|
Post by geoffrey on May 1, 2015 21:07:22 GMT -6
For the first time today I saw the 5th edition MM, PHB, and DMG. I looked through each one page-by-page. Egad, but I hated the art. The figures looked bland to me, and the "stuff" (such as the magic items) looked to me as though someone were trying to draw them to look like parts of a video game. Also, many of the figures looked to me like 21st-century Americans dressed-up in expensive fantasy costumes at a convention. Some of them even had that "Isn't this a fun but silly way to spend an afternoon?" smirk.
I wonder about the art in the FIRST edition MM, PHB, and DMG. I like the way it looks, but I wonder if old curmudgeons in the late 70s hated that art.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 1, 2015 22:26:46 GMT -6
I started playing in the late 70s so I can address this to some extent. I was not an old curmnedgeon then but I think the consensus may be that I am one now.
We recognized that there was a range of abilities demonstrated by the different artists. We would compare the two Davids. I remember when Earl Otus's art began to make an impression. Different people had different favorite artists. I don't know of anyone who disliked all of the art, but many people strongly preferred some of the artists to others, and there was also a range of quality within an individual artists work.
There was no one I knew who hated all or most of the art.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on May 1, 2015 22:29:58 GMT -6
I don't like the art in 5E either. While the rules may have benefitted from extensive play-testing, that doesn't work for art. Trying not to offend with art is a lose-lose proposition. In addition, as a continental European the idea of no nudity in a fantasy publication is simply a non-starter. That barbarian, to be honest, simply confused me - even though my background makes me think of barbarians in the real world as Celts and the like, who were not that much into naturism except when it came to being clad in woad. Even my Prentice Rules have some nudity. Of course, the US being by far the biggest market WotC has to align with local standards (or what we call prudishness ). I didn't like a lot of the art in B/X or AD&D at the time, being brought up on a diet of British Marvel and other such wonders. I didn't even like Frazetta's Conan covers. I don't doubt there are a lot of nostalgia and other comlications mixed into my love of it today. That said, I still don't like the art in the original LBBs. I'd like to see every single piece re-done by Otus, Frazetta, Trampier and Ford.
|
|
|
Post by jmccann on May 1, 2015 22:32:13 GMT -6
... That said, I still don't like the art in the original books. I'd like to see every single piece re-done by Otus, Frazetta, Trampier and Ford. What?! No love for DCS?
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on May 1, 2015 22:35:56 GMT -6
Heh, I started making a list and it was getting out of hand. Had to draw the line!
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 1, 2015 23:19:51 GMT -6
In addition, as a continental European the idea of no nudity in a fantasy publication is simply a non-starter. The type V demon all modestly covered-up particularly jarred me.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 2, 2015 6:50:48 GMT -6
Trying not to offend with art is a lose-lose proposition. I'm not a big fan of the art, and I suspect this is the reason. Swords & Sorcery as seen in Appendix N is dark and edgy. Bad guys are sinister. Maidens are chained to alters with hideous creatures ready to pounce on them. Chicks can wear chainmail bikinis. On the other hand, 5E artwork seems to be more "realistic" in its style. Lots of cultures are represented. Lots of female artwork, tastefully dressed. I should comment that my teenaged daughter seems to like the artwork a lot and when she thumbed through my 5E PHB she said "I could play that character" several times. It's a different style, and not at all similar to that of the 1970's.
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on May 2, 2015 9:01:43 GMT -6
I like the art. It is my hope that they stay away from the anime style where the swords are as wide as, and taller than, the wielder. There were two pictures that stood out to me in the PHB. One with an elven woman in mail armor (that covered her entire body. no cleavage.) playing a harp, and another showing a group casually reclining around a camp fire. I am no prude, but having a daughter that has at least played once I appreciate the shying away from baring the women. The observation that the look and feel is still fantasy is one with which I agree, but I still enjoy many of the images. The DMG and MM I have not read.
It would be neat if the game would approach the style out of the osprey publishing books. It is understood that those images are still an artist's interpretation, but I really like them and use them for reference in my games.
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on May 2, 2015 22:49:48 GMT -6
Trying not to offend with art is a lose-lose proposition. I'm not a big fan of the art, and I suspect this is the reason. Swords & Sorcery as seen in Appendix N is dark and edgy. Bad guys are sinister. Maidens are chained to alters with hideous creatures ready to pounce on them. Chicks can wear chainmail bikinis. This is where I stand.
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on May 3, 2015 0:35:48 GMT -6
Art in the old and new books vary in look and style, as both publishers — TSR and WotC — approach it differently. The artwork in the old books were a mix of styles and ideas with little or no focus on a complicated product, while the newer books are more mathematical on what they are going going for. That is, the old art were often fantasy doodles based on other works (comic books, novel covers, movies and so on), and the books tend to look like a collage of random fantasy artwork. (Not a bad thing, mind you.) But WotC built their business on product esthetics with their Magic the Gathering card game. They come up with guidelines with how to approach the art, and try to maintain artistic and stylistic continuity.
For example, the third edition books were made with the idea that characters should look like they are seasoned adventures, with patchwork armor (form repairs and stolen bits of enemy armor), sorted items on their person (their gear and spell components), and items that personalize them in some way (like the how the Sorcerer "iconic" character is covered in piercings, tattoos and random bits of clothing to reflect his Chaotic-Neutral alignment). Unfortunately, they loved the "iconics" so much, that they threw them into all their slat-books, to were they became an unwanted blight, and some of there artist also took the idea of detail way too far and produce characters who are overwrought with visual noise.
The art in the latest core-three books are better than the previous edition, The Edition That Shall Not be Named (with major artistic issues deserving of its own post, a thousand pages long), but they, by their own merits, are uninspired. Their inability to free-ball means that everything looks and feels the same, and thus... boring.
The prudishness of their fan-base (one of the reasons why I divorce myself form the WotC forums, long ago) means that they end up making characters as unappealing as possible. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it should look like a Heavy Metal cover with scantly-clad Conan and Red Sonja clones (actually, than would look totally awesome, but that me); what I'm saying that as a work of escapist fantasy, they should look appealing in a self-indulgent way. And the abject modesty on display in the MM is an ugly obscenity into itself! I'm not saying they should have slapped 'teets' on everything with a pair of X-chromosomes, but I just have issue with the deeply flawed and perverted notions of what counts as obscene.
As noted before, the tendency to overwork physical details tends to make the work look cluttered and overwrought. The use of magical fire/aura effects make spell-users and magic baubles look outright powerful, but at the cost of loosing all their strangeness and wonder. I have no issue with them being used, but an artist needs to know when to use them, and when to avoid them at their risk of undermining the look in general. That is, if you encounter a wizard standing over a cauldron emitting unearthly green mist, and his eyes glows with a eerie haze as he utters strange words of a long forgotten tongue, it would be a great scene right before he launch a nasty spell on someone, than lets say... serving-up lunch. What I'm saying is that it should be used to add eeriness to a work and not be abused to make some old wizard character look like a Super Saiyan. They do the same thing with the horror elements (demonic creatures, the undead, ambush monsters, etc.) as they rely on raw stature and power, and ugliness, to convey "scary" instead of building a dreadful atmosphere or a sense of doom (like the use of scared, helpless redshirts who are about to be eaten). Unfortunately, no one there can convey any sense of mood, strangeness or dread. Stylistically, its the same as if they jingle the car keys in the faces of the readers and yell "Oooh, look! SHINNY!".
I quite like the use of cartoons in the books: the figures moving around the dice, Conditions table, and so on. At least they still have a sense of fun and abstraction.
Among my rants... Why do all the sword hilts face downwards and end as a sharp point? The only one who would use them are the Tiefling Criminal in that bondage lather-gear and the Archmage form the MM, and only because they look like they cut themselves while listening to Linkin Park. Am I the only one who feels the need to punch the Bard with the goatee square in the face and to kick that smug Halfling (on the Guild Artisan page) into the air like a misshapen football? (Yeah, backpfeifengesicht!) The magic items look dull as dirt! The sample cards form the Decks of Many Things look more like MtG cards than as a magical deck of cards. How hard is it to make them look like Tarot cards? (The issues with the new Halflings can go without saying, and the whole world can give two-$#!%s about Gnomes!)
Of all the art that really captured me is the full page art in magic items will all the jars and bottles in the DMG, with the cat skeleton at the top center. Now that is a Wizard's study! With something is small... a picture among many... would be the human Fighter in the Fighter section in the PHB. He looks out of place to me. He is the least loudest of the lot. He also looks like he came form one of those Mongoose Conan rulebooks, with his non-medieval, ancient world look. It is simple, but it shows a mix of cultural — the Sumerian-styled beard, the Egyptian-styled mantle, the oriental-styled lamellar armor, the style of weapons, and so on. Braking form the usual vanilla quasi-medieval/Tolkienesque fantasy style is a big plus for me, even in small doses. I just wished their were more verity like that.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 3, 2015 7:13:02 GMT -6
Malcadon, you make a lot of good points.
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on May 3, 2015 9:51:32 GMT -6
I agree with Geoffrey, above. Malcadon, that was an excellent analysis and I agree with most if not all points.
The new, and relatively recent, art just lacks atmosphere and boldness. It's flat and bland, regardless of a given artists technical ability to digitally paint colors. The art just doesn't 'pop' or inspire me, at all.
For me, it's the opposite. It just serves as a visual reminder of the current crusade to forcibly execute anything that might hurt someone's feelings, and thus forcibly execute any passion or free-will creativity. It's Gestapo art.
Not that I'm saying I'm OUT to hurt feelings... I just grew up learning the value of having to gain thick skin and not taking things so personal.
If I like something, I like it. If I don't, I don't. Doesn't mean I need to force-feed either situation on others, or live in trembling fear of mass approval.
No gracias!
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 3, 2015 16:01:18 GMT -6
I'm ignorant on this score, so bear with me... Are many of the pieces of art in D&D 5th edition digitally created? (If so, that would explain why they look so CGI/video gamish to me.)
|
|
|
Post by chiisu81 on May 4, 2015 6:35:13 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure all 5E artwork was created digitally, and I think it does show horribly.
For me 1E was the pinnacle of outstanding artwork, not least of which was Trampier's use of shading and shadows. Recently only DCC has spoken to me in the same manner.
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on May 4, 2015 7:50:16 GMT -6
I'm ignorant on this score, so bear with me... Are many of the pieces of art in D&D 5th edition digitally created? (If so, that would explain why they look so CGI/video gamish to me.) It is hard to say without a full audit of the works. Form the looks of it, most of it are done with traditional, physical methods. Digital art have a texture all its own. An over-reliance on 'smudge' and 'spray' tools creates a look of smudges and blurs. Artifact form other images are somethings used to supplement detail. I don't know how to describe it, but rough textures done digitally looks vary differently that what you can do by brush or scrapper. The splash art seen throughout the DMG looks conventional, with the canvas texture, the way the colors are mixed and layered, and so forth. Don't get me wrong; I have no issue with with digital artistry, when done right. Hell, I have been doing digital art off and on since the late-'90s, and I enjoy it for it own reasons. You can do a lot of great stuff, if you know how to make the best use of the tools (and not just lay down paint and smudge it like it is your only option). The only issue I have is getting a game book were the editor looks at some amateur digital art — artwork that looks so honorably digital, it practically says "Made by Photoshop" in it — and says to himself "This looks great!". (Although, I'm not talking about WotC with this regard, but the a number of third party publishers out there.) And yes, the art within a book is as important to me as the content (rules and fluff). I have been known to buy rulebooks for art alone!
The recent influence of video game art on traditional tabletop role-playing games is... well...? A funny thing. First off, I just want to get this great big elephant-in-the-room out of the way. There are A LOT of people who say that The Edition That Shall Not be Named looks too "anime." If by "anime", they mean "looks as loud and overblown as an episode of Dragonball Z with the endless screaming and super-powered wrestling mach", than yes, it is "anime." (I'll get to that soon enough.) If by "anime", they mean "stylistically identical to the comics and animation of Japan and possibly Korea", than no, it is not "anime." Save for some publications and individual artists, the influence of Japanese animation on western fantasy RPGs is surprisingly sparse. Plus, most of the sword & sorcery anime/manga I had seen looks really good ( Arslan, Berserk, Escaflowne, Lemnear, etc.). I would love to see a D&D-type rulebook done in the art of Yonutsaka Amano, Kentaro Miura, Yoshiki Tanaka, and others. Most outsiders to the hobby have no idea how beautiful their works are! Japanese animation is having a major influence with a number of western animation, and it was all influence by Disney (in the case of anime, it was the old Donald Duck comics). As for video game art, it was influenced by other, older fantasy art, with tabletop art being the biggest influence. Most people have no idea how much of an influence D&D and RPGs in general had on video games. In the past, the VG art were interchangeable to RPG art and were not really necessary, given that the games already give visuals. In truth, VG art was more for visual development (with characters, monsters, items, backgrounds, etc.), and they were often used as promotional pieces. As games progress, visuals became a critical to a games initial success. Epic-looking characters; huge and deadly looking monsters; explosive magic and abilities; fancy-looking gear; breathtaking environments and the need to top the competition made video game art the way it is. Back when WotC were developing 4e, they were in competition with games like World of Warcraft, and they wanted to capture there attention, so they tried to build a game round that mentality, and as you know, it did not work the way they though it would. D&D use art for casual inspiration by those who can visualize a world on their own, and not as a means develop an entire world with, or as a means to hype the final product. In the end, this so called "realism" approach is a backlash by people who felt the art was way too exaggerated and cartoonish with the action and visuals. How I see it, the "loud and overblown" look and feel of the newer fantasy art is that it is in it's '90s comic book phase. If you remember comics form the late-'80s to the late-'90s, you remember that they were all dark, brooding and punkish. The protagonists are angsty antiheroes. Everyone had exaggerated proportions (beefed-up men and overly-shaped women), covered in chains, spikes, pouches, tattered cloths and anything else that says "bad @$$!" And they tote over-sized weapons like surfboard-size swords, big-ugly carving knives that screams "Hay, I'm criminally insane!", guns that look like small field artillery pieces or small guns mounted on guns mounted large guns! It is all stupid and childish (well, more the 11-14 male demographic) when you think about it, but like the comics, they will grow out of it too. So yeah, fantasy video game art was influence by classic D&D art, and the newer D&D art is being influenced by the newer fantasy video game art. It just going in a full circle.
If you could not tell, I have been mulling on this topic for some time now. There is a lot to say about it, and I wish I could keep it shorter or articulate it better, but that is how I see it; this is what I had to get off my chest. I hope that was helpful?
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on May 4, 2015 9:28:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 4, 2015 9:51:29 GMT -6
In addition, as a continental European the idea of no nudity in a fantasy publication is simply a non-starter. The type V demon all modestly covered-up particularly jarred me. I looked-up the succubus again, and lo and behold! She's fully clothed. That makes as much sense as the following wearing clothes: Dejah Thoris Eve in the Garden of Eden an infant born 10 seconds ago Tinidril (from C. S. Lewis's Perelandra) etc.
|
|
|
Post by Malcadon on May 4, 2015 10:04:19 GMT -6
LOL I seen that the other day. (I have that guy on watch.)
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on May 4, 2015 11:28:06 GMT -6
Nothing brings creative young women into the hobby quicker than a bunch of middle-aged men complaining about a lack of naked demons and chainmail bikinis! Oh yeah!
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on May 4, 2015 12:22:45 GMT -6
Nothing brings creative young women into the hobby quicker than a bunch of middle-aged men complaining about a lack of naked demons and chainmail bikinis! Oh yeah! Thanks for the political correctness! Really bummed how all the emotional pain forces bland artwork. Oh, well, that's the way it is... glad there are still other alternatives, though.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 4, 2015 15:49:30 GMT -6
naked demons and chainmail bikinis Those two things are actually opposites. Succubi which are not naked do not make sense. They are demons of lust which take the form of women to snare men in one of the Seven Deadly Sins (i. e., lust). These things are going to be clothed? Certainly not! They will be young, slim, sultry, and...naked. Unavoidably so. Chain mail bikinis are as silly as clothed succubi. The whole point of armor is to protect one's body from harm. Obviously chain mail bikinis would not offer much protection! It all comes down to context: succubi, harpies, centaurs, human sacrifices chained to altars, concubines in harems, etc. all should be naked. Adventurers trudging through the wilderness, the local blacksmith, the serving girls at the tavern, etc. should all be clothed. I think the distinction is clear.
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on May 5, 2015 9:40:54 GMT -6
Nothing brings creative young women into the hobby quicker than a bunch of middle-aged men complaining about a lack of naked demons and chainmail bikinis! Oh yeah! Thanks for the political correctness! No problem, buddy.
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on May 5, 2015 10:06:09 GMT -6
It's obvious we are completely and un-changeably on the opposite side of the house here. You have fun all day with your play-it-safe witicisms. I'm sure you'll be popular.
But I've presented my stance one good time, and internet arguments and flame wars are tedious and boring to me, so I'm done with this topic.
Have a good day.
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on May 5, 2015 10:15:25 GMT -6
naked demons and chainmail bikinis It all comes down to context: succubi, harpies, centaurs, human sacrifices chained to altars, concubines in harems, etc. all should be naked. Adventurers trudging through the wilderness, the local blacksmith, the serving girls at the tavern, etc. should all be clothed. I think the distinction is clear. You're right, it comes down to context. Context that you and I, as adults, understand, but context that young women (and men) new to the game might not. Howard's portrayals of (most) women, Lovecraft's mentions of subhumans and racial undertones, these are fine and even interesting when viewed in the full context of their time. That time being the early 20th century. Despite the vast influence pulp fiction had on D&D, the social context is no longer the same as it was in 1935, 1974, 1981, or whenever. Whether people like it or not, things have changed. *** Some might lament that fact and whine about "political correctness" keeping them from seeing boobs in a role-playing game book. To repeat: keeping them from seeing boobs in a role-playing game book. I wanted to emphasis that as I think that's a pretty pathetic criticism for an adult to have for a game. I would be much happier giving my 11-year-old niece a copy of D&D as presented in 5E, with strong female characters alongside male ones, women in practical armor, etc., than one with cheesecake art. Women are underrepresented in the hobby much to our disadvantage in my opinion. Portraying them as equals within the group, as opposed to sexy pictures for the boys at the table to giggle at, encourages girls to see D&D as theirs as much as anyone's. If you want to keep D&D as a boy's club orbiting around depictions of women from almost a century ago, good luck. The rest of the hobby is moving on. Regarding the need for succubi to be naked all the time to be seductive, says who? Since when can men only be seduced by naked women? Have you ever been to a bar or a club Geoffrey? Poor argument. Imagine the groans from the peanut gallery if there was an incubus hanging dong on page 34. "This isn't what swords and sorcery is all about!" I do not view myself as a feminist, or politically correct. I view myself as a decent human being that hopes for the best for young women as well as young men. I think D&D is a great hobby, and I'm somehow willing to sacrifice a nude succubus all crawling and come-hither for the possibility that more young women will get into it. If someone thinks thats lame, weak, timid, or whatever, I really don't give a d**n. Grow up.
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on May 5, 2015 10:45:38 GMT -6
There are plenty of products available to you that allow for your desires.
I'd like to continue to see products made available to allow for mine.
It's just a matter of product diversity.
I appreciate the art in Moldvay basic, but not BECMI. Elmores art is too demure for my tastes.
I don't see any maturity at all in one side of the consumer market forcing another side out of that market. Buy what you like and believe what's right for you, and your family, as a respectable father. Who can argue the honor and wisdom of this with a true heart?
But I retain, and will fight for, the right to buy products that I consider inspiring and fun. There are enough to satisfy and provide for both of us.
So why not let a discussion that doesn't appeal alone? I'm not going over to other threads with an opposing viewpoint on art and bringing a dissenting opinion.
That's what I love about these boards... we can freely discuss things here without the social police showing up and freaking out.
I'm not calling you those police or saying you're freaking out, I'm just asking you: you've stated your case. Can we have our view also?
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on May 5, 2015 11:14:17 GMT -6
To be clear, I was writing out my longer, non-snarky (or maybe I should say "less-snarky") response while you submitted your "Have a good day" response. So I meant it as a longer response to the thread (and you) in general, and not as a "I'm not done talking about this yet!" reply to your "Have a good day" reply. I'm not sure if the distinction matters to you, but it does to me so I wanted to make that clear.
This was a thread about 5E D&D art. I contributed my opinion. Echo chambers of a bunch of people agreeing are often much less interesting.
I don't think anyone is forcing anyone out of the market. The retro tastes in art of many here (myself included, to be honest) are no longer mainstream. I actually like old school art or Franzia style art. I run my own games in a style I like to think is very informed by pulp stories. I play with a bunch of fellow guys and we're all in our thirties. If I were running a game for a group of junior high school students, my approach would be a bit different. I think that the 5th edition of D&D, as the flagship, mainstream icon of the role-playing industry, should strive for open inclusivity. That means presenting female and male characters the same way. You might think it bland or boring, and in some ways it is, but I think it's an important standard to bear. Maybe you don't, and that's cool.
Your "side", our "side" really, hasn't really been official "D&D" for awhile now, but there is still the OSR. In terms of the OSR, I view things very differently. I loved Geoffrey's Carcosa, which is an obvious/infamous/cliche example of non-PC RPG material. I like the pulp references and vibes that saturate the OSR and forums like this one. I think the cover of Eldritch Wizardry is really cool. 5E isn't crowding you out of the market. We have the whole OSR thing, which is still as strong as ever.
|
|
|
Post by Merctime on May 5, 2015 14:48:48 GMT -6
Agreed to disagree here. Take it easy.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 5, 2015 18:01:00 GMT -6
Strangebrew, thank you for your response. A few thoughts: I do not think of all depictions of the nude as "cheesecake". Plenty of Catholic churches in Europe (especially in Italy, and especially in Rome) have nudes painted on the interior walls. You can't swing a dead cake in Italy without knocking-over a nude statue. The nude is simply one of innumerable artistic subjects. I (as well as centuries of Popes!) do not have a problem with children of all ages seeing paintings, drawings, statues, etc. of nudes. I do not think children are in any sense harmed by contemplating (for example) Michelangelo's David. I think girls of all ages can handle drawings of naked succubi, centaurs, harpies, sacrifices, etc. I do not like the idea of sheltering children from, basically, Western civilization (which includes artistic depictions of all the sexual and violent craziness found in the Bible and in Greek myth). I do not like the idea of children in general or of girls in particular as fragile creatures ready to collapse at the sight of a drawing of a nude. I know that my 10-year-old daughter has never mentioned any problems with her perusals of the 1977 Monster Manual. It has never occurred to me that the illustrations therein of the succubus, the harpy, etc. would be troubling to her. (And if she had been troubled, I would not have hidden the book from her. I instead would have explained to her that succubi, harpies, etc. are not children of Adam and Eve, and therefore do not wear clothing. They are monsters, not human beings. In short, I would have welcomed it as a teaching moment.) I honestly do not think that succubi with bras will draw more girls into the hobby, nor do I think that succubi without bras would repel them. TSR in the late 1980s went a step further by banishing all succubi (with bras or without!) from the game. I do not think that drew more people into the hobby. I hope I don't come across as combative or judgmental. That is not my intention. I regard this all as the serene exchange of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on May 5, 2015 21:06:59 GMT -6
Serene discussion is why I come here. I am very much aware of the deep cultural gulf between Americans, British, and continental European attitudes to nudity and I do not expect a hobby which caters primarily to the American market to be overly concerned with minority customers. I personally have no problem with appropriate art in any form, whether it depicts violence, nudity, or whatever - art represents life and I don't believe that nudity in and of itself is something inherently undesirable or to be avoided at all costs, in fact I find denial of its existence somewhat disturbing (seeing Disney performers wearing leotards and skin-coloured leggings is surreal at the very least). As I said, I am not surprised by WotC playing it super-safe, nor would I expect them to do otherwise in the face of vocal opposition on the intertubes (IMO a vocal minority, as everyone knows the real purpose of the internet). I am just disappointed by the blandness and same-ness it generates, as if we're in some new puritan era where stained glass is evidence of hedonism not to be tolerated. Great art inevitably generates controversy (not that all or even a small proportion of controversial art is great, far from it), but I can't think of an example of great art that starts from the premise of avoiding all offence. I do not, however, wish superimpose my cultural bias (or what I would like to think as a lack thereof) onto others, because cultural diversity is not something to be reviled or eliminated. Well, we can always hope that some local publisher will take up the flag! I always liked the art in French versions of RPGs.
|
|
|
Post by strangebrew on May 5, 2015 21:12:10 GMT -6
Hi Geoffrey, thanks for your response. I do not think of all depictions of the nude as "cheesecake". Plenty of Catholic churches in Europe (especially in Italy, and especially in Rome) have nudes painted on the interior walls. You can't swing a dead cake in Italy without knocking-over a nude statue. I don't think all depictions of the nude as cheesecake either, that would be ridiculous. The difference is that most of this art you referenced is non-sexualized. The women are never directly engaged with the viewer of the art piece, and their bodies stylized in a way that avoided puerile titillation. They may have been titillating to the ancient mind, we can't really know for sure, but I doubt it. The AD&D MM succubus is completely sexualized, and looking directly at the audience in a seductive way. That was 1977, and the war gamer culture was almost completely male. Times have changed, and I don't see the point in waxing lyrical over naked succubi. She's still there in the AD&D MM (with similar things in OSR publications) if you want her. But I like that the 5E books are directed at a wider demographic, not the war gamer culture of the 1970's or the pulp fiction culture of the 1930's. That kind of material is still there for people, when and if they want it. I think girls of all ages can handle drawings of naked succubi, centaurs, harpies, sacrifices, etc. I do not like the idea of sheltering children from, basically, Western civilization (which includes artistic depictions of all the sexual and violent craziness found in the Bible and in Greek myth). Everything has its place, and learning about these things is great with some historical context. D&D removes these things largely from their context, thats what D&D does. The whole "Conan and Gandalf team up to fight Dracula" thing. Like many of us, I was really into ancient mythology growing up, and that was before I was into D&D. If a child was interested in the Bible or Greek myth, I'd give them something more measured and contextualized, not the Monster Manual. I do not like the idea of children in general or of girls in particular as fragile creatures ready to collapse at the sight of a drawing of a nude. I know that my 10-year-old daughter has never mentioned any problems with her perusals of the 1977 Monster Manual. It has never occurred to me that the illustrations therein of the succubus, the harpy, etc. would be troubling to her. (And if she had been troubled, I would not have hidden the book from her. I instead would have explained to her that succubi, harpies, etc. are not children of Adam and Eve, and therefore do not wear clothing. They are monsters, not human beings. In short, I would have welcomed it as a teaching moment.) The Monster Manual is a book, and as such it doesn't include a helpful and caring parent to thoughtfully explain things out for the child. Many (or most) parents aren't involved in the RPG hobby at all, and never take a look inside the books. Mine never did. You could say "Hey, you turned out alright, right?" Yeah, but I never had any girls playing at my D&D table. I doubt they would have considering our approach. If teenage boys want to play D&D like a bunch of creepy dorks (the way I played it in high school! and I still kind of play this way) that's fine, but it shouldn't be hard-wired into the art and atmosphere of the game. I think your explanation of sucubii being monsters/"not children of Adam and Eve" is interesting. I think a child might be just as likely to walk away thinking "naked=evil" than anything! Which is certainly not the case, and I'm not saying depictions of nudity are evil or obscene. I honestly do not think that succubi with bras will draw more girls into the hobby, nor do I think that succubi without bras would repel them. TSR in the late 1980s went a step further by banishing all succubi (with bras or without!) from the game. I do not think that drew more people into the hobby. I agree that was a weak move on TSR's part. That was because they were buckling to superstitious fools. I don't think my opinion, as explained in my first (long) post, is superstition, but rather a hope for D&D to openly embrace anyone who wants to play it. I like it having strong characters of both sexes, and gender-positive* portrayals. Also, many of the figures looked to me like 21st-century Americans dressed-up in expensive fantasy costumes at a convention. Some of them even had that "Isn't this a fun but silly way to spend an afternoon?" smirk. This is a very accurate description of the artwork, unfortunately. I'm not sure that adding some topless virgins and vixens would have saved anything, or if it would be worth it. That's my point I guess. I'm going to bow out now, unless anyone has something they want to say towards me, which is fine. Cheers! *: I'm not sure if "gender-positive" is an actual term. I mean that both men and women are both viewed as having similar and equal potentials, and that something such as female sexuality isn't presented as titillating or (worse yet) evil.
|
|