of music, film and other art forms that have used elements from other cultures that those cultures find deeply offensive, possibly sacrilegious. It is rarely done with the intent to offend.
You might not, but (for example) using elements from a culture’s or religion’s sacred ceremony for a pop video certainly displays a lack of respect.Hmmmm given how a huge percentage of the religious population consider the gender of someone else's love interest deeply offensive I find that not such a valuable measure of what to avoid
Good questions. As someone already said, bring 'em on.Well, where are the centaur schlongs? Ogre balls? Ettin junk?
She's not distracting the dragon by showing it her leg, she's got its attention because it's realized (in part due to her lack of armour and warm clothing) that a) she's the caster in the crew and thus the biggest threat, and b) she must have some magic item keeping her warm.Yeah, the adventurers in many books sure look tough and realistic: a white sausagefest on the road. Now and then we have a girl to help us fill the quota.
View attachment 149041
Yeah, attack the monster. Distract it! Show it that leg! Sad you forgot your bra when we had to quickly break camp, but stuff like that happens.
It’s an old conundrum for the artist- as old as the first art purchase: doing what you want Vs doing what you can sell.
For most of recorded history, artists didn’t really have to choose one or the other. You could do what you want, and still have commercial success. That’s how many subsidized their “pure” artistic endeavors.
Pfft! The vast majority of artists aren’t successful, period! That’s no secret.I think you vastly overstate the case of how successful artists are if they just do what they want. If nothing else, for most of recorded history, I suspect most art ever created has been in form of practical goods (clothes, pottery, etc), rather than art that has no function except as art. The form of practical art is dictated by the need of the buyer, not the artist. I make an artwork of a bowl because bowls sell, and I took it as my craft, and so on.
From there, the Warhols, Dalis, and Michelangelos of the world are small in number, a handful, in comparison to the masses who produce art, and cannot make a living at it.
I'm going to try to lay out a different view on the matter...but it's easier to do so via subject matter rather than visuals because I can articulate so mething that is personal to me.
I do not like roleplaying romance in my games. It makes me uncomfortable. I really only have romantic relationships stated matter of factly, never do I indulge in playing out a scene between individuals (PCs or NPCs alike). Same goes for sexy time encounters. It's just a topic that I don't enjoy roleplaying, have no interest in exploring in an RPG, and quite frankly would be happy never existed.
I don't begrudge others from including romance/sex in their games. I'm sure there are many many people who find that the spice that makes the game worth playing.
This in mind, I don't think it is fair for me to advocate removal of something from the game that I dislike just because it's a sore spot for me.
Now, to transition this to pinup artwork in the game, my personal view is that I can take it or leave it. I don't actually pay that much attention to art in general (other than monster art I show to players) and I have yet to run into anything in RPG art more aggregious than what you can see on Witcher or GoT or at the beach.
Where I take issue with your blanket statements is that you are stipulating that some things are factually true ...
1. A majority of female players did not engage with DnD because of artwork contained in it's books.
2. The rise of female players is caused by (at least in part) better depictions of female characters in the artwork.
While both of those statements MAY be true, I don't think we have enough data to actually answer those questions factually. You may see the trends and assign art as a factor, but there very well may be many more female gamers who push past the content they don't enjoy (like I do with romance/sex) rather than treat it as a hard stop to using that material.
Have you spent eight hours a day, every day, walking around in armor, not eating junk food, swinging a weapon etc? It makes you mean and lean and can give you abs. Those six packs aren't unique to people who go to the gym.We MUST have nudity, and we MUST NOT have nudity.
"Huh?"
Look at the illustrations in the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide. They don't shy away from featuring nudity IN MONSTERS. Succubi don't wear clothes! Harpies don't wear bras! Etc. It would be a shame to illustrate them wearing clothes. You might as well draw a picture of a red dragon wearing a sweater.
On the other hand, in the AD&D core rulebooks there is not a single adventurer running around in a chainmail bikini or similar nonsense. That is NOT how an adventurer dresses. (The only possible exception is the cover of the DMG, with that scantily-clad girl in the efreeti's clutches. I do not interpret her to be an adventurer, though. I interpret her to be a slave girl.) So no "adventurer babes", PLEASE. And no "pumped-up" men, either. Look at the adventurers in the old MM encountering that giant spider. Look at the adventurers in D2: Shrine of the Kuo-toa. Look at the adventurers in the AD&D Fiend Folio. All of them are lean and mean and roughed-up. They look like they are fighting their way through dungeons. They do not look like they just finished working on their six-packs at the gym.
Please note that I have taken my examples from the old AD&D books simply because that is what I have. I do not own the 2nd or the 3rd edition rulebooks. This thread isn't for Edition Wars.
Same with out of shape, fast food eating slobs. They die at first level. Adventurers are athletes.I have no problem with this BUT then keep it real. The men and women shouldn't be perfect. Not to many super models go into combat.
He did. So did a majority of the ones we call Old Masters…and their students.Didn’t Michelangelo basically do work for hire? It’s not like he made art and then showed it. He made art to spec for specific patrons.
Right(still leaves us without a standard), as when you cannot take their own definitions of what is disrespectful as that is highly suspect you are left speculating and applying your own ... (How can you golden rule based on their assertions?) what they consider disrespectful is often itself just a demand we "respect" their desire for others to conform to their issues, whether it is being in the closet to continue the example, or to refrain from using certain words or clothes worn or whatever. To me it is part of their disrespect ie the one where they want, others to conform to their religions limits. And its not like that desire never ends up entrenched in law, when it is allowed like the illegalization of polygamy by one sect in the guise of government or the existence of blasphemy laws (or even tadah on topic reference ones about obscenity/nudity) or deeper the effective illegalization of abortion by the evangelical church across the south.While you might consider their interests in others sexuality disrespectful, it doesn’t follow that you have free license to be equally disrespectful in return. “An eye for an eye” eventually leaves everyone blind.
He did. So did a majority of the ones we call Old Masters…and their students.
Not only that, just because you do something pure and chaste for Patron #1, doesn’t mean you won’t do a pornographic ceiling for Patron #6.
hmmm given the puritanical religious forbiddance of nudity ... I think the subject is is bound to dance mighty close, I think I will just drop out of this one for now.Mod Note:
How about we not get into religion and politics, please and thank you.
I think the first work of art I noticed that looked ridiculous to my eyes was an issue of Catwoman way back in 1993 because the gravity defying proportions were just ridiculous. I do have a soft spot for a lot of the old art found in TSR products partly because I prefer the techniques used by the artist but there's a bit of nostalgia there as well. I much prefer Paladin in Hell over a lot of more recent work I acknowledge as technically better. But you're right, stuff that worked 40 years ago won't necessarily work today and vice versa. In 2035, what's acceptable or not acceptable might end up surprising us. Who knows?But mostly its all Alias: men thinking drawing tits on a warrior woman is female empowerment. Stuff that worked 40 years ago, but thank god it wouldn't work today.