D&D 5E Toward a new D&D aesthetics

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Except that you are ignoring the contextual meaning of the word "Disneyfication" which has been used repeatedly, over and over again, for years, particularly by a particular brand of grognard, as a perjorative term to mean infantile, immature and bad.

Wide eyed proclamations of only meaning the word in a specific sense is pretty trolling 101.

It is a pejorative term. That is what I said in the post that you are quoting. It means taking something interesting and reducing it to pablum.

Should the poster have used that term? I don't think so. It's unnecessarily inflammatory. But it's use indicates that the user feels strongly about the subject. Not great, but I can understand.

The response to this statement is what I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that I find it unlikely that most if not all of the responders don't (edit: I'd left out the don't here...) know what Disneyfication means. But instead of responding in a direct way, addressing the obviously intended use of the term and what the user was implying when they said it, a more passive aggressive approach was taken. Pretending to not understand and saying things like 'but which style of Disney art do you mean? There are so many...'. To me, this is a dishonest way of handling things. I know some people have issues with confrontation or speaking up for themselves and acting like this feels safer. I get that and empathise with it. The reality though is that if a person has a problem with a statement, the outcome is much better for everyone if that person simply comes out and say exactly what their issue is rather than beating around the bush.

To be fair, I think there were some more reasoned responses to the original posts; I'm just addressing the, in my opinion, not so great responses.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I am no native speaker and did not know the history of the word. My problem with this whole thread is threefold:

- asking for clarification should never be dismissed as disingenuous, because it is always better to take the time and clarify instead of accusing other people of being dishonest. Even if the meaning is relative clear, sometimes it is still good to explain why specifically this picture falls into this category.

- my first reaction was: a single point of data is not cconstituting a trend. Funnily just when I wanted to post exactly that, the latest poster expressed the same thing in nearly the same words.
So the question for a few more examples should also not be dismissed.

- I am also noticing a trend, that some people seem to be offended that the core game becomes more kids friendly. That peaked when a few words/sections from the DMG and Volo's guide were replaced/removed. So my initial reaction to this thread was "oh, another poster that seems to feel threatened".
So while I do not really see a trend in the art (except maybe that other colors are used) I do see an overall trend of trying to be more kids friendly in core books (by removing excessive brutality etc.), I do not really see an overall trend in the art specifically. I got the feeling that those trends were mixed up in this discussion (at least in the background and so maybe the discussion got overheated).

As to your first point, I agree in principle. I find that in this case, many of the requests for clarification were disingenuous, for the reasons I've mentioned a few times already. But yes, in general, you are correct.

Second point and third points: I agree completely. In fact, the response you've given here is exactly what should have been made to the original post instead of the problematic responses that were actually made.

 

[teitan]

That, for me, is perfectly fine. Bring all the racial and gender/orientation diversity you want. But please don't make it bland and samey. As long as most fantasy art looks like it's been made by pupils of Samwise Didier and/or Wayne Reynolds, I'm not interested.

The One Ring 2E has great art. Mörk Borg has great art. OSE has great art. Upcoming Dolmenwood has fantastic art. Hyperborea has great art.

Add Dungeon Crawl Classics has great art, Mutant Crawl Classics, Swords & Wizardry, Pathfinder still has recognizable artists where you can see the actual credits and connect who did what. For my money best D&D style artist today is Doug Kovacs.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Except that you are ignoring the contextual meaning of the word "Disneyfication" which has been used repeatedly, over and over again, for years, particularly by a particular brand of grognard, as a perjorative term to mean infantile, immature and bad.

Wide eyed proclamations of only meaning the word in a specific sense is pretty trolling 101.

As an example of passive aggressiveness, I'm going to use your post. You have in two sentences called beancounter a grognard and implied (indirectly, not directly!) that he was also a troll. But you have not even said this directly to him. You didn't reply directly to a post of his. You didn't even use the @ to get his attention.

Why do this? All this does is breed resentment.

I'm not saying you're a bad person! I am questioning why you would post something like this though.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Add Dungeon Crawl Classics has great art, Mutant Crawl Classics, Swords & Wizardry, Pathfinder still has recognizable artists where you can see the actual credits and connect who did what. For my money best D&D style artist today is Doug Kovacs.

I'd never heard of Doug Kovacs. Just checked out some of his work. Interesting style! I like that each of his works is filled with tiny details... the more you look, the more jumps out at you.

 

[Hussar]

As an example of passive aggressiveness, I'm going to use your post. You have in two sentences called beancounter a grognard and implied (indirectly, not directly!) that he was also a troll. But you have not even said this directly to him. You didn't reply directly to a post of his. You didn't even use the @ to get his attention.

Why do this? All this does is breed resentment.

I'm not saying you're a bad person! I am questioning why you would post something like this though.

Well, because frankly, I'm pretty sure that I am responding to @beancounter. But that's a separate issue.

However, I implied no such thing. I flat out stated that the term is used by a certain breed of grognard to denigrate and gatekeep. And the rhetorical tactic of pretending that "Oh, that's not what I meant" is trolling 101. It's been used that way for years. So, nope, no implication. I'm flat out stating it directly. There was no mistunderstanding there. You got it in one.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Well, because frankly, I'm pretty sure that I am responding to @beancounter. But that's a separate issue.

However, I implied no such thing. I flat out stated that the term is used by a certain breed of grognard to denigrate and gatekeep. And the rhetorical tactic of pretending that "Oh, that's not what I meant" is trolling 101. It's been used that way for years. So, nope, no implication. I'm flat out stating it directly. There was no mistunderstanding there. You got it in one.

Okay, that's better!

You might be right about that tactic being used in the past. I didn't get the impression that was happening here though. It was an unfortunate use of an inflammatory term. Look, it got you up in arms! I guess because, as you say, it evokes past discussions.

Is it possible a number of posters were tweaked in the same way you were? The response, to an outsider like me, seemed outsized to what was actually said. To me, it's better to judge the individual situation on its own merits rather than bringing in past baggage that not everyone involved might be aware of.

 

[Hussar]

Umm, you've been a member of this site for nearly 20 years. I'm not sure that "outsider" is really an applicable term.

But, as far as "judge the individual situation on its own merits" goes, well, if it walks like a duck. Having seen the exact same sort of phrasing, like as in word for word, used repeatedly, and then the same defense of "Oh, well, I didn't mean it that way" which, again, is word for word the same as the fifteen thousand times before, there does come a point where no, my "benefit of the doubt" wears pretty thin.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Umm, you've been a member of this site for nearly 20 years. I'm not sure that "outsider" is really an applicable term.

But, as far as "judge the individual situation on its own merits" goes, well, if it walks like a duck. Having seen the exact same sort of phrasing, like as in word for word, used repeatedly, and then the same defense of "Oh, well, I didn't mean it that way" which, again, is word for word the same as the fifteen thousand times before, there does come a point where no, my "benefit of the doubt" wears pretty thin.

I haven't played any sort of RPG in almost 30 years! I was introduced to D&D in Grade 7. There was a club at my high school that a kid in my class told me about. From there, I graduated to a home game that I DMed for almost a decade. Since then, I've played a lot of CRPGs (if they interest me, and most do). I still keep up on D&D though. I bought most of the 3/4/5E books. Most of my time takes place and interests exist outside of this hobby, but I do have a soft spot for it.

Walks like a duck is a legitimate observation in many cases. And is an observation that often leads to that exact conclusion. Granted. But not every time. That's why I find it's important to follow the sniff of a 'duck' observation and make sure that it leads you to the place that you think it's going to lead you. No assuming. In this particular case, I don't think there was the attachment from the poster that you initially interpreted. I might be wrong. But my reading of his responses tells me I'm right.

 

[Yaarel]

D&D is a game that both kids and adults play. (Kinda amazing really.)

Trying to coordinate the needs of the two age groups has always been an awkward challenge for D&D designers. 2e is notorious for its bowdlerizing content.

Is there a pendulum swinging between "mature" and "safe"?