The Proper Use of Nudity in FRPG Art

[ProfessorDetective]

It's an interesting point. Thieves would be in leather, and wizards using, say, bracers, cloak, and ring (I'm showing my age here) wouldn't necessarily be completely covered up. Of course, they're used to being in back and avoiding missile fire, so dressing to attract attention might not be the smartest thing. But we could easily see an arrogant magic-user with a high CON showing off their physique, and some of the newer spellcasting classes like sorcerer or warlock that are charisma-based might make it part of their shtick--seductive enchantresses are a thing in mythology. Indeed, it wouldn't even have to be gendered the usual way--if it's magically enhanced charisma, it's not impossible to imagine a warlock distracting people (even if they don't usually swing that way) with his supernatural studliness.

And, of course, Bards. Nothing but DM Fiat stopping them from making a form of Exotic Dance their performing art of choice.

 

[Hussar]

Your statement seems to condemn the Paizo fandom for objecting to getting rid of the LGBT representation in Pathfinder stuff.

Sorry, wasn't clear.

I have zero problems ejecting people who want to keep things in the game that make other people feel not welcome. And, frankly, I have zero sympathy for anyone who feels that they can't enjoy the game if the game is representational of all people.

So, good on Paizo. They made the changes and they stuck to them. Well done them.

 

[pemerton]

I can't tell if this thread is about art/sex in D&D books published by WotC, or art in RPG books generally.

I don't have the most recent imprint of Apocalypse World, but the version I have, which is about 10 years old, has (black and white) art that is not sexuality-free. And every character type has a special move that is triggered by having sex with another character (PC or, in some cases, NPC). That aspect of the game was inspired by an earlier RPG supplement called Sex and Sorcerer.

So I guess I'm not seeing where the censorship is in RPGing. But I think it's going to be a while before a WotC-published book deals in mechanical or even serious story terms with human intimacy, and I wouldn't expect a WotC-published book to have very sexual art. Who would?

 

[Morrus]

There are problems with that as a general proposition.

Paizo has and has had LGBT inclusive representation in their fantasy gaming for years and years.

As an element of the stories and art and such it makes some uncomfortable or they find such elements objectionable and they argue that this status quo should change to exclude such elements so they do not feel uncomfortable and can enjoy the fantasy gaming without the LGBT aspects and it has driven some away who wanted to be part of pathfinder.

The general Paizo fandom argue against changing it, even knowing that not changing it is keeping somebody from enjoying the hobby.

If the mere reminder that one's fellow gamers dare to even exist is objectionable to some, it is they who need to leave. We'll brook no advocation for anti-inclusive stances like this on this site, please.

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem is, you appear to be looking for a one size fits all solution. That's never going to happen. What works in one area doesn't work in another. It's a very complex issue and has to be dealt with on an individual case basis. And, the line is going to be shifting back and forth all over the place.

What's acceptable in one venue certainly isn't in another.

My concern stems from my perception that all of role-playing (at least all of mainstream role-playing of which discussion is encouraged at major rpg boards) is trending towards a one-size fits all solution. I honestly believe my tastes aren't extreme (or extremist!) and it would sadden me greatly if each product not deemed safe and inclusive for everyone is shunted away.

Lots of content that are inclusive and sensitive? Hell yes!
Only content that are inclusive and sensitive? I certainly hope not.

I trust you appreciate the difference, Hussar. Is this because I want to denigrate women or any other group? No. I chose to believe we must be able to handle difficult subjects in ttrps just as we are able to in other areas of culture and art. Just because a product contains problematic elements cannot mean it should be censored or banned. See my earlier four examples from movies, for instance. Again, unless "provocation" bleeds over into "hate crime".

So I would not characterize my approach as one-size fits all. In fact, I am pretty sure I am advocating the exact opposite, where all rpg supplements aren't judged by the same standards, and instead works much like the rest of the world, where art is judged separate from its artists, and you and I are both able to tolerate or ignore the supplements you or I are offended by.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the fundamental question for a publisher is "who do I think my target audience is and will my product appeal to them". If a publisher thinks their target audience is everyone yet includes gratuitous nudity then they are fooling themselves because its likely many potential buyers will turn their nose at a book full of "porn".

Movie studios target PG ratings for a reason - it maximises the audience numbers therefore revenue/profit. RPG publishers should also make similar decisions including whether they want a larger market for their products or not - if they're happy to cater to a niche market then good for them.

I would agree, except you make it sound like every non-PG movie is targeting a "niche market", which to me is absurd - in that if it is true, then I cry for America; you guys are losing out on So. Many. Things.

Luckily you have the Internet. I don't mean soulless plastic porn. I believe the drive towards a near-complete separation of love, sex, and nudity from other content (like action, romance, scifi or fantasy) so you can only choose between sexless "mainstream" content on one hand and hardcore pornography on the other is deeply problematic and bad for you. Take Game of Thrones for example. Luckily it was broadcasted before anyone could seriously consider removing it from the air because it contained elements that clearly and unequivocally offended or excluded women. Yes, Game of Thrones did objectify women, but I remain convinced the pros far outweighed the cons of keeping it on the air.

In the meanwhile let me recommend outlets like Netflix where you can view content created without restrictive "American sensibilities" from countries like Japan, the Philippines, or France.

 

[CapnZapp]

At this time, I feel I have said everything I can think of, and further discussion (from me) at this point would be repetitive.

So I will pause my participation in this thread for a while. Here's the first post (where I restarted the thread) if you want to read what I wrote again:

What I wish for Christmas is that the tide soon turns - that tabletop rpgs can once again be discussed in similar ways to art, literature and film where there's no criteria for acceptability that all works need to please or even respect everybody. In art, literature and film you can have content that titillate or shock; annoy or offend. There you can openly discuss the incorrect and the avant-garde. There, the proper course of action if you dislike something is to ignore it, rather than argue for it to change and conform.

So once more, cheers to more games that are offensive, lewd and generally just annoying! Not because we can then feel equally excluded and offended, but because diversity and risk-taking means we are more likely to both find something that astounds us!

/Zapp

 

[S'mon]

This is Ireena Kolyana next to a portrait of Tatyana from the original I-6 module. She's actually a level 4 Fighter who might join the PCs and take part in combat. Ireena's an attractive woman, but I wouldn't actually describe this as a sexed up picture.

View attachment 148927

And this is Ireena from Curse of Strahd. She's different, she's a Noble in this version instead of a Fighter, but she doesn't look at all sexless to me.
View attachment 148928


I'm just not seeing it. I think the original Castle Ravenloft was influenced by Hammer horror movies but fast forward to 2016 and I'm thinking most D&D players probably haven't seen one of those movies. It made sense to me to update the art. I've got a special place in my heart for the original, but I don't have any objections to the newer version.

We'll have to agree to disagree then!

 

[alegur]

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.

Now I want to see a picture of a Red Dragon in a sweater. Preferably an ugly Christmas sweater

 

[Voadam]

Now I want to see a picture of a Red Dragon in a sweater. Preferably an ugly Christmas sweater

So close.