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

Seanchai

I don't see anywhere where Edwards has ever said he thinks his games should be trendy, popular, or The Next Big Thing.  I have seen him claim lots of pompous things about how good his ideas are, but never suggestions that his work is something that the many will enjoy.

Quote from: Simlasa;450448The point is that the artist painted what he wanted to paint...

He did. But it was for a commercial end. And it wasn't what the people wanted. He had to convince folks to purchase the penis.

If I understand Peregrin/Edward's argument, we are lacking a vital element in today's games. Evidence of this is the lack of nudity and creativity, among other things, from today's product. Companies are producing games simply because they think that's what will sell instead of creating products to stoke the muse within. If we return to a creative, boobie-filled paradise, people will snap up our glorious endeavors as we are providing something that returns to them the missing vital spark.

If we write and publish Maze of the Boobie Lord, which is full of nudity, simple drawings of minotaurs, and simple drawings of minotaurs with boobs, and people don't buy it without having to be convinced to do so, doesn't that abrogate the premise that this is something people want?

Moreover, if the artist creates his Maze masterpiece and puts effort into selling it - perhaps as much or more than he did creating it - doesn't it really stop being a creative exercise and becomes more of a commercial one?

Seanchai

You like taking things to extremes, don't you, Seanchai?  

First, nudity is only one part of the whole.  

Two, I never said vital.  I just don't think it's irrelevant to the going ons of the rest of the industry, especially given how other artforms and mediums handle such subject matter.

Third, I'd rather see the Dead Kennedys in concert than U2.  There is something to be said for a rough, raw, and energetic aesthetic.

Quote from: Peregrin;450456Third, I'd rather see the Dead Kennedys in concert than U2.  There is something to be said for a rough, raw, and energetic aesthetic.

Jello Biafra is as much of a tedious blowhard as Bono.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;450458Jello Biafra is as much of a tedious blowhard as Bono.

But at least he makes music worth listening to.

Quote from: Peregrin;450460But at least he makes music worth listening to.

Agreed...
Besides... one man's 'tedious blowhard' is another man's 'messiah'.

Quote from: Peregrin;450456You like taking things to extremes, don't you, Seanchai?  

First, nudity is only one part of the whole.  

How is using nudity as an example at all "extreme" when Edward using it as an example, too? And, as I said, "...the lack of nudity and creativity, among other things..." Note that highlighted bit.

Quote from: Peregrin;450456Two, I never said vital.

No, you didn't.

Vital means "full of life and vigor." You don't think Edwards is saying that products pre-prude were full of life and vigor and that now, under some kind of self-imposed censorship, they're not?

Seanchai

Yes I know vital can mean that, vital also (and more commonly in vernacular US English) means "necessary."  In the specific grammatical context used, it's easy to mistake what you're implying.

Also, the reason I said "extreme" is because your dead-panning just goes "Ass, and titties" when Edwards point goes beyond just that.

And yes, self-censored media, when trying to cater to pop-moral norms, does have a tendency to become stale and boring.  Even children's fantasy literature has the tendency to be more risque than RPG fantasy worlds.  I've repeatedly praised 4e's clean presentation when it comes to actual play advice and DMing procedures, but the type of fantasy world it implies is boring.  It makes Rowling look like Dostoevsky, and Pullman like Nabokov (well, if you own the British texts of His Dark Materials, anyway.  Some of the passages were too offensive for the US).

Quote from: Peregrin;450487It makes Rowling look like Dostoevsky, and Pullman like Nabokov (well, if you own the British texts of His Dark Materials, anyway.  Some of the passages were too offensive for the US).

Hm. I wasn't aware the US versions were edited. Do you know, or have a link to a synopsis of, the edits?

Quote from: Cole;450491Hm. I wasn't aware the US versions were edited. Do you know, or have a link to a synopsis of, the edits?

According to wiki, they removed the passages dealing with Lyra's early pubertal sexuality in The Amber Spyglass.

Didn't Gary Gygax say that his favorite D&D artist was Larry Elmore? I'll bet that the key point to him about Eldritch Wizardry was not the tits per se but that the tits and everything else looked a lot better than Greg Bell's ham-handed copies of Ditko and Steranko.

There was the "Mothers from Heck" editorial in The Dragon (which I only vaguely remember). The big, obvious point I see is that TSR in particular had come to see its audience as significantly made up of minors.

It sure looked to me as if that was increasingly the case. What had started out with guys in their 30s or so had spread to colleges, then high schools, then the Toys R Us chain with boxes for "ages 10 and up". Each younger demographic seemed a bigger market segment than the one before.

Now, there is a big deal in the U.S.A. about "protecting children" from material seen as sexually titillating. At times, there has been some concern about depictions of violence as well, but sex is always a hot topic. Show a succubus and a type V demon kissing, and you'll really be in for it!

Anyway, the "kid stuff" categorization was once a big drag on American comicbooks. Now I think the puffed-up "grown-up geek" focus is more of a drag on a business that used to thrive (and apparently still does in Japan) by offering products for all ages.

In between, we had the "underground comix" fad. D&D wasn't really any kind of hippy protest thing, though. It was just riffing off of stuff with, pretty often, a "spicy pulp magazine" kind of aesthetic.

The May, 1981, issue of Dragon included a couple of variants for SPI's DragonQuest game. One of those offered the following "items of apparel sufficient to avoid violations of any indecent-exposure laws, but much lighter than regular clothing (and, incidentally, more in line with most of the 25mm miniature figures available)."

Harness: Favored by John Carter and (in a metallic version) by Red Sonja.
Ribbons (female only): Worn by Elinore of Montagar.
Body Stocking: Worn by Rifkind of Asheera, Oscar Gordon and the Empress of Twenty Universes.
Loincloth (male only): Worn by Tarzan of the Apes, Conan of Cimmeria and others.

Burroughs, Bakshi, Abbey, Heinlein and Howard (and Roy Thomas & Co. with inspiration from Howard) -- that's a mix fairly representative of the 1970s fantasy-fan scene as expressed in gaming.

It's not entirely representative, of course. "Sword & Sorcery" figured more, and Tolkien and Lewis less (and of course post-D&D latecomers like Brooks and Eddings not at all) in the origins of D&D than in the minds of many enthusiasts.

Thus, the trend toward a style more influenced by what Moorcock called "Epic Pooh" might have come about in any case. As pop culture goes, it seems for some time to have been more popular.

In the event, though, the "kid stuff" pigeon-holing meant that bare nipples were out and Wonder Bras were in. (For a fairly recent example, see the cover of the 4e PHB.)

I don't see it as much more profound, though, than a matter of fashion. I have a hard time seeing "He-Man" as some kind of radical resistance against right-wing pressures for conformity.

Quote from: Peregrin;450487Yes I know vital can mean that, vital also (and more commonly in vernacular US English) means "necessary."  In the specific grammatical context used, it's easy to mistake what you're implying.

Okay. You don't think Edwards considers creativity, et al., necessary to the endeavor? Why write the article? Why create the game he did if he doesn't believe folks should embrace his view?

Now, I understand he may not be talking about a denotative view of "necessary," but surely his insistence implies a casual or connotative one...

Quote from: Peregrin;450487Also, the reason I said "extreme" is because your dead-panning just goes "Ass, and titties"...

"...the lack of nudity and creativity, among other things..."

But, er, "Two powerfully important aspects of that material were the monstrous and the naked." Edward listed two aspects. Two. He called them powerfully important. Nudity is one. I mentioned the minotaur (monstrous) and nudity.

Seanchai

Point conceded about what part two of your post was responding to.

Also gathering what I'm trying to express, because I've done a shit job of communicating thus far.

Now I notice that both He-Man and Skeletor lack nipples.

Hmmm...

The MotU toys were originally to be a line of Conan the Barbarian toys.

Then someone at Mattel actually watched Conan the Barbarian and that was that.  Stuck with all the molds and tooling they came up with their own stuff.