I am just curious what people think about nudity in RPG books that isn't the chain mail bikini variety. I was having a conversation with one of my artists who was a bit frustrated that there isn't much place for the kind of nudity you see all over the rest of the art world in games. The artist was thinking more along the lines of stuff that tries to capture the beauty of the human form but isn't aimed at titillation. My feeling is this is because RPG books tend to be illustrative, and if you include nudity in an image to convey a feeling or mood, people take it quite literally. Does it have a place? Does it annoy you? Do you think we could use more art that isn't so literal?
I'll be honest, I don't know. I don't mind a well done human figure, however, I'm not sure we should be treating game books as "art books," and most of the nudity of artistic types I've seen are all exclusive to either paintings on walls, or art books.
Nowdays you can find that in places like Deviant Art, or tumblr. Yet, while I know its there, its not something I look for--it simply is a thing.
A lot of it may depend on "what nude" and "what is he/she doing" (why yes, there should be nude males if there are nude females.)
However, what instance in a game book would a nude art piece illustrate? I mean, fighting nude is not smart. Standing there nude illustrates nothing going on in a game, so really what would the purpose of nude art serve?
Hellas for example has a few bits in its books IIRC, and it fits the Greek themes, but I'm not sure where else that would be appropriate for a gaming context.
Plus, I don't want to have to hide game books I'm reading when I'm visiting friends because of an artistic choice--they have kids not of an age where seeing that is likely approved. (I'd have to ask) and I like being able to read my books wherever I go..
I am thinking about art that might capture the mood or feel of a setting without trying to specifically illustrate something in it. It isn't so much about treating the RPG book as art (I will leave that debate for another thread) but using art to evoke the setting in a way that is more about atmosphere or maybe even myth. So not talking about an image that suggests characters should fight in the nude (you might have a nude combat scene though to convey how vulnerable people were in a particular massacre or against certain creatures).
I am fin with it. In fact nude art composes about 75% of my non-commercial commissions. But in an RPG, or most anything else really. It must fit the setting and story. If it is set on Barsoom then there should be alot of nudity. If its set in the roaring 20s then there should be close to none unless its some odd twist. If its set in some barbaric Conan-esque setting then theres likely some nudity in there somewhere.
Bemusingly two of the IP based RPs I worked on had a fair amount of nudity in them. But the books I illustrated didnt. It did not fit the market I was in at the time. Today with a different market Id add back in the nudity.
Unfortunately there are loonies about to whom anything short of a woman encased in a block of granite is going to have them screaming mysogynist nutidy. And even the block might not save you.
Make a choice and stick to it.
Quote from: Omega;809190I am fin with it. In fact nude art composes about 75% of my non-commercial commissions. But in an RPG, or most anything else really. It must fit the setting and story. If it is set on Barsoom then there should be alot of nudity. If its set in the roaring 20s then there should be close to none unless its some odd twist. If its set in some barbaric Conan-esque setting then theres likely some nudity in there somewhere.
.
How would you feel about nudity that is a stylistic choice, that isn't meant to be taken literally. For example something like Watson and the Shark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_and_the_Shark).
If it fits the theme you are going for, that's fine.
I remember that Watson pic from when I was a kid- it still sends shivers down my back.
I would be comfortable with it as long as it fit with the context. I'm a 42 year old male if that helps you understand demographics of opinions.
So a primitive culture would probably show nudity if the climate was warm. You could have a culture which lacked nudity taboos too, if you wanted to and it added to the game.
Nude adventurers are a bit harder to rationalise. If you are fighting or spelunking you want to cover up. But then wizards in robes are similarly impractical... Combat sports like wrestling are a historical precedent for nudity there, but not on an actual battlefield.
I would personally accept some nudity (as long as it wasn't overtly sexualised) to illustrate a decadent society like Rome with slaves or magical ritual if that was the 'flavour' of magic you were going for.
Basically, I'm way past "look, boobies!"
I find it distracting, pruriently or otherwise.
Tasteful nudity would probably have to be defined as that which conveys a message beyond "here is a nekkid person; sexxoring is nigh." A meditation on the beauty of the body, or some other coherent statement *using* body imagery, may have a place somewhere in RPGs, but I'm not sure I've seen a serious execution yet.
RPGs are still mostly made by guys for guys, and because guys tend to be visually oriented we expect a certain amount of gratuitous sexual imagery. I guess I'm sort of okay with that, but it's going to make me sneer. Accompanying text *might* justify it--or even make up for it.
Why is this person nekkid in my RPG? That's what I would ask when I run across it. Nudity has meaning beyond sex, but if a publisher invokes it, then chickens out on exploring it, that publisher earns derision.
Quote from: dbm;809194...Basically, I'm way past "look, boobies!"
I can't quite make that same claim, but I greatly prefer a game's at least pretending that I am much more than a gonad.
I expect nudity in certain settings e.g. Greek atheletes, Celtic warriors, slaves in Rome, most any setting where people are having sex. Whether nudity is appropriate in an RPG depends on what is being depicted and what the setting is.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809191How would you feel about nudity that is a stylistic choice, that isn't meant to be taken literally. For example something like Watson and the Shark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_and_the_Shark).
My first thought was, "Why did the shark eat his clothes?"
So maybe not the best example for when to include nudity.
Basically, if it's part of a variety, makes 'sense,' and not weird, I'm cool with it.
So, for example, the comic book contortionist 'tits and ass facing the camera' or the poop squat... unless you are making a cubism joke, god, stop it. Same with balloon-boobed women who have invisible bras keeping their hooters up.
If you have 'sensibly plate armored warrior woman' and 'exotic dancer in gauze', ok, fine.
I make some liberal exceptions for classic tropes, like Frazetta or other S&S stuff.
Forget for a moment that nudity is a "thing" in many of our cultures...
Does the image of that person make sense with or without clothing? If it doesn't make sense, then you'd have to ask why has the artist made an issue with clothing? This goes for both underclothed and overclothed pictures. If I see a picture of Joan of Arc on the battlefield half-naked then it's gratuitous. Similarly, if I see a picture of a Yap islander with conveniently-placed leis covering up anything that might offend the prudish North American, then I think it's silly and disrespectful to Yapese culture. The art should represent the clothing traditions of the cultures in the game.
Remember that nudity is a "thing" in many of our cultures...
Putting pictures of naked people in your gamebook is, for better or worse, making a statement. Some people are going to make a big deal about it and it may overshadow the game itself. Be prepared to back up your decision.
Sure, why not? Put some notice or disclaimer so people that have a problem with it can make an informed choice. But its just a naked body. People get way to worked up about stuff like that.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809191How would you feel about nudity that is a stylistic choice, that isn't meant to be taken literally. For example something like Watson and the Shark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_and_the_Shark).
"Isn't meant to be taken literally"?
Heh (Cruel grin and semi-sarcastic voice)
"I find no reason to not see that painting as symbolical."
(Back to normal voice)
Actually, I really don't, but then I don't mind nudity either.
However, I neither find any really good reason for the one in the water to be nude, but the painting would at least be safe from the extreme feminists since it isn't a woman.
Personally, I find no problem with the chainmail bikini, and I call myself pro-feminist (but not feminist).
The only real problems with the chainmail bikini is that it, and similar, has been used too often, and that some games(mainly computer- and console-games) even has had the notion to believe it works as armor .. which it do not.
Now, do nudity belong in rpgs?
No, unless the characters either:
A) Come from a culture that promotes nudity.
B) Are Animal- or Monster-Anthros
C) Has Natural Armor
D) Deliberately aim to be seductive or sexy
Except for that, it is only for statues, slaves, and some servants.
Also, the most common complaint from the few feministic sites I look at, seem to be that the nudity tend to be reserved for Women, Girls, and Femmes in general, not to mention that even supposedly powerful femmes suddenly is depicted as weak, and/or in unnecessarily sexy positions.
So, I recon most of the sensible feminists don't mind tasteful nudity, especially if there is a notable amount of males that also is nude.
as others have said, I think it depends on context. Chainmail bikinis and constant images of female subjegation ala Boris V? Probably not.
does it fit the scene? Sure. I'm fine with it.
I guess one could ask themselves a question: "Would you think it's cool putting in a picture of a dude with his swinging dick visible? If not, then probably not a good idea to put a picture of a full frontal nude woman there either."
I.e., I think we have double standards when it comes to nudity in stuff. And I don't think that's OK.
Quote from: Catelf;809209Personally, I find no problem with the chainmail bikini, and I call myself pro-feminist (but not feminist).
The only real problems with the chainmail bikini is that it, and similar, has been used too often, and that some games(mainly computer- and console-games) even has had the notion to believe it works as armor .. which it do not.
Wait, something less than entirely realistic or even feasible...in an rpg?
When did that start happening!?
:D
The long list of cool miniatures for Glorantha has several nude Orlanthi pics (male and female). Since that is how the character in setting would dress for battle, these are a good example of when to include nudity.
Quote from: Momotaro;809002Here are some cracking Glorantha minis (http://www.lead-adventure.de/index.php?topic=68919.0)from a range of sources (including the Fenris ones) by pro painter Roy Duffy (immortalised as the gladiator with the quiff...).
Sychronicity is fun.
The thing is its a bit like race.
People say nudity is fine but if the book had lots of nude males illustrations by Richard Nugent or someone then most of the same people wouldn't be so keen.
Just like having a bog standard fantasy setting (not pseudo Africa or whatever) and making all the characters black by default. Shit in a world of elves and goblins why the fuck not. Yet people would whinge that you were trying to make a political point.
So whilst people would tell you that a but of nudity is fine and not objectionable and that nude images are part of the fantasy milieu they generally mean that in a rather selective way. YMMV of course.
Quote from: Bren;809201My first thought was, "Why did the shark eat his clothes?"
So maybe not the best example for when to include nudity.
He could have also just been swimming naked in the first place. But I mentioned it because I've seen conversations about how it uses nudity to emphasize the powerlessness and vulnerability of the shark victim. No art expert though, just trying to see if there is room for art in RPGs that involves nudity and isn't meant to be taken as an actual event in the game.
Quote from: jibbajibba;809220The thing is its a bit like race.
People say nudity is fine but if the book had lots of nude males illustrations by Richard Nugent or someone then most of the same people wouldn't be so keen.
Just like having a bog standard fantasy setting (not pseudo Africa or whatever) and making all the characters black by default. Shit in a world of elves and goblins why the fuck not. Yet people would whinge that you were trying to make a political point.
So whilst people would tell you that a but of nudity is fine and not objectionable and that nude images are part of the fantasy milieu they generally mean that in a rather selective way. YMMV of course.
A bit of background might be helpful. The artist I was speaking with about this is female, and she likes to draw images of naked (mostly female) forms. Her stuff certainly isn't something you might expect would appeal to Ted Nugent but it is still about the beauty of the figure. It was a situation where the piece itself may be better served by the figure being naked. Her work is more like the stuff you might see in an art gallery than a standard game book.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809222He could have also just been swimming naked in the first place. But I mentioned it because I've seen conversations about how it uses nudity to emphasize the powerlessness and vulnerability of the shark victim.
.
a related bit of trivia
AIU, Sigorney Weaver wanted to do the final scene in Alien nude to emphasize how vulnerable Ripley was. But the film was pushing the limits of the rating already so several minutes of full nudity would have put it over the top.
Nudity didn't always have been about titillation (though that's not wrong either).
Quote from: Nexus;809225As an aside...
AIU, Sigorney Weaver wanted to do the final scene in Alien nude to emphasize how vulnerable Ripley was. But the film was pushing the limits of the rating already so several minutes of full nudity would have put it over the top.
I never knew that. That scene is already pretty close to full nudity too as I recall.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809226I never knew that. That scene is already pretty close to full nudity too as I recall.
Oh man, its been years since I've seen that movie but I believe she was in an undershirt and panties so yeah, pretty exposed.
Even when the nudity isn't being done out of artistic expression it can carry other messages besides the 'Look BOOBIES!' variety.
When I was a kid the original Arduin Grimoires were a bit 'naughty' in some of the drawings... but even though I was the right age to appreciate that sort of thing they mostly communicated, to me, that those characters, such as Shardra the Castrator, were very powerful and not to be fucked with. Shardra has her tits out because she wants to and no one dares to tell her to cover them up.
As I recall, without looking, some of the monsters are nude as well... and I always thought that was a fitting choice when the creature is some strong feral/alien/undead thing. It's not that I want to ogle a minotaur's cock, but I think it's silly to draw pants on the thing.
Jean Rollin's vampire movies get grief because his female vampires are often beautiful nude women... yet I don't find them titillating at all and the nudity just serves to express how alien and strange they are... IMO. Putting clothes on them would remove a lot of the surreal atmosphere his films have.
Quote from: Nexus;809230Oh man, its been years since I've seen that movie but I believe she was in an undershirt and panties so yeah, pretty exposed.
Artistically, I think the skimpy undershirt and panties communicated vulnerability better than nudity would have -- I think the nudity would have distracted from what was going on.
Interestingly, as I recall, in Prometheus Charlize Theron did two scenes of herself waking from cryosleep and doing push-ups -- one naked, one clothed. Ridley Scott would decide which to use based on how the censors would play out.
Alas, the movie was such a pile of shit, who cares.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809226I never knew that. That scene is already pretty close to full nudity too as I recall.
It certainly had an impresson on my formative puberty years ;)
I have no problem with it.
But then, I'm "mature".
I think the real question is if the people who will have a problem with it you respect enough to care?
And Prometheus is the best movie Ridley Scott has done since Bladerunner. Certainly in the top ten movies Ive seen in the last decade.
Quote from: TristramEvans;809244I have no problem with it.
But then, I'm "mature".
I think the real question is if the people who will have a problem with it you respect enough to care?
I am letting the artist make the decision in this case, I just am trying to get a sense of the landscape on this issue. If she did decide to go for it, our bigger concern would actually be whether platforms like RPGnow make us put an ADULT tag on the book for containing some artsy nudes.
Quote from: TristramEvans;809245And Prometheus is the best movie Ridley Scott has done since Bladerunner. Certainly in the top ten movies Ive seen in the last decade.
I also really enjoyed Prometheus. It left me with questions, which was a good thing IMHO. :-)
to the OP: All the nonsense hand wringing over boobies here in the USA is a simple extension of our programmed puritanical self-hate confusion. We love boobies but deep down inside we've been brainwashed to see them as purely sexual. So when you unleash the boobies, you're unleashing sexy times. Of course, since that objectifies women as sex toys, ANY unleashing of the boobies is exploitative.
Worse, why is it so bad to be a pervert? I mean, if you look at our culture, it seems there are more closeted perverts than not (who IS buying all those billions of porn on the InterTubes?). So basically, art is supposed to be subjective. It's supposed to inspire some emotion in you, and even the best artists can inspire different emotions in different people. That's the point.
It's unhealthy to spend inordinate amounts of time worried about what others think because in the end, your art speaks for itself. It may convey the message you were hoping for or it may get you burned at the stake. Such is the risk artists take.
You should create things that inspire you. That turn you on. That make you happy or fulfill you.
The other side is the evils of living in a modern culture, namely "The Market". Remember, a person can be smart but people are stupid. The crowd likes to find reasons to swarm over something and consume it. So, in regards to marketing you may WANT to make compromises so your target audience WILL consume your product. Consumption can be a positive (they buy it) or a negative (they burn you). :-)
Do you want to compromise your art to appeal to the market? What is your market? Do you feel nudity will reduce or agitate your target market?
From a personal perspective I'm a "died in the wool" pervert of the common variety. I am a subscriber of Suicide Girls. I read Playboy. I think nudity and sex are a part of life, and I welcome it like I would welcome any natural thing. I celebrate good art, and appreciate it, and consume it (in the positive way). As a potential customer, your nudity would not dissuade me from buying your product.
Sincerely,
I agree with what Omega and most of the others have said: I have no problem with nudity if it's in the proper setting and context. A slave market, a Sultan's play room, a barbarian king's hall, a village of primitives. However I am 47 years old and mature.
Nude warriors running into battle... I know it happened in places but unless the people are really poor or primitive that just seems silly to me.
With that said, I don't know how it is with teenagers today. Maybe parents are more open about nude images. But back in the 80's when I was a teen if my mother opened one of my game books and found nude images she would be asking me questions and I'd be embarrassed. Heck, I still remember the time she asked me about a game book which had a demon's face on the cover. Not a comfortable moment.
I don't have a problem with it...
Celtic Woad Warriors charging sky-clad with hair spiked and schlongs swinging.
Sword and Sorcery taverns with the working girls wearing little to nothing.
Demons/Devils of both sexes showing it off.
Fertility Gods and Goddesses statues showing them naked and over-endowed.
If it makes sense and conveys the reality of the setting, sure.
Lesbian Stripper Ninjas in fuck-me pumps and BDSM gear with nipple/clit piercings...not so much...unless it's a Slaanesh book, in which case they might also have a Prince Albert.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809191How would you feel about nudity that is a stylistic choice, that isn't meant to be taken literally. For example something like Watson and the Shark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_and_the_Shark).
Good question. In an RPG book having someone randomly nude in a setting where its not common would feel really out of place. Like seeing someone in a full victorian ball gown on Barsoom. (That isnt Space 1889).
Example the nudity in AD&D fit for the people depicted and was not sexualized either. They were just standing examples. Or the one in Albedo. The character is getting dressed for duty.
Hilariously someone sent me a copy of d20 Conan. The book literally has tits on every other page because for some wacky reason that is the border art for every other page. Yet there is no nudity in the actual illustrations. One allmost nide, but shes wearing straps across... The guys in the book wear less than the gals!
Have a look at the current kickstarter for the Conan board game.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/806316071/conan (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/806316071/conan)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809226I never knew that. That scene is already pretty close to full nudity too as I recall.
Yes, the alien is shamelessly nekkid!
Ripley though is in a t-shirt and panties sort of deal.
(http://jarviscity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Sigourney-Weaver-Panties.jpg)
Sure. Things it expect with nudity in game books:
-It makes sense in the context of the illustrated matter and accompanying text.
-It isn't all over the place (otherwise I'd suspect the previous point not fulfilled as well)
-There's an even gender distribution.
-It doesn't shy away from including the ugly and unattractive (but sadly, outside of monsters, fantasy art seems to shy away from that anyway)
In my opinion, scrap the "tasteful" part, just stay clear of the pornographic and pseudo-pornographic.
There's a lot of human-like and humanoid monsters that wouldn't care much for clothes.
Naked Minotaurs, Fiends, Harpies actually make more sense to me than clothed ones, but done right, I wouldn't actually call it tasteful.
Apart from monsters, I think there's more place for nudity in fantasy games, particularly D&D style. Looking at 5th edition, it wouldn't make a nick of difference to barbarian, monk, wizard or sorcerer characters how much clothing they wear. In a society that developed in such a world, I think it would be sign of confidence in your own capability and/or contempt of you opponent to walk into battle unclothed, though certainly not an everyday occurrence.
Other places I'd imagine nudity in fantasy games making sense:
- Illustrating cultures. Showing artistically how certain (particularly more alien non-human) cultures have a different stance on nudity.
- Illustrating rest. Proper hygiene is important when traveling and tends to require nudity. That can be problematic when you expect attacks 24/7. If such matters where to be discussed in the rules, I'd expect an illustration.
- Religion. Rites of cleansing, depictions of myth, gods and important figures. Priests as healers. If any of this is illustrated, nudity might ensue.
Ultimately, quality is the deciding factor, not subject matter. Art transcends morality, contemporary politics, or temporal concerns. Its has a universal value in and of itself.
If it fits, fine.
If it doesn't fit, not fine. I don't have any problem with nudes, they just don't belong everywhere.
One way or another, America has to cure itself of Nipple-Fear. If that requires nipples everywhere until no one cares, so be it.
I like pizza, too, but that doesn't mean I want it everywhere.
Perhaps you should rebrand tits for the American market. Insist that they fire NUTRITION BULLETS to save DEFENSELESS CHILDREN in EXPLOSIONS OF LOVE.
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b9/f6/42/b9f64298467b929f9c108a907ccd931a.jpg)
This is funny two ways.
First, people go 'argh! A goddess with many tits, that's obscene!'
But ha ha, those aren't tits, they are bull testicles!
For more fun, look up Greek penis birds.
Quote from: Simlasa;809233Jean Rollin's vampire movies get grief because his female vampires are often beautiful nude women... yet I don't find them titillating at all and the nudity just serves to express how alien and strange they are... IMO. Putting clothes on them would remove a lot of the surreal atmosphere his films have.
I felt the same way about CMU Mystique and Dr. Manhattan. Their nudity emphasis their distance physically and mentally from humanity.
Quote from: Omega;809265Hilariously someone sent me a copy of d20 Conan. The book literally has tits on every other page because for some wacky reason that is the border art for every other page. Yet there is no nudity in the actual illustrations. One almost nude, but shes wearing straps across... The guys in the book wear less than the gals!
It seems like Chainmail bikinis draw much more ire from bare chested loin cloth clad beefcake.
Quote from: Will;809315(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b9/f6/42/b9f64298467b929f9c108a907ccd931a.jpg)
This is funny two ways.
First, people go 'argh! A goddess with many tits, that's obscene!'
But ha ha, those aren't tits, they are bull testicles!
Those are where she keeps her spare change.
If anyone cares about anything other than whether the picture looks good, fuck them.
If there's "too many" naked people, that's the art director's job to fix by hiring other artists, too. The artist just has to make the best picture they can.
The art in a game should be true to the feel of the game. Period. In an RPG of, for example, "70's-Early 80's Van Art Swords & Sorcery", the art should be titillating.
Americans spend way, way, way too much time worrying about whether or not some prudish asshole somewhere is going to think the stuff they like is "Porn". Forget it. You will never make those sad fucks happy. They think it's ALL porn, you will never win with them, so stop trying. Fuck, I saw an article on obscenity laws once where a Mormon activist in Utah called Michelangelo's David porn.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809224A bit of background might be helpful. The artist I was speaking with about this is female, and she likes to draw images of naked (mostly female) forms. Her stuff certainly isn't something you might expect would appeal to Ted Nugent but it is still about the beauty of the figure. It was a situation where the piece itself may be better served by the figure being naked. Her work is more like the stuff you might see in an art gallery than a standard game book.
Richard Nugent is a black guy that paints homoerotica and isn't Ted Nugent :)
The point is that the guys that are happy with chainmail bikinis probably fast forwarded through the uncomfortable parts of Oz and don't want a book full of cock.
Quote from: jibbajibba;809399Richard Nugent is a black guy that paints homoerotica and isn't Ted Nugent :)
The point is that the guys that are happy with chainmail bikinis probably fast forwarded through the uncomfortable parts of Oz and don't want a book full of cock.
Apologies. Saw Nugent and my brain read it as Ted.
Quote from: jibbajibba;809399Richard Nugent is a black guy that paints homoerotica and isn't Ted Nugent :)
The point is that the guys that are happy with chainmail bikinis probably fast forwarded through the uncomfortable parts of Oz and don't want a book full of cock.
I wouldn't want an RPG book full of cock, but one full of vaginas probably wouldn't be that great either. A Succubus/Incubus full frontal though isn't gonna make me rub one out or scream in homophobic panic either way.
It's art. You wanna make Faeries/Dryads/Nymphs/Nereids wearing diaphanous clothes or nothing at all, whatever. You want to show a group of Satyrs with erections dancing with naked women, whatever. If the art is good, it works, if it sucks, it doesn't. If it's obviously pornographic and designed to masturbate too, that generally doesn't work in a RPG book. If it gets across the look and feel of the world despite being sexually charged or erotic, then it generally does. (See Artesia)
A lot of the cheesecake art in RPG books doesn't belong because it's not well done, not because it is a taboo subject.
Wait, how do chainmail bikinis equate to full frontal male nudity?
Quote from: Nexus;809408Wait, how do chainmail bikinis equate to full frontal male nudity?
Because if you're not deeply offended at Red Sonja, you're obviously a bromancer who runs screaming at the site of male nudity...or something equally idiotic.
Quote from: Nexus;809408Wait, how do chainmail bikinis equate to full frontal male nudity?
Both as practical in a battle?
Quote from: jibbajibba;809410Both as practical in a battle?
One of those actually was used in battle.
Quote from: Bren;809413One of those actually was used in battle.
That's...weird but true, isn't it?
Quote from: jibbajibba;809410Both as practical in a battle?
Not if the Bullet Proof Nudity rules are in play!
Quote from: Bren;809413One of those actually was used in battle.
But it wasn't the chain mail bikini ;)
The chainmail bikini was only invented (presumably for comic books) because you apparently couldn't show women fighting topless, like the ancient amazon warriors in greek art were often show. Even some of the Valkyries were shown like that. You see topless women all the time in Victorian books on mythology.
The chain mail bikinis is silly, true, but it's a result of modern day prudery.
Man, I just wanna read an RPG book and not get the feeling that the art and text were gone over by thirteen committes, 7 focus groups and a panel of experts on what was "correct" to put in.
And has some sideboob.
(http://i.somethingawful.com/u/elpintogrande/september10/silverprincess/silverprincess_01.gif)
Quote from: JeremyR;809438The chainmail bikini was only invented (presumably for comic books) because you apparently couldn't show women fighting topless, like the ancient amazon warriors in greek art were often show. Even some of the Valkyries were shown like that. You see topless women all the time in Victorian books on mythology.
The chain mail bikinis is silly, true, but it's a result of modern day prudery.
A chainmail bikini, it is a lot less silly than a fig leaf.
Quote from: Bren;809440A chainmail bikini, it is a lot less silly than a fig leaf.
Surely depends if its lined.
Simple chainmail has to present some painful nipple chaffing/pinching scenarios that your standard fig leaf avoids.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;809439Man, I just wanna read an RPG book and not get the feeling that the art and text were gone over by thirteen committes, 7 focus groups and a panel of experts on what was "correct" to put in.
And has some sideboob.
(http://i.somethingawful.com/u/elpintogrande/september10/silverprincess/silverprincess_01.gif)
Sideboob nothing, you can plainly see her naked ass!
...
...
What?
Quote from: jibbajibba;809442Surely depends if its lined.
Simple chainmail has to present some painful nipple chaffing/pinching scenarios that your standard fig leaf avoids.
Well I considered mentioning the bikini being lined. But I thought, no that's so obvious to any mammal that there's no need to mention it.
Quote from: Nexus;809443Sideboob nothing, you can plainly see her naked ass!
It's a horse not an ass. :p
I hope this image will be indulged:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Wye3bC3Whng/T9dUyfpTL-I/AAAAAAAABJk/ExJOqIQT_RY/s1600/cerebus_010_red_sophia.jpg
(It's SFW, on the topic of the wisdom of chain mail bikinis)
Quote from: Nexus;809443Sideboob nothing, you can plainly see her naked ass!
...
...
What?
Walken: Do you have sex with horses, or with human women?
Centaur: Uh.. neither. I'm really only attracted to other Centaurs.
Walken: Okay. What if were a horse with a mask of a woman on it?
Centaur: No. I mean, would you have sex with a monkey if it had a mask on?
Walken: This interview is not about me. What if you saw a horse, but it was standing so that its head was in a barn, or something. Would you, maybe, be attracted to that horse's rear end?
Centaur: Uh.. I don't.. where is the head, exactly?
Walken: It's in the barn.. or behind a door, or a vase, or something.. so you can't see it.
Centaur: Uh.. I might be attracted to it - briefly.
Walken Okay. So, let's say, hypothetically, that you could have sex with the back end.. and it's guranteed to be the greatest sex you ever had.. but you'd never know if it was as horse or as Centaur?
Centaur: Hmm.. you know, that's pretty intriguing.. uh.. if I'd really never know, I guess I would.
Walken: It was a horse.
Quote from: JeremyR;809438The chainmail bikini was only invented (presumably for comic books) because you apparently couldn't show women fighting topless, like the ancient amazon warriors in greek art were often show. Even some of the Valkyries were shown like that. You see topless women all the time in Victorian books on mythology.
The chain mail bikinis is silly, true, but it's a result of modern day prudery.
It may actually have been invented for Marvel's Hyborean version of Red Sonja.
They needed someone with a similar degree of nudity as Conan at the time, but couldn't show breasts, and also wanted something ... more fancy and/or battle-like, I guess, so ... chainmail bikini.
Quote from: TristramEvans;809464Walken: Do you have sex with horses, or with human women?
Centaur: Uh.. neither. I'm really only attracted to other Centaurs.
Walken: Okay. What if were a horse with a mask of a woman on it?
Centaur: No. I mean, would you have sex with a monkey if it had a mask on?
Walken: This interview is not about me. What if you saw a horse, but it was standing so that its head was in a barn, or something. Would you, maybe, be attracted to that horse's rear end?
Centaur: Uh.. I don't.. where is the head, exactly?
Walken: It's in the barn.. or behind a door, or a vase, or something.. so you can't see it.
Centaur: Uh.. I might be attracted to it - briefly.
Walken Okay. So, let's say, hypothetically, that you could have sex with the back end.. and it's guranteed to be the greatest sex you ever had.. but you'd never know if it was as horse or as Centaur?
Centaur: Hmm.. you know, that's pretty intriguing.. uh.. if I'd really never know, I guess I would.
Walken: It was a horse.
This is exactly how people that thinks that Furries is into beastiality/zoophilia thinks.
...but that is off topic.
But then, Anthro animals is among those that would easily be ok'd to be nude, as they have fur.
If a game is targeting an adult only audience (such as LotFP - which goes a bit over the top, but it fits), its fine so long as its well done and makes sense within the context of the scene / game and what creature is being depicted.
If an artist just wants to insert a nude just because...then its probably not appropriate to the scene.
But I think consistency is also important. I like the 5th Edition monster manual, but a lot of naked monsters that should have obviously exposed genitals look like they are made more by Mattel than Hasbro.
Quote from: jibbajibba;809220Yet people would whinge that you were trying to make a political point.
Hell, people do that anyway. Paizo put a single lesbian couple in a book with dozens of other NPCs, and RPG boards continent-wide (I fancy Europe was more civilized about it) erupted with "OMG they're pushing the QUEER AGENDA!!!" posts.
Me, I don't have a problem.
Arduin had nudity.
EPT had nudity (and furthermore,
male nudity).
White Dwarf had nudity. The world somehow didn't end.
But I also have to admit: why? Granted, I come from the POV that
any interior art that doesn't have a direct bearing on scenarios is a waste of space, but even so.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809186I am just curious what people think about nudity in RPG books that isn't the chain mail bikini variety. I was having a conversation with one of my artists who was a bit frustrated that there isn't much place for the kind of nudity you see all over the rest of the art world in games. The artist was thinking more along the lines of stuff that tries to capture the beauty of the human form but isn't aimed at titillation. My feeling is this is because RPG books tend to be illustrative, and if you include nudity in an image to convey a feeling or mood, people take it quite literally. Does it have a place? Does it annoy you? Do you think we could use more art that isn't so literal?
I think that the tasteful nude has a place in RPG art. As you say, most RPG art tends to be illustrative, so I can see a tasteful nude being illustrative of a NPC. Clothing should not matter as much as the bearing with which the character carries themselves.
Case in point, if you know of the performance of Audrey Hepburn in the movie
Roman Holiday, there is a scene where her character comes into her own as a member of royalty. She is wearing a night gown and getting ready for bed, but her regal bearing as she addresses her servants/keepers lets the entire audience know that she commands and is not one to be trifled with. It had nothing to do with her clothing and everything to do with the attitude being displayed.
The same can be done with a tasteful nude in RPGs.
Of course, it will just give the warriors of moral decency more ammunition, but fuck those guys.
Quote from: CRKrueger;809409Because if you're not deeply offended at Red Sonja, you're obviously a bromancer who runs screaming at the site of male nudity...or something equally idiotic.
Bromancer? WTF is that?
Quote from: jeff37923;809687Bromancer? WTF is that?
Obviously someone who divines the future from the flexing of pectoral muscles
Quote from: jeff37923;809687Bromancer? WTF is that?
Who the hell knows? Some kind of jock/bro/frat/testosterone-junkie/lift/homophobe. Meaning really a male of the species who likes looking at females. :D
Quote from: Catelf;809466It may actually have been invented for Marvel's Hyborean version of Red Sonja.
They needed someone with a similar degree of nudity as Conan at the time, but couldn't show breasts, and also wanted something ... more fancy and/or battle-like, I guess, so ... chainmail bikini.
Actually was even simpler than that. Red Sonja originally appeared in a scale male haulberk. During a battle it got torn ripped up into a sort of scale mail mini-shirt. When MArvel started a spin-off Red Sonja title, Frank Thorne took that and ran with it, creating the scale mail bikini top as her standard costume. Red Sonja has actually never worn a chainmail bikini.
Whats most interesting about Red Sonja is how she shows the huge difference in sexual attitudes between feminists in the 70s and modern feminists. Red Sonja became a feminist icon...a strong independent warrior-woman who flaunted her sexuality (70s feminism in many ways embraced a backlash against the anti-sexual roles imposed by society on "good girls", essentially institutionalized slut-shaming). These days feminists online hold up Red Sonja as the poster child for everything wrong and sexist in comics and fantasy.
Now, Broomancer, on the other hand...
Quote from: CRKrueger;809689Who the hell knows? Some kind of jock/bro/frat/testosterone-junkie/lift/homophobe. Meaning really a male of the species who likes looking at females. :D
I looked it up in the Urban Dictionary and I feel no smarter for having done so.
Quote from: Urban Dictionary on BromancerA person who can control the hearts and minds of any bro he comes into contact with. This requires the person to have intimate knowledge of the bro code and the inner working of a bros mind. Usually this individual is a hardcore bro, thus not immune to other bro-mancers. (Not to be confused with bromance)
Also, this:
(http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/22271004/images/1356749110409.jpg)
Is bro the modern word for gay?
Quote from: TristramEvans;809690Actually was even simpler than that. Red Sonja originally appeared in a scale male haulberk. During a battle it got torn ripped up into a sort of scale mail mini-shirt. When MArvel started a spin-off Red Sonja title, Frank Thorne took that and ran with it, creating the scale mail bikini top as her standard costume. Red Sonja has actually never worn a chainmail bikini.
Whats most interesting about Red Sonja is how she shows the huge difference in sexual attitudes between feminists in the 70s and modern feminists. Red Sonja became a feminist icon...a strong independent warrior-woman who flaunted her sexuality (70s feminism in many ways embraced a backlash against the anti-sexual roles imposed by society on "good girls", essentially institutionalized slut-shaming). These days feminists online hold up Red Sonja as the poster child for everything wrong and sexist in comics and fantasy.
Never?
.... I think that depends on how one interprets "bikini" I guess, as you are technically correct, since the bottom part isn't formed as a thong or such, it simply hangs down.
Quote from: Catelf;809700Never?
.... I think that depends on how one interprets "bikini" I guess, as you are technically correct, since the bottom part isn't formed as a thong or such, it simply hangs down.
I meant
chain mail. Red Sonja in the Marvel comics has only ever worn scale mail.
Of course, -nobody- has ever worn chainmail!
Quote from: Will;809710Of course, -nobody- has ever worn chainmail!
Um, I wore it last weekend at SCA.
No you didn't.
Quote from: Will;809716No you didn't.
(http://th00.deviantart.net/fs71/200H/i/2012/257/c/8/um______okay_then_____by_blockwave-d5emqjm.jpg)
(I'm just being pedantic for hopeful humor value about the 'fact' there's chain and maille but 'chainmail' is bs someone made up about 100 years back)
Double checking, even the 'chain' bit is complete hooey.
Quote from: Will;809728(I'm just being pedantic for hopeful humor value about the 'fact' there's chain and maille but 'chainmail' is bs someone made up about 100 years back)
Anglicization is good for the soul. We've got to fight back against institutionalized Norman oppression encoded in our language. Down with the Frenchiarchy!
Get back on the topic, serfs.
I'm more than okay with tasteful nudity. Even with a bit of not so tasteful nudity. But I'd very much expect a Fables of Thousand and One Night RPG, or Sword & Sorcery ones, to have a tasteful harem scene, perhaps a reference to the famous Odalisque paintings of the XIX century.
Quote from: TristramEvans;809707I meant chain mail. Red Sonja in the Marvel comics has only ever worn scale mail.
Ah, yes, sorry for misunderstanding (and misreading).
You are definitely correct on that.
I do not seem to be alone in that misunderstanding, though.
Quote from: TristramEvans;809729Anglicization is good for the soul. We've got to fight back against institutionalized Norman oppression encoded in our language. Down with the Frenchiarchy!
Je suis Charlie Hebdo
But if you are going to have nudes please have them with period correct shaved arm pits. I can handle chain mail bikinis in fantasy RPGs but if I have to look at some furry French woman in a chain mail bikini it ruins all the "fantasy" in my rpg.
Quote from: Will;809710Of course, -nobody- has ever worn chainmail!
I imagine they would look rather silly. Chain mail is real, although they are most often referred to as chain letters. These days with ubiquitous e-mail, chainmail is more common than ever. :p
See what I mean the conversation is about how much boobage you can get away with and tasteful nudity is always tasteful female nudity. Hareems, red Sonja, etc no discussion about naked male wrestling, tasteful male bath scenes, or classical Greek styled man love....
Quote from: jibbajibba;809803See what I mean the conversation is about how much boobage you can get away with and tasteful nudity is always tasteful female nudity. Hareems, red Sonja, etc no discussion about naked male wrestling, tasteful male bath scenes, or classical Greek styled man love....
Mostly because probably nobody'll be in arms about it, or at least - nobody who can whip up a frenzied Internet mob. I'm down with them as well. Especially the last one.
Quote from: jibbajibba;809803See what I mean the conversation is about how much boobage you can get away with
I havent noticed
anyone talking about that.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;809755Je suis Charlie Hebdo
I am Alfred P. Neuman
For those crying, "What about the mens nudies!" may I direct your attention to the genre of yaoi manga and anime. Some of it is even tasteful.
Quote from: jibbajibba;809803See what I mean the conversation is about how much boobage you can get away with and tasteful nudity is always tasteful female nudity. Hareems, red Sonja, etc no discussion about naked male wrestling, tasteful male bath scenes, or classical Greek styled man love....
People don't normally argue for something unless they have a vested interest. I am OK with balance. I probably have a couple of naked dude miniatures and there are actually plenty of companies out there that make naked dude miniatures.
But if I am going to support nudity in RPGs, there's only so many pages in a book....
I'm pretty selfish I guess... which is why so much personal preference gets labeled as misogyny in this day and age.
Quote from: jeff37923;809687Bromancer? WTF is that?
Derogatory slur aimed "red blooded manly men" types (Cisgendered and Caucasian, IME), hyper masculine high fiving and are terrified at any reference, image or experience (like accidentally touching another man's ass or complimenting their appearance) that could be even vaguely thought of as "gay" or homoerotic unless the magic words "No Homo" are quickly uttered. Can be an accusation or implication of being extremely even violently homophobic and/or a closeted homosexual overcompensating.
Like most stereotype examples exist so there is a kernel of truth to it but its often used a hugely broad brush to smear pretty much all heterosexual males that act in a traditionally masculine manner Can be synonymous or related with meat head, muscle head, Guido, jocks and dudes. "Dudebro" was popular for awhile on TBP but I haven't seen it for awhile.
Quote from: jibbajibba;809803See what I mean the conversation is about how much boobage you can get away with and tasteful nudity is always tasteful female nudity. Hareems, red Sonja, etc no discussion about naked male wrestling, tasteful male bath scenes, or classical Greek styled man love....
That'll be a 100 yr Ban for "What about the Menz!?"
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809186I am just curious what people think about nudity in RPG books that isn't the chain mail bikini variety. I was having a conversation with one of my artists who was a bit frustrated that there isn't much place for the kind of nudity you see all over the rest of the art world in games. The artist was thinking more along the lines of stuff that tries to capture the beauty of the human form but isn't aimed at titillation. My feeling is this is because RPG books tend to be illustrative, and if you include nudity in an image to convey a feeling or mood, people take it quite literally. Does it have a place? Does it annoy you? Do you think we could use more art that isn't so literal?
Nude nuns with machineguns seems to be popular.
For me: I like Frazetta-style drawings.
Yeah. I like Frazetta-style stuff, but not the modern spinal contortionist thing.
I think because Frazetta's stuff has active, exciting poses that are more than just 'hey, look, tits,' whereas if you have a sorceress in a porn star pose it's... well, stupid.
Unless the sorceress is actually having sex.
And even then, the poses on covers and stuff would be terrible porn.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809191How would you feel about nudity that is a stylistic choice, that isn't meant to be taken literally. For example something like Watson and the Shark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_and_the_Shark).
Brendan - I don't like the idea of nudes thrown into the book just as decoration, regardless of how tasteful they are.
As Omega pointed out, I would expect nude illustrations in a Barsoom RPG, as well as in something based on sub-Saharan African, or others. However, if there is little expectation of nude PCs or NPCs as part of adventures, it seems weird to me to have nude illustrations.
Quote from: jibbajibba;809803See what I mean the conversation is about how much boobage you can get away with and tasteful nudity is always tasteful female nudity. Hareems, red Sonja, etc no discussion about naked male wrestling, tasteful male bath scenes, or classical Greek styled man love....
In post #9 I said the following.
Quote from: Bren;809201I expect nudity in certain settings e.g. Greek atheletes, Celtic warriors, slaves in Rome, most any setting where people are having sex. Whether nudity is appropriate in an RPG depends on what is being depicted and what the setting is.
Lot of menz in those categories. Hell, I even specifically mentioned naked Greek atheletes. (And it's not like I was the only person to mention male nudity.)
Are you just not bother to read the thread or are you trying to troll it.
Quote from: jhkim;809934Brendan - I don't like the idea of nudes thrown into the book just as decoration, regardless of how tasteful they are.
As Omega pointed out, I would expect nude illustrations in a Barsoom RPG, as well as in something based on sub-Saharan African, or others. However, if there is little expectation of nude PCs or NPCs as part of adventures, it seems weird to me to have nude illustrations.
"I don't like" is an acceptable response.
"I think there is a moral problem with..." requires a lot more unpacking (especially if the book's for adults).
Quote from: Zak S;809984"I think there is a moral problem with..." requires a lot more unpacking (especially if the book's for adults).
Given that we have one game that features Caligula as a hero and another where the whole point is to be murderous mobsters,I've long assumed adults are our audience. I don't think our books need ADULT on the cover or anything but I never imagine our books are intended for teenagers or younger. That said,we have never featured nudity in our books. In this case I feel like the artist made a very good case to me why it was a good idea. Certainly don't want to alienate readers but I do want to put out a book that does what we want. This is definitely a more experimental project than some of our other games.
I do appreciate the honest feedback from everyone. It is helpful. At least I know what we are getting into if we go this direction.
Quote from: jibbajibba;809803See what I mean the conversation is about how much boobage you can get away with and tasteful nudity is always tasteful female nudity. Hareems, red Sonja, etc no discussion about naked male wrestling, tasteful male bath scenes, or classical Greek styled man love....
I think different artists are inspired by different things. We definitely are not going for max boobage with this book. The artist is a woman and she is more inpspired by the female form than the male form (she has stated this very clearly to me on many occassions). I can't force her to draw naked men just to appease some sense that there should be an equal amount of male and female nudity in the book since this is a project where she is my creative partner. If I had more artists on this project (which budget constraints won't allow) things might be different.
Generally we have avoided nudity and I only consider it in this case because it feels quite appropriate. If an artist made a strong case though, I wouldn't at all be opposed to male nudity in another project. After all Greek and Roman stuff is filled with male nudity and no one bats an eye.
It always struck me as weird how in the US is perfectly acceptable to show a crushed skull or a mutilated murder victim during prime time but showing too much side boo was "edgy" and a full on titty verboten (at least without all sorts of fanfare and warnings followed by outraged protests).
I think I have an odd perspective on the chainmail bikini/female armor thing,. Most of the characters that have worn things like that in our games have had female players. Not all of them but they've been the majority (including a preistess of fertility/love goddess that went nude except for ceremonial adornments and jewelry). Their players liked feeling sexy and powerful (being such a badass you didn't need armor) and I guess well brought into the Full Frontal Assault trope in general. There were allot of loincloth wearing barbarian warriors and shirtless rogues too.
I haven't run into women that have been offended, at worst there's been some rolled eyes and shrugs. No one stormed off in offense. Those experiences have shaped my attitude about nudity (and sexuality but that's a different topic) in rpgs. I'm pretty relaxed about it and I wouldn't mind nude images in rpg books. even explicit ones if its works for the context needed.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;810020After all Greek and Roman stuff is filled with male nudity and no one bats an eye.
No one except Queen Victoria, a number of Popes, and any number of modern day artistic expurgators. But they aren't usually the target market for RPGs.
The United States is locked in full blown psycho stupid over the issues of Sex and Violence. The internet only made it worse.
Sex Sells has been taken to the extreme where many young women live in sexy-selfie-wars with each other BUT political correctness says men are to live in fear of being accused of "eye rape", meanwhile the free porn spank kingdom has exploded like never.
And fashion and celeb mags are in show-more-side-boob battles, and their customer base is women. And men can get so much video of ass action that they'd chaff their dicks off long before they run out of fresh imagery. If I was 15 in 2015, I doubt I'd walk right.
Allow that image to sink in...
So...RPG publishers? I think you are fucked, fucked, triple fucked if you go near nudity because we live in an age of uber-dumb.
That said, know your audience.
If your audience says yes to nudity in your books, then tell the Online Censor Mob to fucking die die die and publish whatever your customer base likes.
Everything is freaking micro-niche today that I think you can give your fans what they want IF IF IF you are willing to throw down against (or ignore) the Censor Mob.
Quote from: Bren;810031No one except Queen Victoria, a number of Popes, and any number of modern day artistic expurgators. But they aren't usually the target market for RPGs.
Victorians and Popes definitely not our audience.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;810097Victorians and Popes definitely not our audience.
To limited? Maybe for a one off? ;)
I am curious what you'll end up with art-wise.
When confronted with issues of good taste and decency I like to think about what Bender might have to say? I suspect it would go something like this?
"Tasteful nudity in roleplaying games? I say we should have more nudity in roleplaying games, tasteful or not. In fact forget about the roleplaying game."
Quote from: Bren;810105To limited? Maybe for a one off? ;)
I am curious what you'll end up with art-wise.
Right now we are just talking about nudity for one image. Most likely a goddess. It is a very different project and different style of art than we normally do.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;810017Given that we have one game that features Caligula as a hero and another where the whole point is to be murderous mobsters,I've long assumed adults are our audience. I don't think our books need ADULT on the cover or anything but I never imagine our books are intended for teenagers or younger. That said,we have never featured nudity in our books. In this case I feel like the artist made a very good case to me why it was a good idea. Certainly don't want to alienate readers but I do want to put out a book that does what we want. This is definitely a more experimental project than some of our other games.
I do appreciate the honest feedback from everyone. It is helpful. At least I know what we are getting into if we go this direction.
Heres a bit of advice that might or might not work for you.
When I did the prelim illos for SMT I worked with the idea that there would be two books. One with more adult art in it, and one with none. It was the same approach I used when shipping Red Shetland. The order form had a check mark for adult or non. This determined the interior art and which comic book shipped with the RPG as well.
GOO some years later did a simmilar thing with one of their BESM expansions. Though for that all they did was change the cover art and title to appease retailers.
Original cover
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51GqXBtMUCL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
censored cover
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51RSRGzSx1L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
You might want to consider that option IF it is feasable.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;810113Right now we are just talking about nudity for one image. Most likely a goddess. It is a very different project and different style of art than we normally do.
Dude, if there's one kind of depiction where hardly anyone sane would object to nudity it's that of a goddess. They kind of wear and do what they feel like, you know?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;810097Victorians and Popes definitely not our audience.
I would love to run Call of Cthulhu for the Pope.
Quote from: Spinachcat;810092The United States is locked in full blown psycho stupid over the issues of Sex and Violence. The internet only made it worse.
If 9/11 had been started by topless feminists, America might have done something a little bit crazy.
JG
How did I not buy a book called Cute & Fuzzy Cockfighting Seizure Monsters???
It's Pokemon for BESM, right? Good stuff or not?
Quote from: James Gillen;810161If 9/11 had been started by topless feminists, America might have done something a little bit crazy.
There'd be a special Hot or Not website just for terrorists? The webmaster of Rate My Boobs gets interviewed on the nightly news?
Still would have invaded Iraq though, but Janet Jackson totally gets thrown in Gitmo.
Quote from: Spinachcat;810238Still would have invaded Iraq though, but Janet Jackson totally gets thrown in Gitmo.
If that's not already a porno, it should be.
Quote from: CRKrueger;810250If that's not already a porno, it should be.
It is now. Law of Quantum Internet Perversity aka: Schrodinger's Porn.
Will...not...google...
Quote from: Spinachcat;810273Will...not...google...
Yeah, right.
Should...not...have...googled...
Quote from: Spinachcat;810238How did I not buy a book called Cute & Fuzzy Cockfighting Seizure Monsters???
It's Pokemon for BESM, right? Good stuff or not?
Battling pet monsters for BESM. Its in part a jab at the whole genre which IS cockfighing. The rules included playing the pets and playing the owners.
And speaking of nudity. Their Tenchi Muyo RPG had a few nude pics in it, all from the anime and pretty well selected too. The series itself was pretty tame too for that matter.
Quote from: Silverlion;809187I'll be honest, I don't know. I don't mind a well done human figure, however, I'm not sure we should be treating game books as "art books," and most of the nudity of artistic types I've seen are all exclusive to either paintings on walls, or art books.
Nowdays you can find that in places like Deviant Art, or tumblr. Yet, while I know its there, its not something I look for--it simply is a thing.
A lot of it may depend on "what nude" and "what is he/she doing" (why yes, there should be nude males if there are nude females.)
However, what instance in a game book would a nude art piece illustrate? I mean, fighting nude is not smart. Standing there nude illustrates nothing going on in a game, so really what would the purpose of nude art serve?
Hellas for example has a few bits in its books IIRC, and it fits the Greek themes, but I'm not sure where else that would be appropriate for a gaming context.
Plus, I don't want to have to hide game books I'm reading when I'm visiting friends because of an artistic choice--they have kids not of an age where seeing that is likely approved. (I'd have to ask) and I like being able to read my books wherever I go..
I feel devientart is a poor example to use here there definition of pornography is an insult to both art and pornography.
As for what it could convey to lift an example from my campaign nudity can be used for tragedy one of the lichs in the setting has a sever sex addiction although i was originally going to run it comically i have decided to show it as tragic instead and it would be hard to portray sex addiction without nudity. And oh god yes i hate the double standards of male and female nudity it is one of the biggest problems with the previously mentioned devientart definition of pornography. And i dont know if it really falls under tasteful but nudity also works well for creatures such as the succubus crack open the book of vile darkness theres breasts everywhere but it all works well. I would not find having to hide my books a problem as i dont think i would be friends with somebody that thought it a good idea to hide there children from genitals. even none tasteful nudity can be alright sometimes the 3.5 monster manual nymph was pure fapbait but thats ok nymphs are meant to be attractive.
Ah, to be 13 again.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809191How would you feel about nudity that is a stylistic choice, that isn't meant to be taken literally. For example something like Watson and the Shark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_and_the_Shark).
not a big fan
Quote from: tuypo1;810366As for what it could convey to lift an example from my campaign nudity can be used for tragedy one of the lichs in the setting has a sever sex addiction although i was originally going to run it comically i have decided to show it as tragic instead and it would be hard to portray sex addiction without nudity. And oh god yes i hate the double standards of male and female nudity it is one of the biggest problems with the previously mentioned devientart definition of pornography. And i dont know if it really falls under tasteful but nudity also works well for creatures such as the succubus crack open the book of vile darkness theres breasts everywhere but it all works well. I would not find having to hide my books a problem as i dont think i would be friends with somebody that thought it a good idea to hide there children from genitals. even none tasteful nudity can be alright sometimes the 3.5 monster manual nymph was pure fapbait but thats ok nymphs are meant to be attractive.
I believe by "tasteful nudity", the implication was that it wasn't going to have anything to do with sex.
The inability of modern audiences to distinguish between nudity and sex is why this is such a problematic subject for some people.
Hell, I think the whole idea that sex is something terribly shameful that sullies and lessens all it comes in contact is problematic. But that's probably beyond the scope of this discussion.
Quote from: Nexus;810381Hell, I think the whole idea that sex is something terribly shameful that sullies and lessens all it comes in contact is problematic. But that's probably beyond the scope of this discussion.
(http://www.troll.me/images2/zardoz-god-head/penis-bad-guns-good.jpg)
I think Tristram won the thread.
Quote from: CRKrueger;809403I wouldn't want an RPG book full of cock, but one full of vaginas probably wouldn't be that great either. A Succubus/Incubus full frontal though isn't gonna make me rub one out or scream in homophobic panic either way.
It's art. You wanna make Faeries/Dryads/Nymphs/Nereids wearing diaphanous clothes or nothing at all, whatever. You want to show a group of Satyrs with erections dancing with naked women, whatever. If the art is good, it works, if it sucks, it doesn't. If it's obviously pornographic and designed to masturbate too, that generally doesn't work in a RPG book. If it gets across the look and feel of the world despite being sexually charged or erotic, then it generally does. (See Artesia)
A lot of the cheesecake art in RPG books doesn't belong because it's not well done, not because it is a taboo subject.
Yep, my opinion exactly. If it fits, it fits, and I do not care if it's male, female, frontal or not, with or without sex. As long as the ilustrations are well done and have a reason to be there, I'm OK.
Cock: The Vaginining.
Quote from: TristramEvans;810382(http://www.troll.me/images2/zardoz-god-head/penis-bad-guns-good.jpg)
I never noticed how much the Zardoz head looked like a giant glans until now.
Quote from: TristramEvans;810382(http://www.troll.me/images2/zardoz-god-head/penis-bad-guns-good.jpg)
That image makes me wonder what the world would be like if the Abrahamic Faiths were based on a fertility goddess instead of a desert war god.
Quote from: CRKrueger;810440That image makes me wonder what the world would be like if the Abrahamic Faiths were based on a fertility goddess instead of a desert war god.
Maybe like this
(http://www.annodomini.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/IshtarGateWonder2.jpg)
or this
(http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/lookandlearn-preview/B/B001/B001774.jpg)
(http://nonahyytinen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/8.jpg)
(http://www.kenney-mencher.com/pic_old/aegean/crete_knossos_artists_reconstruction_steps.jpg)
Quote from: TristramEvans;810374I believe by "tasteful nudity", the implication was that it wasn't going to have anything to do with sex.
The inability of modern audiences to distinguish between nudity and sex is why this is such a problematic subject for some people.
Oh i agree completely but it is for precisely that reason its worth bringing tasteful sex into the discussion. The aforementioned sex addiction does not even need nudity in it to portray its purpose but in the same vein it would be foolish to avoid nudity in it as well if the piece of art makes sense to have a nipple in it have a nipple otherwise dont have a nipple you should neither seek or avoid genitals.
Getting people to understand that sex is not bad is also important the book of exalted deeds was a step in the right direction in getting that across even if the vow of abstinence did send mixed messages although that gets a pass if you read the book carefully because its explicitly stated to be about giving up a good thing. The abstinince components on spells though were completely stupid and does muddle the message.
I am sure there is a Busen Memo joke in there somewhere...
Spoiler
(http://www.boardgameguru.co.uk/ekmps/shops/boardgameguru/images/busen-memo-8678-p.jpg)
Or The Backbone...
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/4/4/0/123440_v1.jpg)
Quote from: Bren;810473Maybe like this
(http://www.annodomini.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/IshtarGateWonder2.jpg)
or this
(http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/lookandlearn-preview/B/B001/B001774.jpg)
(http://nonahyytinen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/8.jpg)
(http://www.kenney-mencher.com/pic_old/aegean/crete_knossos_artists_reconstruction_steps.jpg)
Mehhh....I was going to right a very long winded argument with a jaded sarcastic view that our world would eventually be exactly the same even if our cultures had been founded on a "fertility Goddess" as presented in these pictures.
But never mind....
But I maintain it would end up probably exactly the same since no religion has ever been able to permanently reform the core nature of humanity.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;810701But I maintain it would end up probably exactly the same since no religion has ever been able to permanently reform the core nature of humanity.
Nope, but they sure as hell have been able to fuck things up.
A society based on a fertility/pro-life goddess would have its own inherint problems and could go in all sorts of VERY bad directions.
Rampant Overpopulation is potentially the big one. If there arent any checks on population growth then they will spread like locusts. This could lead to starvation, canniballism, incessant wars, lethal bloodsports, or other problems to alleviate the pressure if resources become limited.
One one Post Apoc setting I played in we ran into a pro-life extremist faction that became major threat for the campaign as they were literally forcing more and more births without any thought to the environment.
Speaking of post apoc. One of the illustrators for the original Omega World book did a piece showing an otherworldly characters first arrival naked. Nothing sexual to it and was a herm so no discrimination... But that one went in the "adult" print. ahem...
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;810701Mehhh....I was going to right a very long winded argument with a jaded sarcastic view that our world would eventually be exactly the same even if our cultures had been founded on a "fertility Goddess" as presented in these pictures.
But never mind....
But I maintain it would end up probably exactly the same since no religion has ever been able to permanently reform the core nature of humanity.
Which is why people behave exactly the same regardless of time period, culture, or upbringing...oh wait a minute. :rolleyes:
No the other thing where culture and nurture do change the way people behave.
Are you seriously trying to claim that culture has no effect on how people behave? So culture doesn't matter at all? Not one bit?
You are going to need a really long and convincing post to support that.
Quote from: Bren;810752Which is why people behave exactly the same regardless of time period, culture, or upbringing...oh wait a minute. :rolleyes:
No the other thing where culture and nurture do change the way people behave.
Are you seriously trying to claim that culture has no effect on how people behave? So culture doesn't matter at all? Not one bit?
You are going to need a really long and convincing post to support that.
Nahh...it doesn't need to be that long. Jealousy, greed, desire for power, even the most basic desire to see your offspring do just a bit better and "give them every advantage" are universal principles across all cultures from the most leftist Asian and Latin American nations to the most capitalist U.S.
It doesn't matter if you are an Arab Sheik or the leader of an Israeli Kibutz. It doesn't in the most matriarchal Nepal.
It didn't matter to the ancient Germanic or American Indian tribes where the family in power enjoyed the best food and best work. They all had to fight to stay in power, they all wanted to stay in power for the sake of their progeny.
Since the advent of the first human family our wolf pack nature has flourished and evolved into what we call culture and society. I'm not saying that is bad, I'm just saying I doubt it would be any different.
Look at the picture with the women sitting around with their breaststroke exposed. Why? Why would they do that and the rest of their bodies covered and the males' genitals covered?
The only reason for that in that picture is to show that you are capable of feeding your children better. It's a "stylized penile display" for a fictitious matriarchal culture. And if you have displays of superiority you have all that other stuff I said earlier and you end up just like the rest of us.
The poster asked for an interpretation of that culture based on those pictures. My analysis on both the pictures and topic. YMMV in all
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;810763Nahh...it doesn't need to be that long. Jealousy, greed, desire for power, even the most basic desire to see your offspring do just a bit better and "give them every advantage" are universal principles across all cultures from the most leftist Asian and Latin American nations to the most capitalist U.S.
You haven't demonstrated your contention. The notion that universal desires always lead to exactly the same behaviors is contradicted by all of human history. It's the details that matter. The how cultures go about satisfying needs and desires is the interesting part. Yeah everybody gets hungry, but a world or a game world where hunger is satisfied by generic food - no taste, no flavor, no spice - is good awful boring.
QuoteThe only reason for that in that picture is to show that you are capable of feeding your children better. It's a "stylized penile display" for a fictitious matriarchal culture. And if you have displays of superiority you have all that other stuff I said earlier and you end up just like the rest of us.
Trivia point: those aren't pictures from fictitious cultures. Those are from two actual cultures. The Blue Gate is the Ishtar Gate in Bablyon and the other pics are from Minoan Crete.
Again, if everybody is just like us, why does our culture not use naked breasts openly displayed as a sign of superior motherhood? Shouldn't all women, in every society do that since we are all the same? And if we don't all behave the same then what do you mean by saying everyone is the same?
Actually I'm fond of the theory that most mammals are attracted to the buttocks but because humans are upright we developed an attraction to the front of the females. But even now, we have an avatistic urge to push the breasts up and together so they look like a buttocks.
Citation: too too many hours of talk radio. Even so, I think it makes more sense than the baby faucet theory.
Clearly breasts developed for sex. Because big round pert breasts actually are terrible for breastfeeding humans.
Quote from: tuypo1;810576Oh i agree completely but it is for precisely that reason its worth bringing tasteful sex into the discussion. The aforementioned sex addiction does not even need nudity in it to portray its purpose but in the same vein it would be foolish to avoid nudity in it as well if the piece of art makes sense to have a nipple in it have a nipple otherwise dont have a nipple you should neither seek or avoid genitals.
Getting people to understand that sex is not bad is also important the book of exalted deeds was a step in the right direction in getting that across even if the vow of abstinence did send mixed messages although that gets a pass if you read the book carefully because its explicitly stated to be about giving up a good thing. The abstinince components on spells though were completely stupid and does muddle the message.
Sheesh, that almost sounds like an idea I have had on something I call "living Houri" would be a good one, considering it is very possible to be sensual, sexual, and even give sexual pleasure without having intercourse, just ask BDSM-practioners and fetishists.....
Quote from: David Johansen;810828Actually I'm fond of the theory that most mammals are attracted to the buttocks but because humans are upright we developed an attraction to the front of the females. But even now, we have an avatistic urge to push the breasts up and together so they look like a buttocks.
Citation: too too many hours of talk radio. Even so, I think it makes more sense than the baby faucet theory.
I am certain you are correct, I have had that impression and perhaps opinion for at least more than a decade, if not for two.
Breasts has gotten shaped like that due to selection, as they looks like butts.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;810763Look at the picture with the women sitting around with their breaststroke exposed. Why? Why would they do that and the rest of their bodies covered and the males' genitals covered?
The only reason for that in that picture is to show that you are capable of feeding your children better. It's a "stylized penile display" for a fictitious matriarchal culture. And if you have displays of superiority you have all that other stuff I said earlier and you end up just like the rest of us.
Oh for f**** sake, what utter bollocks.
Obviously you haven't had children or you've grown up in a highly repressed society, because the main reason for not covering your breasts as a woman is that it enables you to easily breastfeed without the hassle of partially disrobing. Its a simple case of convenience in a time when contraception was either unavailable or very dangerous, woven cloth is expensive, and laundry is damn hard work.
And as Bren points out they are illustrations of fashion from ancient Babylon and Crete.
Quote from: Pete Nash;810913Oh for f**** sake, what utter bollocks.
Obviously you haven't had children or you've grown up in a highly repressed society, because the main reason for not covering your breasts as a woman is that it enables you to easily breastfeed without the hassle of partially disrobing. Its a simple case of convenience in a time when contraception was either unavailable or very dangerous, woven cloth is expensive, and laundry is damn hard work.
And as Bren points out they are illustrations of fashion from ancient Babylon and Crete.
Bollocks mate.
Women that can afford those sorts of clothes and live in those sorts of places never breastfed their own children. They had wet nurses for that.
The illustration is awful. Technically awful. Subject matter is awful.
The main reason for women to sit round with their breasts exposed is to make money from punters for a lap dance surely?
Quote from: jibbajibba;810915The illustration is awful. Technically awful. Subject matter is awful.
Jesus Christ dude, google Minoan Crete artwork. Notice a pattern? The open-breasted dress on ancient frescos, urns and plates was pretty common.
Descended from Britons, Saxons, and then the Danes, how the hell did Brits come to fear the tit?
Quote from: CRKrueger;810916Jesus Christ dude, google Minoan Crete artwork. Notice a pattern? The open-breasted dress on ancient frescos, urns and plates was pretty common.
Descended from Britons, Saxons, and then the Danes, how the hell did Brits come to fear the tit?
Cranmer & Cromwell.
Though it's a bit more complicated - in Ancient Egypt, clothes were an indication of rank. So while attitudes towards sexuality of body were lax, people who could afford it clothed themselves, as an indication that, well, they could afford to go around in clothes that'd need people to be regularly washed off from sweat. Similar'd be with Minoan civilisations, with an exception of apparent disrobing of both sexes for sport activities.
Though of course, if on the other hand, French Court journals from days of Lous XIII - XVI are to be trusted, you didn't need any desire for breast - feeding to see a lot of exposed breasts in the zenith hours of a party.
If I had realized so many people would be confused by illustrations of historical reconstructions, I'd have included the citations for the cultures along with the illustrations.
As an aside, this same thread on EnWorld was enlightening... :-)
From the posts there I would likely skip ANY controversial images in a product. Instead saving them for an "adult" rated product with the "mature themes" warnings slapped on it for good measure. Perhaps a "warning: boobies ahead" banner...
Quote from: jibbajibba;810915Bollocks mate.
Women that can afford those sorts of clothes and live in those sorts of places never breastfed their own children. They had wet nurses for that.
As far as I know there are no mention of wet-nurses in any Minoan Linear A or Mycenaean Linear B literature found so far. The earliest
concrete mention is Euryclea in the Odyssey which is post Minoan, although her lifelong duties in Odysseus's household imply she was more a nanny. However I won't contend the point that nurses (wet or not) become more popular by the time of classical Greece.
The inbuilt desire for most women to breastfeed their own offspring aside, there is plenty of iconography showing Cretan and Middle-eastern females either topless or wearing such open fronted bodices, some of whom are dancing - which
potentially implies someone of lower rank (dancers being a low status profession at least in the later Greek world).
For example:
http://www.sourcememory.net/art/greece/vapheio.png
http://www.sourcememory.net/art/greece/minet_elbeida.jpg
http://www.sourcememory.net/art/greece/myc1.jpg
http://www.sourcememory.net/art/greece/ivory_mycenae15th.jpg
But if that doesn't clinch it for you, here's a Minoan figurine of a topless woman wearing skirts and jewelry, nursing her infant.
http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/Figurine_Brussels_Front.JPG
Of course iconography is open to interpretation, but there is absolutely no evidence that "
Women that can afford those sorts of clothes and live in those sorts of places
never breastfed their own children." Whereas I can point to dozens of cultures over thousands of years where women who have access to clothing, deliberately leave their breasts bared for ease of child care.
Anyone who has raised a baby without bottle feeding or had to handle the never ending pile of lactation-stained laundry will know where I'm coming from...
That's the classiest OH SNAP I've ever read.
I have no problem with nudity.
Quote from: David Johansen;810828Actually I'm fond of the theory that most mammals are attracted to the buttocks but because humans are upright we developed an attraction to the front of the females. But even now, we have an avatistic urge to push the breasts up and together so they look like a buttocks.
Citation: too too many hours of talk radio. Even so, I think it makes more sense than the baby faucet theory.
Quote from: Will;810830Clearly breasts developed for sex. Because big round pert breasts actually are terrible for breastfeeding humans.
This is a theory proposed by Desmond Morris in the book
The Naked Ape.JG
Brendan - for what its worth, nudity in outer plane situations is something I would consider.
How many images of hell show folks suffering fully clothed? The wicked are nude as a part of their suffering; the faithful are nude because they are clothed in innocence or purity (or maybe in filmy, moisture resistant comfortable wear for cloud play).
How many deities are depicted nude or partially nude as well - thinking especially those in warmer climates - Greek gods, Egyptian, etc?
Quote from: Catelf;810834Sheesh, that almost sounds like an idea I have had on something I call "living Houri" would be a good one, considering it is very possible to be sensual, sexual, and even give sexual pleasure without having intercourse, just ask BDSM-practioners and fetishists.....
i do have a friend whos a dom i might go do just that
Quote from: Bren;810928If I had realized so many people would be confused by illustrations of historical reconstructions, I'd have included the citations for the cultures along with the illustrations.
regardless of peoples responses you should have cited the cultures (the artists to but thats not as important)
Quote from: tuypo1;811086regardless of peoples responses you should have cited the cultures (the artists to but thats not as important)
Hiint: Look at the post, hit "Quote" and follow the web address in the Image.
Okay....
Anything wrong with this cover?:
(http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/wizards/img/cover_lg.jpg)
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;811092Okay....
Anything wrong with this cover?:
It's odd that she is sucking her stomach in like someone posing for a swimsuit photo while she is doing a spell.
Quote from: Koltar;811092Okay....
Anything wrong with this cover?:
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/wizards/img/cover_lg.jpg
- Ed C.
As far as taste goes? I don't think so. I like the art style and I am not enough of an artist to truly technically critique it so it seems fine to me. Magical rites performed in the nude aren't uncommon.
Quote from: Bren;811093It's odd that she is sucking her stomach in like someone posing for a swimsuit photo while she is doing a spell.
That's the somatic component. The material component was apparently most of her clothing.
At first I thought she was maybe holding her breath because the incense was poisonous, but I realized that would have expanded her diaphram not her chest.
Quote from: rawma;811095That's the somatic component. The material component was apparently most of her clothing.
Now I get it. I just never made the connection. :D
Quote from: Lynn;811068Brendan - for what its worth, nudity in outer plane situations is something I would consider.
How many images of hell show folks suffering fully clothed? The wicked are nude as a part of their suffering; the faithful are nude because they are clothed in innocence or purity (or maybe in filmy, moisture resistant comfortable wear for cloud play).
How many deities are depicted nude or partially nude as well - thinking especially those in warmer climates - Greek gods, Egyptian, etc?
Now I'm picturing a mashup of
Barbarella and
Planescape
Quote from: Koltar;811092Okay....
Anything wrong with this cover?:
(http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/wizards/img/cover_lg.jpg)
- Ed C.
Her bangs are weird
Hair Bra is wimping out. Real answer to your question, of course not.
Quote from: Koltar;811092Okay....
Anything wrong with this cover?:
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/wizards/img/cover_lg.jpg
Thanks for the specific example. I'm not familiar with the book content, but I believe it is a non-setting-specific resource book for magic - right? So there's no real telling if the nudity is appropriate for the setting per se. Is there anything in the book that suggests nudity as an option for characters? i.e. Are there any reasons in the book for a caster to be nude when doing a ritual?
As I suggested earlier, my usual criteria is that I like the covers to have something to do with the actual RPG content. So if there are expected to be nude PCs and/or NPCs as significant parts of the game, I'd expect them in illustrations.
Lacking the specifics, though, I would lean towards thinking it is a decorative nude, which I generally dislike - because it doesn't seem like something from an expected adventure, but rather just a bit of eye candy. (The sucked-in stomach and shaven armpits also suggest that to me.)
I think it's a great piece BECAUSE it's eye-catching! :-) When this book was published, it was expected to be competing with other books on a book shelf in a gaming store. I have a "print" of this picture framed on my wall in my family room! :-) I feel it is appropriate to the themes in the book AND the marketing strategy used at the time.
In the modern era of micro-publishing, POD, PDF and the uber-niche markets carved out of the niche market, I imagine it's really up to your potential audience how you might want to market a book. The potential marketing techniques you use to garner interest could involve myriad things outside (or in addition to) an enticing picture of hinted boobies. :-)
At least it doesn't attempt to show her cleavage AND ass crack simultaneously. That's something.
That particular cover?
The artist is Rowena - a woman.
Its also a self-portrait of sorts. She used herself as the model.
About 3 or 4 years ago she was at GEN*CON signing autographs and selling artworks. Over the years she also done the artwork for paperback books written by Anne McCaffrey.
Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowena_Morrill
and:
http://www.pern.nl/art_gallery/official/morrill.html
- Ed C.
Quote from: trechriron;811113I think it's a great piece BECAUSE it's eye-catching! :-) When this book was published, it was expected to be competing with other books on a book shelf in a gaming store. I have a "print" of this picture framed on my wall in my family room! :-) I feel it is appropriate to the themes in the book AND the marketing strategy used at the time.
Well, would you agree with my tentative assessment that it is purely decorative? i.e. It isn't depicting expected adventure material of the game, but rather is just an image designed to be eye-catching. Or is there a template in the book that fits with doing rituals in the nude, for example?
Most of the other GURPS covers show stuff that seems like it is expected from adventures: characters who could be PCs or their antagonists, action of the sort you might see in adventures, etc. Horror shows a monster; Bestiary shows a beast; Magic shows various magicians in action who seem like PCs; etc.
There are exceptions, of course. GURPS Religion is one, but it is an odd book as well - which is more about world-building than about directly supporting PC adventures. So the cover of a hooded figure holding an orb seems roughly fitting.
Quote from: rawma;811095That's the somatic component. The material component was apparently most of her clothing.
maybe its an abstinence component caster must go without clothing for a week before casting this spell
Quote from: rawma;811095That's the somatic component. The material component was apparently most of her clothing.
maybe its an abstinence component caster must go without clothing for a week before casting this spell
I think that it is a neat painting, although I'm weirded out by people without any eyebrows. But yeah, it is borderline pinup (that's almost a swimsuit pose) so I guess that one could argue that it would make more sense appearing in an artbook than in an RPG. However, I've seen several representations of witchcraft rituals (especially "satanic" ones) wherein nudity was a thing (I personally like a bit of sexy mixed in with occult stuff) so I guess that it works and that I'm a fan.
I don't quite get the perspective, though. Is that a fireplace behind her? Or is it a doorway in the background? It looks super close to her, but I'm not sure.
Quote from: jhkim;811108Thanks for the specific example. I'm not familiar with the book content, but I believe it is a non-setting-specific resource book for magic - right? So there's no real telling if the nudity is appropriate for the setting per se. Is there anything in the book that suggests nudity as an option for characters? i.e. Are there any reasons in the book for a caster to be nude when doing a ritual?
Aside from some magical traditions having rituals that are performed in the nude, no, there is no specific reason.
Quote(The sucked-in stomach and shaven armpits also suggest that to me.)
To be fair, body hair is often lacking in full clothed pictures, particularly of women. Its not generally considered aesthetically pleasing even if the picture isn't "eye candy" per se or the artist just doesn't consider it since shaving them is very common today.
I think the picture is sexy but not sexualized (assuming I understand what the Hell that's even supposed to mean). The sorceress doesn't look demeaned, deprotagonized or an object for the dreaded "male gaze". She seems confident and sure of herself with an air of implied power/knowledge to me. She's a characters that, visually at least, might be one the women in my group would be interested in playing or maybe one from her sect/cabal/coven.
And this line of discussion is a good example of why nudity will always be controversial in our current culture. Getting even a small group of people to agree on what's tasteful, let alone appropriate seems almost impossible. Nudity, especially female nudity, is hot button topic in our society.
I personally don't think art needs to cater to the norms of any society.
I also think people having a problem with nudity in art says more about them than the art.
Quote from: Koltar;811117That particular cover?
The artist is Rowena - a woman.
Its also a self-portrait of sorts. She used herself as the model.
About 3 or 4 years ago she was at GEN*CON signing autographs and selling artworks. Over the years she also done the artwork for paperback books written by Anne McCaffrey.
Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowena_Morrill
and:
http://www.pern.nl/art_gallery/official/morrill.html
- Ed C.
Pictures of Red Sonja in her classic chain mail bikini can draw completely different reactions from the same people based on the sex of the artist.
Quote from: Nexus;811163Pictures of Red Sonja in her classic chain mail bikini can draw completely different reactions from the same people based on the sex of the artist.
As someone pointed out before:
Red Sonja's classical outfit is scale mail, not chainmail.
Your point is obvious, though.
Which makes one wonder where the line is drawn ... or if one should draw a line at all?
Ultimately, there's always going to be people that have a problem with anything remotely sexual or related to the human body. There are humans who cannot conceive of someone viewing a nude body without being overcome by libidinal rapaciousness. There are people who see sexual thoughts as a sort of brain disease transferred from the viewing of anything even remotely sexual.
The important thing is to marginalize these extremists, to keep perspective and make sure they are always put in their place as the voices of the irrational. To never legitimize them even by assuming that they represent some sort of oppressed minority or have any claim to validity. Certainly do not cater to them.
Honestly, no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth by prudes online is going to negatively affect the sale of a product (in many cases I'm certain it improves it).
Quote from: Will;811115At least it doesn't attempt to show her cleavage AND ass crack simultaneously. That's something.
I see you have been looking at Escher Girls, too.
Quote from: Nexus;811158I think the picture is sexy but not sexualized (assuming I understand what the Hell that's even supposed to mean). The sorceress doesn't look demeaned, deprotagonized or an object for the dreaded "male gaze". She seems confident and sure of herself with an air of implied power/knowledge to me. She's a characters that, visually at least, might be one the women in my group would be interested in playing or maybe one from her sect/cabal/coven.
Sexualized as opposed to sexy seems to be when the artist has exaggerated certain parts or aspects of the body, just to be gratuitous.
For the female form, that is usually:
Unnecessarily much bared skin.
Cleavage.
Butt crack.
Thin waist or thin midsection.
Clothes designed to empathise the above things.
Positioning made to empathise the above things.
.....
The last one tends do be the worst one, as it may even put the character in positions that is pinup-like when it should be an action sequence, or even worse, unnecessarily turned sideways at the waist, just to show boobs and butt at the same time.
The cover illustration though, would probably be mainly (if not fully) ok, as full nudity in itself do not seem bad.
Quote from: Catelf;811172As someone pointed out before:
Red Sonja's classical outfit is scale mail, not chainmail.
"Chainmail bikini" is pretty much slang for revealing "female armor" at this point. If its a pejorative or not is, of course, up to the speaker. :D
Quote from: jhkim;811119Well, would you agree with my tentative assessment that it is purely decorative? i.e. It isn't depicting expected adventure material of the game, but rather is just an image designed to be eye-catching. ...
No. It's not
purely decorative. It is in fact depicting a wizard, with wizardly accouterments in the act of some kind of ritual. So, from that perspective, it's somewhat appropriate. You personal bias towards nudity not withstanding.
Yes. It is
also decorative, which in the expected intelligence of the SjGames folks, is not surprising. :-) Like I said, I think it was a good cover choice
because it's eye-catching.
Just to reiterate my attitude:
If I'm trying to sell sexy underwear or a romance novel, then I will absolutely put a sexy figure on the ad or cover.
If I'm trying to sell a table saw or a computer printer, then putting a sexy figure on the ad or cover is just stupid. It's absolutely allowed for people to do, but I think it's fucking dumb.
Likewise with games. More specifically...
Quote from: Nexus;811158Aside from some magical traditions having rituals that are performed in the nude, no, there is no specific reason.
Quote from: trechriron;811206No. It's not purely decorative. It is in fact depicting a wizard, with wizardly accouterments in the act of some kind of ritual. So, from that perspective, it's somewhat appropriate. You personal bias towards nudity not withstanding.
Yes, it depicts magic use. But it doesn't look to me like the magic activity pictured is actually expected or supported within the game. Nexus notes that there are some real-world magical traditions have rituals that are performed in the nude - but are any of these actually included in GURPS Wizards?
Quote from: Nexus;811158And this line of discussion is a good example of why nudity will always be controversial in our current culture. Getting even a small group of people to agree on what's tasteful, let alone appropriate seems almost impossible. Nudity, especially female nudity, is hot button topic in our society.
Nudity can be controversial, I agree, but the answer to that is to discuss it maturely. Actually, getting people to agree on artistic taste is almost impossible regardless of nudity.
(Also, while female nudity comes up more often as a topic, male nudity is far more taboo and touchy in my experience. It's just sufficiently taboo that we rarely see it - certainly not on the cover of an RPG book.)
See, I absolutely would expect nudity on the cover of, say, GURPS Witches or Druids or whatever, or neo pagan stuff, or whatever.
Or maenads... those would be fun.
'Hey, sexy drunk chicks! ... Covered in blood... holding a man's penis... with no man attached... eep'
Quote from: jhkim;811213...
Yes, it depicts magic use. But it doesn't look to me like the magic activity pictured is actually expected or supported within the game. Nexus notes that there are some real-world magical traditions have rituals that are performed in the nude - but are any of these actually included in GURPS Wizards?
...
I don't know. GURPS 4e includes a funny cinematic option for "bullet proof nudity" that gives characters better defense the less clothing they have on... :-)
I personally am OK with the image being "related" and slightly "sexy". I also OK with a cover not relating specifically to the material inside the book. It doesn't really bother me that much. But I do FEEL you on the subject. I laugh at car commercials these days because they tie in some of the most ABSURD far-reaching associations in a desperate attempt to sell cars. Also, notice how McDonald's commercials have now stopped talking about or selling food? :-)
I think you are experiencing Marketing Fatigue that has culminated into Marketing Rage and when this straw (aka a book cover of this nature) hits your back, it breaks. Which frankly, is perfectly understandable. :-)
Sword and Sorcery Studios had a funny conceit for their Scarred Lands setting: arcane spellcasting generated heat.
So the reason why the sorceress is dressed like a stripper is because otherwise she'd fall over from heat exhaustion.
(They also added a special rule that casting spells generated enough heat to protect you from certain amounts of cold weather)
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;809186I am just curious what people think about nudity in RPG books that isn't the chain mail bikini variety. I was having a conversation with one of my artists who was a bit frustrated that there isn't much place for the kind of nudity you see all over the rest of the art world in games. The artist was thinking more along the lines of stuff that tries to capture the beauty of the human form but isn't aimed at titillation. My feeling is this is because RPG books tend to be illustrative, and if you include nudity in an image to convey a feeling or mood, people take it quite literally. Does it have a place? Does it annoy you? Do you think we could use more art that isn't so literal?
I've been reading The Mists of Avalon, off and on, and there are many descriptions of the "fairy people" (I guess the picts, and other "barbarians"), who supposedly fight naked (with only paint on their bodies).
That would be an awesome illustration to have in anything based on that period of the British isles.
Quote from: jhkim;811213Yes, it depicts magic use. But it doesn't look to me like the magic activity pictured is actually expected or supported within the game. Nexus notes that there are some real-world magical traditions have rituals that are performed in the nude - but are any of these actually included in GURPS Wizards?
How can you tell from the picture along that nude rituals are not supported in the game? They are. GURPS is generic and has rules for a number magical traditions some of which have nude (skyclad) rites and rules for GMs design them if its fit their campaign.
IIRC, no, the character on the cover is not a character specifically in the book or GURPS magic line but she quite easily could be. The provisions are there for it. GURPS Wizards is a book of advice, templates, suggestions and guidelines for constructing magic using characters of many different and how to develop them using the GURPS rules. No there isn't a "Red headed sorceress that has a spell she casts in the buff" template specifically though but there isn't a "wizened man in long robes and pointy hat" template specifically either. :)
The idea exists in reality and fiction, its mentioned in the rules and can be done and the artist used it to create (IMO) a well done and compelling image that's pretty eye catching (not just for straight males but yeah its going to attract them) with a degree of nudity that I've seen on mainstream magazine covers.
Quote from: trechriron;811230I don't know. GURPS 4e includes a funny cinematic option for "bullet proof nudity" that gives characters better defense the less clothing they have on... :-)
I personally am OK with the image being "related" and slightly "sexy". I also OK with a cover not relating specifically to the material inside the book. It doesn't really bother me that much. But I do FEEL you on the subject. I laugh at car commercials these days because they tie in some of the most ABSURD far-reaching associations in a desperate attempt to sell cars. Also, notice how McDonald's commercials have now stopped talking about or selling food? :-)
The last one I saw talked up the Big Mac so much I just went and got one. :P
:D
But yeah, I think this picture has far more to do with the material in Wizards than, oh Paris Hilton in a bikini washing a car has to do with a cheeseburger (like a burger has ever passed her lips and stayed more than 5 minutes...)
:-)
[/QUOTE]
Quote from: trechriron;811230I personally am OK with the image being "related" and slightly "sexy". I also OK with a cover not relating specifically to the material inside the book. It doesn't really bother me that much. But I do FEEL you on the subject. I laugh at car commercials these days because they tie in some of the most ABSURD far-reaching associations in a desperate attempt to sell cars. Also, notice how McDonald's commercials have now stopped talking about or selling food? :-)
I think you are experiencing Marketing Fatigue that has culminated into Marketing Rage and when this straw (aka a book cover of this nature) hits your back, it breaks. Which frankly, is perfectly understandable. :-)
I have no rage at all towards Steve Jackson Games over this. When the topic of this cover was asked, I gave my opinion - not my favorite for the reason stated. I did get annoyed about being a prude or whatever for thinking that, but I think we've worked that out - thanks for understanding.
There are some worse offenders among RPGs, but compared to car commercials and such, I think overall RPG art is roughly average or a little better. Which is to say that there are things I'd fix, but it could be a lot worse. If I got enraged over the stupidity of commercials overall, I'd just be enraged all the time. :-)
The worst offenders that come to mind are:
That Exalted 'inspect my cervix' one
Several of the Atlas (I think?) covers that are CLEARLY painted over porn stars in nonsensical poses
I can dig up the images...
I actually don't mind these covers because they are so over the top I find them funny.
Quote from: jhkim;811213Nudity can be controversial, I agree, but the answer to that is to discuss it maturely. Actually, getting people to agree on artistic taste is almost impossible regardless of nudity.
True but add in nudity which brings in sex for most people then throw in gender issues and the whole mixture becomes much more volatile especially online.
For the record, I'm saying you have to like the cover. I did want to clear up that some of the reasons you didn't like it weren't necessarily accurate like the cover giving an inaccurate portrayal of the book's material.
Quote from: Koltar;811117That particular cover?
The artist is Rowena - a woman.
Its also a self-portrait of sorts. She used herself as the model.
The bangs are still weird.
JG
Quote from: James Gillen;811342The bangs are still weird.
JG
Its part of the magic.
Quote from: jhkim;811108Thanks for the specific example. I'm not familiar with the book content, but I believe it is a non-setting-specific resource book for magic - right? So there's no real telling if the nudity is appropriate for the setting per se. Is there anything in the book that suggests nudity as an option for characters? i.e. Are there any reasons in the book for a caster to be nude when doing a ritual?
As I suggested earlier, my usual criteria is that I like the covers to have something to do with the actual RPG content. So if there are expected to be nude PCs and/or NPCs as significant parts of the game, I'd expect them in illustrations.
Lacking the specifics, though, I would lean towards thinking it is a decorative nude, which I generally dislike - because it doesn't seem like something from an expected adventure, but rather just a bit of eye candy. (The sucked-in stomach and shaven armpits also suggest that to me.)
I don't think tying the same art to specific elements in the book changes my view of it as an advertising ploy to draw attention and increase sales. It's just my cynical and jaded reaction to overuse of sexy women to sell everything.
If there were one spell like "Summon Incubus" that requires being nude and posing alluringly, then choosing to depict (or just including) that spell would just seem an excuse to use the same art on the cover. If they had made a book about a setting where nudity is intrinsic to all spellcasting [which
would explain no armor for OD&D magic-users], then I still wouldn't think differently until I've seen the books about other settings where only unappealing stuff is intrinsic to spellcasting and gets depicted on the covers of those books.
Conversely, red hair probably has nothing to do with the RPG content, and yet nobody's complaining about the color of her hair.
So I guess I found my answer to the original question: some people are going to think it's gratuitous, some people will like it, some may be in both camps at once, but it's probably going to distract from notice or discussion of the rest of the content.
The particular book cover I posted for discussion is a collection of character templates already worked out character examples appropriate for several different genres and specific settings.
Many of them could be used as player characters with very minor tweaks , the majority are usable as NPCs.
Since 'Magic' didn't really go through a huge change between 3rd and 4th editions of GURPS - majority of them are still usable today.
- Ed C.
Quote from: trechriron;810993As an aside, this same thread on EnWorld was enlightening... :-)
Tell us about it!
Quote from: Koltar;811092Okay....
Anything wrong with this cover?
She's naked because Sex Sells and the main audience is primarily male.
Quote from: rawma;811363it's probably going to distract from notice or discussion of the rest of the content.
If you're playing GURPS and bought the book, you might want to whack off to it, but I think you're probably going to spend more time reading the rules you paid for. If you're not playing GURPS, you probably wouldn't have bought the book or talked about it anyway, unless you buy GURPS books for reference material and then you'll pick it up and browse it, and who knows if the cover will make you less likely to pick it up and browse it or not. My gut tells me more likely for the target demographic even if it's only looking for more pictures like the cover.
Sex doesn't sell...sex attracts interest. No one's going to buy a 20 dollar rpg book for a hair bra bikini cover. It will make them more likely to evaluate the product to begin with.
The people more likely to ignore the content to talk about the cover are people who weren't going to buy it anyway.
Quote from: Will;811232Sword and Sorcery Studios had a funny conceit for their Scarred Lands setting: arcane spellcasting generated heat.
S&S was an extension of White Wolf... Make more sense now?
I learned the following two rules about RPGs from another forum:
1. RPGs are all about fun and fantasy. You want something that would be impossible or implausible in the real world? Like an egalitarian medieval society or a dragon that throws lovely tea parties? Knock yourself out!
2. Unless you want the attractive women of your escapist fantasy game to go adventuring in skimpy clothes, because that would be either morally repugnant or at best, "just not realistic, dude."
Quote from: Omega;811421S&S was an extension of White Wolf... Make more sense now?
I know, I wrote some stuff for them. ;)
But that aside, I think it's STILL a clever rationale for people dressing like artists keep depicting them, and for defending the D&D 'casters don't wear much armor.'
Quote from: CRKrueger;811419Sex doesn't sell...sex attracts interest. No one's going to buy a 20 dollar rpg book for a hair bra bikini cover. It will make them more likely to evaluate the product to begin with.
When I say Sex Sells, I mean marketing. Nobody bought Bud or Coors because they rationally believed the babes in the commercial came with free with the 6 pack.
It's all about standing out from the rest of the items on the shelf. Same with Arrogant Bastard Ale...all about catching eyeballs.
The GURPS cover jumps out, as do the Cyborg Buttcheeks of Doom on the RIFTS cover.
(http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/thumb/1399/68/1399682977293s.jpg)
I remember the occasional stupid thread about 'RPGs are too expensive!' from people with very little brain.
And there's always some dilhole who says 'it shouldn't have art or anything! I don't need that! Don't pay all that stupid money to artists.'
Which is wrong on so many levels -- not just advertising and getting people to look at a product and, thus, being able to sell enough to keep costs down, but also in communicating the mood of a game and inspire people playing it.
Quote from: The_Shadow;811422I learned the following two rules about RPGs from another forum:
1. RPGs are all about fun and fantasy. You want something that would be impossible or implausible in the real world? Like an egalitarian medieval society or a dragon that throws lovely tea parties? Knock yourself out!
2. Unless you want the attractive women of your escapist fantasy game to go adventuring in skimpy clothes, because that would be either morally repugnant or at best, "just not realistic, dude."
I want to get this on a t-shirt.
Quote from: rawma;811363Conversely, red hair probably has nothing to do with the RPG content, and yet nobody's complaining about the color of her hair.
It's not a natural hair color, but that was so obvious it didn't merit a mention. ;)
Quote from: Will;811431And there's always some dilhole who says 'it shouldn't have art or anything! I don't need that! Don't pay all that stupid money to artists.'
Which is wrong on so many levels -- not just advertising and getting people to look at a product and, thus, being able to sell enough to keep costs down, but also in communicating the mood of a game and inspire people playing it.
Because the guy who doesn't want art is objectively wrong to want what he wants and the people who find art communicates mood and inspires are objectively right to want what they want?
Quote from: Bren;811470It's not a natural hair color, but that was so obvious it didn't merit a mention. ;)
I do know one woman with that hair color and due to a wardrobe malfunction I think its either her natural color or she's very thorough when she dyes. (her eye brows match too).
Quote from: Spinachcat;811427When I say Sex Sells, I mean marketing. Nobody bought Bud or Coors because they rationally believed the babes in the commercial came with free with the 6 pack.
It's all about standing out from the rest of the items on the shelf. Same with Arrogant Bastard Ale...all about catching eyeballs.
The GURPS cover jumps out, as do the Cyborg Buttcheeks of Doom on the RIFTS cover.
(http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/thumb/1399/68/1399682977293s.jpg)
Right, it's just the notion put forth (not by you) that the cover somehow distracts from the content that I was addressing. I didn't run a Rifts campaign for a few years because Blind Warrior Women were hot and a Splugorth Slaver is a Hentai movie waiting to happen.
Quote from: Bren;811470Because the guy who doesn't want art is objectively wrong to want what he wants and the people who find art communicates mood and inspires are objectively right to want what they want?
As the rest of my post leads up to, this was someone complaining that game books are too expensive because they have artwork in it.
The guy is objectively wrong in thinking the book would be cheaper if it didn't have art in it because of the wider market.
And as for taking a snippet out of context so you can swipe at someone, go fuck yourself.
Quote from: Bren;811093It's odd that she is sucking her stomach in like someone posing for a swimsuit photo while she is doing a spell.
Yeah. She's posing. It looks daft.
Stomach out, and it would look fine.
Quote from: Ladybird;811498Yeah. She's posing. It looks daft.
Stomach out, and it would look fine.
Because someone casting a ritualized spell would never be tense or holding their breath...
Quote from: CRKrueger;811419If you're playing GURPS and bought the book, you might want to whack off to it, but I think you're probably going to spend more time reading the rules you paid for. If you're not playing GURPS, you probably wouldn't have bought the book or talked about it anyway, unless you buy GURPS books for reference material and then you'll pick it up and browse it, and who knows if the cover will make you less likely to pick it up and browse it or not. My gut tells me more likely for the target demographic even if it's only looking for more pictures like the cover.
Sex doesn't sell...sex attracts interest. No one's going to buy a 20 dollar rpg book for a hair bra bikini cover. It will make them more likely to evaluate the product to begin with.
The people more likely to ignore the content to talk about the cover are people who weren't going to buy it anyway.
Actually I read an article on magazine covers and the Guys that produce Stuff had had a sexy woman on the front in her undies or wrapped in a roll of computer paper or something for years even though the Magazine sold gadgets and IT nerd Stuff.
They found that if they didn't do that their circulation that month dropped by 20-30%.
Then recently they did some reviews and found out that now 40% of their readers were women. So now they dropped the covers as for some reason women were put off with naked girls artfully covering themselves with a selection of smart phones.
Quote from: jibbajibba;811518Actually I read an article on magazine covers and the Guys that produce Stuff had had a sexy woman on the front in her undies or wrapped in a roll of computer paper or something for years even though the Magazine sold gadgets and IT nerd Stuff.
It's stupid (Said as someone who's a bit casually nerdy).
What does that tell me about your magazine? That you can afford to pay a model and a photographer for a session. Well, who gives a fuck. Does that mean that the content is going to be better? No (Well, unless your magazine is about photographs of models, of course).
If people are that desperate to look at some tits, they just buy some porn, or an erotic art book, or whatever they want to see.
Quote from: Will;811431I remember the occasional stupid thread about 'RPGs are too expensive!' from people with very little brain.
And there's always some dilhole who says 'it shouldn't have art or anything! I don't need that! Don't pay all that stupid money to artists.'
Which is wrong on so many levels -- not just advertising and getting people to look at a product and, thus, being able to sell enough to keep costs down, but also in communicating the mood of a game and inspire people playing it.
I certainly think art adds the value you mention here. But, just speaking from my own experience (which is limited to a small niche in the hobby) if there wasn't the art expectation that exists, and we could feasibly do books without art, I could easily lower the cover price because art is the most expensive investment for us. That said, I am not sure I would do that, because I still find art helpful in conveying game concepts. What we might do though is release a number of art free supplements each year. So I think for Bedrock at least, it would mean our core books would likely still have art, but we might have more releases each year that do not contain art (and they'd likely be pretty inexpensive).
I would be interested if a big RPG publisher released a major RPG book with no art. Curious how that would go down.
Interestingly, I started poking at 3d Art again (after a decade or so since I last gave it up as too expensive to keep up with).
My idea was 'I can't afford to pay people for art, I'll do it myself!'
And then I realized I enjoyed the art way more than writing games or novels, and now working on a web comic. Weird.
Back on topic, yeah, if art didn't attract an audience, you could save money and be more sparing with it.
The most important, by a wide margin, aspect of any new rpg - far moreso than the actual rules - is its ability to inspire its audience. Art is the most accessible and effective method of doing this.
Quote from: Ladybird;811538It's stupid (Said as someone who's a bit casually nerdy).
What does that tell me about your magazine? That you can afford to pay a model and a photographer for a session. Well, who gives a fuck. Does that mean that the content is going to be better? No (Well, unless your magazine is about photographs of models, of course).
If people are that desperate to look at some tits, they just buy some porn, or an erotic art book, or whatever they want to see.
You're missing basically the entire point, so lets eliminate the unholy tit so we can avoid masturbation and deal with headlines.
If you're a regular reader of my newspaper, I've already convinced you of our content.
If you're a casual reader of my newspaper, the story I put on the front page and the headline I use can make a difference as to whether you buy or not.
If you've never read my newspaper before, then every headline I make is a chance to attract you to picking up the paper, looking at it and possibly becoming a life-long reader.
With magazines, it could be the headline, but usually a picture or combination of headline/picture.
With books, it's the title/picture.
You come for the bait, but without content there is no hook.
No matter what you put on the cover, it's simply there to get you to not walk right by, but stop, look, and page through or read. The opposite sex is something humans are genetically hardcoded to respond to, so believe it or not, most people aren't drooling, saying "hurr hurr" and stroking their cock with their left hand as they reach for GURPS Wizards with their right. In fact, they might be thinking "Hey, GURPS Wizards, Cool!" not even consciously realizing that the reason they stopped and focused on it was because of the chick.
Everyone knows "Sex Sells", but it's much more momentary and subtle then that. That's what I say Sex doesn't Sell, Sex Attracts. No one ever bought GURPS Wizards because of the hairbra, and most of the people who picked it up didn't think they were picking it up because of the hairbra (and they weren't) but the hairbra got them to the point where they were deciding whether to pick it up at all, and this may have been a subconscious choice.
Madison Avenue doesn't spend millions a year on neuropsychologists for nothing.
If you feel offended somehow that SJG is assuming you will buy the product because of the chick, then you're being silly. It's a fantasy picture well within the sword and sorcery style painted by a well-known female fantasy artist. Did they say "Hey, we need a mostly naked chick on the cover of this book, see what you can do Rowena."? Probably not.
Did that other book company say "Hey we need some hot porn chick photoshop art for all our products so get to work."? Almost assuredly.
The tit is not evil, it's what man does with the tit that is evil. :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;811575You're missing basically the entire point, ... it's what man does with the tit that is evil. :D
I give this three thumbs up! Wait, that's not a thumb!! Also I love the term "hairbra". I hope en entry either exists or has been added to the urban dictionary.
In other news, this is spot on. It's a more intelligent, more pointed explanation as to what I was trying to say earlier. Marketing is important.
Quote from: CRKrueger;811575Did that other book company say "Hey we need some hot porn chick photoshop art for all our products so get to work."? Almost assuredly.
The tit is not evil, it's what man does with the tit that is evil. :D
I'm not objecting to the GURPS cover. I like the picture, I think it fits a general book on wizards pretty well. I just think her position doesn't look natural; it looks like she's
posing rather than actively
doing magic in a way that, say, Magic in the Shadows,+ doesn't:
(http://i.imgur.com/Ul9Iutv.jpg)
That is an action shot, that character is spellcasting. They are not posing.
Quote from: Ladybird;811601I'm not objecting to the GURPS cover. I like the picture, I think it fits a general book on wizards pretty well. I just think her position doesn't look natural; it looks like she's posing rather than actively doing magic in a way that, say, Magic in the Shadows,+ doesn't:
That's merely a facet of the artist Rowena, herself, whose style is similar to Julie Belle and the Vallejos. Have you ever seen Boris Vallejo's paintings of superheroes?
Steve Conte summed it up pretty well: " I asked her for a painting of Tiggra, what I got was a painting of a model in a Tiggra costume"
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;811545I certainly think art adds the value you mention here. But, just speaking from my own experience (which is limited to a small niche in the hobby) if there wasn't the art expectation that exists, and we could feasibly do books without art, I could easily lower the cover price because art is the most expensive investment for us. That said, I am not sure I would do that, because I still find art helpful in conveying game concepts. What we might do though is release a number of art free supplements each year. So I think for Bedrock at least, it would mean our core books would likely still have art, but we might have more releases each year that do not contain art (and they'd likely be pretty inexpensive).
I would be interested if a big RPG publisher released a major RPG book with no art. Curious how that would go down.
I used to feel that art wasn't that important until I got into a couple of games which little (and poor) art and it really did lessen the experience.
On the flip side, I had a lot of trouble getting players to get in the groove with a mostly hard SciFi game using BESM.
The anime cutesy artwork just... ugh.
Quote from: TristramEvans;811602That's merely a facet of the artist Rowena, herself, whose style is similar to Julie Belle and the Vallejos. Have you ever seen Boris Vallejo's paintings of superheroes?
Steve Conte summed it up pretty well: " I asked her for a painting of Tiggra, what I got was a painting of a model in a Tiggra costume"
Yeah, she's definitely in the "stilted pose" style of art which is concerned more with anatomical and character detail rather then conveyance of motion/action.
Quote from: Ladybird;811601I'm not objecting to the GURPS cover. I like the picture, I think it fits a general book on wizards pretty well. I just think her position doesn't look natural; it looks like she's posing rather than actively doing magic in a way that, say, Magic in the Shadows,+ doesn't:
(http://i.imgur.com/Ul9Iutv.jpg)
That is an action shot, that character is spellcasting. They are not posing.
True, but it's also terribly misogynistic because she's begging for it from a city spirit. :D
Quote from: TristramEvans;811602That's merely a facet of the artist Rowena, herself, whose style is similar to Julie Belle and the Vallejos. Have you ever seen Boris Vallejo's paintings of superheroes?
I hadn't, but I've spent a while tonight looking at some, and I like it. I just tend to prefer more dynamic poses and pictures.
Looking up 'skyclad ritual' on GIS gives a lot better poses, IMO.
Quote from: Will;811492As the rest of my post leads up to, this was someone complaining that game books are too expensive because they have artwork in it.
The guy is objectively wrong in thinking the book would be cheaper if it didn't have art in it because of the wider market.
And as for taking a snippet out of context so you can swipe at someone, go fuck yourself.
Now if only you'd like doing computer art better than posting assine shit here we'd all be happier.
It is blindly obvious that paying for art makes an RPG cost more. The question is does that cost generate sufficient profit to make economic sense. Now if you have some actual data you didn't pull out of your ass to support your idea that paying for RPG art is profit positive by all means trot it out. Otherwise you are, as usual, putting your preference out there as being morally or objectively true. And people who have a different preference form yours as being morally wrong.
Well, I'm illustrating my own game. So.....cost effectiveness achieved!
Well that depends on how fast you do art and how much you pay yourself. ;) Of course most people working on RPGs don't actually pay themselves much or they'd never get anything published. RPGs are not a lucrative field in which to write or publish.
Quote from: Bren;811678Well that depends on how fast you do art and how much you pay yourself. ;) Of course most people working on RPGs don't actually pay themselves much or they'd never get anything published. RPGs are not a lucrative field in which to write or publish.
I'm pretty damn fast, but I don't pay for diddly...
Quote from: TristramEvans;811680I'm pretty damn fast, but I don't pay for diddly...
Well then, you are the perfect RPG artist. :p
Quote from: Bren;811676Now if only you'd like doing computer art better than posting assine shit here we'd all be happier.
It is blindly obvious that paying for art makes an RPG cost more. The question is does that cost generate sufficient profit to make economic sense. Now if you have some actual data you didn't pull out of your ass to support your idea that paying for RPG art is profit positive by all means trot it out. Otherwise you are, as usual, putting your preference out there as being morally or objectively true. And people who have a different preference form yours as being morally wrong.
What would be awesome is if you didn't let your reflexive stupidity get in the way of reading comprehension, so I didn't have to waste my time correcting every stupid moo that you utter.
Hint for the astute:
Did I SAY it was my preference? Did I SAY it was 'moral'? Or is Bren making up more bullshit and stomping his tiny feet?
Maybe the reason you think my posts are asinine is because you're actually reading a post you wrote in your head.
Quote from: CRKrueger;811575Everyone knows "Sex Sells", but it's much more momentary and subtle then that. That's what I say Sex doesn't Sell, Sex Attracts. No one ever bought GURPS Wizards because of the hairbra, and most of the people who picked it up didn't think they were picking it up because of the hairbra (and they weren't) but the hairbra got them to the point where they were deciding whether to pick it up at all, and this may have been a subconscious choice.
Madison Avenue doesn't spend millions a year on neuropsychologists for nothing.
Sure - I believe it's true that there are lots of people for whom this is true, but it's not all people.
There are an awful lot of markets where sex
doesn't attract. For these markets, putting a sexy picture of a woman on the cover decreases average interest among the target audience - not necessarily because they're prudes and/or they don't like women - but because it makes the product look like something they're not interested in (consciously or subconsciously). When I look at the vast majority of the commercial products that I have bought, extremely few of them have such an image on the cover. This includes lots of RPG product lines.
Quote from: jhkim;811711Sure - I believe it's true that there are lots of people for whom this is true, but it's not all people.
There are an awful lot of markets where sex doesn't attract. For these markets, putting a sexy picture of a woman on the cover decreases average interest among the target audience - not necessarily because they're prudes and/or they don't like women - but because it makes the product look like something they're not interested in (consciously or subconsciously). When I look at the vast majority of the commercial products that I have bought, extremely few of them have such an image on the cover. This includes lots of RPG product lines.
Correct...which means it's even
less probable that SJG put the painting on the cover in order to draw people in via sex, right?
Sometimes the tit is there because...women coincidentally happen to have them.
I prefer tasteful nudity on the inside of a book rather than the cover, tbh.
Quote from: TristramEvans;811680I'm pretty damn fast, but I don't pay for diddly...
I also like free diddly.
Quote from: TristramEvans;811677Well, I'm illustrating my own game. So.....cost effectiveness achieved!
Welcome to the club brother!
My first published RPG and I had to not only illustrate myself. I had to match the style and skill of one of the biggest artist in that field at the time. Later I ended up illustrating a second book because was having a bitchingly hard time with freelance artists at the time and said "Fuck it I'll do it myself!"
The costs of publishing really hit home when you start scouting around. The joe on the street and apparently 75% of most gamers have no damn clue just how costly something like a CCG can be. A 200 card game could set you back upwards of 50 grand to 100 grand just for the damn art. 2500$ for a 10 card expansion when I was pricing for a project. Probadly more.
If the art helps sell the book then it helps sell the book and to hell with the prudes and nuts if thats your route because they likely wouldnt have bought it anyhow.
Though personally I still advocate alternative covers out of respect for those with valid concerns like not wanting family or kids to see something.
Quote from: Will;811431I remember the occasional stupid thread about 'RPGs are too expensive!' from people with very little brain.
And there's always some dilhole who says 'it shouldn't have art or anything! I don't need that! Don't pay all that stupid money to artists.'
Which is wrong on so many levels -- not just advertising and getting people to look at a product and, thus, being able to sell enough to keep costs down, but also in communicating the mood of a game and inspire people playing it.
Quote from: Will;811689Hint for the astute:
Did I SAY it was my preference? Did I SAY it was 'moral'? Or is Bren making up more bullshit and stomping his tiny feet?
You said it was
wrong Will.
Wrong on "being able to sell enough to keep costs down." For which I asked if you had any data. Apparently you don't have any. So if you didn't mean that it is objectively, provable wrong, I concluded maybe you meant it was morally wrong or maybe you were just trotting out some preference of yours and labeling anyone who doesn't agree wrong. Both are things you do fairly frequently.
Wrong on "communicating a mood of a game and inspire people playing it." But the person saying they don't need art is clearly saying that they don't need or want art. They are expressing their preference. But according to Will they are wrong and a "dillhole" because they have a difference preference than Will has. Or do you actually think how people get inspired and understand mood is objective rather than subjective?
This is your usual drill. You label something you don't like as "wrong." And when asked to provide some evidence to support it you don't. Instead you insult and repeat yourself louder.
So did "
wrong" mean anything more than
Will doesn't like it?
I was going to respond at length to Bren, and just realized he's a fucking pedantic asshole and there's no point.
If anyone with more than half a brain actually is confused as to what I meant, feel free to ask.
Quote from: CRKrueger;811714Correct...which means it's even less probable that SJG put the painting on the cover in order to draw people in via sex, right?
Sometimes the tit is there because...women coincidentally happen to have them.
I think you're mixing me up with Spinachcat. Spinachcat made a claim that the GURPS Wizards cover was there because Sex Sells. It feels a little like this is one of these binary divides again: Where I have to conform to being either an RPGnet SJW who wants to ban all sexual imagery in RPG illustrations; or an OSR who approves of every nude picture and wants more of them.
Personally, it isn't important to me what the thought process at SJG was - though I'm doubtful that the nudity is a complete coincidence. Mainly, I care about how the cover turned out.
When an RPG book illustrates a scene or scenes, I want it to look like something from the expected RPG adventures. i.e. It should show what the game is about, not just be a generic pretty picture that is related to the topic. In this case, I feel like the cover doesn't illustrate what the book is about.
Quote from: Bren;811470It's not a natural hair color, but that was so obvious it didn't merit a mention. ;)
Quote from: Nexus;811481I do know one woman with that hair color and due to a wardrobe malfunction I think its either her natural color or she's very thorough when she dyes. (her eye brows match too).
Did I miss the thread with 200+ posts on hair color in RPG art? No, I don't think I did. It can be weird, unnatural, natural but unusual, and completely unrelated to the RPG mechanics or setting and it still won't generate much comment, and certainly not preemptively as in the current thread.
Quote from: CRKrueger;811419Sex doesn't sell...sex attracts interest. No one's going to buy a 20 dollar rpg book for a hair bra bikini cover. It will make them more likely to evaluate the product to begin with.
The people more likely to ignore the content to talk about the cover are people who weren't going to buy it anyway.
There's a game* that I know only a couple** of things about:
- its name;
- that it's an RPG, at least within common definitions;
- its artwork is both praised and slammed, to the point that I know no more about it.
So it is possible to have the artwork distract from discussion of the actual content, just by sucking up all the oxygen in the room or luring into any discussion people who care about the controversy but not the content (and who, indeed, maybe did not buy the book and maybe haven't even actually seen it). No, this GURPS cover by itself isn't going to rise to that level of controversy.
*I will neither confirm nor deny any identification of the game in question, to avoid derailing this thread into educating me on games I don't know much about. Start another thread on whatever game(s) you think it might be.
**Pedants can treat the two things as #2 and #3 (the name just being the thing they are about) or can accept the idiomatic usage of "couple".
Quote from: rawma;811806Did I miss the thread with 200+ posts on hair color in RPG art? No, I don't think I did. It can be weird, unnatural, natural but unusual, and completely unrelated to the RPG mechanics or setting and it still won't generate much comment, and certainly not preemptively as in the current thread.
What the fuck did you quote me for? I wasn't claiming it was controversial or noteworthy just making an aside.
Quote from: jhkim;811805When an RPG book illustrates a scene or scenes, I want it to look like something from the expected RPG adventures. i.e. It should show what the game is about, not just be a generic pretty picture that is related to the topic. In this case, I feel like the cover doesn't illustrate what the book is about.
Would the picture have been acceptable of if was exactly the same except for the sorceress being in long flowing robes?
Quote from: Will;811754I was going to respond at length to Bren, and just realized he's a fucking pedantic asshole and there's no point.
It took me a lot longer and an intervention by Raven to learn that.
Quote from: Nexus;811811What the fuck did you quote me for? I wasn't claiming it was controversial or noteworthy just making an aside.
Sorry, I agree that should have been addressed to Bren only.
Quote from: rawma;811817Sorry, I agree that should have been addressed to Bren only.
It's an unnatural hair color akin to what one might see in some anime. It's a swimsuit pose. I've seen a lot better art in RPGs. I seen some significantly worse art. Both hair color and pose seem like slighly suboptimal choices to me in the context of a SJG source book cover.
Do you really love the artwork or have some actual point?
Quote from: Nexus;811813Would the picture have been acceptable of if was exactly the same except for the sorceress being in long flowing robes?
No, those would just be "hiding the money shot!" according to one of the more vocal rpg art critics.
The same one who thinks pictures of cows without pants are sexualized.
Quote from: TristramEvans;811991The same one who thinks pictures of cows without pants are sexualized.
That is udderly ridiculous. Do you have a link. I could use a laugh.
Quote from: Bren;811992That is udderly ridiculous. Do you have a link. I could use a laugh.
Its from Anna Kreieder's website. I'm looking for it now, but its hard to navigate around all that crazy. I just read it yesterday though, thought it was in some kind of FaQ or something. I remember it because it was the tipping point for me, where I was like "yeah, I dont need to waste anymore of my time today reading crazy"
Quote from: Bren;811989It's an unnatural hair color
Not relevant to me whether it's supposed to be natural or dyed. You can take that up with Nexus.
QuoteDo you ... have some actual point?
Originally, that nudity and hair color are qualitatively different in their potential for controversy.
Feel free to ask about any other posts where your lack of reading comprehension is causing you difficulties.
(http://www.pelgranepress.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/suggestive1-1024x417.jpg)
Quote from: rawma;811996Originally, that nudity and hair color are qualitatively different in their potential for controversy.
What you actually said was that hair color has no potential for controversy. Which is more than just a qualitative difference.
If you are arguing that they are qualitatively different, so far as I noticed no one in this thread ever said they are qualitatively the same, so I don't know who you think you are arguing with.
Quote from: Bren;812009What you actually said was that hair color has no potential for controversy.
I never said that. Apparently Will's opinion of you was too generous.
Quote from: rawma;812010I never said that. Apparently Will's opinion of you was too generous.
You also aren't arguing with anyone. If you just want to fellate Will, you should go get a room.
Quote from: Bren;812011You also aren't arguing with anyone. If you just want to fellate Will, you should go get a room.
Nobody has advanced an argument for me to respond to. I'm just outsourcing to Will the insults I'm not willing to type.
Quote from: Bren;811989It's an unnatural hair color akin to what one might see in some anime.
It's probably not womb-natural, but it's not out of the range of dyes people are likely to use (My partner, frex). I'd say it's a legit hair colour.
Quote from: Ladybird;812031It's probably not womb-natural, but it's not out of the range of dyes people are likely to use (My partner, frex). I'd say it's a legit hair colour.
Oh I agree it's a dye color that gets used. I've seen it more than once. It's just a bit too fuschia to be a natural, undyed hair color.
Or its not the best of scans of a cover?
Quote from: Omega;812432Or its not the best of scans of a cover?
Certainly possible.
Quote from: jhkim;811805I think you're mixing me up with Spinachcat. Spinachcat made a claim that the GURPS Wizards cover was there because Sex Sells.
I did, but I am not against the concept that Sex Sells. Though as I stated before, I agree that when I say "Sex Sells", I do mean "Sex Attracts Eyeballs to a Product"
It's a good cover for multiple reasons, but SJG knew what they were doing.
Quote from: Bren;812011If you just want to fellate Will, you should go get a room.
What if we just want to rub dice on his head for good luck? Can we just tiptoe into an alcove for that? Hotel rooms just seem so expensive.
Quote from: Spinachcat;812584What if we just want to rub dice on his head for good luck? Can we just tiptoe into an alcove for that? Hotel rooms just seem so expensive.
This is probably preferrable...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nv2KEE_RkQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nv2KEE_RkQ)
And that commercial got some flack too. Despite being commissioned by a woman for the convention and not really showing anything.
Quote from: Bren;812484Certainly possible.
Same piece, but the tones arent so bright.
(http://www.midgard-wiki.de/images/9/9e/Das_Gr%C3%BCne_Sigill.jpg)
Even with the brighter red. So what? She doesnt even look fully human so maybee its natural? Like the Grens in Gamma World with the green hair.
If you have to debate why the fantasy female wizard doing magic under a mini-dragon has "realistic" hair colors, you might be taking your gaming too seriously.
/Jeff Gameworthy
Quote from: trechriron;812715If you have to debate why the fantasy female wizard doing magic under a mini-dragon has "realistic" hair colors, you might be taking your gaming too seriously.
/Jeff Gameworthy
Someone at a con complained to Barker about how unrealistic it was that there were no blue eyes or blondes in Tekumel.
Non-gaming. But people have bitched about how unrealistic the hair colour was of the Zentran/Meltran. You know, the 30ft tall
aliens...
i just had a thought it makes a lot of sense for her to be naked shes in her own home the only reason i wear clothes at home is because i feel the cold maybe she just does not mind the cold
Quote from: tuypo1;812992the only reason i wear clothes at home is because i feel the cold
Tip: Do not drop in on tuypo1 during a summer heat wave. The risk is too great.
Quote from: Will;811232Sword and Sorcery Studios had a funny conceit for their Scarred Lands setting: arcane spellcasting generated heat.
So the reason why the sorceress is dressed like a stripper is because otherwise she'd fall over from heat exhaustion.
(They also added a special rule that casting spells generated enough heat to protect you from certain amounts of cold weather)
So... Fucking is magic? What?
Quote from: Phantom Black;813061... Fucking is magic?
Isn't that subtitle for the Hustler My Little Pony parody?
Puts a new spin on magic unicorns.
Quote from: Will;811232Sword and Sorcery Studios had a funny conceit for their Scarred Lands setting: arcane spellcasting generated heat.
So the reason why the sorceress is dressed like a stripper is because otherwise she'd fall over from heat exhaustion.
(They also added a special rule that casting spells generated enough heat to protect you from certain amounts of cold weather)
Yep. In the Scarred Lands campaign I ran the arcane caster was a fat hairy dwarf who wore boots and a loincloth most of the time.
One cannot unsee that. :p
Quote from: Will;813099Puts a new spin on magic unicorns.
(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Polish_c07dd9_475394.jpg)
Quote from: Exploderwizard;813232Yep. In the Scarred Lands campaign I ran the arcane caster was a fat hairy dwarf who wore boots and a loincloth most of the time.
One cannot unsee that. :p
You are an evil evil person...
Quote from: Exploderwizard;813232Yep. In the Scarred Lands campaign I ran the arcane caster was a fat hairy dwarf who wore boots and
X card! X card!!
Quote from: Phantom Black;813061So... Fucking is magic? What?
That was actually an element in one of my RPGs. Sex blew off your magic and left mages pretty much powerless for up to a day because it was tied to your life force. Getting pregnant shut off your magic for the duration and getting castrated pretty much ended your career permanently. Doing either by force without good reason was a near guarantee of courting disaster. So instead criminal mages would be handed over to a pleasure cult with some rather novel methods of keeping a caster curbed and not very happy about it either.
Quote from: Omega;813338That was actually an element in one of my RPGs. Sex blew off your magic and left mages pretty much powerless for up to a day because it was tied to your life force. Getting pregnant shut off your magic for the duration and getting castrated pretty much ended your career permanently. Doing either by force without good reason was a near guarantee of courting disaster. So instead criminal mages would be handed over to a pleasure cult with some rather novel methods of keeping a caster curbed and not very happy about it either.
The castration thing seems like an odd one out here, because having sex and being pregnant both involve giving life force away, whereas castration kinda prevents that. What was the logic?
Also, last sentence squick.
Quote from: Omega;813338That was actually an element in one of my RPGs. Sex blew off your magic and left mages pretty much powerless for up to a day because it was tied to your life force. Getting pregnant shut off your magic for the duration and getting castrated pretty much ended your career permanently. Doing either by force without good reason was a near guarantee of courting disaster. So instead criminal mages would be handed over to a pleasure cult with some rather novel methods of keeping a caster curbed and not very happy about it either.
Did barren women lack magical power?
Quote from: Ladybird;813344The castration thing seems like an odd one out here, because having sex and being pregnant both involve giving life force away, whereas castration kinda prevents that. What was the logic?
Presumably because they are cut off from the life force. Whether that is a result of the physical event itself or whether the physical event magically causes (via the law of symmetry) the magician to be cut off from the life force is left as an exercise to the apprentice. ;)
Quote from: Nexus;813347Did barren women lack magical power?
Presumably they have the same powers as an intact but sterile man.
Quote from: Bren;813362Presumably they have the same powers as an intact but sterile man.
That's what I was trying to determine Was it the flesh and physical organs that were the source of the magic or was it part of the ability to create "lifeforce" in the sense of reproduction.
Quote from: Ladybird;813344The castration thing seems like an odd one out here, because having sex and being pregnant both involve giving life force away, whereas castration kinda prevents that. What was the logic?
Also, last sentence squick.
Disruption of that drive. And yeah, squick.
Which was why it was an absolute last resort when killing the mage was not an option. Or particularly vile villains. For one, stuff like that got not only Magics attention, but possibly also Passions as well and it could snowball out of control as they got on the line with eachother and started collaborating on what to do about the problem. Like pointing some adventurers at the problem. Possibly alot of adventurers.
Quote from: Nexus;813347Did barren women lack magical power?
Natually occurring was about non-existent. If someone was barren or sterile there was usually some external force at work. One of the original players characters was descended from a bloodline cursed with sterility and the novel way it was circumvented.
Which comes back around to nudity in games and game-art. One person is going to view it as bad and someone else isnt going to see a problem, and someone else is going to think it fits.
Like with the CthulhuTech thread and the examples of people reacting to elements in that. Or the thread over on BGG where some guy was pointing out all the "nudity" in games. One example of nudity...
Spoiler
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic605840_md.jpg)
Quote from: Omega;813427One example of nudity...
:confused: What nudity?
Amusingly, my sister just commented on my 'works in progress' picture gallery, saying that it was very good, but what was with all the boobs and unrealistic body types.
And ... ... uh. What? Maybe I'm jaded from RPG and comic book art, but I rather thought most of what I had in that gallery really really tame...
( http://tinyurl.com/pdeevlw if you want to see for yourself)
Ironically, I'm just about to put together a page for my webcomic featuring a naked woman with giant breasts.
I don't find it surprising that the entire conversation has been about naked women. In a lot of ways, fantasy art has mostly been comprised of male artists depicting the female body. However, it is very clear that the hobby's demographics are nearly split down the middle between both sexes.
So, how about we take the conversation to the next step: tasteful depictions of naked men in fantasy RPGs?
Sexually-suggestive images in RPGs are fine, but outright nudity seems immature. For instance, in ZWEIHANDER Grim & Perilous (http://grimandperilous.com/?p=307), there is a Prostitute profession. However, to combat the puerile stereotypes we've made certain that our artwork caters to both sexes. Ultimately, "less is more" is our watchword:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34934670/Prostt.JPG)
I grew up reading comicbooks, so Ive seen depictions of naked men my entire life, and my experience is that they largely arent of much interest to women.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;813443For instance, in ZWEIHANDER Grim & Perilous (http://grimandperilous.com/?p=307), there is a Prostitute profession. However, to combat the puerile stereotypes we've made certain that our artwork caters to both sexes. Ultimately, "less is more" is our watchword:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34934670/Prostt.JPG)
I like the card. :) Well done.
However, given the ambience of War Hammer and I presume ZG&P, I have one quibble, that guy should have on some kind of footware.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;813443For instance, in ZWEIHANDER Grim & Perilous (http://grimandperilous.com/?p=307), there is a Prostitute profession. However, to combat the puerile stereotypes we've made certain that our artwork caters to both sexes. Ultimately, "less is more" is our watchword:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/34934670/Prostt.JPG)
I like the card. :) Well done.
However, given the ambience of War Hammer and I presume ZG&P, I have one quibble. That guy should have on some kind of footware.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;813443ZWEIHANDER Grim & Perilous
Nice pic. I like it.
Guy needs shoes, though :p
Quote from: Bren;813439:confused: What nudity?
That was my line too. Some of the other examples are more valid. Bemusingly the OP for that did not list Phil Foglio's XXXenonphile game. :cool:
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;813443In a lot of ways, fantasy art has mostly been comprised of male artists depicting the female body.
Actually a surprising amount of that nude women art is done by women. Or the occasional husband and wife teams.
Quote from: Omega;813507That was my line too.
Oh good, I'm not alone.
Quote from: Omega;813507That was my line too. Some of the other examples are more valid. Bemusingly the OP for that did not list Phil [F]oglio's XXXenonphile game. :cool:
The only work by Phil Foglio is the Girl Genius comic that he and his wife, Kaja, create. It's fun, though a bit wacky at time.
Quote from: Bren;813519The only work by Phil Phoglio is the Girl Genius comic that he and his wife create. It's fun, though a bit wacky at time.
1996. Phil Foglio (I mispelled it) and James Ernest (Cheapass Games) created the XXXenophile CCG. Which is loosely based on Phil's XXXenophile adult comic. A number of familliar or eventually familliar artists did pieces for it.
Spoiler
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic963077_lg.jpg)
Quote from: Omega;8135251996. Phil Foglio (I mispelled it) and James Ernest (Cheapass Games) created the XXXenophile CCG. Which is loosely based on Phil's XXXenophile adult comic. A number of familliar or eventually familliar artists did pieces for it.
I'd heard of XXXenophile, but I've never seen the comic or the cards. Thanks for sharing.
Quote from: Bren;813528I'd heard of XXXenophile, but I've never seen the comic or the cards. Thanks for sharing.
Phil also did SPANC: Space Pirate Amazon Ninja Catgirls through SJG.
(https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic81394_md.jpg)
Quote from: Omega;813509Actually a surprising amount of that nude women art is done by women. Or the occasional husband and wife teams.
Most of the audience for it, as well, are women.
When I was in art school selling cheesecake pics on the side for extra cash, the exceptional majority of my regular customers were women.
Quote from: TristramEvans;813547Most of the audience for it, as well, are women.
When I was in art school selling cheesecake pics on the side for extra cash, the exceptional majority of my regular customers were women.
True. My wife collects pin-ups and occasionally dabbles at drawing them herself.
Most of the magazines with scantily clad women on the cover are women's magazines.
Quote from: TristramEvans;813446I grew up reading comicbooks, so Ive seen depictions of naked men my entire life, and my experience is that they largely arent of much interest to women.
I used to work in a bookstore in college that had a big magazine section. Almost all of the people who bought Playgirl were men. I sold one to one woman once, although I did occasionally have to shoo away small flocks of teenage girls giggling and trying to sneak a peek.
Superheroes! I reckon the artists chose skin-tight costumes so often for much this reason.
The original EPT had an illustration that might be in poor taste (and cliche) because of subject - slave girl, to be victim of sacrifice - but Tekumel affords opportunities for partial or full nudity in less provocative situations.
In the late 1970s, Galileo SF magazine used late 19th/early 20th c. rear-view photos (male and female) in its back issues ad. They were 'artistic' poses that had not been reckoned raunchy by previous generations, but some folks found them objectionable.
Quote from: Phillip;813705Superheroes! I reckon the artists chose skin-tight costumes so often for much this reason.
In the end, artists just want to draw the naked human form. That's why superheroes are essentially classical nude statues running about, with a bit of colour and no genitalia to keep the censors at bay.
Actually its more a sign of the times. The "actobat" and leotard style costume was a logical step as those were becoming more common and they afford alot of maneuverability and less things to grab onto. They also may harken to wrestlers and boxers outfits.
Quote from: Omega;813728Actually its more a sign of the times. The "actobat" and leotard style costume was a logical step as those were becoming more common and they afford alot of maneuverability and less things to grab onto. They also may harken to wrestlers and boxers outfits.
Thats a rational for it sure.
But trust me, the artists just want to draw naked human bodies.
Quote from: TristramEvans;813729Thats a rational for it sure.
But trust me, the artists just want to draw naked human bodies.
True, but not always for sexy reasons. The human form is fun to draw. It's a fascinating structure of muscle, bone and fat.
But trust me, doing life drawing of thin, sinewy people and ballet dancers got old and dull. We were clamoring for fat people, curvy people, old people... Anything! Sounds like a kink, but it was really just a desire for a change of subject, you know?
Except for hands. Fuck drawing hands. ARGHHHH, :(
Quote from: Necrozius;813731True, but not always for sexy reasons. The human form is fun to draw. It's a fascinating structure of muscle, bone and fat.
But trust me, doing life drawing of thin, sinewy people and ballet dancers got old and dull. We were clamoring for fat people, curvy people, old people... Anything! Sounds like a kink, but it was really just a desire for a change of subject, you know?
Except for hands. Fuck drawing hands. ARGHHHH, :(
Oh, no, its not about the sexxy at all. Honestly, I doubt most artists can even get aroused by a piece of artwork: I certainly can't. Its a totally different way of looking at art.
Which is why I'm always bemused of accusations from certain quarters of the internet about this or that artwork being a "wank fantasy", or the suggestion that the artist is alternating between drawing and masturbating. It just doesn't work like that.
As for hands, one of my art teachers said something brilliant on the subject to me: "you have 2000 bad hands in you that you have to get out of your system before you can draw good hands".
Unless you are Lieber. Then your bad hands are ETERNAL
Quote from: Will;813740Unless you are Lieber. Then your bad hands are ETERNAL
Fritz? Writers don't count.
Or did you mean Liefeld?
... fuck, yes, Liefeld.
(shouldn't post before I finish my first coffee)
Quote from: Will;813740Unless you are Lieber. Then your bad hands are ETERNAL
Not if you HIDE THEM! Works for feet too. Just hide them!
And distract the viewer with more belt pouches.
Quote from: Necrozius;813747Not if you HIDE THEM! Works for feet too. Just hide them!
And distract the viewer with more belt pouches.
Said it before and I'll say it again, Leifeld isn't so much a bad artist as a lazy one. I've liked his pieces when he puts effort into them but he takes allot of shortcuts (like hiding hands and feet), some of which only another artist might notice at first but once they're pointed out you can't unsee them.
Quote from: Nexus;813750Said it before and I'll say it again, Leifeld isn't so much a bad artist as a lazy one. I've liked his pieces when he puts effort into them but he takes allot of shortcuts (like hiding hands and feet), some of which only another artist might notice at first but once they're pointed out you can't unsee them.
I think they're pretty noticeable...
(http://www.craveonline.com/images/stories/2011/2012/August/Comics/marvel/captainamerica/liefeldcapnaked.jpg)
Quote from: TristramEvans;813752I think they're pretty noticeable...
(http://www.craveonline.com/images/stories/2011/2012/August/Comics/marvel/captainamerica/liefeldcapnaked.jpg)
Yes, that's a particularly egregious example but, believe it or not, some didn't notice allot of that until it was pointed out. That's what the only naked version is about, highlighting the anatomical errors that the costume made less noticeable to untrained eyes.
It's weird how much we can edit our perception without noticing. I'm not defending Leifeld but I think his failures are more due to a lack of effort than a lack of talent. YMMV. In a way being lazy is worse than being untalented. One can't be helped much the other is pretty much a deliberate choice.
Edit: And I think some of the criticism of his work is allowably subjective like the costume choices (the belt pouches, for example). I've seen several costumes and character designs in the Leifeildian style by other artists that I really liked.
Or, comic book readers are so used to absolutely fucking terrible artwork that folks' perceptions are trained to accept crap as normal.
Even as a teenager I felt that he was a cheaper version of Jim Lee and Marc Silvestri. Like, he was trying to draw like them. In a way, he kind of feels like all those artists who ape Mike Mignola's style but don't QUITE get it right.
But I'm no hypocrite: I'm a failed artist, myself. Liefeld could out-draw me anyday. I'm just comparing him to other artists from his level.
(shrug) I never understood the appeal of Liefeld.
As a teen I just put it down to the most people having no discerning eye for art.
Quote from: TristramEvans;813760(shrug) I never understood the appeal of Liefeld.
As a teen I just put it down to the most people having no discerning eye for art.
I'm not a huge comics guy, but from what I understand his appeal for comic book companies is being reliable. And, well. That counts for a lot.
From a business perspective adequate and reliable is nearly always better than brilliant but erratic. Reliably bad though...
Liefeld makes me want to give Marvel an X-Card. My eyes, it burns!
Quote from: Will;813761I'm not a huge comics guy, but from what I understand his appeal for comic book companies is being reliable. And, well. That counts for a lot.
I'd heard that too. Though he did burn his fellow Image creators.
Quote from: Will;813761I'm not a huge comics guy, but from what I understand his appeal for comic book companies is being reliable. And, well. That counts for a lot.
That's what I've heard too and it lead to high demand which only fed his lazy bad habit by making them profitable.
On a related but nicer note, (although a touch off-topic) if you ever wonder why Keanu Reeves gets so much work despite being kind of... a block of wood, from what I've read he's INCREDIBLY easy to work with and extremely nice to everyone.
Which makes me feel good about his success. ;)
I've heard the same. Internet full of horror stories of actors who are just real asses. Cost Wesley Snipes his film career. The stories about Gene Hackman on the set of Royal Tenenbaums are horrid (though they make Bill Murray look all the more awesome - watching him right now in my annual Groudhog Day viewing).
But yeah, really off topic.
To bring it back to nudity in rpg art (or art in general), I think Liefeld illustrates my proposition that its about quality more than content. If Liefeld were to draw some naked women, even if they would probably look horrid enough I couldnt see anyone getting aroused), it would come across to me as cheap sensationalism. That's where, for myself, it would cross the line into sexism. But an artist like Mike Mignola were to include nudity in a comic, I'd trust that it was about the craft and done for a specific purpose beyond simply puerile sexuality.
Quote from: Will;813743... fuck, yes, Liefeld.
(shouldn't post before I finish my first coffee)
The human body does not bend that way. (Unless you are my niece...)
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/0/77/252313-93775-rob-liefeld.gif)
(http://beijingcream.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/35-Jackie-Chan-LEAD.jpeg)
Liefeld is that happy place where feminists and anti-feminists can come to a happy concord. For whatever reason, man, it's awful.
(Now I'm imagining a Liefeld morph for CGI to allow one to make spaghetti spine women...)
Quote from: Will;813761I'm not a huge comics guy, but from what I understand his appeal for comic book companies is being reliable. And, well. That counts for a lot.
He is well known in the biz as an absolute workhorse.
He is also well known in the biz as having apparently flunked anatomy class, or was raised in the wild by amoebas... Possibly both. One publisher said apparently people were buying the comic as a sort of Wheres Waldo thing. Spot all the anatomical anomalies.
Others buy the comic to follow the story. The art is secondary.
As I understand Marvel's X character "Strong Guy", a superhumanly strong mutant in constant pain from his grossly distorted anatomy, was a poke at Lefeild.
Quote from: Phantom Black;813061So... Fucking is magic? What?
You haven't read much Crowley, huh?
Quote from: Nexus;813823As I understand Marvel's X character "Strong Guy", a superhumanly strong mutant in constant pain from his grossly distorted anatomy, was a poke at Lefeild.
That would make sense.
jg
Quote from: Will;813801On a related but nicer note, (although a touch off-topic) if you ever wonder why Keanu Reeves gets so much work despite being kind of... a block of wood, from what I've read he's INCREDIBLY easy to work with and extremely nice to everyone.
Which makes me feel good about his success. ;)
Also, people like to watch him on screen, because he's goofy and relatable, and that is supported by metrics - the dollars he has a track record of bringing in.
Quote from: Will;813813Liefeld is that happy place where feminists and anti-feminists can come to a happy concord. For whatever reason, man, it's awful.
Aren't artists supposed to understand anatomy?
Quote from: Nexus;813823As I understand Marvel's X character "Strong Guy", a superhumanly strong mutant in constant pain from his grossly distorted anatomy, was a poke at Lefeild.
I had no idea. But that's fucking awesome!
Now, did Leifeld ever draw Strong Guy? How could he even do it? He'd have no where to add muscles to!
Quote from: RPGPundit;814266I had no idea. But that's fucking awesome!
Now, did Leifeld ever draw Strong Guy? How could he even do it? He'd have no where to add muscles to!
"Strong Guy by Liefeld...the infinity point where muscles and pouches collide"
Quote from: RPGPundit;814266I had no idea. But that's fucking awesome!
Now, did Leifeld ever draw Strong Guy? How could he even do it? He'd have no where to add muscles to!
I'm not sure honestly. I didn't follow the x books even when I read comics regularly.
Quote from: Will;811026That's the classiest OH SNAP I've ever read.
(http://www.undergroundhiphop.com/store/covers_large/REP5022TS.jpg)
Jibbajabba: Proving once again that those who think they know what they're talking about are annoying to those of us who do.
Quote from: Will;813757Or, comic book readers are so used to absolutely fucking terrible artwork that folks' perceptions are trained to accept crap as normal.
Or they simply realize that like most other cartoon art, it's not meant to be realistic.
There's a difference between bad and stylized.
Quote from: Will;813757Or, comic book readers are so used to absolutely fucking terrible artwork that folks' perceptions are trained to accept crap as normal.
Or maybe opinions on art can be subjective.
Liefeld's art is bad. That is not a subjective statement.
Compare Liefeld to, say, Aeon Flux.
Aeon Flux has weirdly distorted, absurdly skinny/contortionist figures... but I believe most folks would agree that Aeon Flux was going after a particular look and esthetic, while Liefeld, not so much.
Quote from: Will;814690Compare Liefeld to, say, Aeon Flux.
Aeon Flux has weirdly distorted, absurdly skinny/contortionist figures... but I believe most folks would agree that Aeon Flux was going after a particular look and esthetic, while Liefeld, not so much.
Actually, I thought the art in Aeon Flux sucked so much I couldn't watch it.
*shrugs*
Opinions will vary and there's no accounting for taste.
Another example would be Ross Campbell. Some people absolutely love his work. It think he draws distorted bizarre androgynous freaks. Good for monsters and baroque demons but for actual people not so much.
Quote from: Will;814690Compare Liefeld to, say, Aeon Flux.
Aeon Flux has weirdly distorted, absurdly skinny/contortionist figures... but I believe most folks would agree that Aeon Flux was going after a particular look and esthetic, while Liefeld, not so much.
Some artists actually understand anatomy well enough to distort it in a way that still somehow "works". I'm willing to bet that some of the most stylistic artists out there first drew a lot more traditionally and could actually depict the human body in a competent way.
I bring up Mignola again: his earlier work is more traditional comic-book style (i.e., more "realistic"), but he gradually evolved into his trademark style that we know today. I've seen plenty of artists (some in the indie RPG scene) just jump from whatever they were doing into a copy of Mignola's. And it usually doesn't QUUUIIIIITE work. It's hard to explain, actually. Most people don't notice, though.
I mean, compare Liefeld's drawings to Jim Lee: same school of comic drawing (a lot of similarities) but somehow Lee's stuff was always more coherent and solid.
Although to be fair, Mignola usually skipped out on drawing feet all that accurately ;). At least he drew them, though.
Nexus: I didn't say Aeon Flux was good or that I liked it. I can't stand it, myself.
But it achieved a style on purpose.
This isn't a popularity contest. Despite the morass of gamer commentary that is nothing more than 'stuff I like is good, stuff I don't like is bad,' it is actually possible to engage in coherent criticism apart from personal tastes.
Necrozius: A good example of this is Picasso. If you look at early Picasso, and you weren't a student of art history, you'd have no idea that it was his...
For example, this is a Picasso:
(http://www.mcguilmet.com/uploads/3/0/3/5/3035519/4217857_orig.jpg)
He did that at age 15. Man.
Then, later, he did Cubism. (more stuff here: http://www.mcguilmet.com/articles/could-picasso-really-paint-yeshe-really-could-as-the-evidence-shows )
The thing is, for artists, generally you need to learn to do things 'right' before you mess with the rules on purpose.
Half-assing it and then claiming you are doing something 'stylized' is just lazy bullshit.
Quote from: Will;814698Nexus: I didn't say Aeon Flux was good or that I liked it. I can't stand it, myself.
But it achieved a style on purpose.
This isn't a popularity contest. Despite the morass of gamer commentary that is nothing more than 'stuff I like is good, stuff I don't like is bad,' it is actually possible to engage in coherent criticism apart from personal tastes.
And I don't think it achieved any "style" but was just unappealing off putting art. Saying it was that way on purpose is fine, but still a judgement call. I've seen similar "style" that I've liked allot better. It is possible to engage in coherent criticism but much of its subjective in the end and much of the time, IME, the so called objective evaluations are pretty much "I don't like this so nobody should" Its difficult to tell the difference much of the time. The "objectively good" art (music, games, etc) always happen to coincide with speaker's tastes.
Quote from: TristramEvans;814685Liefeld's art is bad. That is not a subjective statement.
In your opinion.
Quote from: Elfdart;814746In your opinion.
In my
educated professional evaluation.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/6b/87/91/6b8791656f4729b66fbcb2975e9eed13.jpg)
I may seriously have the most useless diploma in the world, but at the very least I get to invoke my authority in evaluating art.
TristramEvans: In my educated professional evaluation. (http://matthodges.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/misc-will-smith-tada-l.png)
(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/0/2/4/2/9/5/0/damn-straight-43659033712.jpeg)
Quote from: Elfdart;814679Or they simply realize that like most other cartoon art, it's not meant to be realistic.
Thats fine when its aliens or cartoon people.
But most comics are about human beings with standard human anatomy limitations. The average reader expects the human spine to bend this way. NOT to swerve like an elephants trunk unless they are specifically shown to have some sort of elastic power.
Captain America's head does not rotate 180 degrees. But Leifield drawing it and all bets are off that the head is going to even be generally located on the shoulders.
Quote from: Will;814690Compare Liefeld to, say, Aeon Flux.
Aeon Flux has weirdly distorted, absurdly skinny/contortionist figures... but I believe most folks would agree that Aeon Flux was going after a particular look and esthetic, while Liefeld, not so much.
Aeon Flux, and Phantom 2020, though both still adhere to basic human anatomy limits. To a point with Aeon - who seems to have the sort of flexibility of a contortionist - but not to the inhuman level flex of my niece has.
They may be stretched or such but they still move like people move. Muscles tend to be about where they should be even.