D&D 4E Women in 4E

[SteveC]

Well Steve, you're welcome to go over to Astrid's Parlor on WotC's website - the Female Gamers' Forum - and ask them what they think. Women gamers themselves can tell you.

I would actually say that's something much more important for WotC to do, especially as they consider art for the new edition.

But again, what does that really show? There just isn't a one-size-fits-all answer for how any group reacts to something. Women or men don't have a collective opinion about how attractive or unattractive anything is (except, seemingly, where Angelina Jolie is concerned).

All I'm ultimately saying is: if you personally find the chainmail bikini unattractive and just plain nasty, that's fine. I've already said that I found the Avalanche product covers to be silly and juvenile, but what's worse is that they were crappy gaming books. A personal opinion on something like this is entirely appropriate, since we're talking (very loosely, I'll admit) about art.

Saying "I don't like cheesecake in my game products because it offends women!" is a silly statement to make. Saying "I don't like cheesecake in my game products because my girlfriend/wife/mother/sister/daughter is offended by them" is something that makes sense...but when we generalize we stereotype, and I'd say that gets us nowhere.

--Steve

 

[Rechan]

I would actually say that's something much more important for WotC to do, especially as they consider art for the new edition.

Given that they're trying to make 4e more Female Friendly (ergo creating Astrid's Parlor in the first place", I'd say they have.

Saying "I don't like cheesecake in my game products because it offends women!" is a silly statement to make. Saying "I don't like cheesecake in my game products because my girlfriend/wife/mother/sister/daughter is offended by them" is something that makes sense...but when we generalize we stereotype, and I'd say that gets us nowhere.

No, that's not what's being said.

What's being said is "I don't like unreasonable cheesecake in my game products because it puts off some would-be female D&D players. When the art is put there purely to titillate, they can tell, and thus some are discouraged from playing."

There are women who are playing D&D, and they're going ot play no matter the art. The issue is that there are some who are immediately turned off by it, so they don't bother. Some more friendly art would not immediately discourage them.

It's an issue of advertisement and bringing new people into the fold, not "It offends all women".

And, just to defuse any potential response, I'm also not advocating throwing burkhas over female art.

 

[Aus_Snow]

If cheesecake is overused, misplaced or just plain tasteless, I think that it doesn't particularly help D&D's already quite negative image.

Generally, it's nothing like immoral, perverted, exploitative or what have you. So yeah, some people might need to step back, pop a pill, whatever. But when cheesecake is overused, misplaced and/or tasteless, it kinda 'lets the team down'. That's how I feel about it. My girlfriend happens to feel the same way, incidentally. So do a bunch of other male and female gamers I know IRL. Consensus - wow!

I would like to be able to take any RPG book I own or plan to buy, hand it to a non-roleplaying family member or friend, and expect that they will either be simply disinterested, or possibly appreciative of the style(s). Not collapsing with laughter at the tragic artwork, put off by the rampant immaturity (or apparent 11-13yo male demographic targeting), etc., etc.

That would be nice.

 

[Hairfoot]

I'm not even certain that offence is the issue.

I have a high regard for roleplaying games. I believe they combine some of the best elements of teamwork, creativity, and imagination. They address issues of ethics, problem-solving, confrontation, and allow all the participants to be writers and storytellers of a sort. Plus, of course, they're one metric crapload of fun. Were it not for stigma, I believe they would have a wider audience.

For many women I've known, the cheesecake images simply confirm that RPGs have no merit as an activity for adults, and are on par with klingon-dressing Star Trek conventionists.

For example, one of my girlfriend's friends was recently contemplating a date with a LARPer. She was trying to explain that he spent his weekends dressed up as a Norseman and belted other blokes with foam swords while hollering for mead and blood. He immediately became known as the "dungeons & dragons guy", despite the vast gulf between the two activities.

Regardless of offence taken (or not) by women, the preponderance of cheescake images and characterisation demeans the game and the people who play it.

 

[SteveC]

What's being said is "I don't like unreasonable cheesecake in my game products because it offends some would-be potential female D&D players."

There are women who are playing D&D, and they're going ot play no matter the art. The issue is that there are some who are immediately turned off by it, so they don't bother. Some more friendly art would not immediately discourage them.

It's an issue of advertisement and bringing new people into the fold, not "It offends all women".

...and that's what I'm calling Shenanigans on. How do any of us know this to be the case? I think there is a lot of assuming going on here.

Do any of us really know what WotC's marketing has shown about this? Ultimately, that's the real deciding factor here and not what you or I may assume to be true.

I work at a company where women are about 60% of the total workforce. Now I work in the IT part of the company, which, as you might expect, is about 90% male dominated. I've been working in that field for a long time now, so coming to this company was a really different experience for me. I'm a very social person, and I talk to a lot of people and ask a lot of questions, and what I've learned is that the assumptions that many men (especially tech/gamer types) have about women are almost entirely wrong. That includes me. One of my friends at work got married a few years back, and I bumped into about 20 of my coworkers at her bachelorette party, and that opened my eyes in a way that I will never forget.

So on the issue of cheesecake/sexuality in art, I've had numerous girlfriends who read romance novels, many who read historical romances, and the artwork that goes along with them is more suggestive than anything I've seen in mainstream gaming products. One of my girlfriends sat in on a few game sessions, and had me read one of her favorite historical romances as a sort of quid pro quo. Some of the stuff that goes on in those books is not tame. Unfortunately, most of it revolves around stuff that violates the Grandmother rule. Many women like pictures of attractive women, just as they like pictures of half-naked beefy guys. It's all the context of the work that we're really talking about.

So that was a long-winded and rambling way to say that I think unless you're talking about specific people, it's very dangerous to generalize and say "women feel this way." I guess all I'm really saying is "don't bother getting offended for people, let them speak for themselves."

...and once again, if you're offended by cheesecake art, you're entirely within your rights. My problem is people who say "I'm offended because some other nebulous person is offended!"

--Steve

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Given that they're trying to make 4e more Female Friendly (ergo creating Astrid's Parlor in the first place", I'd say they have.


No, that's not what's being said.

What's being said is "I don't like unreasonable cheesecake in my game products because it puts off some would-be female D&D players. When the art is put there purely to titillate, they can tell, and thus some are discouraged from playing."

There are women who are playing D&D, and they're going ot play no matter the art. The issue is that there are some who are immediately turned off by it, so they don't bother. Some more friendly art would not immediately discourage them.

It's an issue of advertisement and bringing new people into the fold, not "It offends all women".

And, just to defuse any potential response, I'm also not advocating throwing burkhas over female art.

There's also people who are offended by the demons. They're turned off immediately too. What should we do about them?

 

[SteveC]

There's also people who are offended by the demons. They're turned off immediately too. What should we do about them?

Well, there was second edition...



--Steve

 

[Rechan]

There's also people who are offended by the demons. They're turned off immediately too. What should we do about them?

Comparing apples and airplanes.

Those people are offended by the presence of demons being in the books in the first place. Fighting demons is a staple of fantasy and they have a very legitimate reason for being in the game.

Whereas being offended by art depicting women in clothing they would never wear for fear of being stabbed in the breasts or thighs where nice vital organs, has no other purpose than attracting teenage boys.

Removing the cheesecake effects nothing. Removing the demons effects a lot of things.

 

[CanadienneBacon]

I've harped about this before, but I still think it's relevant to the image and evolution of the game: I hope we get to see different representations of women in 4E.

I once mentioned something similar on EN World and got shouted down by the majority of folks who prefer scintillating depictions of women. Speaking only for myself, I would like to see a more varied tradition of D&D artwork crop up with the new edition than have the artwork in 4e simply fall to old ways a la the chainmail bikini.

And I definitely don't want to see half-naked male beefcake either. Just give me straight-up heroes in regular armor, going about their business.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

One of my girlfriends sat in on a few game sessions, and had me read one of her favorite girl porn books as a sort of quid pro quo.

FIFY. They're not fooling anyone. It's escapist porn fantasies embedded in what is often a surprising level of well-researched historical detail. So the civil war soldier is described removing various meticulously researched parts of his uniform before he "unslings his weapon" and "invades the North".