Urban Arcana

[Felon]

It should also be noted that Felon's whole notion that white males are not being depicted in d20M products is bunk.

Same ol' inaccurate & inflammatory junk. I was commenting upon one iconic's spot on the cover.

Buzz, a person of some color who loves the feminine pronoun.

Right, because feminine pronoun's got so many practical advantages over the male one. So many reasons to use it that have nothing whatsoever to do with political correctness

For what it's worth I think the girls on the cover of UA are sexy. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of guys were to agree with me on that.

I can see where you're going with the girl with the hip-huggers and belly-tee, but you actually find sagging, baggy pants and jackets, accentuated by a wool cap, sexy? Okey-doke, to each their own.

 

[buzz]

Same ol' inaccurate & inflammatory junk. I was commenting upon one iconic's spot on the cover.

Which you claimed was a trend. E.g., "If the core audience is white males, why avoid depicting them?" There's no evidence that they're "not depicting" anybody.

Right, because feminine pronoun's got so many practical advantages over the male one. So many reasons to use it that have nothing whatsoever to do with political correctness

Give me a good reason *not* to use it. Because it offends your sense of self? Because it just ain't the way it's supposed to be?

I'm not saying it's more or less "correct." I just see no harm in being inclusive rather than exclusive. Reading "she" instead of "he" in a discussion of attacks of opportunity doesn't harm anybody. It's a difference of one freaking letter.

Not to mention, there's no evidence that any of WotC's authors are being forced to do this. Some writers may just actively choose to do so. Monte Cook uses female pronouns in Malhavoc products all the time, and nobody's dictating the content of those books but him.

You just need to get over this. I'm really amazed that all of this (what little there is of it) is having such an impact on your enjoyment of a product.

 

[Benedict]

Felon:I can see where you're going with the girl with the hip-huggers and belly-tee, but you actually find sagging, baggy pants and jackets, accentuated by a wool cap, sexy? Okey-doke, to each their own.

Not to sound like a panting pervert, Felon, but wool cap or not the artist gave her a nice belly, a cute little belly ring, and most importantly, attitude.

I find it interesting that you use the phrase, "to each his own", a lot of this thread and this debate could have been avoided if we all had those thoughts in mind.

While I doubt I fully agree with anyone in this thread, I certainly respect everyone's right to an opinion, and to express that opinion. Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that everyone of you feels the same way.

So let's all call this an opinion issue, agree to disagree, shake hands and meet in another thread with fresh ideas and good feelings all around. Whadaya say?

benedict

 

[woodelf]

There is a vast difference between people who think differently from me, and people whose actions are incomprehensible. My two best friends couldn't be more different from me. I think they'd agree with me though, that anyone who passes up a book from their own hobby because of the cover's subject matter is a little off balance.

It may not be perfectly rational, but is it really "off balance"? Let's take the example of the typical Avalanche Press product. Is it wholly unreasonable to assume that someone who puts a cheesecake-bordering-on-pornographic image of a woman that has nothing in common with actual Medieval Scandanavians [beyond being white] on the cover might not have written the most historically-accurate book on Medieval Scandanavians? Maybe i'm shallow, but it didn't even *occur* to me to open an Avalanche product and see if the content was good, because fo the covers. [I've since heard some good things about the content, and may actually give one a look, when i get around to it.] I made the assumption that they chose cover art to appeal to the tastes of those who would enjoy the contents of the book. Since i didn't enjoy the cover, i didn't expect to enjoy the contents. Not to mentino the fact that the horrible cognitive dissonance between the cover art and the title made me question the value of the content--if they think this image is representative of the topic, i don't even want to know what text they think is relevant to the topic.

Now, the UA cover is a lot less of a clear-cut case. It's at least relevant to the content, if not representative. And it's not obviously going for the cheesecake or other cheap trick to get your attention.

Oh, and as for reasons for the drow kids (i'm not convinced, from the image alone, that they are gangbangers, or punks, or whatever): has it occurred to nobody that perhaps the single most-popular character to ever appear in D&D fiction is a drow, Drizz't Do'Urden (sp?)? I'd say a pretty significant percentage of his fans are white guys, too. Could WotC have not been simply cashing in on the kewl factor, essentially hinting "you get to play drow with cool powers in this game"?

 

[woodelf]

They won't necessarily do that. Rather, the potential problem is that some members of the core audience will reject the product without even thinking out a nice complete thought balloon about it. They'll just let their eyes skip over it, and that's all it takes. It'll be a kneejerk reaction like some of my group had that "that's not for us". Again, decidedly less than open-minded, but it's not the consumer who suffers for it.

This is the part i find the strangest: this is not only RPing, but fantasy RPing--almost every RPG ever published is a larger-than-life world, and in most cases part of that is "more exotic"--whether it's just more exotic in the James Bond mold (more and better) or more exotic in the Dark Crystal mold (completely different), emulation of real life doesn't seem to have much place in RPGs. in fact, the closer to the world of the players, the less well RPGs seem to do (i'm thinking of the numerous more-realistic modern games, like Top Secret, Millenium's End, and others, that have pretty much tanked--often despite being pretty good games).

Now, i'm aware that a lot of gamers just want "token play"--inserting themselves into a fantasy setting to live vicariously, to do what they can't do in RL. Or at least vent their frustrations and/or enjoy themselves through a fantasy version of themselves. But even for these sorts, the fantastical elements are, IME, necessary. You [generic you--not necessarily Felon] don't want to be some guy with a good job and a nice family--you want to be a sword-wielding, butt-kicking righteous paragon of all that is Good and right with the world. Or whatever. The point is, we *want* "not like us" for our RPG characters--even if the not-ness is an illusion, and we're really pretty much playing ourselves, but with more muscles, suave, mystical power, and/or nookie.

Look at the phenomenon that is Drizzt (sp?). I don't know for certain if he appeals despite being drow, or because he's drow--but looking at the general attitude towards drow i've found among gamers, i'm gonna go with "because".

And i don't think that's an isolated, or fluke result. I will posit that the alien, or at least the different, is one of the things that draws people to RPGs. Do consumers make kneejerk reactions all the time? Yes. do gamers? Yes. But is it the "different" that gets passed over? I'd be really surprised to find that is the case. Certainly the disscussions i read online, and the people i talk to in RL all point towards the value of novelty, both by the standards of other RPGs, and by the standards of the players.

What do my eyes just sort of slip past in the game store? The familiar. If i can immediately tell what the book is about--or thinki can tell--from the cover, i'm unlikely to look further, unless what it is particularly appeals to me. Because, in my mind, i've already figured out what's in the book, so there's no point in me looking further, much less buying it. But if i can't tell, i'll pick it up, and look through it--not just because i can't tell, but precisely because i'm hoping that it's not easily identifiable because it's "new" or "different". [I'm much the same way about system's too: if i see "D20", my gut reaction is "been there, played that" (whether or not that's true--i wouldn't have checked out M&MM had it not been for rave reviews; i'm glad i did). If it's a new system, i check it out--because it's different, and that has inherent value for me, even if it's not objectively superior.]

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oh, by the way: If you read the D&D Core Rule Books closely, you will notice that they sometimes use male, and sometimes female pronouns. The reason is simple: Sometimes they describe it from the perspective of one iconic, than of another one.

(If, for an example, a Paladin ability is explained, they use she, because the iconic paladin is female...)

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Felon]

Which you claimed was a trend. E.g., "If the core audience is white males, why avoid depicting them?" There's no evidence that they're "not depicting" anybody.

Nope, I didn't claim it was a trend. I voiced my suspicion that it might be or could become a trend, and that has been the context of my position from the beginning. I've repeatedly used "perhaps", "maybe', "could it be", "if that is indeed the case", etc. to avoid an appearance of dead certainty, and I've also said numerous times that I'm waiting before drawing a conclusive opinion on the matter.

Give me a good reason *not* to use it. Because it offends your sense of self? Because it just ain't the way it's supposed to be?

There you go again, Buzz. Did I say you shouldn't use it? No. But there isn't a specific reason to use it in place of the generally-accepted male pronoun, or if there is you don't know what it is or just prefer to be petulent on the suject.

Now, if your motive for the gender inversion is as simple as "I like it better", then that's obviously all the reason that's needed for your personal voice in writing and speech, although I find it kind of doubtful that you or anyone actually edits the female pronoun into your casual speech in place of the reflexive male pronoun (although no doubt there are professors at Georgetown and Berkley working diligently to right that injustice). If you did, your communication would no doubt be impeded since people would lose track of what you're saying while they figure out that you're iincorporating an abstract "her" into your prose in a deviation from the generally-accepted usage of the male pronoun. Language is, after all, based on an unspoken agreement to use the same general rules. Freestyle language tends to fall into the categories of either poetry or gibberish, depending upon the circumstances and the individual.

I'm not saying it's more or less "correct." I just see no harm in being inclusive rather than exclusive. Reading "she" instead of "he" in a discussion of attacks of opportunity doesn't harm anybody. It's a difference of one freaking letter.

Yes, I'm sure nobody's returned a book to their LFGS on the grounds that it's defective. But is there any genuine need to do it at all? Suffice to say that WotC has people whose job it is to make sure that WotC's products contain a degree of compliance to those general rules of language I spoke of. It is the job of editors to say "this is the correct way to say use prose; if you want to experiment with the English language, go write a poem". Professional editors aren't generally known for arbitrarily tossing aside the accepted rules of grammar just because nobody "gave them a good reason *not* to", eh?

You just need to get over this. I'm really amazed that all of this (what little there is of it) is having such an impact on your enjoyment of a product.

Lol, not only am I over it, I've grown kinda bored with it as it has descended into less of a debate and more of an attempt to get the other guy's goat. There won't be an . Urban Arcana campaign in my groups anytime soon regardless of how this thread turns out.

Not to sound like a panting pervert, Felon, but wool cap or not the artist gave her a nice belly, a cute little belly ring, and most importantly, attitude.

Heheh, fair enough.

I find it interesting that you use the phrase, "to each his own", a lot of this thread and this debate could have been avoided if we all had those thoughts in mind.

Yep, that sums up my thoughts on the subject. In fact, I'll even go as far as to use a less gender-biased expression: "to each their own".

Now, i'm aware that a lot of gamers just want "token play"--inserting themselves into a fantasy setting to live vicariously, to do what they can't do in RL. Or at least vent their frustrations and/or enjoy themselves through a fantasy version of themselves. But even for these sorts, the fantastical elements are, IME, necessary. You [generic you--not necessarily Felon] don't want to be some guy with a good job and a nice family--you want to be a sword-wielding, butt-kicking righteous paragon of all that is Good and right with the world. Or whatever. The point is, we *want* "not like us" for our RPG characters--even if the not-ness is an illusion, and we're really pretty much playing ourselves, but with more muscles, suave, mystical power, and/or nookie.

I do think many if not most gamers play D&D to satisfy a simplistic power fantasy. In a power fantasy, one's self-image is typically that of an idealized version of oneself. It is generally not an altogether alien entity. Although I'm sure that there are plenty of exceptions to the norm, I think an African-American fantasizes about an Aftrican-American woman, and a white guy fantasizes about a white guy (even if he's got pointed ears or what have you). Most people want "different, but familiar", which is a principle that the billion-dollar Hollywood film industry has certainly proved time and again to my dismay. What do you think the smart-alecky animal sidekick will be in Disney's next film? A wisecracking lemming? An obnoxious tapeworm? An anthromorphicized PDA with an inferiority complex?

Now if you'll all excuse me, I really need to get in the shower before I dash off to work...

 

[Benedict]

A wisecracking lemming?

Lemmings won't work for Disney anymore. Not since that "throw the lemmings of the cliff" incident for their nature film back in the late 50s early 60s.

benedict

 

[buzz]

But there isn't a specific reason to use it in place of the generally-accepted male pronoun, or if there is you don't know what it is or just prefer to be petulent on the suject.

I'm not being petulant. I'm saying there's no specific reason, other than convention, *not* to use the feminine pronoun. And if convention is the grounds for your argument, well, conventions change. Languages evolve; embrace it.

And, as Mustrum_Ridcully so aptly points out, the useage of gender in most of WotC's products tends to be in reference to an iconic character of the appropriate sex. Switching pronouns can also be useful if you want to differentiate between, say, players used in example text. WotC used to do this in the rulebook for M:TG, fwiw.

And another point: the characters depicted on the cover of UA are *drow*. Drow have a matriarchal society, iirc. If the center position has any significance related to "dominance" at all, it is quite fitting that the drow in said spot be a female.

 

[Mark]

"The mind is like a parachute... it only works when it's open."