Thursday, January 12, 2012
Parenting & Pictures
After the announcement of yet another iteration of the venerable Dungeons & Dragons brand of tabletop games this week the predictable edition waring and identity politics over "which version is best" was somewhat muted by the company assuring gamers that the new product would support all the styles of playing from all the different editions. A lofty goal for certain, but one that could be achieved by making a modular product where you use the mechanics you like and disregard the ones that you don't.
However if there was one thing that 2011 taught me about tabletop games it was that the more contentious issue might have ended up being not about the rules of D&D but rather the artwork that accompanied it. Already we've had open letters about making the artwork very politically correct, and letters from artists encouraging them to try new things and keep it exciting and sexy. And while saying 'use the bits you like and ignore the rest' could be agreeable for rules, if someone is looking for a book to share with their 8 year old they might object to it having ANY artwork they wouldn't want them to see until they were a 16 year old (or older).
When I was younger one of my favourite magazine was Rue Morgue which is about Horror in Culture and Entertainment. Articles about new horror movies, comics, games, books from the past and the present. Coming from a background in film I loved this stuff! It also fit into what I liked about fantasy roleplaying in general: monsters! horror! adventure! weirdness! excitement! And while I still think Rue Morgue is great I don't buy it anymore - not because of anything they've done wrong, but because where I'm at in my life has changed. I'm a dad now and I don't want blood covered snarling naked girl photos part of my kids media environment at their ages, and it's a chore having a magazine that I'd need to only get out late at night and hide away the rest of the time (I'm not 14!).
While Rue Morgue isn't for me at this point in my life that doesn't mean it's not for someone else, or might once again be for me at some point in the future. There are guys a lot older than me, that have had children who are now grown up, that are making crazy monster movies. I don't want Rue Morgue to change for me - I recognize that I can change and like different things and all my favourite things don't need to change with me.
I think this is a point a lot of people, particularly those into 'geek' media, have a hard time with. They liked Batman as a child and then when they got older and angstier they wanted Batman to get older and angstier with them. As a young adult they wanted a Batman who was into all the things they were too -- hot women, bloody action movies, not taking crap for the people who bugged them when they were younger, whatever. And then as parents they remember what they liked about Batman when they were a kid and they want him to go back to being that again. Even though we still have all of those different Batmans some people get upset by the existence of the ones they don't like. This is also particularly true for female superheroes like Wonder Woman, Starfire, and Cat Woman.
When parents take media that's targeted to an adult audience and complain about it not being targeted for their children (or possibly just child like sensibilities or preferences) there starts to become a serious problem. Instead of campaigning for "more media that I enjoy" it turns into seeking "less media that I don't enjoy" which is frankly a bit selfish. It'd be like me asking Rue Morgue to change or go away because it's not what I'm looking for right now instead of finding something else that suits my lifestyle and tastes a bit better.
Watching people on Twitter and blogs pushing hard for the new D&D to have the equivalent of an ESRB rating of E (Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language) rather than any of the higher ratings (which include things like suggestive themes or sexual content) I'm honestly unsure about who the target audience for the product is supposed to be. If it's children under 10 then I agree it probably shouldn't have anything risqué, violent, frightening or use any course language. If however the target audience is teenagers or adults I'd find that a very strange thing to be asking for.
I find it hard to imagine D&D that doesn't include the stuff the ESRB would rate under Teen (violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language) and in a lot of cases the content would certainly be considered Mature (intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language). I recognize that the suggestive themes and sexual content are the worrying point for some gamers - but they should recognize there are other elements in those categories that might be more worrying to others. If you want to excise suggestive themes but include intense violence there's a strange disconnect that perhaps needs to be given more thought.
Perhaps the answer is multiple products, some of which are rated for children, families, and anyone who enjoys that sort of media. At the same time there could be products for teenagers and/or adults who would expect their tabletop games to have similar content to their comics, video games, movies etc. Rather than ask the publishers to change their product into something else to meet my current personal tastes, I'm more interested in hearing who the target audience is going to be and will see if that suits my interests or not.
Hopefully as these conversations about appropriateness of artwork undoubtedly continue people will give some more thought to target audiences, whether that includes them at this point in their lives, and if they are being thoughtful about all the different elements that make media a good choice for people in those different audiences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I agree completely. It seems like a reasonable compromise would be more restraint in the core books, followed by supplements with varying types of content. I say this as someone who, for example, loves the art in the LotFP Grindhouse Edition.
Something a lot of people seem to be misunderstanding: There's a huge gulf between "politcally correct" and "sexist".
Sexism is very definitely a problem in the RPG community whereas political correctness is not.
The difference is that not being sexist is about including people, while political correctness is about exclusion and censorship. I see lots of women harangued for voicing their opinions on the one hand and I'm pretty sure that Carcosa made a pile of money on the other.
Does WoTC making a product non-sexist mean that they have to do things differently? Yes. It means that they have to do their part to make sure that they are sensitive to the fact that much of their product objectifies women both needlessly and harmfully. The problem is that most men and a lot of women simply don't see the harm it causes, men because it's not them being objectified and women because they're used to it.
Does that mean that hot chicks have no place in WoTC's products? Of course not, and anyone putting forth that argument is stupid beyond belief. All that's being asked is that WoTC use their place at the top of the RPG market to empower the other 50% of the population just like they do the guys. Asking for equality is not being oppressive, even if it means that the relative social standing between two groups decreases.
What WoTC could do to really do right is remove anything even remotely like Section 6(b) from the new version of the GSL and then empower women in their core books.
It's win win.
Sexism is very definitely a problem in the RPG community whereas political correctness is not.
I feel like you're not really engaging with the content of the article I've just posted and are looking to derail the discussion by turning it into an argument about something else.
I think if you were to compare the tabletop RPG hobby/industry to other forms of entertainment such as: music, movies, tv, comics, video games then I absolutely think there is less sexism and much more political correctness. However, whether this is still too much sexism and not enough political correctness for your taste is both subjective and also a bit of a tangent from the topic of discussion.
These are the ESRB Ratings which are used to categorize video games. Which rating level do you feel WotC products should be at, and do you think there should be room for a range of ratings or should every product be at the same level? What level do you feel WotC products are at now? What level do you feel the rest of the industry / hobby is at?
Let's all try and stay on topic for the remainder of the discussion. :)
@Roger
"much of their product objectifies women both needlessly and harmfully."
examples?
(pre emptively: Are these examples just sexy Wayne whathisname pictures? Because saying sexualized pictures of women "objectify women both needlessly and harmfully" is not the Oh-Everybody-Nods-And-Agrees-With-You statement some people seem to think it is.)
Post 1:(Large response, sorry)
Many kids love that gory, semi-sensuous, 'edgy' stuff 'cuz it's forbidden(sometimes for heartfelt but nonetheless idiosyncratic reasons), and it's part of 'growing up(or 'older', rather ;-)) to 'transgress the boundaries'. All the more so if their parents share that interest but deny it to their progeny, I've noted.... ;-)
Swords and Sorcery does have its skin(guys on occasion, too![most people who are attracted to guys would probably call for more, actually!]) and blood quotient. It's kinda strange, and honestly disconcerting :-D, to think of a game that's sanitized of guts and ghouls. But no doubt, a sunbset of D&D could be created to fill that niche. I'd prefer MY main game to have the manifold aspects of suppernature and its dark side, if ya will.
My recommendations:
Classic D&D(Moldvay style artwork)
for general rules. You can add your own swearing, guts 'n' glory, and chainmail mankinis in your sessions....
and for those who just want to kill some orcs, without Succubi/Incubi, and buckets of blood:
a re-issue(re-vamp perhaps?) the Dungeon Boardgame!
Non-white, non-guys, non-heteros, etc... in the hobby:
Remember the screeds justifying the use of the 'neutered' male pronoun(often found in rulesets taking up space they supposedly 'save' by not using her/his/him, he/she), which I found odd since Gygax regularly used masculine/feminine nouns in the AD&D books(considered the pinnacle of supoerlative authorship, no less)! And, remember Mary from the office, and Arlinni the Thief in the 1st Edition Handbook? Then circa 1981, the example PC in Moldvay's Basic(the redoubtable Morgan Ironwolf) is a female, played by a female, and referred to throughout the book. She's pre-eminent in combat and provides a nice example of roleplaying when she squabbles with Sister Rebecca(another female PC/Player combo) over potentially killing a harmless captive she swore an oath of safety to(and a hobgoblin at that!). I didn't see this many females mentioned in rulebooks for like another 10 years! And certainly not portrayed this dynamically. See for example the fate of Aleena the Cleric in Mentzer's Basic, a scant two years later. It seems there was knowledge of early female participation in the hobby, that seemed to be disregarded later. Even today, in some circles, it seems: yeesh!
As for brown people, they rarely crop up in descriptions of game settings or in illustrations, though you see SOME diversity at cons. And at general gaming tables, ime, over the years. At one point in the late 80s - early 90s about ¾ of my players were Cherokee Nation, actually.
Acknowledging the existence of these people in game and with representative art couldn't hurt, I'd think. And I don't believe it'd turn off the main demographic already represented in like, ALL, of the art and flavor text. Nobody I knew complained about Morgan Ironwolf and Sister Rebecca being kickass(without chainmail bikinis, no less! ;-)).
No one cared about sexual identity at my games, nor any of the cons I've been to, ime. But the mention of gay/bi/lesbian/transgendered, people etc tends to send some people off screaming into the night, unfortunately. It'd depend on what WizBro would be comfortable with putting out there. It'd be nice if they'd commit to showing the full spectrum of humanity, but.....
Personally, I'm cool with heroes/villains/just people of any stripe. In game representations in modules/supplements/rules examples, would be alright by me.
Post 2:
Sexy D&D:
Zak's post was tongue-in-cheek, it seems to me. Though I'm totally down with 'Metal' D&D!
'If you want to excise suggestive themes but include intense violence there's a strange disconnect that perhaps needs to be given more thought.':
This seems to be an American Thing.
'ESRB' rating for WOTC:
PG-13, I'd say. With the hobby being largely the same, barring occasional 'R's(LOTFP seems to be the market leader.... :-)). There's room for anything, imo. Even the Book of Erotic Fantasy, if you so chose.(And I do not! ;-))
Great post!
Here's what I said over on G+ last night. It basically sums up how I feel.
I guess for the Flagship Thing, the D&D core rulebookboxthingy, if I was to ask for a rating I'd want it to have a T for teen instead of an M for 17 and over. Not because that's the thing I want for myself, but because I think DnD is a really cool and valuable thing for kids to get into, and it would be nice if the Big Name was something they could pick up, but that also appealed to older people as well.
Or they could do that, plus make an M version as well and watch it sell like freexin hotcakes.
- to expand a bit on the last part. I'm pretty much positive that an M version with eXtreme art, graphic crit tables, mature flavour text, etc. would end up far outselling what would still be seen as the 'default' T rated version. I think it's a good marketing move, for minimal layout work.
Extreem D&D:
'an M version as well and watch it sell like freexin hotcakes.'
'would end up far outselling what would still be seen as the 'default' T rated version.':
Do people really want WOTC to tell us what kind of freaky stuff Bone Devils and Norkers get down to? Perhaps Wayne Reynolds can draw us a nekkid Paladin armed with only his wits! Finally, Rolemaster will be taken down by D&D after all these years. 'Invisible, imaginary, deceased turtle this! :-)
All joking aside, I'm highly doubtful a 'M' rated box would sell to much of the adult segment(who can find their own XXX pics and gory flicks on da Intartubes for free, no less!), especially since D&D is largely a game of the imagination, barring occasional minis usage.(Not to mention the far more popular electronic games with 'M' ratings don't make squat!) Book of Erotic Fantasy, people... Have we forgotten so soon? ;-)
velaran: I'm thinking more of LotFP Grindhouse, which is doing extremely well.
M rating is the very successful Call of Duty series and would be like an R rated movie like Aliens.
Oh, ok. The tone of LOTFP(GE)(even the Medusa and suchlike art in the book) is pretty much on the same level as White Wolf's Vampire games, SLA Industries and Kult; even the grimmer Call of Cthulu stuff, I'd say. Hard 'R', at most, imo. There's an audience there, surely, but I doubt it'd outsell a 'general release' D&D. Many people like 'vanilla', and you can flavor it yourself!
Success of LOTFP:
Yeah, Raggi says he's hit 666 copies of LOTFP:GE as of today. Glad to see it. Dude's following his gut. More people should, imo.
Thanx for the clarification.
:-P.(Crossed Wires. Crap.) Classification of Video Games, not Movies. The Hell. Multitask Fail... My mistake. Yeah, 'M' in ESRB roughly = 'R' in Movies. I was ok, until the second part of my first post! :-)
Video Games:
Not to mention 'many of' the far more popular 'M' rated electronic games don't make squat, is what I meant to say.(And like no AO ones do!) Of course, a select cadre of 'M' rated games do well(Skyrim for example, rated 'M' mostly for blood, the occasional sexual reference, and wine, it seems.) But mostly the 'E' and 'T' games clean up.
Standard Industry RPG Products are T, I'd say.
LOTFP:GE, SLA Industries, Vampire:tM, certain CoC supplements, and especially Kult would be 'M' for ESRB purposes, imo.
Yep :)
Actually Halo, all the versions, are M games too.
'Actually Halo, ALL the versions, are M games too.':(empahasis mine)
Actually, no....
Halo 2600 isn't! :-)
'Not to mention 'many of' the far more popular 'M' rated electronic games don't make squat':(aagh, no; WRONG[need sleep, apparently])
Should read as: Not to mention many of the 'M' Rated' games in the far more popular electronic format(PC/console) don't make squat. Due to crapflooding, inferior sequels/midquels/sidequels/reboots, etc, and the target audience in general preferring the more popular titles in this category, I think.
Thanx for the response!
Thank you too Velaran :)
WotC D&D won't be over-the-top explicit, so we don't really need to worry about that.
I think a more interesting question is how do you make the art of OD&D jive with the art of 4E? I don't think you can reconcile those. They will likely step it with the modularity/rules crunchiness.
What do you mean by over the top explicit? That's why I think the ESRB ratings are helpful to frame the discussion. I imagine WotC will be contemplating things at an E10+ or Teen rating. However it'd be very strange if the had E10+ art but Mature themes/content (or vice versa).
@kilted
Easy:
the new system is supposed to be modular, right?
If that's true then they can just have like 3 columns:
"CLASSIC CG
Roll 3d6 in order"
(Erol Otus Picture)
"HEROIC CG
4d6 pick the highest"
(Wayne Reynolds picture)
"TOURNAMENT CG
Point buy system"
(Airbrushed 4e-style picture)
Simple as pie.
@zak - I like those content headers.
Modular art is a great idea, imo.
One little thing about this:
"HEROIC CG
4d6 pick the highest"
(Wayne Reynolds picture)
"TOURNAMENT CG
Point buy system"
(Airbrushed 4e-style picture)':
You selected WR for the Heroic Tier, and 'airbrushed 4E-style for Tournament', but Mr. Reynolds is the 'official' 4E Artist!
He'd be drawing BOTH of the last two tiers!
Should the 'Heroic' tier therefore get a new artist? :-)
An aside:Reynolds is damn near as dominant on Pathfinder as he is on D&D. Rarely(if ever) has one artist determined the 'face' of the RPG industry! Since Reynolds has Paizo/WOTC sewn up, and has worked for Green Ronin, I'd say he's more dominate in the field now than Elmore or Easley were in the 80's. Though obviously not in absolute number of eyeballs seeing his pics, but in preponderance of his work in the current market.
Intriguing suggestion!
Post a Comment