Quote from: Spinachcat;450199So the little boys who couldn't get laid in high school have become the adults who fear sexual images?

How not surprising.

How shallow and simplistic of you.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Spinachcat;450199So the little boys who couldn't get laid in high school have become the adults who fear sexual images?

How not surprising.

I don't think that is it. Plenty of my players are fine with stuff like that in movies. I myself love horror films, and have no issue with sexual content. Same with shows like the Sopranos.

The issue I think in RPGs, is their interactive nature. graphically describing sexual acts at the table is just too intimate for some people. I definitely don't game with a group of puritans, and their characters have absolutely done some depraved things, but it is all usually handled off camera. In the last campaign they were expanding their skin trade empire and an NPC was whacked at a sensual parlor. The graphic stuff was all implied though.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;450202I don't think that is it. Plenty of my players are fine with stuff like that in movies. I myself love horror films, and have no issue with sexual content. Same with shows like the Sopranos.

The issue I think in RPGs, is their interactive nature. graphically describing sexual acts at the table is just too intimate for some people. I definitely don't game with a group of puritans, and their characters have absolutely done some depraved things, but it is all usually handled off camera. In the last campaign they were expanding their skin trade empire and an NPC was whacked at a sensual parlor. The graphic stuff was all implied though.

Right.  In my group, there's often a lot of sex-related OOC jokes going on even.  We just don't want it in the game itself.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;450202The issue I think in RPGs, is their interactive nature. graphically describing sexual acts at the table is just too intimate for some people. I definitely don't game with a group of puritans, and their characters have absolutely done some depraved things, but it is all usually handled off camera.

I think this nails it. The only caveat I could add is that when you leave out the graphic descriptives, it allows the Players' imaginations to fill in the blanks and personalize for their character what has happened. When it gets personalized in this way, it becomes more of a powerful GMing tool to use to make the game more fun for the entire table.

Quote from: jgants;450204Right.  In my group, there's often a lot of sex-related OOC jokes going on even.  We just don't want it in the game itself.

Same here. Plenty of filthy humor, but it tends not to make its way into the actual game.

A previous group of mine had a great deal of mirth over the "Rod of Vecna".

Quote from: J Arcane;450213A previous group of mine had a great deal of mirth over the "Rod of Vecna".

Orcus's Wand is topped by a bulbous head.

I mean, the joke makes itself, you know?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;450180"my" D&D has nudity and graphic violence in the art; the actual mechanics regarding either are largely left to the imagination of the DM and player.

That's pretty much my position.  I wasn't happy when WoTC banned pictures of bare-breasted amazons from "d20 License" 3e stuff like Necromancer's Wilderlands products in reaction to BoEF, but I definitely don't want BoEF-style complicated game rules for sex, either.

Gotta spend a moment here defending Tipper Gore.  All Tipper wanted was warning labels so that people could know what they were buying.  I happen to think that warning labels are misguided because artists will then shape their work for the label they want for commercial purposes.  This is why the MPAA rating system has been so much worse for American film making creativity than the Hayes office ever was.  You try to slip things past censors, you try to accommodate warning labels.  But Gore was not thinking that way.  Gore was thinking about her own transgressive tastes and larger society (when VP and running for President her ex-husband carefully presented himself as a faithful Baptist, out of public life he couldn't identify his religious beliefs but Tipper named Baba Ram Dass {Richard Alpert} as an influence).  Tipper Gore was misguided, but she was no prudish censor regardless of how she has been presented by her opponents; today she might be bit more enlightened.

The thing about that division between family friendly and adult is that it is pernicious in both directions.  Not only has "pop" been neutered and bowdlerized but "art" has been debauched.  Modern art photography looks a lot like underground fetish porn from thirty years ago.  I think Edwards suffers from this phenomenon as a designer. He rejects the constraints of "pop" games and designs "art" games that go too far in the other direction.

Quote from: Professort Zoot;450217...................but Tipper named Baba Ram Dass (Richard Alpert) as an influence.  Tipper Gore was misguided,....................

She wanted to join the 'Others' or the Dharma initiative?
Damn, those guys were everywhere.
(Saw that name, couldn't resist)


- Ed C.

Quote from: Professort Zoot;450226The thing about that division between family friendly and adult is that it is pernicious in both directions.  Not only has "pop" been neutered and bowdlerized but "art" has been debauched.  

I can't comment on the specific example, as I'm no expert on art, modern or otherwise. But speaking as someone who has zero formal education on the topic, this is how I feel towards modern art sometimes.

It's not that transgression is a bad thing, but the necessity to acknowledge the value of transgressive artists and artwork, has given rise to a subculture of transgression for the sake of transgression, and cheapened its use as an artistic element, as if it were no longer a means to an end, but an end and a value in itself.

Quote from: The Butcher;450230I can't comment on the specific example, as I'm no expert on art, modern or otherwise. But speaking as someone who has zero formal education on the topic, this is how I feel towards modern art sometimes.

It's not that transgression is a bad thing, but the necessity to acknowledge the value of transgressive artists and artwork, has given rise to a subculture of transgression for the sake of transgression, and cheapened its use as an artistic element, as if it were no longer a means to an end, but an end and a value in itself.

Much like the rash of art that came out after "Piss Christ".

A couple of pertinent examples just came to mind - Ralph Bakshi's Wizards and Bruno Bozzetto's Allegro non Troppo.  Released in '77 and '76 respectively, they were presented to audiences of all ages (Wizards was PG, not sure if Allegro non Troppo ever got an MPAA rating, but it played in the child-friendly daytime of cable networks) and being animated I'm sure children saw these films to the extent that anyone did.  Both of them have considerable psychedelic erotica, titillation, bloody violence, imaginative leaps, scatological humour, and a kind of DIY esthetic.  For anyone who wants to know what Edwards is talking about, I would point to these two films.

Today, I suspect the makers of these films would be offered a great deal more money to make them either family friendly enough for the modern PG rating, or raunchy enough to earn a hard R.

Quote from: StormBringer;450232Much like the rash of art that came out after "Piss Christ".

Which, based upon my understanding of the artist's intent, I saw as a legitimate work of art.

Regardless of his past nonsense I saw nothing in this essay where Mr. Edwards was promoting people role-playing sex acts during their games (unless it was that feeble bit of self-promotion at the end).
He merely chose a couple of things, monsters and nudity, that... by their absence... signified... to him... the domestification/taming/commodification of RPGs... going from people expressing their desire for adventure to people desiring to make money off of other people's desire for adventure. Spending way too much time worrying about fonts and layouts and color processing and how the thing would sell and making sure it didn't have any pictures of dicks in it (because if someone sees you with a book with a demon penis on the front they might think you're gay!).
It was the same basic rant about how business concerns often manage to suck all the life out of a thing if not held in balance against the creative side of the equation... about why Thomas Kinkade sells well but 'Piss Christ' is exciting (and also probably sold well).

And yes, I think it's just as lame to put in more cocks and cunts as it is to take them all out... if selling/money is your only reason for doing so.
Maybe there is some parallel to be seen in why some of us would rather read/post on this forum vs. TBP... and how it's about more than just wanting to call each other 'fucktards' all the time (though surely that must be part of it).