Esgaldi, I remember going to see Wizards in the late 70's or early 80's; it was at a local university film club. According to Wikipedia, "Wizards received a limited release".

They were both underground films, certainly (not necessarily by choice).  My main point was just that they are representative of the esthetic Edwards is talking about.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;449575I think people tend to be nostalgic for the period they were introduced to gaming. I grew up in the 80s and 90s, so my first gaming experience was probably around 1985 or 1986. Basically played as a player with 1E and GM'd using 2E. I loved a lot of the material coming out during the 2E era and still have fond memories of it.

Just in general, I think the 80s was a great time to be around if you were into fantasy. D&D was pretty popular, and (in the early 80s at least) there were a ton of fantasy films coming out (many of them quite gritty).

The only part about my "beginning" era that I'm nostalgic for is that I had more time to play, and more people to play with.

Most of my favorite games came out in the last ten years...I've been playing for about 17 years now.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;450268The only part about my "beginning" era that I'm nostalgic for is that I had more time to play, and more people to play with.

Most of my favorite games came out in the last ten years...I've been playing for about 17 years now.

I agree a lot of great games came out in the last ten years. Right now I am actually playing a 2E game just to see how it holds up after all these years, but I am also having tons of fun playing newer RPGs.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;450268The only part about my "beginning" era that I'm nostalgic for is that I had more time to play, and more people to play with.

Most of my favorite games came out in the last ten years...I've been playing for about 17 years now.

I hear that. I've been gaming for at least thirty years now. All I long for from the old days was the amount of time and number of people available. I've been running a Labyrinth Lord game for the past couple of months, but I am rapidly losing interest in it. I've done it all before when it comes to those types of games. Sure, we've had fun exploring the retro clone thing but it is boring me much more quickly than I could possibly imagine when we started.

Esgaldi--

Well, in that case, throw in Heavy Metal (Canada, 1981) and Gandahar (France, 1988), also released as "Light Years" in a somewhat-bowdlerized version. Bakshi's Fire and Ice (1983) probably should also be included, but I haven't seen it yet.

There are certainly areas where pop culture became more conservative toward sex & weirdness in the 80's. E.g. Playboy and other adult magazines increasingly moved behind the counter, to the top shelf, and/or wrapped to prevent browsing (by kids, I suppose, but maybe also by cheapskates).

In film, I don't think so. You had Troma, or higher up the scale you had Carpenter and Cronenberg. In comics, definitely not, as underground/alternative comics thrived, while the comics code was increasingly weakened and ultimately discarded.

Fantasy, and fantasy gaming in particular, I think was somewhat influenced by a backwash from Tolkien-derivative-fantasy in the vein of Shannara. A lot of this I think has to do with the mainstreaming of D&D along with a rise of romantic celtophilia among geeks.  In turn this probably helps account for the popularity of Vampire--fantasy was in somewhat of a rut. On the other hand if you look outside of D&D, in other words to the alternative press among RPG publishers, I don't think the change was as great--it was more in line with general evolution of popular tastes, not a radical "flinch".

It should be remembered that a lot of the sexual stuff of the 70's wasn't seen as obscene so much as adolescent and possibly low-class. I mean does this stuff look mature? Granted with the benefit of nostalgia and ironic-hipness, it seems cool. At the time, the college kids wanted to grow up and play Runequest.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;450274I mean does this stuff look mature?

Fuck 'mature'! That stuff looks FUN!

Quote from: Simlasa;450257Regardless of his past nonsense I saw nothing in this essay where Mr. Edwards was promoting people role-playing sex acts during their games (unless it was that feeble bit of self-promotion at the end).

He merely chose a couple of things, monsters and nudity, that... by their absence... signified... to him... the domestification/taming/commodification of RPGs... going from people expressing their desire for adventure to people desiring to make money off of other people's desire for adventure. Spending way too much time worrying about fonts and layouts and color processing and how the thing would sell and making sure it didn't have any pictures of dicks in it (because if someone sees you with a book with a demon penis on the front they might think you're gay!).

Well, true, he didn't specifically talk about role-playing sex acts.  But then, what would the point be of including such art?

Including more "adult" art would simply make the products seem more adolescent, turning off a fair portion of adult gamers while at the same time making the products more popular but less friendly towards underage gamers.

Isn't the whole point of art in RPGs supposed to be evocative of the kind of game you want to play?  I'm not playing Gorn: The RPG, so I'm not interested in having that kind of art in my game books.  I'd rather have non-offensive art that keeps the games family-friendly and accessible to younger gamers.

As for his monsters argument, that's just silly.  We've hardly gotten washed-out, family-friendly there.  If anything, the current problem is that everyone is enamored with using EXTREME marketing with them (we're not quite to the level of silliness of "Extreme Corn Nuts" yet, but we're getting there).

I agree with others - this whole thing is less about Edwards raging against "The Man" than a mix of nostolgia combined with "games like Maid and Poison'd are high class and intellectual, honest".

Quote from: jgants;450348Well, true, he didn't specifically talk about role-playing sex acts.  But then, what would the point be of including such art?

Because it fits the genre and/or time period?  

QuoteIncluding more "adult" art would simply make the products seem more adolescent, turning off a fair portion of adult gamers while at the same time making the products more popular but less friendly towards underage gamers.

As with anything, it depends on how it's done.

QuoteAs for his monsters argument, that's just silly.  We've hardly gotten washed-out, family-friendly there.  If anything, the current problem is that everyone is enamored with using EXTREME marketing with them (we're not quite to the level of silliness of "Extreme Corn Nuts" yet, but we're getting there).

Extreme != evocative or explicit.  In fact, "extreme" is usually viewed as more childish/adolescent by the general public due to how it's marketed.  I don't see that as any better than having explicit material readily available.

I also think there's a misperception here about Edwards.  I don't think he thinks lots of people should be consuming this material.  I also don't think he thinks it's going to revitalize anything.  I think his point is, just make the content because you want to make it, express yourself however the hell you want, and whoever wants to buy it will.

Quote from: Peregrin;450351Because it fits the genre and/or time period?  

So would a picture of a guy defecating in the middle of the street.  I don't really want that in my RPG art either.

Quote from: Peregrin;450351As with anything, it depends on how it's done.

I don't disagree, necessarily, but in practice I usually see it as exploitative rather than evocative.  I'd prefer more subtle suggestions of sensuality.

Quote from: Peregrin;450351Extreme != evocative or explicit.  In fact, "extreme" is usually viewed as more childish/adolescent by the general public due to how it's marketed.  I don't see that as any better than having explicit material readily available.

Oh I agree with that 100%.  The Extreme thing is silly.  Years later, I'm still laughing at Maddox mocking Corn Nuts.

My point was more we went lame in a different direction than becoming happy and family friendly.

Personally, I never found early D&D art all that evocative.  I'm an Elmore fan.  The Earl Otus stuff was too cartoony for me.

Quote from: Peregrin;450351I also think there's a misperception here about Edwards.  I don't think he thinks lots of people should be consuming this material.  I also don't think he thinks it's going to revitalize anything.  I think his point is, just make the content because you want to make it, express yourself however the hell you want, and whoever wants to buy it will.

Isn't "Just Be Yourself" kind of a trite and cliche'd message for a self-styled intellectual to be giving, though?  

Perhaps we do read too much into his writings - but it's more fun (and funny) to assume he's an idiot or insane rather than that he's just giving us some afterschool special advice.

Quote from: Peregrin;450351I think his point is, just make the content because you want to make it, express yourself however the hell you want, and whoever wants to buy it will.

Do you think he'll follow his own advice? Or do you think when his next game comes out he'll try to convince people to buy it, telling them that it's trendy, etc.?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;450427Do you think he'll follow his own advice? Or do you think when his next game comes out he'll try to convince people to buy it, telling them that it's trendy, etc.?

Seanchai

If the game he makes is true to his aesthetics he doesn't betray that by promoting it once it has been made... even if his advertising is full of lies.
An artist who paints giant penises (because that's what he wants to paint)... but makes money by convincing suburban couples that they're really pictures of bananas and would look wonderful over their sofa... is still an artist.

Quote from: Simlasa;450438An artist who paints giant penises (because that's what he wants to paint)... but makes money by convincing suburban couples that they're really pictures of bananas and would look wonderful over their sofa... is still an artist.

But people aren't buying his work because they want giant penises. They're buying it because the artist convinced them to do so. The artist could have painted giant vaginas, giant rectums, or giant nuns and done the same.

Seanchai

Quote from: jgants;450376So would a picture of a guy defecating in the middle of the street.  I don't really want that in my RPG art either.

Not quite what I meant...

QuoteI don't disagree, necessarily, but in practice I usually see it as exploitative rather than evocative.  I'd prefer more subtle suggestions of sensuality.

Sure.  Subtlety is a good tool to use.  But I would say what cheesecake art we have left is more exploitative than the type of art Edwards is speaking of, even if the character is clothed (see Exalted as a prime example of extremely childish depictions of the female body).  Women aren't afraid of seeing nude women.  Women do not like seeing idealized bodies displayed as if they were actually human.  If I'm reading Edwards article correctly, he wants pictures that display anatomically correct body fat placement, sagging breasts, along with other natural imperfections, and less of the skinny-mini-bikini type models we see used for most RPG females (and most art of the female body in pop culture).

Quote from: Seanchai;450444But people aren't buying his work because they want giant penises. They're buying it because the artist convinced them to do so. The artist could have painted giant vaginas, giant rectums, or giant nuns and done the same.

Seanchai

So? The point is that the artist painted what he wanted to paint... not what he did to sell the paintings afterward.