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.
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.
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard
con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic.
it?" -anon
"Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." - Maxperson
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.
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.
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.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
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 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.
"Ha! Rock beats scissors!" "Darn it! Rock is overpowered! I'm not playing this again until the next edition is released!" "C'mon, just one more." "Oh, all right..." "Wait, what is that?" "Its 'Dynamite' from the expanded rules." "Just because you can afford to buy every supplement that comes out..." "Hey, it's completely balanced! You're just a bad DM for not accommodating it."
RPGs are getting more popular, and whenever something gets more popular, it inevitably changes, usually becoming more palatable to the masses. Nintendo is the perfect example. In the old days their games coined the term "Nintendo hard" to extend play time, but they knew their fans were dedicated enough to play anyway. Now they mostly make stuff a five year old can master. That's not necessarily bad, though. Most of those old Nintendo games were infuriating. Likewise, a lot of old RPGs were too complex and irritating for the average person to really get into. Rules light systems are going to get more popular as more people enter the hobby, simply because the new people aren't bound by nostalgia, and would rather play something easy and fun than something that takes a huge amount of effort to learn.
