D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Thornir Alekeg]

Does anyone know any women who play other RPGs, but refuse to play D&D specifically because of the way the females are depicted in the game? The women I've known who won't play D&D just aren't interested in any RPGs - too geeky.

The women I have played D&D with over the years just laugh when someone suggests their PC dresses that way - except for one player back in 1e who was an artist and drew her own PCs looking like that.

 

[hexgrid]

Its not that simple. Some artists spend a lot of time getting the figure right. Artists that are traditionally trained draw nude figures. Its apart of art class. They like showing their skill as artists and the mastery over the human figure. Sexuality also is not so taboo in the eyes of many artists. It also goes back to idolizing works of master artists from Rome and Greece. Artists tend to not count nudity as a perversion, its something to draw and make into great art. I'm a big fan so I hope you don't take what i say the wrong way.

The images in question here are overtly sexual, and have nothing at all to do with admiring greek and roman masters, and nothing at all to do with the figure drawing learned in art classes.

You'd actually have a hard time getting the type of artist you're describing to admit that fantasy illustration is even art at all.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Tradition and Belief win over rational thought. To explain this we would have to go deep into History and Religion. But EN World is not the platform for this.

true, you are right.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

The images in question here are overtly sexual, and have nothing at all to do with admiring greek and roman masters, and nothing at all to do with the figure drawing learned in art classes.

I am confused? is their not a greek sculpture of Aphrodite that is said to be so sexually powerfull, that men could not help but try to fornicate with it? Sadly though, we will never know if this is true, as all that is left are apprentice copies. But such writings and stories still exist.

But strictly speaking in terms of cleavage, how is being nude not sexual, but showing some leg is? really that kind of determination would be in the pose and expression, and not so much in the clothing, right?

When I am drawing, I find it hard to not show off the human figure that have drawn, male or female. Sometimes I like the under drawings so much, I want it to be apart of the final. Some fantasy art is sexual, but is this really the case with boob armor and thighs in general?

You'd actually have a hard time getting the type of artist you're describing to admit that fantasy illustration is even art at all.

What kind of artiest are we talking about? What kind of artist doesn't study the greeks at one point or another?

But yes at one time yes, This was true, fantasy art was scorned, and still is by some. I think you will find among young artists in general through that this has changed. By some, fantasy art in general is despised, simply for its subject matter, and others revere it and see artists like Frazetta and the rest as neo classical masters in their own right.

 

[GreatLemur]

When I am drawing, I find it hard to not show off the human figure that have drawn, male or female. Sometimes I like the under drawings so much, I want it to be apart of the final. Some fantasy art is sexual, but is this really the case with boob armor and thighs in general?

This is an interesting point, and I think it might explain a lot about why Erik Mona has ended up feeling like all artists are perverts. But, while goofy "boob armor" art is admittedly understandable in an artist's sketchbook--hell, I'm married to an artist; I know you lot are gonna draw what you like to look at--I don't think it's a good thing in an RPG. I oughta be able to take the characters portrayed seriously.

And this ain't just a question of revealing armor, either. If I see an illustration of a supposed warrior going off to battle in high heels and eyeshadow, for example, the art direction has got a credibility problem. Even aside from issues of versimilitude and gender equality, that's just an aesthetic I abhor. Other folks freak out about "dungeonpunk" or decry any vaguely modern-looking fantasy art as "anime"; I hate designed-primarily-for-sex-appeal characters presented as martial and magical badasses.

 

[Transit]

I think the difference between the male and female D&D artwork got left over from older versions of the game where most - if not all - of the players were male and played male characters. Females characters on the other hand, were mostly - if not entirely - NPCs.

So the males in the artwork were styled as "this is what your character looks like" while the females were styled as "this is the attractive NPC that your character is meeting up with in the game."

What's needed in 4E is more female artwork that female players can identify with ("Hey, she looks just like my character looks") as well as more attractive NPC males that female players can imagine meeting ("Oooo, he looks just like Johnny Depp!") to balance things out.

It might help if the 4E artists planned their art to fall into these two categories. Artwork of characters that players can picture themselves being (PC) versus images of characters that players can picture themselves meeting up with (NPC). The game needs a healthy mix of both.

 

[Rechan]

I would say that the issue isn't so much including nudity and sexuality as putting them in the wrong damned place. There ain't any reason in the world for an adventurer to be dressed for sex appeal over practicality. It's illogical, and it just looks dumb.

I'm going to take a moment to make a distinction.

Picking on Paizo here, lots of skin on this cover. However, as I understand it, this woman is the Iconic Sorceress. And while her outfit is impractical, there's no practical reason for a spellcaster to be covering up. Aside from their spell components and magical items, a spellcaster might as well walk around naked - they are penalized for wearing anything heavier than a shirt. And in the life of an adventurer, you're not going to face many things that can't blow through that shirt like it's tissue paper (hell, those clothes can catch on fire).

Yet. As posted earlier, this cleric and this elf rogue however, are dressed for Fighting. No skin, just "Let me at the badguys." It's not necessarily practical (You're going to stab yourself there, elf), but it looks fine.

Going back to the Laura Croft example, some revealing outfits Do make sense. That rogue who's bending and crawling and climbing and dodging can't afford to wear something that would restrict movement or weigh them down. And while some may go the Ninja route (Loose pants, loose shirt), others may go the Bathing Suit route. And let's face it. Some characters are that damn flamboyant, like that swashbuckler, who care more about look than utility.

For different reasons, I think Skin Showing is on par with Armor Spikes. Just slapping armor spikes on any suit of armor (or shoulder pad, arm bracer), or revealing skin on any breastplate just comes off as looking stupid - it's impractical (those armor spikes are going to hurt when you need to stop, drop and roll when on fire, or are going to catch on something as you're crawling through that tunnel). But some armor designs, the spikes look good, like the Death Knight or something. As such, for some designs, skin makes sense, or at least looks like it "fits"; that Dervish, whose class is built around sweeping, flowing and dancing with curved baldes, would have an outfit that looks good sweeping, flowing and dancing with curved blades.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For different reasons, I think Skin Showing is on par with Armor Spikes. Just slapping armor spikes on any suit of armor (or shoulder pad, arm bracer), or revealing skin on any breastplate just comes off as looking stupid - it's impractical (those armor spikes are going to hurt when you need to stop, drop and roll when on fire, or are going to catch on something as you're crawling through that tunnel). But some armor designs, the spikes look good, like the Death Knight or something. As such, for some designs, skin makes sense, or at least looks like it "fits"; that Dervish, whose class is built around sweeping, flowing and dancing with curved baldes, would have an outfit that looks good sweeping, flowing and dancing with curved blades.

Serious problem with your argument:*

None of the characters "showing skin" are wearing any armour at all.

When you're not wearing any armour, it makes sense. You're taking mobility over static defense, and some classes benefit from that. Indeed, in many RPGs, it's a good way to fight (esp. as so many fantasy fiction characters fight that way, even in books where other characters wear heavy armour - e.g. Greg Keyes "Kingdoms of Bone and Thorn" series, where two heroic male characters include a knight who wears full plate and a swashbuckler whose only defense is his agility and his blade.

What doesn't make sense is slowing yourself down with heavy armour, and dramatically changing your fighting style to benefit from it (a knight in full plate doesn't fight like an unarmoured fencer, you CAN rely on the armour to "take" some glancing blows etc.), and then missing bloody great chunks of it in a way that can ONLY make you more likely to die.

At least spikes are only really impractical for "dungeoneering"-type nonsense. You could fight in a battle in spiked armour without causing a huge problem, most likely. Though I admit
spikes can get pretty silly.

* = Only a problem if you're saying that sometimes Hookerplate etc. "looks good" and that's a justification for it's existence. 'Cause I don't think it is.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I defiantly, see your point GreatLemur. Transit, playing the diplomat has the most pragmatic solution it would seem.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I hate designed-primarily-for-sex-appeal characters presented as martial and magical badasses.

You're not the only one.

What's needed in 4E is more female artwork that female players can identify with ("Hey, she looks just like my character looks") as well as more attractive NPC males that female players can imagine meeting ("Oooo, he looks just like Johnny Depp!") to balance things out.

It might help if the 4E artists planned their art to fall into these two categories. Artwork of characters that players can picture themselves being (PC) versus images of characters that players can picture themselves meeting up with (NPC). The game needs a healthy mix of both.

Based on speaking to the female players I know, the former is a lot more important that the latter, sez they. This surprised me a little, but I get the picture that not many people care what the NPCs look like so much as they want an example of how cool their character can look.