"The portrayal of people has nothing at all to do with trying to achieve a particular rating, it has everything to do with portraying people appropriately to the circumstances they find themselves in. "This is the basic premise behind people saying a lot of fantasy art, like that of Frank Frazetta, is "wrong" and that the Women in Sensible Armor Tumblr is the only way to be "correct". There is an objectively appropriate way for people to dress in certain circumstances, and all fantasy / adventure media, regardless of rating, should adhere to that.
The problem of course is that there's no consensus on what is an "appropriate" way for people to dress in the real world. Even in the same office you might find some people wearing sensible shoes, long pants, and a conservative shirt -- and at the same time others in high heels, very short skirts, and low cut tops. Depending on where you work that might just be the men! In the winter people tend to wear more clothes, but even on cold days it's not uncommon to see someone who's chosen bare legs, or décolletage when others are bundled up from head to toe. In the warm weather people often have an even greater range of clothing choices. Some dress almost the same as they would in the cold weather, while others wear clothing that's very revealing. This doesn't even take into account situations where people might wear more clothes (downhill skiing) or less clothes (beach, night club).
So in everyday life there is no consensus on the "appropriate" way to dress for everyday circumstances. This is even more pronounced when people dress themselves for make-believe and fantasy. Halloween, Cosplay, Theatre and Movies shows a tremendous range in personal taste and expression in clothing. Even the same concept -- a warrior or witch -- can have some people choosing to dress themselves in heavy concealing clothes, or wearing the same amount of fabric they would at the beach, or in the bedroom. People will wear these costumes not just in private, but in public. One person might wear the heavy articulated metal armour of a late medieval knight to a convention, while another will elect to dress as a Spartan from the Movie 300. Different people have different ideas about what is appropriate, empowering, makes them feel confident, and is generally and awesome thing to wear.
There is no right or wrong choice here, and it extends not just to how real people choose to dress themselves but also to how imaginary people dress themselves as well. Everyone should have a choice about what makes them feel comfortable -- but also respect their ideas may not be shared by everyone else. When we make decisions about what is right or wrong to wear in a given situation and then make people feel bad for having different ideas that's a bad thing.
I feel strongly about giving people more choice about the media they want to create and enjoy, and find it troubling to see many people in "Geek" communities not understand that people may like things that they do not, and that they could find other things to enjoy rather than pressuring people to stop enjoying things that they are happy with. Making it more clear what sort of tastes and demographics media was created for seems like a better option than insisting that all media conform to our personal set of tastes and what we ourselves would choose as "appropriate" to wear in a given situation. People can then choose the media they like based on where they are in their life, their tastes, and even their mood at that specific moment.
If the issue is that you want to share media with your children, you want to select age appropriate media. If you are selecting media for Teens and older you need to recognize that people will have different ideas about what "appropriate" clothing is for various situations. You may prefer fantasy artwork with everyone in heavy armour while someone else may prefer it another way. Unless the discussion is about ratings and things like provocative clothing, suggestive themes, or sexual situations in media (aka "ratings") then the subjectivity of when something is appropriate to wear will always be that - entirely subjective.
41 comments:
Is that really people's objection to Frazetta-style fantasy art? Verisimilitude?
I know that a lot of the problems that people I know have with fantasy art and 'sexy' armor is that there are little to no alternate perspectives. In a lot of fantasy products (novels, games, RPGs, etc...) female representation is generally confined to cleavage-bearing outfits and model poses, which can definitely be marginalizing to female gamers.
No one's saying that ALL women should be wearing plate mail and greaves for adventuring. It is fantasy gaming after all and female gamers should absolutely be encouraged to play whatever kind of character they want. But there should definitely be more balanced representation between the scantily-clad and the sturdily armored female adventurers.
See the Women in Sensible Armor blog (aka Pretty Young Women Conservatively Dressed in Fantasy Armor) for lots of alternatives to Frazetta style art. The idea that all Fantasy art is of the sexy / Frazetta style just isn't true. It reminds me of the "there are no comics for kids" sweeping generalizations the geek community seems prone to.
I have seen people actually say ALL characters should be dressed "sensibly" for fantasy / adventure artwork in comics and rpgs. The idea there would be a range of choices at various ratings and for various tastes would be better imho.
Wait a minute Stuart, I don't understand.
Are you saying that you actually want something like a ratings system?
If a product was rated E10+ there would be no provocative clothing or adult themes, so all the people who want to share the product with their 10 year olds could do so. People who are sensitive about things like provocative clothing would also know which media they are likely to enjoy.
People who want media for an older audience could also find and enjoy that. We could avoid people complaining about media for an older audience not having the content standards found in media for a younger / more sensitive audience.
Win win.
(Sorry for length)
Post 1:
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but these two passages gave me a bit of a pause:
'they could find other things to enjoy rather than pressuring people to stop enjoying things that they are happy with.':
Are you defending the 'chainmail thongkini' crowd against the supposed 'PC' police here? Isn't go away and shut up a little harsh when people are simply voicing their(strongly held) opinions? I mean no-one can take Frazetta's nekkid chicks and WoW's myriad of boobtacular mages away from anyone.(Especially in the Age of the Interweb.) And if you, or anyone else for that matter, like that stuff(and I'm not saying you do), by all means continue to consume it. However, some people think the constant display of female flesh may be problematic, (even if it is in a fantasy realm), especially if certain body types are presented as normative for the genre. 'Idealized'(whose ideal ?:-P), as it were... Of course, to a lesser degree, men are also stereotyped, and that isn't necessarily 'empowering'. One could argue, and some do, that these are power fantasies and should not subject to sociological criticism(body image issues, power disparities in depictions, visual degradation, in extreme cases.) nor should they be bound by the constraints of realism(Red Sonya fights Barbarians in the snow in her Chainmail Bikini![She actually did. :-)] Conan's damn near bare in quite a few of his book covers, comic illos, and movies while fighting hordes of assailants!.) That's a bit reductive, and not everyone subscribes to that view, of course. There's also the possibility of 'redressing the balance' by objectifying everybody. More manflesh!(You see this called for from time to time...)
Most people, I think, would say there's a line of good taste, if ya will. I don't have the expertise to say where it should be drawn. I'm of the mind to just allow everything(corporations, of course, carefully try to avoid controversy, so...) and let people battle out their convictions in debate. No one solution can satisfy everyone, nor should it, really. But I think the conversation is worth having, in a civil manner, of course
As for me, I'm a huge fan of Shiera Sanders(pre-Brightest Day) Hawkwoman, Kathy Kane Batwoman, AND Tigra and Red Sonya, for example.
I generally prefer an armored individual to a scantily clad one(depending on character history and circumstance.) in a battle sequence however.(And Pepper Potts in a variant battlesuit[Rescue] was intriguing.) There's fantasy and then there's FANTASY(i.e. silly or spank material :-D). But that's just me.
Part 2:(Sorry)
'Making it more clear what sort of tastes and demographics media was created for seems like a better option than insisting that all media conform to our personal set of tastes and what we ourselves would choose as "appropriate" to wear in a given situation.':
What about the differences in tastes and demographics throughout that media(see the depiction of female fighters in TSR/WOTC's (A)D&D Art[pre and post Clyde Caldwell especially for just one PnP example] over the years for just one example), and there's always the possibility of change within the communities involved. There are more female fighters in game art(hanging out or otherwise) than there were 30 years ago.(Outside the art of Luise Perrin or Liz Danforth, for example.) Also more women and non-whites(who aren't often shown inn art) playing than in the past, it's safe to say. As you might recall, most wargamers were middle-aged, middle class, white dudes, and the comics went from being read by mostly white guys of the mid to lower classes(though many others partook of the comics in their early years as well[white girls and women were the #2 demographic into the early 50's]), to being predominantly consumed by white 11year old boys(Why were the Batladies so smexy if little kids were the target audience? ;-)) until the mid 80's, whaen college age and older white guys become the audience.
I personally think there should be wide range of various art, myself. I'm not for a static set of depictions. Nor, of course, am I for any sort of censorship. There's no Pope of Imaginary Iconography to enforce edicts thankfully.(And any perceived[or real] electronic bullying won't change things.)
Thought provoking post!
'there are no comics for kids' :
Isn't much of that lamenting the various depictions of the 'iconic' Superheroes(Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman, the Hulk, etc...) being reduced to just one: Grimdark(where the heroes are generally impotent against both social ills and their personal foes)?
Just one example:
There's instances of parents being told that Batman, for example, isn't for kids. And substituting something like say, the Incredibles, isn't the same in many peoples eyes. And frankly, ridiculous, imo. The various Batbooks in the 80's were written to different age groups, World's Finest(youngest[8-10 or so]), The Brave And the Bold/Batman and the Outsiders[Teens+], Detective Comics[~Adults]. Why can't DC(Jonny DC is widely panned for extremely shallow writing)/Marvel(Marvel Adventures is highly inconsistent, and Steve Wacker has said until recently, it wasn't a priority) do this for for all their lines? I constantly see calls for this which the Big Two ignore.
Are you defending the 'chainmail thongkini' crowd against the supposed 'PC' police here? Isn't go away and shut up a little harsh when people are simply voicing their(strongly held) opinions?
I'm defending both groups rights to create and enjoy the media they want to. It's not "go away and shut up" but rather pointing out that not all media is meant for all audiences. Would it make sense for someone to be complaining about the movie Aliens being too frightening and violent for their 8 year old? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to recognize it's not a good choice for their 8 year old to watch instead (or themselves if they don't like scary violent movies).
However, some people think the constant display of female flesh may be problematic
Many people feel the same about violence in media as well. As a parent I personally find the amount of violence in media more concerning than the amount of provocative clothing. They can see people with less clothes on at the beach or see people walking down the street stop and kiss. I'd rather they don't see people getting punched in the face (or worse) if possible though.
However that doesn't mean my feelings about what I think is appropriate violence in media for my children should mean YOU shouldn't be able to find and enjoy whatever violent M rated game or R rated movie you want. See my previous post about Parenting & Pictures for more on this topic…
Most people, I think, would say there's a line of good taste, if ya will.
For this point specifically please reread the post above and note the differences in how people dress for the office, how they dress for halloween and cosplay, and the link to Slutwalk Toronto…
there's always the possibility of change within the communities involved
I think the sixth Geek Social Fallacy might be the idea of a homogenous set of feelings, values, beliefs, likes and dislikes within a "geek community". I don't believe anything like this exists.
When I talk about "demographics media was created for" I mean something like the ESRB rating system. Again see my previous post for a discussion about what happens when we find ourselves changing the demographic we belong to or are interested in.
This is exactly the sort of thing I see people in "Geek" circles say, and it's not true. I have a Lego Batman comic on the table here *right now* and we have all sorts of Tiny Titans, Superfriends, and other kid friendly Superhero titles in our house. There is a big display front and centre at our local comic store than is all kid friendly stuff. The grimdark material is actually in the back corner.
The public library also has a large collection of kid comics and graphic novels in the kids section.
This idea that there are no comics for kids and everything is Grimdark is something I believed too -- because everyone kept saying it. It's completely untrue though. There are lots of comics for kids, teens, and adults.
Okay, so we would be back to a Basic/Expert / 1eAD&D / 2eAD&D kind of split then?
No mention of paid assassinations, drugs, slavery, prostitution, or mental illness, like in the Dungeon Masters Guide...
Nothing like the original Monster Manual illustrations on pages 14, 18, 19, 51, 59, 64, 90, 93; or mention of demons and devils like on pages 16-23...
So, no females being shown wearing skirts above the knee, absolutely no representation of males in loin cloths, no male-on-female violence on the cover or in the content of licensed E10+ D&D products?
Would the "more mature content" be behind a counter, out of sight of innocent eyes and minds?
Will there be no selling of Otherworld Bugbears to the under 21's?
I can see that working in theory, but not in reality.
We *are* talking "products of the imagination" here.
I don't see a ratings system as "win win" because there simply isn't that much range in D&D derived art to begin with. Pandering to "sensitive" people never works because there can *always* be something to be objected to, it is fantasy after all.
Game "content" is another matter entirely.
Would the "more mature content" be behind a counter, out of sight of innocent eyes and minds?
Some RPGS, like Lamentations of the Flame Princess Weird Fantasy, are labelled for an adult audience only. Most of the things you mentioned above would be suitable for a Teen or Mature audience and wouldn't need to be "behind the counter".
'they could find other things to enjoy rather than pressuring people to stop enjoying things that they are happy with.':
This DOES 'sound' a bit cranky, don't you think? :-)
'not all media is meant for all audiences. Would it make sense for someone to be complaining about the movie Aliens being too frightening and violent for their 8 year old? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to recognize it's not a good choice for their 8 year old to watch instead (or themselves if they don't like scary violent movies).':
Since the post was about 'People In Sensible Armor', rather than violence(in any media), this is puzzling, as I assume you wouldn't posit that violent settings necessarily come with concomitant levels of nudity/sensuality.(Say, a 'M' rated Dark Sun.) I think the amount of either violence/sexuality and their visual depiction would vary myself, depending on artistic vision.
'Many people feel the same about violence in media as well. As a parent I personally find the amount of violence in media more concerning than the amount of provocative clothing. They can see people with less clothes on at the beach or see people walking down the street stop and kiss. I'd rather they don't see people getting punched in the face (or worse) if possible though.
However that doesn't mean my feelings about what I think is appropriate violence in media for my children should mean YOU shouldn't be able to find and enjoy whatever violent M rated game or R rated movie you want. See my previous post about Parenting & Pictures for more on this topic…':
Um, I said that. :-/
to wit:
'Most people, I think, would say there's a line of good taste, if ya will. I don't have the expertise to say where it should be drawn. I'm of the mind to just allow everything(corporations, of course, carefully try to avoid controversy, so...) and let people battle out their convictions in debate. No one solution can satisfy everyone, nor should it, really. But I think the conversation is worth having, in a civil manner, of course.
I personally think there should be wide range of various art, myself. I'm not for a static set of depictions. Nor, of course, am I for any sort of censorship.'
'I think the sixth Geek Social Fallacy might be the idea of a homogenous set of feelings, values, beliefs, likes and dislikes within a "geek community". I don't believe anything like this exists.':
I would say it's obvious there are various subgroups within any hobbyist community.
'Again see my previous post for a discussion about what happens when we find ourselves changing the demographic we belong to or are interested in.':
I posted in that discussion, you might recall. And my examples were merely mentioning the tie-in to various demographics in Comics and RPGs over the years, to reflect that the demographics makeup of the hobbies(and expectations thereof) may change.
Just in case I'm not being clear: I agree with your stance!(And I read your whole post[and clicked the links] the first time.)
This DOES 'sound' a bit cranky, don't you think? :-)
It's similar to how Tipper Gore was trying to stop people listening to heavy metal or the MADD people were trying to stop people from playing D&D. It does make me a little cranky. :)
I think the amount of either violence/sexuality and their visual depiction would vary myself, depending on artistic vision.
If you have E10+ costumes you wouldn't have artwork with heads being smashed apart and blood gore and eyeballs flying everywhere. See the ESRB FAQ for examples of what to expect at the various ratings.
I think that's more useful than discussions around "a line of good taste". What I might think is in good taste you might not (and vice versa). :)
'Okay, so we would be back to a Basic/Expert / 1eAD&D / 2eAD&D kind of split then?':
Why not.? D&D/AD&D split worked out pretty well for TSR.
'No mention of paid assassinations, drugs, slavery, prostitution, or mental illness, like in the Dungeon Masters Guide...
Nothing like the original Monster Manual illustrations on pages 14, 18, 19, 51, 59, 64, 90, 93; or mention of demons and devils like on pages 16-23...':
There's breasts(mermaids!) and Demons in Moldvay/Cook/Marsh. And topless harpies and mentions of drugs in Mentzer AND Moldvay(Adults 10&Up!), as well as assassins, slavery, prostitution(brothels mentioned), mental illness figures in a few adventures and is mentioned in the rules sets.
'So, no females being shown wearing skirts above the knee, absolutely no representation of males in loin cloths, no male-on-female violence on the cover':
None of these were barred by B/X, Mentzer, or 2E(Ages 10-12&Up, depending on product.) Male on female violence DID occur on the covers of modules then. The men in loincloths thing is funny, considering the Conan modules. :-) If these worked then, they could work now, imo.
'I don't see a ratings system as "win win" because there simply isn't that much range in D&D derived art to begin with.':
Look at Art from '74 to now. And even within the modern games and the 'OSR'. Stve Zeiser doesn't look like Wayne Reynolds who doesn't depict characters like Erol Otus who doesn't draw like E.M. Geist, for example.
'Pandering to "sensitive" people never works because there can *always* be something to be objected to, it is fantasy after all.':
Some would argue that corporations like Disney clean up on that and should be emulated, you know. And no one is seriously suggesting dumping 'edgy' stuff out of sight, I'd say. And not to be combative, all objections to 'fantasy' depictions may not be invalid, depending. See early Golden Age art with (extremely)racist overtones. Those were just 'fantasy', as well.
Man, I'm switching off these threaded comments as soon as I can - I hate trying to follow discussions like this! :)
Anyway, I think calls for "no drawings of people in ways I disagree with" is what puts us on the path to ratings and what not. I think people need to consider that in more depth. If they want costumes that are kid friendly, what about all the other parts of content and themes in the game?
If they *don't* want ratings and want a general "whatever you think is okay" they need to be more understanding that other people might think things are okay that they don't. Just like how people might choose to dress themselves differently. :)
Oh, I understand why you're using the ESRB as a guideline, but some argue the ESRB is unnecessarily rigid(or not rigid enough, conversely). For the purposes of thought experiment, it's a yardstick of convenience.
'If you have E10+ costumes you wouldn't have artwork with heads being smashed apart and blood gore and eyeballs flying everywhere. See the ESRB FAQ for examples of what to expect at the various ratings.':
Then there's this:(not trying to a jackhole, btw)
Skyrim has little to no provocative attire, but there's blood spatter and decapitations.(And a boozing contest, a one-off mention of sexual assault, and the occasional saucy remark.) It's rated 'M'! Sure that's due to the cumulative effect of the aforementioned aspects of the game, but... Gore and not a lotta titillation. :-)
Thanx for your reply!
'Anyway, I think calls for "no drawings of people in ways I disagree with" is what puts us on the path to ratings and what not. I think people need to consider that in more depth.':
Absolutely! And Ratings Boards suck, imo. :-P
'If they want costumes that are kid friendly, what about all the other parts of content and themes in the game?:'
Dude, there are plenty of people who are down with gory slaughter, but not with the 'sex stuff'. Weird compartmentalization, I know. Unfortunately it doesn't come down to all extreem or squeamish/prudish across the board.(That'd make things easy.) Hence the disconnect sometimes.
'If they *don't* want ratings and want a general "whatever you think is okay" they need to be more understanding that other people might think things are okay that they don't. Just like how people might choose to dress themselves differently. :)':
Certainly. Of course, those people who object have every right to voice their opinions(even the ones that seem crazy/nonsensical); the 'understanding' should be on all sides. It seems that people enjoy talking past one another, though.
I'm in the 'no ratings camp', if you couldn't tell, but I recognize others may not be, and I'll hear them out, as long as they don't get insulting. :-/ But you know, that's life. :-)
Thanx!
I haven't played Skyrim (I'm not much of a videogamer) but the ESRB site has this to say:
As the game progresses, the dialogue and on-screen text contains references to sexual material (e.g., “. . . all the whores your heart, or any other organ, desires,” “She . . . raped the men as cruelly as Bal had ravished her,” and “Remember when you thought [he] was . . . intent on making you . . . into his personal sex slave?”).
And Google Image Search suggests not all the characters are wearing very conservative costumes. Certainly not the guys in loin cloths. :)
'I have a Lego Batman comic on the table here *right now* and we have all sorts of Tiny Titans, Superfriends, and other kid friendly Superhero titles in our house.':
There's kind of a gap between 'Lego Batman', Tiny Titans, and the current Superfriends and the New 52 material.(And especially Marvel/DC's Regularly scheduled Crises. I think people are looking for a middle ground between relentlessly cheery fare for the very youngest kids and the more recent(87-Now) brutality and despair(though there have been SOME lighter comics of late, but they usually get canned[not often widely advertised, it seems] :-)). See 1978-85 or so comics(of either line) for that 'Golden Mean'(Intelligent, with violence, sex implied, but never shown, without extreme exaggerated bodies, and the heroes WIN most of the time!) trumpeted by those who deplore the current market. They point out that comics were FAR more popular then, which is undoubtedly true. But the reality is more complex, of course. Getting comics back to an affordable price, and in widespread distribution instead of just in comics shops(for the most part) where the average person can see them would undoubtedly help.(Digital sale don't really make up the difference, as I understand. It's long time fans buying in that format.)
'everything is Grimdark':
Don't you remember the 90's-00's and EXTREEM!?!? :-D
'There are lots of comics for kids, teens, and adults.':
Absolutely true, but a fair number of people want the Big Two(and their well-regarded properties) to have 'all ages' fare again, it seems.
Thanx for the reply!
"'they could find other things to enjoy rather than pressuring people to stop enjoying things that they are happy with.'"
This, exactly. It isn't good enough for these morons to not watch tv shows they don't like, or not go to movies they don't like, or not listen to music they don't like.. it makes a nasty little itch under their skin that it just exists.
These are the exact same people, whether they want to admit it or not, who can't stand that homosexuals or people of other religions exist. It's not enough for them to just be the way they are, they have this compulsive desire to make sure nobody else is anything but that.
'Google Image Search suggests not all the characters are wearing very conservative costumes.'
They are generally 'appropriately attired'(especially in combat), ime. Oblivion's Spriggans were more naked than anything I can recall in Skyrim. Fanmods WILL change this, though ;-)
They forgot the Lusty Aragonian Maid! Anyhoo, the amount of skin showing is not that much compared to the violence, imo. This
'As the game progresses, the dialogue and on-screen text contains references to sexual material (e.g., “. . . all the whores your heart, or any other organ, desires,” “She . . . raped the men as cruelly as Bal had ravished her,” and “Remember when you thought [he] was . . . intent on making you . . . into his personal sex slave?”).'
(sexual assault, saucy comments, etc...)
plus the gore and some 'cleavage' is pretty much what got it the 'M'. I'd honestly say it wasn't as harsh as Diablo I or the early Fallouts or Sanatorium, etc... Hence, the Ratings Boards suck! ;-D
Certainly not the guys in loin cloths. :)
They can do anything they want, they're Nords!
The Dragon-killing horses are more offensive in my sight than anything else in the game, imo!
I'm hating these threaded replies too Stuart! >:v(
@Velaran:
I *know* that, but what Stuart is proposing would disallow all of that, given the way a ESRB works.
Those original books, as printed, would be 'Mature' and not for sale to "minors", period.
I don't pretend I was anymore (or, rather, less...) sophisticated than a 10 year-old child of today would be (the age when I first got the Basic Box), but I think I would have been very disappointed at the content upon opening that box at age 17.
I don't believe that is any way to "grow" a hobby, let alone create an interest in a RPG.
Also, I'm not talking about range of artistic style, I'm talking about range 'in' and 'of' content.
Most of the artwork attempts to capture a sense of the "heroic", which necessitates *conflict*, before, during, or after the fact.
Or it goes for the evocation of the fantasy setting; weird trees, spires, castles-in-the-sky, etc... Not a lot of mundane stuff.
Mundane stuff really doesn't evoke sales of fantasy.
Okay... the comment box isn't on the main page anymore... but I couldn't deal with those threaded comments. Thanks for turning that on by default Blogger. :-/
Sure, but LotFP isn't D&D.
Imagine you are a retailer: where would you place LotFP in relation to the D&D products?
A hypothetical 10 year-old girl might find the cover of either versions of the LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing box art more appealing than the Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game Starter box's.
If you had a E10+ D&D product, where do you put the T and M rated D&D products on display?
How are you going to prevent the younger kids from gravitating towards it? Sell only sealed books with no cover art?
That ain't going to work if you are trying to increase brand recognition or loyalty.
My above comment was in reply to Stuart's #11 post.
*google exasperation*
"How are you going to prevent the younger kids from gravitating towards it?"
I don't think anybody really wants to prevent this. I don't know if I even really want any actual rating info to even show up on it. I just think it should 'fit in' to a T rating so that parents are generally comfortable with their kids getting into it.
I also think it would be cool (just cool, that's it) if there were a mature version, just because I know a lot of people would dig it. That's all there is to it. I couldn't care less if it actually has an M or whatever printed on it somewhere.
Absolutely true, but a fair number of people want the Big Two(and their well-regarded properties) to have 'all ages' fare again, it seems.
The thing is... they did have an all ages line... but not enough people supported it so it's been cancelled.
Meanwhile the comics people like to complain about -- those are the ones that people are buying, and that's why they keep making them.
If you want all ages comics you need to support the people making them -- whether they're at Marvel / DC or someplace else. If you don't they won't make them.
I *know* that
Oops, sorry:
'Okay, so we would be back to a Basic/Expert / 1eAD&D / 2eAD&D kind of split then?'
No mention of paid assassinations, drugs, slavery, prostitution, or mental illness, like in the Dungeon Masters Guide...
Nothing like the original Monster Manual illustrations on pages 14, 18, 19, 51, 59, 64, 90, 93; or mention of demons and devils like on pages 16-23...
:
This threw me. I thought by 'split' you meant that 'Classic' D&D(B/X/BECMI[I.e. Post Holmes]) was 'sanitized' as compared to AD&D.(Which of course, WAS, as Frank Mentzer mentioned, and ads and TV spots show, created to expand the market to kids and those who weren't into the complex rules of AD&D.[Initially aimed at "Jim, Bob and Mary who work at the office together", the Orange Spine covers added the phrase for players 10 and up!]) And of course, you're familiar with the initial downplaying of certain 'dark' elements of AD&D when 2nd came out.
potential ESRB rating(assuming RPG ESRB is just like it's video cousin):
EVERYONE 10+
Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
TEEN
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
I'd say BECMI(none of Easley or Elmore would be an 'M', and much, if not all would be EC-10+, I'd say), B/X(Otus and co likewise) AND AD&D(with their original artwork[non-titillating nudity[succubi breasts in MM, imo, blipdoolploop in D1-2] are usually given a pass in 'classic/ancient' themed works, and I assume that they could do so, keeping it firmly E10+) would be T at MOST. I would think they could slot into the EVERYONE 10+(like they pretty much did originally!) Heck, most of the 2nd Ed stuff with Clyde Caldwell or Keith Parkinson was much more 'racy' than much of the early D&D/AD&D art, imo.
LOTFP:
The Box may or may not get it a M or so, depending on the 'fictional' specifics of the proposed ESRB.(And due to the non-sexual image, possibly a 'T', or lower if the 'board' is lenient. :-)) But hewing to the suggested standard, it's the INTERIOR art that would earn it a higher rating; likely an 'M' for the Pg. 14 Medusa.
'If you had a E10+ D&D product, where do you put the T and M rated D&D products on display?':
The store could sort the RPGs by age categories, I suppose.
'A hypothetical 10 year-old girl might find the cover of either versions of the LotFP: Weird Fantasy Role-Playing box art more appealing than the Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game Starter box's.':
This is quite possible, it's very evocative.
'Mundane stuff really doesn't evoke sales of fantasy.':
I totally agree.
@Michael: I'll argue that if you are rating a product as "may be suitable for age group X", you *are* seeking to prevent them from use it.
I know the rating alone can simply make it more enticing, but unless you are going to follow the B/X vs. AD&D level of "sophistication" (ie. re-write the rules), and sell it in a different location than the children's version, I don't think a rating system will work to the game's benefit.
If we are attempting to have 5E as the ideal "all things to all players" kumbaya-love-in, we can't forget that there are those who find offense in the very thought of playing these kinds of games.
The ratings system Stuart is considering is just giving ground to those who would rather *not* have people, their children or otherwise, play a game.
I'm not down with that.
'not enough people supported it so it's been cancelled.':
This isn't the first time, and Steve Wacker seems to hold out some hope....(It's odd, I thought the Marvel All Ages lined id well with digests...)
ALL comic books are badly supported compared to 15-20 years ago even.(The 3.00-4.00 prices required by a shrinking market due to more expensive glossy paper used with an eye towards the collectors market, being confined to the comic shops[there are people who think comics haven't been published since the 90's or so , I found:-)], increasingly long storylines, customers abandoning the books because of perceived/actual excessive sex/violence[which started showing up in the mid-90s in letter columns, IIRC], lack of interest in reading amongst the public, etc...: take your pick Most comics from the big Two during the 80s were discontinued when they dropped below 60-75,000 paying customers or so.
I think the people who are complaining just want a return to the 80's Marvel/DC standards.(Which an examination of say, Marvel Adventures or Spiderman, and DEFINITELY Tiny Titans and suchlike is for the real young kiddies :-) would suggest it's written for a younger audience than the one these people envision.[I think the target is something like New Teen Titans, Batman and the Outsiders, Iron Man, Claremont X-Men, etc...]) They, of course, need to put their money where their mouth is and buy the things :-)
Sorry for the off-topic bit!
'The ratings system Stuart is considering is just giving ground to those who would rather *not* have people, their children or otherwise, play a game.':
This is probably a little harsh. There are people who don't want these games to exist, but they would simply legislate them out of existence or use social pressure(like in the 80sthrough early 90's for example.) to banish them from the 'acceptable' hobby sphere. But there are others who are down with the kids adventuring among pools of Orc blood, demonic hordes, Elven Magick, fantasy 'drugs' like black Lotus, and a bit of veiled sensuality, like low cut bodices or bare chested barbarians and whatever, but who don't want their kids seeing eviscerated corpse heaps, devyl rape, ale-fueled orgies, and pierced nipples everywhere. There's a spectrum of opinion on this.
@velaran: Yeah, the 2eAD&D 'content revision' was the example of the "split" analogy that I was trying to make.
To me, the Otus art on the D&D B/X boxes wasn't realistic enough to warrant complaint, let alone hold it up. That goes the same for the art throughout the product. If Elmore had done the cover, then maybe not. That's what adding "realism" does in fantasy art. Back then, the full-colour cover was the prime selling feature. The interior art very rarely exceeded it, and if it did, it was because it effectively evoked the content in the mind of the reader/player.
As to your last post:
I think censorship is harsh.
Full-stop.
While I can appreciate the parental doubts of letting a child immerse themselves in a game that is based around killing monsters and amassing wealth, oppressing someone else so you don't have to answer a child's questions or concerns, isn't going to win you my support.
@ObsidianCrane I posted on your article this morning but you didn't publish it. So I'm not publishing your comments here. I hope you understand. :)
So, are you saying that there is no ethical dilemma in how you portray women in popular art? Because in that case, I would have to disagree with you.
The problem is that art and games project certain messages about all kinds of issues. The biggest problem I have is with the depiction of femininity and the female body as it is done in fantasy and science fiction art, particularly in games. I believe that it is sending messages that women are to be valued only for their bodies, and therefore promoting sexism in society.
The question then becomes whether such art should exist. There are a few reasons why you might paint someone in something that depicts women as sex objects: 1. Because you are showing that many societies do view women as sex objects, and you are depicting what that society is like. For example, we have the Princess Leia dancer outfit. The purpose of that outfit is to depict the beliefs of Jabba the Hutt. 2. Because you are arguing a certain message. For example, you may be arguing that it is perfectly fine for women to display large portions of their body in public. It is fine that you want to communicate that message, but you do need to realize that there is a certain portion of your audience that will not agree with your argument, and that might lead them to not want to buy your art. 3. To provoke a particular reaction in an audience. This is when you depict a women in scanty clothing merely to evoke sexual feelings in males so that they will buy your product. It is when you use gratuitously scanty depictions of women for no reason except to sell your product.
It is this last that I have a real problem with. In this case, you are only producing such art because you think that I will spend more money because sex sells, and it does nothing else for the aesthetic or narrative value of the art.
I believe that too much fantasy/sci-fi art falls in this third category, and it is something that offends me. Such depictions are destructive in the way they portray women, and it reinforces our misogynist society.
This kind of fantasy art is protected by free speech, and so I have no interest in arguing that it should be censored or outlawed. However, I think that it is the consumers responsibility to let companies know how they feel on such issues.
So, are you saying that there is no ethical dilemma in how you portray women in popular art? Because in that case, I would have to disagree with you.
I do not agree that a hemline shorter than you approve of (for example) is in any way unethical. I also think there is a wide range of ways people are portrayed in art. DeviantART alone has over 14.5 million artists contributing material.
The biggest problem I have is with the depiction of femininity and the female body as it is done in fantasy and science fiction art, particularly in games. I believe that it is sending messages that women are to be valued only for their bodies, and therefore promoting sexism in society.
I completely disagree with you. I think that's a extreme and strange thing to believe. Again, there is a wide range in art styles and it's acceptable for people to like different things.
The question then becomes whether such art should exist.
I am troubled by what you are suggesting here.
I believe that too much fantasy/sci-fi art falls in this third category, and it is something that offends me.
Stephen Fry has an excellent quote about being offended. I will see if I can find it for you.
@biopunk:
I'm assuming that this comment 'oppressing someone else' in reference to the hypothetical FRP ESRB means that you believe the ACTUALLY existing ESRB constitutes a censorship office? However,
this body doesn't ban games. You can argue that the Ratings have a 'chilling effect' on companies who don't want to be assigned certain ratings for fear of being unable to sell their games in Wal-mart or suchlike retailers.. Of course, PC/video game companies have been 'self-censoring'(see Nintendo and Sega's American releases[to a lesser extent Sony's] in particular.] forever(mid-80s at least.) to reach out to the 'broadest possible audience'. There of course, have been calls by certain segments of society to legislate content in video games.
'censorship is harsh
fell stop.':
Agreed, that's why I'm 110% against it, actually! :-) But I don't think Stuart, or many other commentators think a Ratings System is censorship,per se. And of course, technically, unless the GOVERNMENT applies these standards, it isn't. The ESRB (and presumably the hypothetical 'FRP' ESRB) is strictly voluntary, after all.
'the parental doubts of letting a child immerse themselves in a game that is based around killing monsters and amassing wealth':
As I said, this is no problem for some, if not most, parents. It's the perceived 'excessive gore' and 'lewdness'(and possibly refernces to demons for some), however defined, that seems to be worrisome. And quite a few of those probably wouldn't call for censoring games honestly. I think they would simply like to know what content is in the book.(Giving parents[and other consumer] the heads up was the stated reason for the ESRB rating on video games as you might recall.[whatever the effect was in practice.])
I think the participants in the RPG hobby industry should simply follow their own lights like Michael Curtis, Dan Proctor, Zak S, Geoffrey of Carcosa fame, James Raggi of LOTFP, etc.... No ratings system needed in my opinion, but I think some people believe it'll serve as a CYA in case someone's offended and/or it might help get RPGs in Wal-mart! :-) My take is people should ask other people about the book, check online reviews, and most importantly read it book to see if it meets with their approval before you play it/give it to a child/etc...(After all, things do 'slip by' the ESRB right?)
@Oraymw:
While there is certainly much to be said about the role of art(in any media) and the structures it may or may not extol, and there is certainly 'art' that is created as a sick fantasy or to promote certain twisted views, or thst which may unconsciously reflect certain beliefs which are regrettable, this statement here:
'The question then becomes whether such art should exist.'
doesn't do your arguments a favor. Not to mention it evokes the specter of restricting artistic freedom.(Though you mention you're not in favor of censorship. Good. It doesn't help anyone, really. Hiding controversial aspects of society never does....)
And the answer is 'Yes', it(this 'offensive art') should. If only to further debate of the influences surrounding it. And possibly help lay to rest the issues that inspired it in the first place.
'I think that it is the consumers responsibility to let companies know how they feel on such issues.':
Absolutely!
Re: Stephen Fry's "On Being Offended".
http://imgur.com/EX5v4
@Stuart:
1. "I do not agree that a hemline…"
When did I mention anything about hemlines? The problem here is that you are making assumptions about my opinions without any basis of evidence. Perhaps you should actually read my argument instead of just assuming where my opinions come from.
2. "I completely disagree with you…"
This sounds like a 4-year-old’s argument. Nuh-uh, uh-huh, nuh-uh… and so on. Perhaps you can think of a real argument against my point? The only thing you say is that it is extreme and strange. Provide me with some proof that it is extreme. Provide me with some proof that it is strange.
3. "I am troubled…"
This sounds a lot like “I am offended.” If you don’t like the way I phrased something, perhaps you should think twice about using THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. What you are saying is that your opinion is somehow more relevant than mine, though you have no basis for such reasoning. This is immature and stupid.
4. "Stephen Fry…"
Right back at ya!! I mean, the whole point of your response to my comment was to tell me how you didn’t like my comment. Okay, so grow up and learn to develop a real argument.
Again, I will reiterate that I do not believe in censoring different kinds of art. However, art does has an ability to affect a viewer/reader/listener, etc. All of the arts are forms of communication, and they are always trying to communicate some kind of message. I don’t argue against people communicating a message in which they believe; I argue against people creating a kind of message solely for commercial value, even if it goes against the kinds of messages that they want to communicate.
Once it is on the shelves, it is my responsibility to take that communication and decide whether I believe the argument that is being presented. If I find that I do not agree with that message, it is perfectly within my rights to not purchase that product, and even to communicate my disagreement with the producer of that art. If a game company produces a game which I believe sends negative messages about femininity, I am well within my rights to let them know that I disagree with said messages.
Now, I challenge you to present a mature and reasoned argument instead of just saying, essentially “You suck. I disagree with you. Blah blah blah..”
@Oraymw
You are saying there is an ethical dilemma by people being presented in artwork in a way that you do not agree with. This is the same argument people use when saying people are dressed inappropriately (e.g. hemlines) - because it's unethical. If you're not following what I'm talking here with clothes and art you might need to read the blog post you're commenting on again. If you still don't get it you're probably commenting on the wrong blog.
If saying you disagree with someone is "nuh-uh" 4-year old arguing you might want to reread your own comment as well which begins with "I completely disagree with you…"
The difference between "I am offended" and "I am troubled" is "I'm offended" is a "so what?" statement. You're implying that I should care that you are offended and people should take actions to remove that which offends you. The problem is other people may not care, or feel you are unreasonable in what offends you.
Saying "I'm troubled" by you wanting to stop people from creating art is a different kind of statement. I'm suggesting you have troubling views. I'm critiquing you for suggesting something rather negative: censorship.
You can now say "I don't believe in censorship" but when you say things like "The question then becomes whether such art should exist" I hope you can understand where those two statements are at odds with one another. Perhaps you misspoke, or maybe you didn't think this through carefully enough. Either way I wasn't the only person who remarked on your statement.
You have every right to choose the media you want to create and enjoy. You also have the right to express which things you like and which you do not. However, those same rights extend to everyone else and they have the right to choose to listen to you or not. In cases where someone saying how they feel about what someone else is doing is harassing then you don't have the right to force them to hear your opinion (again, see SlutWalk Toronto for an lengthy example of someone sharing their opinion on how someone else expresses themselves is harmful).
I remain in complete disagreement that "fantasy and science fiction art" is negative in the way that you're characterizing it. You're talking about a huge amount of work. That some of it will not be to your taste, like some clothing will not be to your taste, is completely reasonable. Saying your taste is applicable to everyone is very UNreasonable. Similarly your ideas about femininity and masculinity may not be shared by others. You have the right to your opinions and preferences, but other people do as well.
I hope you can follow along with what I've said and don't jump back to the reply box too quickly. Otherwise "You suck. I disagree with you. Blah blah blah…" does have the advantage of being a bit quicker to type. :)
Post a Comment