What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Faolyn]

I was entirely kidding about the advantage of a chain sports bra of course.

I've heard enough people use similar arguments seriously. I couldn't tell you were joking. So... sorry about that.

 

[ilgatto]

Is the woman making that image for her own reasons? Or was she hired to do so? Because if it's the latter, then it's usually still a pictoral representation of a sexualized woman for a man.

I'm afraid I wasn't really asking one way or the other. But now that you mention it, I suppose I meant the first.

 

[Thourne]

They quality of the art improved a lot as well, and perhaps most importantly the binding. There were certainly more complaints about 1st edition falling apart than there were about the art it contained.

The White Wolf art did indeed get good. I have a couple hand drawn Bradstreet's from a con he was at from like the day before rocks started turning to dirt.

 

[Umbran]

Then they came for the artist...

Hyperbole is not helpful.

 

[Gradine]

How YOO doin?

Oh ... I think I misplaced my love of SAX!

Okay and everything Joel Schumacher has made yes

 

[MGibster]

Yes, yes, we've all seen Nightmare on Elm Street II

I need you to watch me sleep!

Warhammer 40k has a unit for chaos called Daemonnetes of Slaanesh. These are feminine demons, daemonnetes if you will, who received new sculpts more than twenty years ago that were created by Juan Diaz. Google Juan Diaz Daemonnetes if you want to get a look at them, they're not bad but they do have exposed breasts. While I like the Juan Diaz models, there's no way I'd ever use them in a public venue. i.e. I could not take them to my local game store and use them in a Warhammer tournament. There are kids around!

Broadly speaking, I think most of us are in agreement regarding the type of art we typically see in gaming today. But then so much of art is really subjective and up to individual interpretation. I think the iconic barbarian for Pathfinder is every bit as stupid as a chainmail bikini because of her exposed belly and the ridiculous size of her sword. But a lot of people like the way she looks.

 

[Thourne]

Lol... is it a woman who is creating said artwork or choosing that artwork for the publication? Otherwise it's really not an apt comparison.

So Boris Vallejo signed bad but Julie Bell signed good?
If so what about the stuff they did together?

 

[Faolyn]

@Faolyn does seem to be saying that in almost every RPG, unless I'm misunderstanding her.

You are misunderstanding.

There's a time and a place for everything. I don't want to prohibit anything, but most gaming books are not the place for pin ups. Having that sort of art in those books says "people who are playing female characters, your job is to be sexy."[1] And this is especially true in art of combat scenes, where, as I have repeatedly said, it's stupid.

If you need to have sexy art of a woman in your RPG book, then it should be appropriate to the scene. And then you should be asking if you actually need this sexy art in your RPG book. If you're producing the kind of RPG where such things are appropriate--maybe it's one with a more social aspect to it--then that's one thing. But if you're producing the kind of RPG where you're mostly kicking down doors and killing monsters, then how appropriate is it?


[1] And by the way, this is something that many people think should be true in real life--that women should be sexy and/or pretty all the time, that we exist solely for the male gaze (the people who think like this tend to not think about gay people). And it is tiresome.

 

[Thourne]

You are misunderstanding.

There's a time and a place for everything. I don't want to prohibit anything, but most gaming books are not the place for pin ups. Having that sort of art in those books says "people who are playing female characters, your job is to be sexy."[1] And this is especially true in art of combat scenes, where, as I have repeatedly said, it's stupid.

If you need to have sexy art of a woman in your RPG book, then it should be appropriate to the scene. And then you should be asking if you actually need this sexy art in your RPG book. If you're producing the kind of RPG where such things are appropriate--maybe it's one with a more social aspect to it--then that's one thing. But if you're producing the kind of RPG where you're mostly kicking down doors and killing monsters, then how appropriate is it?


[1] And by the way, this is something that many people think should be true in real life--that women should be sexy and/or pretty all the time, that we exist solely for the male gaze (the people who think like this tend to not think about gay people). And it is tiresome.

I think it depends more on the game itself.
I personally dislike impractical armor, clothing and weapons.
In a sword and sandals game though I expect it. It is just part of the math.

 

[Thourne]

I need you to watch me sleep!

Warhammer 40k has a unit for chaos called Daemonnetes of Slaanesh. These are feminine demons, daemonnetes if you will, who received new sculpts more than twenty years ago that were created by Juan Diaz. Google Juan Diaz Daemonnetes if you want to get a look at them, they're not bad but they do have exposed breasts. While I like the Juan Diaz models, there's no way I'd ever use them in a public venue. i.e. I could not take them to my local game store and use them in a Warhammer tournament. There are kids around!

Broadly speaking, I think most of us are in agreement regarding the type of art we typically see in gaming today. But then so much of art is really subjective and up to individual interpretation. I think the iconic barbarian for Pathfinder is every bit as stupid as a chainmail bikini because of her exposed belly and the ridiculous size of her sword. But a lot of people like the way she looks.

View attachment 279396

For some reason Im getting a real Jinx from Arcane vibe off that.

 

[Faolyn]

Beyonce know what makes her attractive and thus delivers on that.
An artist knows what is appealing about a woman and thus delivers on that.
The argument is that the latter is sexist. Do you agree?

Music videos and RPG books are not the same thing.

 

[Thourne]

Music videos and RPG books are not the same thing.

Passive vs interactive and all that.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I continue to advocate for equal opportunity sexiness art. With the previously noted caveat that few male artists seem to know how to draw attractive men vs powerful men. Conan is not drawn to be attractive, he's drawn to be powerful, regardless of him wearing little more than a loincloth. There was a good example of a piece of 40k Guardsman art that I saw and immediately knew was drawn by a woman, because the character was rendered and posed in a way that made him clearly intended to be attractive. Without showing much skin, mind.
Edit: the artwork in question:

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Okay and everything Joel Schumacher has made yes

 

[Thourne]

I continue to advocate for equal opportunity sexiness art. With the previously noted caveat that few male artists seem to know how to draw attractive men vs powerful men. Conan is not drawn to be attractive, he's drawn to be powerful, regardless of him wearing little more than a loincloth. There was a good example of a piece of 40k Guardsman art that I saw and immediately knew was drawn by a woman, because the character was rendered and posed in a way that made him clearly attractive. Without showing much skin, mind.

According to my wife the line for going from sexy to powerful lays just north of Alexander Skarsgård in The Northman.
She made that point repeatedly very very clear.

 

[Kaodi]

Why did it take me this long to realize or remember that Eric Northman is the star of The Northman? I guess word emphasis matters - even in English!

 

[Thourne]

Why did it take me this long to realize or remember that Eric Northman is the star of The Northman? I guess word emphasis matters - even in English!

LOl, it actually trips me up when talking about the movie sometimes. It is just odd and my brain goes to calling him Alex Northman or some stupid fumble of the tongue.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

When men are shown armorless like this or only in an armored loincloth, it's usually to show how tough and manly they are. These are not erotic poses.

When women are shown armorless (not like this) or only in a chain mail bikini, it's usually to show how sexy they are.

So ... I am going to have to disagree with this. You are welcome to your opinion, of course. But it's not one that I share.

Whether you think that the various images I have now shown (from Conan to Top Gun to Fight Club to Lost Boys) are sexy or not is your choice to make. But they are certainly sexy to a lot of people, and they are iconic for a reason. The reason Conan (Arnold) isn't wearing armor and is all oiled up ... it's not just because it's "Oh, powerful muscles." It's about an idealized and fantastical and sexy image.

This is why I made the comment about this being difficult to untangle from cultural issues; if you look at the list of movies (and the unapologetic exploration of the male form) these are often seen as overtly or covertly homoerotic. Which goes to the original issue that I am disagreeing with- that by making the argument that you are, it further codifies the idea that it is shameful or wrong for women to unapologetically enjoy the male form. That "armorless" men are not sexy, just "tough." Heck, even a movie (and a series) like Magic Mike, which was unapologetically appealing to women, is often viewed solely through the lens of being homoerotic because we are uncomfortable as a society with allowing women to simply appreciate men in a physical (and visual) way.

Which I don't agree with, at all. Again, it's why these conversations are fraught, because it's hard to unpack all the different issues that are going on. That said, I think that D&D, as an "all ages" and "big tent" TTRPG, should be doing exactly what it has been doing in terms of art direction- staying inclusive and PG.

 

[Scribe]

Borderline unfair if we are honest.

 

[Thourne]

So ... I am going to have to disagree with this. You are welcome to your opinion, of course. But it's not one that I share.

Whether you think that the various images I have now shown (from Conan to Top Gun to Fight Club to Lost Boys) are sexy or not is your choice to make. But they are certainly sexy to a lot of people, and they are iconic for a reason. The reason Conan (Arnold) isn't wearing armor and is all oiled up ... it's not just because it's "Oh, powerful muscles." It's about an idealized and fantastical and sexy image.

This is why I made the comment about this being difficult to untangle from cultural issues; if you look at the list of movies (and the unapologetic exploration of the male form) these are often seen as overtly or covertly homoerotic. Which goes to the original issue that I am disagreeing with- that by making the argument that you are, it further codifies the idea that it is shameful or wrong for women to unapologetically enjoy the male form. That "armorless" men are not sexy, just "tough." Heck, even a movie (and a series) like Magic Mike, which was unapologetically appealing to women, is often viewed solely through the lens of being homoerotic because we are uncomfortable as a society with allowing women to simply appreciate men in a physical (and visual) way.

Which I don't agree with, at all. Again, it's why these conversations are fraught, because it's hard to unpack all the different issues that are going on. That said, I think that D&D, as an "all ages" and "big tent" TTRPG, should be doing exactly what it has been doing in terms of art direction- staying inclusive an

Borderline unfair if we are honest.

2nd one Snatch?