Is that supposed to counter my point somehow? Yeah. It's fantasy. And there are a lot of different kinds of fantasies, not just one. Some people's fantasy is to play in a game word that escapes the horrible extent of sexism and gender bias that we experience in the real world. The kind of fantasy where women are all sex objects is not the only kind of fantasy that there is and is not the only kind of fantasy that D&D should depict.
In my campaigns I try to include as much bias, racism, sexism, fanaticism, etc that exists in the real world if not more. I've even had armies march in lockstep to the tune of Hitler ( Vlad Drakov - Ravenloft lord) which seems to be more than enough to make my players happy.
Everyone has their brand I guess.
Is that supposed to counter my point somehow? Yeah. It's fantasy. And there are a lot of different kinds of fantasies, not just one. Some people's fantasy is to play in a game word that escapes the horrible extent of sexism and gender bias that we ex
In my campaigns I try to include as much bias, racism, sexism, fanaticism, etc that exists in the real world if not more.
If that's your style, then that's fine. That's great to do if you want to explore those themes rather than escape them. But it shouldn't be the only thing that D&D depicts, because that's not the only kind of story that's relevant to modern audiences.
If that's your style, then that's fine. That's great to do if you want to explore those themes rather than escape them. But it shouldn't be the only thing that D&D depicts, because that's not the only kind of story that's relevant to modern audiences
By the way, the tradition of happily killing men in wars, or treating men without money or jobs as nonhuman, is also a serious example of sexism and dehumanization against men.
Yes I'll keep all that for my campaigns.
Indeed, and even fat women will be among those swooning droves.[/quote]yes, but he wouldn't select or save them. [/quote]So “deselecting” fat women? That is precisely, when women stop being treated as persons. And becoming images that d
As if it's a sin to not select the unattractive women.
Not saving the people that you're not attracted to because you're not attracted to them? Uh, yeah, that'd definitely wrong.
Yes I'll keep all that for my campaigns.
That's fine, but the rest of us shouldn't be made to, and it's not the only thing D&D should depict.
Not saving the people that you're not attracted to because you're not attracted to them? Uh, yeah, that'd definitely wrong.That's fine, but the rest of us shouldn't be made to, and it's not the only thing D&D should depict.
As if it's a sin to not select the unattractive women.
Something like that.
Its a balance: dealing with a woman as an exciting sexual partner versus an intimate lifetime ally.
You can have both. I do
Something like that.Its a balance: dealing with a woman as an exciting sexual partner versus an intimate lifetime ally.[/quote]You can have both. I do :)
Riiiighht. I'll ask you the same thing I asked earlier. Look at this pictuire and tell me honeslty, do you think this woman is being objectified? Do you think this picture is sexist in any way, shape, or form?
Yeah, probably the images lean toward sexism. But if they are part of a larger more varied set of images they are fine.
Even tho the man and the woman are about equally goodlooking - and equally nude - the woman is far more sexualized.
They are equally sexualized. And it's not over the top at all. If kobolds can fight in scraps so can humans. But at least give the woman a weapon in the other 2 pictures unless she's just that bad-ass.
Yeah, probably the images lean toward sexism. But if they are part of a larger more varied set of images they are fine.Even tho the man and the woman are about equally goodlooking - and equally nude - the woman is far more sexualized.[/quote]They are
Depends on what encumberance rule module is used. In my idea of high fantasy heros can carry a lot, 3-5 women at least. But there is a movement afoot to limit it to a gnome woman or a halfling woman unless one brings a donkey and a cart.
He's supposed to be a hero, so why not?[/quote]Depends on what encumberance rule module is used. In my idea of high fantasy heros can carry a lot, 3-5 women at least. But there is a movement afoot to limit it to a gnome woman or a halfling woman unl
No, that are not. Being equally attractive or showing an equal amount of skin is not the same as being equally sexualized. Here, try reading this article about the matter. The key is that, in those images, the male characters are showing a lot of skin and doing other stuff too, while the female characters are showing a lot of skin and doing nothing else. The sexualization of the males is secondary to their dominance and power. The sexualization of the females is primary.
No, that are not. Being equally attractive or showing an equal amount of skin is not the same as being equally sexualized. Here, try reading this article about the matter. The key is that, in those images, the male characters are showing a lot of ski
No, that are not. Being equally attractive or showing an equal amount of skin is not the same as being equally sexualized. Here, try reading this article about the matter. The key is that, in those images, the male characters are showing a lot of skin and doing other stuff too, while the female characters are showing a lot of skin and doing nothing else. The sexualization of the males is secondary to their dominance and power. The sexualization of the females is primary.
Well, it's a matter of opinion. I mean if the setting was different, I am sure there would be something else disproportionate in there. No such thing as Cosmic Justice.
No, that are not. Being equally attractive or showing an equal amount of skin is not the same as being equally sexualized. Here, try reading this article about the matter. The key is that, in those images, the male characters are showing a lot of ski
Well, it's a matter of opinion. I mean if the setting was different, I am sure there would be something else disproportionate in there. No such thing as Cosmic Justice.
What are you talking about? Please elaborate. And, seriously, read that article. It is very good at explaining how and why amount of clothing is not all that there is to sexual objectification in art.
What are you talking about? Please elaborate.And, seriously, read that article. It is very good at explaining how and why amount of clothing is not all that there is to sexual objectification in art.
No, that are not. Being equally attractive or showing an equal amount of skin is not the same as being equally sexualized. Here, try reading this article about the matter.
I think the pictures do sexualize, I just don't get what's wrong with that. My wife sees nothing wrong with it, so I'll take my cue from her. Sexualizing a person in art is as old as time, and it helps the viewer get drawn in. That's why they pick models for commercials and billboards. That's why American Idol winners are good looking. That's why tall men make more money over the course of their lives than short men (on average). That's why tall men have more sexual partners than short men (on average) over the course of their lives. That's why more stay at home moms that found a wealthy man to marry (or stay at home dads of which I know two) are good looking. I mean this problem with suxaulity is silly. It's life, even in a fantasy realm.
If you don't want the women sexy and helpless, I understand. If you don't want the women sexy, I don't understand.
No, that are not. Being equally attractive or showing an equal amount of skin is not the same as being equally sexualized. Here, try reading this article about the matter.[/quote]I think the pictures do sexualize, I just don't get what's wrong with t
Well, it's a matter of opinion. I mean if the setting was different, I am sure there would be something else disproportionate in there. No such thing as Cosmic Justice.
What are you talking about? Please elaborate. And, seriously, read that article. It is very good at explaining how and why amount of clothing is not all that there is to sexual objectification in art.
Art and literature will not be balanced in terms of what races, genders, or other subdivisions of human beings are doing in terms of power or any other trait. Some groups in any given piece of art or collection of art will be disproportionately represented or misrepresented for that matter. I am not so concerned with that. What concerns me is does it fit the feel of high fantasy, either a gritty depiction or a fantastical depiction? Is it nice to look at? Does it break any major taboos. I know that the target audience includes teenagers now and perhaps depictions of violence and sex ought to be kept PG or PG-13 but minor discrepancies in portrayal don't bother me too much.
That said: if it was always females looking subservient or as a victim, yes that would get old fast.
What are you talking about? Please elaborate.And, seriously, read that article. It is very good at explaining how and why amount of clothing is not all that there is to sexual objectification in art.[/quote]Art and literature will not be balanced in
“If you don't want the women sexy and helpless, I understand. If you don't want the women sexy, I don't understand.”
As long as the men are sexy too.
In a nutshell, if all art suffers the “Jabba the Hut Syndrome” - ugly man with beautiful slave woman - theres a problem.
“If you don't want the women sexy and helpless, I understand. If you don't want the women sexy, I don't understand.” As long as the men are sexy too.In a nutshell, if all art suffers the “Jabba the Hut Syndrome” - ugly man wi
I think the pictures do sexualize, I just don't get what's wrong with that. If you don't want the women sexy and helpless, I understand. If you don't want the women sexy, I don't understand.
There isn't anything wrong with sexualization. That's simply not the argument being made, and focusing on that is missing the point entirely. The argument isn't that women shouldn't be sexy. It's that women shouldn't only be sexy and that it's not only women that should be sexy. Sexuality is a fantastic and totally natural part of the human experience, and sexualization too is just a part of that. The actual problem is coming from disproportionate sexualization and being limited to sexualization. There are totally non-sexist ways to sexualize.
In a nutshell, if all art suffers the “Jabba the Hut Syndrome” - ugly man with the beautiful slave woman - theres a problem.
That word is super important here.
There isn't anything wrong with sexualization. That's simply not the argument being made, and focusing on that is missing the point entirely. The argument isn't that women shouldn't be sexy. It's that women shouldn't only be sexy and that it's not on
I think the pictures do sexualize, I just don't get what's wrong with that. If you don't want the women sexy and helpless, I understand. If you don't want the women sexy, I don't understand.
There isn't anything wrong with sexualization. That's simply not the argument being made. The argument isn't that women shouldn't be sexy. It's that women shouldn't only be sexy and that it's not only women that should be sexy. Sexuality is a fantastic and totally natural part of the human experience, and sexualization too is just a part of that. The actual problem is coming from disproportionate sexualization and being limited to sexualization. There are totally non-sexist ways to sexualize.
I fail to see where the latest ten years of D&D art has even come close to this definition - especially the new stuff just released. So I guess I don't understand why it's an issue. 4e, despite its constant magical nature, had strong and sexy females all over the place. It also had strong and sexy men. It also had ugly strong women. It also had ugly strong men. The only thing it didn't have was racial (our racial) diversity in the character's features.
There isn't anything wrong with sexualization. That's simply not the argument being made. The argument isn't that women shouldn't be sexy. It's that women shouldn't only be sexy and that it's not only women that should be sexy. Sexuality is a fantast
I fail to see where the latest ten years of D&D art has even come close to this definition - especially the new stuff just released. So I guess I don't understand why it's an issue.
You are not alone in failing to realize the problem, and that's not your fault. The fact is that these themes and images and messages aren't just coming from D&D but from everywhere, so if that's just "normal" to what you've experienced your whole life, it's hard to recognize and critique it.
4e, despite its constant magical nature, had strong and sexy females all over the place. It also had strong and sexy men. It also had ugly strong women. It also had ugly strong men.
If you think that it does those things any way close to proportional, then you are mistaken. I can find ten sexy female characters easily. It's a lot harder to find even half that many sexy male characters. I can find ten ugly male characters easily. It's a lot harder to find even half that many ugly female characters. It's not just presence that's important but also proportions. And, yes, 4E was better about it than previous editions, but that doesn't mean that it was perfect or that we should stop critiquing.
You are not alone in failing to realize the problem, and that's not your fault. The fact is that these themes and images and messages aren't just coming from D&D but from everywhere, so if that's just "normal" to what you've experienced your whole li
I just want to interject the following thought in this amazing re-hash of D&D sexist art:
It is a very far stretch to see any sexist images in the link that the OP posted. If the art design has taken this into account, then further arguing about it in this thread may yield limited results.
But by all means, carry on.
I just want to interject the following thought in this amazing re-hash of D&D sexist art:It is a very far stretch to see any sexist images in the link that the OP posted. If the art design has taken this into account, then further arguing about it i
I think you need to be using the word "sexualised" rather than "sexy".
Because the latter is too subjective to be useful.
I found few to no "sexy" females in D&D art of any era, but that's my personal taste.
Now, it's wrong to say that recent fantasy art has not come a long way towards improving on the traditional high level of sexualisation of women. This has also been true in D&D.
Which is to say, 4th ed (and the proposed Next art so far) is NOWHERE NEAR as bad as what D&D got away with in the 80's.
Now, can/should it do better?
Yes.
But it is also important to see that things are moving in the right direction.
I think you need to be using the word "sexualised" rather than "sexy".Because the latter is too subjective to be useful.I found few to no "sexy" females in D&D art of any era, but that's my personal taste.Now, it's wrong to say that recent fantasy ar
This is my first time looking at the art, figure I'd skip to the end of the thread and post my two bits. Sorry about interrupting the "Sexist Art" chat (But my opinions are that sexist art is bad and hurts everyone involved in gaming, so please keep art not sexist).
So, the artwork. I like it! Got a stylized, kinda Pixar look to it. Looks neat! But where's the Dragonborn?
This is my first time looking at the art, figure I'd skip to the end of the thread and post my two bits. Sorry about interrupting the "Sexist Art" chat (But my opinions are that sexist art is bad and hurts everyone involved in gaming, so please keep
It is a very far stretch to see any sexist images in the link that the OP posted.
Though the images in this link are certainly significantly better than 99% of fantasy artwork without a doubt, and I have forgotten to praise them for that so thank you for reminding me, I disagree that they are perfect. Just compare the faces of the Northland Barbarian male and female, for example; one is young and beautiful, the other is old and beaten. You can see the same sort of relatively subtle differentiation between the male and female shield dwarves. In general, the proportions are still that the female characters are more likely to be beautiful. Heck, just check out the fact that the stereotypical "beautiful races" (Elves) seem only to be represented as such by women (at least in individual portraits).
I think you need to be using the word "sexualised" rather than "sexy". Because the latter is too subjective to be useful. I found few to no "sexy" females in D&D art of any era, but that's my personal taste. Now, it's wrong to say that recent fantasy art has not come a long way towards improving on the traditional high level of sexualisation of women. This has also been true in D&D. Which is to say, 4th ed (and the proposed Next art so far) is NOWHERE NEAR as bad as what D&D got away with in the 80's. Now, can/should it do better? Yes. But it is also important to see that things are moving in the right direction.
Yes, these are fair points.
Though the images in this link are certainly significantly better than 99% of fantasy artwork without a doubt, and I have forgotten to praise them for that so thank you for reminding me, I disagree that they are perfect. Just compare the faces of the
I fail to see where the latest ten years of D&D art has even come close to this definition - especially the new stuff just released. So I guess I don't understand why it's an issue.
You are not alone in failing to realize the problem, and that's not your fault. The fact is that these themes and images and messages aren't just coming from D&D but from everywhere, so if that's just "normal" to what you've experienced your whole life, it's hard to recognize and critique it.
4e, despite its constant magical nature, had strong and sexy females all over the place. It also had strong and sexy men. It also had ugly strong women. It also had ugly strong men.
If you think that it does those things any way close to proportional, then you are mistaken. I can find ten sexy female characters easily. It's a lot harder to find even half that many sexy male characters. I can find ten ugly male characters easily. It's a lot harder to find even half that many ugly female characters. It's not just presence that's important but also proportions. And, yes, 4E was better about it than previous editions, but that doesn't mean that it was perfect or that we should stop critiquing.
I have over 500 pictures from 4e saved on my hard drive. I just glanced through them. You need to do the same. There are many rough looking women who are strong. There are many sexy men looking strong. In fact, I think there are just as many strong looking women as men. No, I could not find an ugly female elf, but are there supposed to be any?
You are not alone in failing to realize the problem, and that's not your fault. The fact is that these themes and images and messages aren't just coming from D&D but from everywhere, so if that's just "normal" to what you've experienced your whole li
I have over 500 pictures from 4e saved on my hard drive. I just glanced through them. You need to do the same.
I have. It seems to me that you don't know what to look for, so I'm going to once again recommend this article. The average person will look at a nonsexualized depiction of a man and see that as "normal" and then look at a sexualized depiction of a woman and see that as "exactly as normal". That's exactly the problem. Look at the very pieces of artwork from this thread that we're talking about where there's little to no aknowledgement of the differences in depiction between the male and female Northland Barbarians. Subtle though they may be compared to what came before, those differences are still definitely there. And again, 4E is better at it than other editions before, but it's still far from perfect.
I have. It seems to me that you don't know what to look for, so I'm going to once again recommend this article.The average person will look at a nonsexualized depiction of a man and see that as "normal" and then look at a sexualized depiction of a wo
Time for a harsh reality that nobody wants to hear: The major problem with people always citing their wives/girlfriends/female-friends/whatever is that they don't realize that these women are exactly as susceptible to the effects of the constant messages media convey about gender roles as men are. That a woman you know says she has no problem with the disproportionate over-sexualization of women in art and other media doesn't mean that it's okay, and it certainly doesn't mean that she knows what she's talking about. No disrespect to whoever's wife/girlfriend/whatever, but you can't just say "My wife/girlfriend/whatever says it's okay, and she's a women." and expect that to be the end of the conversation.
Time for a harsh reality that nobody wants to hear:The major problem with people always citing their wives/girlfriends/female-friends/whatever is that they don't realize that these women are exactly as susceptible to the effects of the constant messa
...but you can't just say "My wife/girlfriend/whatever says it's okay, and she's a women." and expect that to be the end of the conversation.
It's the end of the conversation as far as she and I are concerned. She finds it quaint that shut-in basement-nerds flock to her defense as a woman in regards to what she might encounter when she looks at fantasy art. She finds it equally quaint that every time she walks into the FLGS it falls silent as though the presence of an actual real woman not dressed all in black and chrome with pink hair and an anime shirt barely covering a muffin-top could mean the end is actually nigh. You speak of harsh realities. Let me drop one on you. If a company thinks a particular brand of art will boost sales...even a teeny, tiny, little bit...they will use it. Sometimes that means huge heads, stick-legs, bug-eyes, and all of other Pixar-esqueness that abounds these days. Sometimes that means androgynous anime characters. Sometimes it means women in ill-fitting armor that look more like they should be on Baywatch than Faerun. Doesn't matter. This is not saying that WotC will do this. Over the last 2 editions or so, that trend in fantasy art (as it applies to RPGs) seems to have swung more toward the Pixar-esque characters we now see in the concept art. If that time should come back around (like it did in the 30's/40's with pin-up art and the 70's/80's in fantasy), please don't delude yourself into thinking that companies won't milk it for everything it is worth. Utopian, everyone-is-decent, no-one-gets-offended-mindsets are fine. Capitalism will win out every single time, though. Believe that.
It's the end of the conversation as far as she and I are concerned.She finds it quaint that shut-in basement-nerds flock to her defense as a woman in regards to what she might encounter when she looks at fantasy art. She finds it equally quaint that
It's the end of the conversation as far as she and I are concerned.
That's fine, but you and her are not the extend of this forum or of the D&D community, so don't expect the rest of us to end on the same note that you do.
She finds it quaint...
You should let her know that saying "I find it quaint..." immediately makes her sound condescendingly dismissive and that she shouldn't be surprised nobody takes her seriously if she speaks like that.
Capitalism will win out every single time, though. Believe that.
Fortunately it hasn't, and fortunately it won't.
That's fine, but you and her are not the extend of this forum or of the D&D community, so don't expect the rest of us to end on the same note that you do.You should let her know that saying "I find it quaint..." immediately makes her sound condescend
Except that it is. The photorealism is the reason I like Komarck's art, not depth or expression.
Actually, this is... I can't say 'wrong', but I think you're missing the point. There are a lot of artists that are photorealistic, it's not a unique style of painting. However, what makes Mr. Komarck's good IS his sense of momentum and expression. Because those things MAKE the image, the illusion FEEL real. It's use of colours, proportions and details.
Painting so a picture feels dynamic, living, is what makes people notice them in a good way, like you are. For you, Komarck's pictures feel photorealistic. Even though, they aren't.
Except that it is. The photorealism is the reason I like Komarck's art, not depth or expression.[/quote]Actually, this is... I can't say 'wrong', but I think you're missing the point. There are a lot of artists that are photorealistic, it's not a u
Seeing as how the trend nowadays seems to be disproportionate, cartoonish art, I really don't think anyone's feelings will be too hurt by ojectification. Frankly, if they tried to insert sexism into some of that concept art it would just be...creepy. I see people being put off by the silliness of it, but not by the inherent sexism in it.
Seeing as how the trend nowadays seems to be disproportionate, cartoonish art, I really don't think anyone's feelings will be too hurt by ojectification. Frankly, if they tried to insert sexism into some of that concept art it would just be...creepy.
Capitalism will win out every single time, though.
Thank goodness for that.
Look guys, we all know that Communism is a red herring, but let's not change the subject.
The deal is, that whole "Sex sells, so bring it on to make moneys" deal? It really is terrible. I mean, let's say your daughter, or sister, or female cousin, wants to get involved in this nerdy geek hobby. If the first thing she sees are near-nekked girls on the covers of the book, do you really think she'll want to continue on?
Thank goodness for that.[/quote]Look guys, we all know that Communism is a red herring, but let's not change the subject.The deal is, that whole "Sex sells, so bring it on to make moneys" deal? It really is terrible. I mean, let's say your daughte
On the subject of cartoonishness, it is surprising. The other races, and even the other monsters like the Owlbear, look realistic. They have realistic (or at least disbelief-suspending) proportions. By contrast, my main difficulty with the impossibly small feet of the Halfling is, it is impossible for me to imagine them as “dexterous”.
On the subject of cartoonishness, it is surprising. The other races, and even the other monsters like the Owlbear, look realistic. They have realistic (or at least disbelief-suspending) proportions. By contrast, my main difficulty with the impossibly
The thing is..."that sex sells", only cover to the lower common denominator...and that's not D&D and tabletop RPG demography at all... hell, in videogames that strategy doesn't work anymore since the last decade and that's a lower common denominator than tabletop rpg...
The thing is..."that sex sells", only cover to the lower common denominator...and that's not D&D and tabletop RPG demography at all... hell, in videogames that strategy doesn't work anymore since the last decade and that's a lower common denominator
Time for a harsh reality that nobody wants to hear: The major problem with people always citing their wives/girlfriends/female-friends/whatever is that they don't realize that these women are exactly as susceptible to the effects of the constant messages media convey about gender roles as men are. That a woman you know says she has no problem with the disproportionate over-sexualization of women in art and other media doesn't mean that it's okay, and it certainly doesn't mean that she knows what she's talking about. No disrespect to whoever's wife/girlfriend/whatever, but you can't just say "My wife/girlfriend/whatever says it's okay, and she's a women." and expect that to be the end of the conversation.
So when I show and ask 10 women tomorrow whether they think 4e's art is sexualizing the women, and 9 answer no - it's still sexualization. Wrong. I will conduct my little experiment tomorrow, and if I'm correct in guessing their answers, we will have a debate of definitions. You'll say, it's still sexualization because they're all brainwashed. I'll say, if everyone's brainwashed then the definition, or at least the norm for the definition has authoritatively changed. Remember, once everyone starts calling it a dog, even though it's a wolf, it becomes a dog.
So when I show and ask 10 women tomorrow whether they think 4e's art is sexualizing the women, and 9 answer no - it's still sexualization. Wrong. I will conduct my little experiment tomorrow, and if I'm correct in guessing their answers, we will ha
I mean, let's say your daughter, or sister, or female cousin, wants to get involved in this nerdy geek hobby. If the first thing she sees are near-nekked girls on the covers of the book, do you really think she'll want to continue on?
My wife plays, and she got into D&D in the 80's (1E). There were no near-nekked girls on the covers. My sister plays. She got into it in the early 90's (2E). There were no near-nekked girls on the covers. Looking through my entire D&D collection, I see not one instance of a near-nekked girl on any covers (though I do find some inside a few of the old 1E splats).
I think people love to throw up the "sexism" flag every time an art discussion happens, but truth is, D&D has only loosely contributed to it in the far past, and WotC hasn't contributed to it since it got the brand. I highly, highly doubt they will start doing so now.
My wife plays, and she got into D&D in the 80's (1E). There were no near-nekked girls on the covers.My sister plays. She got into it in the early 90's (2E). There were no near-nekked girls on the covers.Looking through my entire D&D collection, I see
The thing is..."that sex sells", only cover to the lower common denominator...and that's not D&D and tabletop RPG demography at all... hell, in videogames that strategy doesn't work anymore since the last decade and that's a lower common denominator than tabletop rpg...
Please show me where it doesn't work in video games? All the top video games basically have female super models running around in tight clothes kicking-$&@. I find it strange you think otherwise. If I'm wrong and that out of touch with video games then I'll gladly eat crow. But, can you point out the games you're talking about? Thanks.
Please show me where it doesn't work in video games? All the top video games basically have female super models running around in tight clothes kicking-$&@. I find it strange you think otherwise. If I'm wrong and that out of touch with video games
So when I show and ask 10 women tomorrow whether they think 4e's art is sexualizing the women, and 9 answer no - it's still sexualization. Wrong. I will conduct my little experiment tomorrow, and if I'm correct in guessing their answers, we will have a debate of definitions.
We should probably talk about your terribly unscientific experimental methods first. No data you could ever collect with such a crude methods would ever be considered valid. Run your little experiment if you want to, but it'll prove exactly nothing either way, not even the brainwashing theory you seem to be so sure would be my response (it probably wouldn't).
Remember, once everyone starts calling it a dog, even though it's a wolf, it becomes a dog.
No. If all fifty students answer on the test that 10-5*2=10, then all fifty students are wrong.
I think people love to throw up the "sexism" flag every time an art discussion happens...
And I think it's a shame that, every time it happens and even though it happens so often, most people's immediate reaction is to get defensive about it rather than actually listening. That's why we end up with buzzwords and phrases like "politically correct" or "oversensitive" or "looking to be offended", because people get defensive when other people have problems that they can't immediately identify with instead of actually listening.
Please show me where it doesn't work in video games? All the top video games basically have female super models running around in tight clothes kicking-$&@.
It shows up in vodegames so much because many videogame developers haven't caught on yet that it actually doesn't work that well. I mean, yeah, most of the top selling videogames are questionable in this regard, but so are most videogame failures. The idea that "sex sells" is actually a pretty outdated one in that form of simplicity, and you won't find many experienced marketing experts nowadays that'll seriously advocate it unless you are actually trying to sell pornography.
We should probably talk about your terribly unscientific experimental methods first. No data you could ever collect with such a crude methods would ever be considered valid. Run your little experiment if you want to, but it'll prove exactly nothing e
The thing is..."that sex sells", only cover to the lower common denominator...and that's not D&D and tabletop RPG demography at all... hell, in videogames that strategy doesn't work anymore since the last decade and that's a lower common denominator than tabletop rpg...
Please show me where it doesn't work in video games? All the top video games basically have female super models running around in tight clothes kicking-$&@. I find it strange you think otherwise. If I'm wrong and that out of touch with video games then I'll gladly eat crow. But, can you point out the games you're talking about? Thanks.
All the top videogames? are you high? what do you think this is...the 1990s and early 2000s? Probably the most sexist top videogame i have played recently has been The Witcher 2... and probably Bioshock Infinite will kinda portrait the main heroine in a slightly sexist way, thought she help you as much as you help her it seems. Probably one of the most famous franchise in the last years (mass effect) have your character portrayed as unisex as possible, even as female, hence the reason alot of people love femshepard...she is written as a character, not as a female character or a tomboy character
Please show me where it doesn't work in video games? All the top video games basically have female super models running around in tight clothes kicking-$&@. I find it strange you think otherwise. If I'm wrong and that out of touch with video games
Time for a harsh reality that nobody wants to hear: The major problem with people always citing their wives/girlfriends/female-friends/whatever is that they don't realize that these women are exactly as susceptible to the effects of the constant messages media convey about gender roles as men are. That a woman you know says she has no problem with the disproportionate over-sexualization of women in art and other media doesn't mean that it's okay, and it certainly doesn't mean that she knows what she's talking about. No disrespect to whoever's wife/girlfriend/whatever, but you can't just say "My wife/girlfriend/whatever says it's okay, and she's a women." and expect that to be the end of the conversation.
Bottom line is this: whatever anyone's interpretation of it is, if the profit is to be made via _________ then that is what the market will produce.
For a good example of some plate-kinis one has to go no further then World of Warcraft... And if the 900lb gorilla does it thats a substantial market share.
Bottom line is this: whatever anyone's interpretation of it is, if the profit is to be made via _________ then that is what the market will produce.For a good example of some plate-kinis one has to go no further then World of Warcraft... And if the
For a good example of some plate-kinis one has to go no further then World of Warcraft...
Are you suggesting that World of Warcraft would be less successful without that horribly exaggerated sexual dimorphism? Because I'd bet the opposite. WoW's success has nothing to do with its sexualization of female characters. If anything, I'd be willing to bet it would be more successful if it toned that down.
For those who think that, simple put, "sex sells", here are some articles you might want to take a look at when you have the time. [1] [2] [3] [4]Are you suggesting that World of Warcraft would be less successful without that horribly exaggerated sex
The idea that "sex sells" is actually a pretty outdated one in that form of simplicity, and you won't find many experienced marketing experts nowadays that'll seriously advocate it unless you are actually trying to sell pornography.
Tell that to Dolce & Gabbana (estimated net worth of over $630 Million), Versace (estimated net worth of $1.4 Billion), and too many others to mention. Just a brief glance around their websites will make a feminist's head explode. Pretty sure those companies know a little more about marketing than any of us on this forum do.
Now, if we're done freaking out over the sexist art that isn't there (and won't be there), can we maybe get back to discussing how funny looking those Halflings are?
Tell that to Dolce & Gabbana (estimated net worth of over $630 Million), Versace (estimated net worth of $1.4 Billion), and too many others to mention. Just a brief glance around their websites will make a feminist's head explode. Pretty sure those c
For a good example of some plate-kinis one has to go no further then World of Warcraft...
Are you suggesting that World of Warcraft would be less successful without that horribly exaggerated sexual dimorphism? Because I'd bet the opposite. WoW's success has nothing to do with its sexualization of female characters. If anything, I'd be willing to bet it would be more successful if it toned that down.
It's impossible to know either way. I personnally like the option of transmogging my gear into skimpy stuff on my BE. Not so much on my goblin though... Well, even my goblin. All critters are sexy! People have different tastes and levels of tolerance. I don't think realistic, fantasy art that depicted how people and captured foes really were treated would fly... So might as well err on the side of a bit of scandolous. Now of course I am not advocating nothing but that but a little doesn't hurt. Hell I miss my topless succubi from 1st edition... PC makes me frown.
Are you suggesting that World of Warcraft would be less successful without that horribly exaggerated sexual dimorphism? Because I'd bet the opposite. WoW's success has nothing to do with its sexualization of female characters. If anything, I'd be wil
So when I show and ask 10 women tomorrow whether they think 4e's art is sexualizing the women, and 9 answer no - it's still sexualization.
Correct. Popular opinion != truth.
In this case, the definition of sexism, in which one gender is devalued, objectified, or disempowered by rhetoric or imagery which undercuts them, is the only determining factor. By that definition, much of the art in the fantasy genre - including a good deal of D&D's art, historically - is sexist. The nice thing is that, with a new edition in the offing, there's a good opportunity here to decide not to continue in that vein.
Guys who think chainmail bikinis are "hot" need their heads checked. There's nothing "hot" about some idiot who decides to sacrifice comfort and practicality, particularly in a life-threatening occupation like dungeon-delver, in order to impress the local neanderthals with the size of her mammary glands. Stupid is never sexy.
Correct. Popular opinion != truth. In this case, the definition of sexism, in which one gender is devalued, objectified, or disempowered by rhetoric or imagery which undercuts them, is the only determining factor. By that definition, much of the a
So when I show and ask 10 women tomorrow whether they think 4e's art is sexualizing the women, and 9 answer no - it's still sexualization. Wrong. I will conduct my little experiment tomorrow, and if I'm correct in guessing their answers, we will have a debate of definitions.
We should probably talk about your terribly unscientific experimental methods first. No data you could ever collect with such a crude methods would ever be considered valid. Run your little experiment if you want to, but it'll prove exactly nothing either way, not even the brainwashing theory you seem to be so sure would be my response (it probably wouldn't).
Remember, once everyone starts calling it a dog, even though it's a wolf, it becomes a dog.
No. If all fifty students answer on the test that 10-5*2=10, then all fifty students are wrong.
I think people love to throw up the "sexism" flag every time an art discussion happens...
And I think it's a shame that, every time it happens and even though it happens so often, most people's immediate reaction is to get defensive about it rather than actually listening. That's why we end up with buzzwords and phrases like "politically correct" or "oversensitive" or "looking to be offended", because people get defensive when other people have problems that they can't immediately identify with instead of actually listening.
Please show me where it doesn't work in video games? All the top video games basically have female super models running around in tight clothes kicking-$&@.
It shows up in vodegames so much because many videogame developers haven't caught on yet that it actually doesn't work that well. I mean, yeah, most of the top selling videogames are questionable in this regard, but so are most videogame failures. The idea that "sex sells" is actually a pretty outdated one in that form of simplicity, and you won't find many experienced marketing experts nowadays that'll seriously advocate it unless you are actually trying to sell pornography.
Crimson, I know my method is unscientific. It's laughable. It's as laughable as your opinion, my opinion, and my colleagues' opinions- which is what sexism boils down to - opinions.
Trust me, if they state it is, I'll let you know. And then I'll walk away a happier man for understanding better the points of views of people I care about. But for you to be the "voice of authority" when my wife's voice is just as authoritative, you'll have to call it a draw.
We should probably talk about your terribly unscientific experimental methods first. No data you could ever collect with such a crude methods would ever be considered valid. Run your little experiment if you want to, but it'll prove exactly nothing e
So when I show and ask 10 women tomorrow whether they think 4e's art is sexualizing the women, and 9 answer no - it's still sexualization.
Correct. Popular opinion != truth.
In this case, the definition of sexism, in which one gender is devalued, objectified, or disempowered by rhetoric or imagery which undercuts them, is the only determining factor. By that definition, much of the art in the fantasy genre - including a good deal of D&D's art, historically - is sexist. The nice thing is that, with a new edition in the offing, there's a good opportunity here to decide not to continue in that vein.
Guys who think chainmail bikinis are "hot" need their heads checked. There's nothing "hot" about some idiot who decides to sacrifice comfort and practicality, particularly in a life-threatening occupation like dungeon-delver, in order to impress the local neanderthals with the size of her mammary glands. Stupid is never sexy.
Yes. A mundane chain mail bikini is not very effective aside from running. Yet it still provides more protection then wizard robes for whatever that is worth. And in comparison to your full plate wearing friend with a metal bucket on his head you have much more speed. Food may run but food running faster then your companion from a hungry owl bear has some merit. It's better to look sexy running away then getting caught in a "practical suit of full plate" that way you can live to look sexy another day.
With regards to magical armor things are trickier. As the number of +s go up the amount of metal can go down. It's an inverse relationship and it's redundant to the eldritch auras that protect the flesh. Who are you to argue with the divine?
Correct. Popular opinion != truth. In this case, the definition of sexism, in which one gender is devalued, objectified, or disempowered by rhetoric or imagery which undercuts them, is the only determining factor. By that definition, much of the a
But for you to be the "voice of authority" when my wife's voice is just as authoritative, you'll have to call it a draw.
Exactly. I'm actually quite surprised that the mods haven't intervened. Sexism runs so very close to that controversial line that mods fear crossing. All in all, I think everyone has done a good job of keeping it at least moderately civil. As civil as something like this can be, that is. There are going to be very strong opinions on the matter, just as there are on politics, religion, and so on.
Exactly.I'm actually quite surprised that the mods haven't intervened. Sexism runs so very close to that controversial line that mods fear crossing. All in all, I think everyone has done a good job of keeping it at least moderately civil. As civil as
It's as laughable as your opinion, my opinion, and my colleagues' opinions- which is what sexism boils down to - opinions.
No, it isn't, and that's a cop out. We have data, studies, whole fields of research dedicated to examining gender roles, their causes, their consequences, their depiction in media, and so on. That's more than "just an opinion", and to try to dismiss it as such is nothing but scientifically ignorant. What, do you think that we in sociology, media studies, and gender and women studies just sit in a circle all day and talk about our feelings? No, we collect data, create surveys, conduct interviews, study content, perform literature reviews, cite sources, and more. That's quite a bit more than "just an opinion".
That's the one thing that really sucks about being in this field. It doesn't matter how high your degree, how published you are, or anything else. At the end of the day, every random layperson still thinks they know more about the way that society works than you do.
No, it isn't, and that's a cop out. We have data, studies, whole fields of research dedicated to examining gender roles, their causes, their consequences, their depiction in media, and so on. That's more than "just an opinion", and to try to dismiss
Except that they are, insofar as something can be photorealistic.
Not really, they give the ILLUSION of being photorealistic, but they aren't. And you know what? That's the success of Mr. Kormarck's art. He can make you, the audience, believe it's photorealistic, despite the fact that he has no actual resource to show some of the things he's shown.
I mean, how do you depict a spell effect? A magical forcefield? Or even a simple light 'spell'? Those are things you have to make up. And he does that WELL.
Not really, they give the ILLUSION of being photorealistic, but they aren't. And you know what? That's the success of Mr. Kormarck's art. He can make you, the audience, believe it's photorealistic, despite the fact that he has no actual resource t
It's as laughable as your opinion, my opinion, and my colleagues' opinions- which is what sexism boils down to - opinions.
No, it isn't, and that's a cop out. We have data, studies, whole fields of research dedicated to examining gender roles, their causes, their consequences, their depiction in media, and so on. That's more than "just an opinion", and to try to dismiss it as such is nothing but scientifically ignorant. What, do you think that we in sociology, media studies, and gender and women studies just sit in a circle all day and talk about our feelings? No, we collect data, create surveys, conduct interviews, study content, perform literature reviews, cite sources, and more. That's quite a bit more than "just an opinion".
That's the one thing that really sucks about being in this field. It doesn't matter how high your degree, how published you are, or anything else. At the end of the day, every random layperson still thinks they know more about the way that society works than you do.
Then why does Victoria Secret make lingere that attempts to be sexual if it doesn't sell? Or fashion in general? Deny it all you want but there is a reason why a certain form of download is one of the most popular downloads.
No, it isn't, and that's a cop out. We have data, studies, whole fields of research dedicated to examining gender roles, their causes, their consequences, their depiction in media, and so on. That's more than "just an opinion", and to try to dismiss
It's as laughable as your opinion, my opinion, and my colleagues' opinions- which is what sexism boils down to - opinions.
No, it isn't, and that's a cop out. We have data, studies, whole fields of research dedicated to examining gender roles, their causes, their consequences, their depiction in media, and so on. That's more than "just an opinion", and to try to dismiss it as such is nothing but scientifically ignorant. What, do you think that we in sociology, media studies, and gender and women studies just sit in a circle all day and talk about our feelings? No, we collect data, create surveys, conduct interviews, study content, perform literature reviews, cite sources, and more. That's quite a bit more than "just an opinion".
That's the one thing that really sucks about being in this field. It doesn't matter how high your degree, how published you are, or anything else. At the end of the day, every random layperson still thinks they know more about the way that society works than you do.
Guess what? They also done studies and found out that sex sells. Not just to men, but to women as well! Believe or not, and you probably won't, but there's a HUGE swath of women out there that like to feel sexy or attractive, even if that medium is make believe, like roleplaying games.
Cheesecake imagery sells, as does beefcake imagery, which really makes me wonder why no one is against beefcake images? I personally like them both, give me a Frank Frazetta picture any day! The Death Dealer picture of his, is one of my favourites. I also love my some Red Sonja art too.
No, it isn't, and that's a cop out. We have data, studies, whole fields of research dedicated to examining gender roles, their causes, their consequences, their depiction in media, and so on. That's more than "just an opinion", and to try to dismiss
...give me a Frank Frazetta picture any day! The Death Dealer picture of his, is one of my favourites. I also love my some Red Sonja art too.
Frazetta, Royo, Vallejo, Brom, Elmore...even Parkinson...there are good reasons that these guys are considered some of the most iconic, most referenced, most memorable fantasy artists of all time.
Frazetta, Royo, Vallejo, Brom, Elmore...even Parkinson...there are good reasons that these guys are considered some of the most iconic, most referenced, most memorable fantasy artists of all time.
IMO, this is not a good direction at all. I propose the following guidelines:
The art should not:
Resemble video games.
Resemble Pixar.
Resemble modeled plastic.
Having gone to the Conceptopolis website I do not think they are the right company for the job, as everything in their portfolio does at least one of those things pretty significantly.
IMO, this is not a good direction at all. I propose the following guidelines:The art should not: Resemble video games. Resemble Pixar. Resemble modeled plastic. Having gone to the Conceptopolis website I do not think they are the right company for t
IMO, this is not a good direction at all. I propose the following guidelines:
The art should not:
Resemble video games.
Resemble Pixar.
Resemble modeled plastic.
Having gone to the Conceptopolis website I do not think they are the right company for the job, as everything in their portfolio does at least one of those things pretty significantly.
Then why does Victoria Secret make lingere that attempts to be sexual if it doesn't sell? Or fashion in general?
Because you're ignoring qualifiers and oversimplifying what I said into something that's much easier to dismiss. You might as well be trying to refute what I said by demonstrating that Trojan and K-Y use sex to sell.
Deny it all you want but there is a reason why a certain form of download is one of the most popular downloads.
There are a lot of reasons why that is the case. If you think that there's only one reason, then you are mistaken.
Guess what? They also done studies and found out that sex sells.
The majority of those studies' results are oversimplified and/or otherwise misinterpreted. In other situation, they work because what's being sold is of an inherently sexual nature. For example, one such study I read measured how long people looked at ads for products with varying levels of sexuality used in those ads. The ones that were overtly sexual were looked at for longer, and the study thus concluded that "sex sells". The problem is that that isn't the whole story. Just because somebody looks at your ad for longer because it contains sex doesn't mean that they're actually persuaded to buy your product or even that they remember what the product was. In fact, other studies have shown that including such sexuality can actually distract from the product and result in lower product recognition. Part of thinking scientifically is that you don't just say "Well, I found this other study that says something different, so we're even.". Rather you can say "Well, I found this other study that says something different, and the study you're citing is flawed because of X, Y, and Z, flaws that this other study does not have.".
Not just to men, but to women as well! Believe or not, and you probably won't, but there's a HUGE swath of women out there that like to feel sexy or attractive...
See? This is what I was talking about before. You honestly think I don't know this? Even after I just said that sociology, media studies, and gender studies were my fields, you think that I would not know something this obvious? That's honestly getting into the realm of insulting.
Because you're ignoring qualifiers and oversimplifying what I said into something that's much easier to dismiss. You might as well be trying to refute what I said by demonstrating that Trojan and K-Y use sex to sell.There are a lot of reasons why tha
Unfortunately, the modern trend seems to be heading head-long toward the cartoony, Pixar-esque, video-gamey look. We might be stuck with it. It won't really affect my decision to buy the game or not (that rests 100% on the rules). I mean, the interior art of most of 1E and ALL of OD&D was pretty bad, but I bought those, too.
Unfortunately, the modern trend seems to be heading head-long toward the cartoony, Pixar-esque, video-gamey look. We might be stuck with it. It won't really affect my decision to buy the game or not (that rests 100% on the rules). I mean, the interio
What does this mean? Videogames cover such a wide variety of visual aesthetics that I could not even begin to imagine what "looks like a videogame" would mean in this context? Do you mean you don't want it to be pixelated? Because that's the best I can figure.
What does this mean? Videogames cover such a wide variety of visual aesthetics that I could not even begin to imagine what "looks like a videogame" would mean in this context? Do you mean you don't want it to be pixelated? Because that's the best I c
Then why does Victoria Secret make lingere that attempts to be sexual if it doesn't sell? Or fashion in general?
Because you're ignoring qualifiers and oversimplifying what I said into something that's much easier to dismiss. You might as well be trying to refute what I said by demonstrating that Trojan and K-Y use sex to sell.
Deny it all you want but there is a reason why a certain form of download is one of the most popular downloads.
There are a lot of reasons why that is the case. If you think that there's only one reason, then you are mistaken.
Guess what? They also done studies and found out that sex sells.
The majority of those studies' results are oversimplified and/or otherwise misinterpreted. In other situation, they work because what's being sold is of an inherently sexual nature. For example, one such study I read measured how long people looked at ads for products with varying levels of sexuality used in those ads. The ones that were overtly sexual were looked at for longer, and the study thus concluded that "sex sells". The problem is that that isn't the whole story. Just because somebody looks at your ad for longer because it contains sex doesn't mean that they're actually persuaded to buy your product or even that they remember what the product was. In fact, other studies have shown that including such sexuality can actually distract from the product and result in lower product recognition. Part of thinking scientifically is that you don't just say "Well, I found this other study that says something different, so we're even.". Rather you can say "Well, I found this other study that says something different, and the study you're citing is flawed because of X, Y, and Z, flaws that this other study does not have.".
Not just to men, but to women as well! Believe or not, and you probably won't, but there's a HUGE swath of women out there that like to feel sexy or attractive...
See? This is what I was talking about before. You honestly think I don't know this? Even after I just said that sociology, media studies, and gender studies were my fields, you think that I would not know something this obvious? That's honestly getting into the realm of insulting.
And I think you're being too selective. In fact, you're disregarding anything that might disprove your point. THAT'S just as insulting to the rest of us.
You can have your... You know what, I don't know what it is, but you can have it.
The rest of us? We'll have our pretty and handsome heroes and heroines in various stages of fantastic arms and armour for our games, thank you very much.
Because you're ignoring qualifiers and oversimplifying what I said into something that's much easier to dismiss. You might as well be trying to refute what I said by demonstrating that Trojan and K-Y use sex to sell.There are a lot of reasons why tha
In fact, you're disregarding anything that might disprove your point.
No, I'm disregarding anything that I can show fails to disprove my point. If you think that's the same thing, then, well, I don't know what.
You can have your... You know what, I don't know what it is, but you can have it. The rest of us? We'll have our pretty and handsome heroes and heroines in various stages of fantastic arms and armour for our games, thank you very much.
Wait, so you're admitting that you have no idea what I'm arguing for and then you respond with that? Maybe you should ask me what it is that I'm arguing for if you don't know?
No, I'm disregarding anything that I can show fails to disprove my point. If you think that's the same thing, then, well, I don't know what.Wait, so you're admitting that you have no idea what I'm arguing for and then you respond with that? :uh-huh:M
What does this mean? Videogames cover such a wide variety of visual aesthetics that I could not even begin to imagine what "looks like a videogame" would mean in this context? Do you mean you don't want it to be pixelated? Because that's the best I can figure.
I was referencing WoW, specifically, in regards to video games. DDO also falls into that.
I can't speak for the others that voiced the opinion.
What does this mean? Videogames cover such a wide variety of visual aesthetics that I could not even begin to imagine what "looks like a videogame" would mean in this context? Do you mean you don't want it to be pixelated? Because that's the best I c
You're seriously arguing over the internet with a statistics major? You guys are in for a loooong ride.
It's not always the point to change the mind of the person you are debating with. There is always a silent audience. And sociology is hardly a "hard" science like physics or chemistry.
It's not always the point to change the mind of the person you are debating with. There is always a silent audience. And sociology is hardly a "hard" science like physics or chemistry.
Just gave 'em another pass to see if any would grow on me.
Nope.
The displacer beast is cool, but that's about it. Course, I haven't seen a decent displacer beast yet so maybe it's cool because the previous examples are so lame.
I would buy text-only pdfs if this was the overall style of 5e.
Just gave 'em another pass to see if any would grow on me.Nope.The displacer beast is cool, but that's about it. Course, I haven't seen a decent displacer beast yet so maybe it's cool because the previous examples are so lame.I would buy text-only pd
The displacer beast is too muscular. Look at a tiger, jaguar, lion, any big cat, can you see their rippling muscles? No. Strong lines make for terrible camouflage, and muscular definition like that is vulnerable to damage.
The displacer beast is too muscular. Look at a tiger, jaguar, lion, any big cat, can you see their rippling muscles? No. Strong lines make for terrible camouflage, and muscular definition like that is vulnerable to damage.
The displacer beast is too muscular. Look at a tiger, jaguar, lion, any big cat, can you see their rippling muscles? No. Strong lines make for terrible camouflage, and muscular definition like that is vulnerable to damage.
I'm pretty sure the displacer beast doesn't rely on camouflage as a defense -- it has displacement for that. And displacement, ironically, requires the beast to appear plainly, so that the enemy relies on his eyes over his other senses for targeting. In this one case, it makes sense for the creature to deviate form the norm.
I'm pretty sure the displacer beast doesn't rely on camouflage as a defense -- it has displacement for that. And displacement, ironically, requires the beast to appear plainly, so that the enemy relies on his eyes over his other senses for targeting
As CONCEPT art, I love this. A tad cartoony, sure, but it also gives the impression of life, of vitality, of "things going on." One has to remember this is a video game company producing this stuff, so their style will tend to the cartooney side. When it comes to FINISHED art I'm 100% confident there will be other artists involved.
Thanks to Conceptopolis for posting these images! I'll be checking back regularly. I'd love to see some more of the FR cultural variations.
Oh, and in case nobody answered the "why FR?" question, it's because this stuff was originally being generated as an in-house world-building bible for the FR. It was happening before DDN was a thing, and Jon said they kind of co-opted some of the ideas and integrated others into DDN design. However, it was/is primarily a FR style guide.
As CONCEPT art, I love this. A tad cartoony, sure, but it also gives the impression of life, of vitality, of "things going on." One has to remember this is a video game company producing this stuff, so their style will tend to the cartooney side.
The displacer beast is too muscular. Look at a tiger, jaguar, lion, any big cat, can you see their rippling muscles? No. Strong lines make for terrible camouflage, and muscular definition like that is vulnerable to damage.
I'm going to disagree only becase Rule of Cool. Giving certain kinds of creatures large, well defined muscles just makes them look cool, and that's a good enough reason for me.
People who use that to imply that it's less valid or valuable are people who don't know very much about science or what that distinction really means.I'm going to disagree only becase Rule of Cool. Giving certain kinds of creatures large, well define
The displacer beast is too muscular. Look at a tiger, jaguar, lion, any big cat, can you see their rippling muscles? No. Strong lines make for terrible camouflage, and muscular definition like that is vulnerable to damage.
I'm going to disagree only becase Rule of Cool. Giving certain kinds of creatures large, well defined muscles just makes them look cool, and that's a good enough reason for me.
The correlations between data aren't as strong in the social sciences as they are in physics, engineering, and chemistry. There are far too many variables. Plus people aren't always entirely honest when interviewed. I am not denying that some things are or are not sexist. I am saying there is no way to have an objective standard that is actually precise and accurate when measuring degrees of are whether or not something is or is not sexist. My own personal viewpoint is I like a large variety of fantasy art and I don't mind a bit of stuff that is considered over the top gory, or otherwise not fit for a 10 year old to view. In a game, sure the majority ought to match the target audiences' desires.
People who use that to imply that it's less valid or valuable are people who don't know very much about science or what that distinction really means.I'm going to disagree only becase Rule of Cool. Giving certain kinds of creatures large, well define
Theres a difference between the physical sciences and the human sciences. Even so, the human sciences are robust sciences, especially recently with the neuro sciences.
Theres a difference between the physical sciences and the human sciences. Even so, the human sciences are robust sciences, especially recently with the neuro sciences.
The correlations between data aren't as strong in the social sciences as they are in physics, engineering, and chemistry. There are far too many variables. Plus people aren't always entirely honest when interviewed.
That doesn't make sociology a lesser science than physics or chemistry. If anything, it makes it *more* of a science, as it must account for a much more unpredictable set of conditions. I am always amused by my so-called 'hard' science students who sneer at sociology, psychology, and so on because they don't understand that any monkey can come to accurate conclusions when they can control for all but a single, trackable variable. It takes real brains to be able to winkle even a weak correlation out of the chaos of conflicting data, dependent and independent variables, and noise which makes up sociological data. Physics is child's play. Sociology is *hard.*
But in this case, the statistics are beside the point anyway. We're talking about tautological definitions. The definition of sexism is met when one gender is treated differently than another (particularly in a manner which rhetorically disempowers it) based solely on that gender identification. That is visibly true in an unfortunate amount of fantasy art. It is happily not too terribly true in this DDN concept art, but I think it's important that the design team remain aware of the risks of alienating potential audience members. Aside from political considerations (and I always want to take people who claim disdain for the PC movement back to the 1970s so they can see what it was like when workplace sexual harassment was considered acceptable, and there was no legal consequence for date rape), consider the bottom line: the goal is for DDN to be the most accessible edition of the game to date. That goal is defeated if they front it with art which annoys, alienates, and discourages 51% of the population.
That doesn't make sociology a lesser science than physics or chemistry. If anything, it makes it *more* of a science, as it must account for a much more unpredictable set of conditions. I am always amused by my so-called 'hard' science students who
That is precisely, when women stop being treated as persons. And becoming images that dehumanize women, is sexism.
Yeah, the good looking heroine would make sure to select an equal number of potbellied men with dirty socks from among her legion of fans to be her personal courtiers
[ quote author=56930528 post=528270299]You should let her know that saying "I find it quaint..." immediately makes her sound condescendingly dismissive and that she shouldn't be surprised nobody takes her seriously if she speaks like that.
I find it easier to take her seriously than people who claim to know better than the very people they are championing
We have data, studies, whole fields of research dedicated to examining gender roles, their causes, their consequences, their depiction in media, and so on. That's more than "just an opinion", and to try to dismiss it as such is nothing but scientifically ignorant. What, do you think that we in sociology, media studies, and gender and women studies just sit in a circle all day and talk about our feelings? No, we collect data, create surveys, conduct interviews, study content, perform literature reviews, cite sources, and more. That's quite a bit more than "just an opinion".
Well, Norway recently did away with all federal sponsored gender studies after evaluating them
In some background images showing a village of serfs maybe, but men portrayed as heroes/PCs in art are anything but average looking So “deselecting” fat women?[/quote]That is precisely, when women stop being treated as persons. And becomi
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intellegent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others. Believe us when we say it is possible.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You
I don't like the art. I like the rich, detailed artwork of Caldwell, Brom, Elmore, Easley, frazetta. This art is pedestrian, cartoonish, and videogamey. Bring back the rich detailed fantasy art. Not production drivel like these pictures.
I don't like the art. I like the rich, detailed artwork of Caldwell, Brom, Elmore, Easley, frazetta. This art is pedestrian, cartoonish, and videogamey. Bring back the rich detailed fantasy art. Not production drivel like these pictures.
It's as laughable as your opinion, my opinion, and my colleagues' opinions- which is what sexism boils down to - opinions.
No, it isn't, and that's a cop out. We have data, studies, whole fields of research dedicated to examining gender roles, their causes, their consequences, their depiction in media, and so on. That's more than "just an opinion", and to try to dismiss it as such is nothing but scientifically ignorant. What, do you think that we in sociology, media studies, and gender and women studies just sit in a circle all day and talk about our feelings? No, we collect data, create surveys, conduct interviews, study content, perform literature reviews, cite sources, and more. That's quite a bit more than "just an opinion".
That's the one thing that really sucks about being in this field. It doesn't matter how high your degree, how published you are, or anything else. At the end of the day, every random layperson still thinks they know more about the way that society works than you do.
Crimson,
First let me start by saying if that's your field then you'll understand the material better than I will. I studied socialogy in a college class or two and read Discover and Scientific American. Other than that, the exposure I get is limited to the five or ten science books (I have a liking toward ones that utilize many sciences and help bring them together) I read each year. I realize it is a hard science, even if its qualitative and quantitative numbers are not as exact as some of the more math intensive fields.
That said, I do think when a person knows a lot about a subject, their viewpoint can be skewed. Framing situations in a certain light creates a disproportionality in thinking. (Heck, I've probably done that with power creeping on another thread.) This is not to say you don't define and see sexism better than most, you do. But, it also means you see it more than others. Trust me, if my wife doesn't see it it doesn't exist. Subliminal messages only carry so much weight. The overt messages are what help shape our brain, create thought patterns, and force us to see things in a given context.
With all that, I will humbly bow to your thinking. All I ask is next time, please show some regard toward the movement in fantasy art to be opposite of sexist. I mean, they've come a long way, and deserve credit. And the tone of your argument made me think you thought most of it was sexist. Even much of the new stuff.
As for my "scientific" experiment, none thought the three pictures from 4e art were sexist. But, then again, if they're not looking for it, then they might not find it.
Again, thanks for the insight.
No, it isn't, and that's a cop out. We have data, studies, whole fields of research dedicated to examining gender roles, their causes, their consequences, their depiction in media, and so on. That's more than "just an opinion", and to try to dismiss
It's as laughable as your opinion, my opinion, and my colleagues' opinions- which is what sexism boils down to - opinions.
No, it isn't, and that's a cop out. We have data, studies, whole fields of research dedicated to examining gender roles, their causes, their consequences, their depiction in media, and so on. That's more than "just an opinion", and to try to dismiss it as such is nothing but scientifically ignorant. What, do you think that we in sociology, media studies, and gender and women studies just sit in a circle all day and talk about our feelings? No, we collect data, create surveys, conduct interviews, study content, perform literature reviews, cite sources, and more. That's quite a bit more than "just an opinion".
That's the one thing that really sucks about being in this field. It doesn't matter how high your degree, how published you are, or anything else. At the end of the day, every random layperson still thinks they know more about the way that society works than you do.
Crimson,
First let me start by saying if that's your field then you'll understand the material better than I will. I studied socialogy in a college class or two and read Discover and Scientific American. Other than that, the exposure I get is limited to the five or ten science books (I have a liking toward ones that utilize many sciences and help bring them together) I read each year. I realize it is a hard science, even if its qualitative and quantitative numbers are not as exact as some of the more math intensive fields.
That said, I do think when a person knows a lot about a subject, their viewpoint can be skewed. Framing situations in a certain light creates a disproportionality in thinking. (Heck, I've probably done that with power creeping on another thread.) This is not to say you don't define and see sexism better than most, you do. But, it also means you see it more than others. Trust me, if my wife doesn't see it it doesn't exist. Subliminal messages only carry so much weight. The overt messages are what help shape our brain, create thought patterns, and force us to see things in a given context.
With all that, I will humbly bow to your thinking. All I ask is next time, please show some regard toward the movement in fantasy art to be opposite of sexist. I mean, they've come a long way, and deserve credit. And the tone of your argument made me think you thought most of it was sexist. Even much of the new stuff.
As for my "scientific" experiment, none thought the three pictures from 4e art were sexist. But, then again, if they're not looking for it, then they might not find it.
Again, thanks for the insight.
This is what I meant to say (and the above too). Sorry, I was insanely tired last night when writing the above response.
I think its analogous to a nutritionist. You have a bunch of people eating granola and milk in the morning thinking their doing something good, but the nutritionist looks at that and says, "Are you crazy? Granola is held together with oil and sugar. And you're using whole milk! That's for babies, not adults that are trying to lose weight!"
That's you. You are the nutritionist. We're the person eating.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that there is a reason for women earning less than men. I understand that there is a reason there has never been a woman president. I understand there is a reason why women victims are still often "punished" by our judicial system. I get it. I, just, well... don't see that reason. You do. And kuddos to you for it.
But, sometimes, especially in a game about fantasy, one doesn't want to think about those reasons. Sometimes one just wants to play and enjoy the art, the story, and the comraderie, and not have to think about the unfair ways of the world. Sometimes, we even find it better to not know, that way it doesn't intrude on our game. May not be our best characteristics as humans, but it often helps us enjoy the time we have.
No, it isn't, and that's a cop out. We have data, studies, whole fields of research dedicated to examining gender roles, their causes, their consequences, their depiction in media, and so on. That's more than "just an opinion", and to try to dismiss
Then why does Victoria Secret make lingere that attempts to be sexual if it doesn't sell?
The lingerie sells, but allow me to explain why that isn't an accurate comparison. Lingerie is sexy, it's a sexy product, but the person who buys it chooses when to wear it; they choose when to emphasize their sexuality. By contrast, a reader has no choice in the art. A reader can have the concept of making a really awesome fighter in mind, and then he turns to the fighter section only to see a guy in a chainmail loincloth. Sexy art, like sexy clothes, is largely about context.
The lingerie sells, but allow me to explain why that isn't an accurate comparison. Lingerie is sexy, it's a sexy product, but the person who buys it chooses when to wear it; they choose when to emphasize their sexuality. By contrast, a reader has n
I like the concept art. It is very Disneyfied I think but that's okay. It's well done but doesn't take itself too seriously; it's not afraid to be a bit cartoonish. This works really well for the halflings I thnk. I've never been a fan of halflings but I appreciate how the art brings out their everyman appeal, shows their fun-loving nature.
The biggest problem is I've never associated the Realms with such a feel. Heroic, Epic, Grand. These are words I most often associate with the setting. Disney? Not so much.
I can definitely see such artwork in a setting like Free Realms, something more whimsical than the Forgotten Realms. I wonder: Has the artist worked on that game as well? There's even a pic in the gallery named 'Free Realms'.
I like the concept art. It is very Disneyfied I think but that's okay. It's well done but doesn't take itself too seriously; it's not afraid to be a bit cartoonish. This works really well for the halflings I thnk. I've never been a fan of halflin
I kinda find it funny that, of the people who said they don't like the art, most want a return to the artwork of the older books, or popular artwork back in the day. Like, "cater to us!" kinda stuff.
This new artwork, I think they want it to cater to a new audience. Maybe tyring to get new people into this nerdy elfgame we happend to like and play.
I also like the artwork, as I've said previously.I kinda find it funny that, of the people who said they don't like the art, most want a return to the artwork of the older books, or popular artwork back in the day. Like, "cater to us!" kinda stuff.
I don't think I have a problem with stylized art, but when it's stylized childrens art I have a problem.
Here is an example of stylized art that I can appreciate. It's not ultra realistic, but it has a much more mature feel to it.
I don't think I have a problem with stylized art, but when it's stylized childrens art I have a problem. Here is an example of stylized art that I can appreciate. It's not ultra realistic, but it has a much more mature feel to it.
I don't think I have a problem with stylized art, but when it's stylized childrens art I have a problem.
Here is an example of stylized art that I can appreciate. It's not ultra realistic, but it has a much more mature feel to it.
I love that artist, they really brought the right mood to 2nd Ed Ravenloft (as Brom did for Dark Sun, and DiTerlizi to Planescape).
Yeah he did Taladas too.
Anyone know his name? (Edit: Never mind I found it Stephen Fabian)
Sadly, I doubt the current batch of artists will aquire the same reputation for what they've done to the FR. I'm not saying they are not talented, but they are clearly being told "how" to draw and as a result the very soul is missing from their work.
I love that artist, they really brought the right mood to 2nd Ed Ravenloft (as Brom did for Dark Sun, and DiTerlizi to Planescape).[/quote]Yeah he did Taladas too. Anyone know his name? (Edit: Never mind I found it Stephen Fabian)Sadly, I doubt the c
I don't think I have a problem with stylized art, but when it's stylized childrens art I have a problem.
Here is an example of stylized art that I can appreciate. It's not ultra realistic, but it has a much more mature feel to it.
I love that artist, they really brought the right mood to 2nd Ed Ravenloft (as Brom did for Dark Sun, and DiTerlizi to Planescape).
Yeah he did Taladas too.
Ah, yes, Time of the Dragons, a revolutionary boxed set (and close to me heart), the debut of Kits, Mongolian Elves, badass Gnome Commandos (Companions of the Dead), and tons of other radical ideas, the first truly non-standard setting.
I love that artist, they really brought the right mood to 2nd Ed Ravenloft (as Brom did for Dark Sun, and DiTerlizi to Planescape).[/quote]Yeah he did Taladas too. [/quote]Ah, yes, Time of the Dragons, a revolutionary boxed set (and close to me heart
I like the might, motion and emotion in this...
