QuoteImagine portraying the weaker sex as victims who need rescuing.  Who'd have thought it?

I mean sure you can have damsels in distress, though tbh against dangers of average OSR world, I guess 88% of male board members here would also fall under DiD label, alas probably showing actions heroines as DiD is some strong incoherence of theme and message.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 03:01:13 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 07:15:35 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 06:00:50 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The question is wider than that, though. From my experience of general 1970s and 1980s sources, men were more often posed like they were actually doing something - feet firmly planted, engaged in action. Women adventurers were not. As I sit here and scan through a bunch of my old RPG material, the difference stands out to me. Like when I look in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, I see illustrations like these:

Don't disagree. There are differences in how men and women are portrayed. There were also fewer women in those pictures. And you'll find very few black men.

But your methodology is crap. You're trying to prove a point by randomly picking a few examples you think help illustrate your point. That doesn't prove anything, because the examples you picked could easily be unrepresentative. It would require a more rigorous survey to draw any real conclusions.

And in case, parity is a ridiculous goal. You end up with crap like all the commercials that used to show three smiling faces, one black, one white, and one asian. It was pure tokenism, and really highlighted how superficial and racist most claims of "diversity" really are.

I'm not trying to rigorously prove this - I'm just expressing my opinion. I did flip completely through my DMG, PH, and DSG to look at all the cases - which is a cross-check since it's all material I'm familiar with from years of experience.  Even if I did a rigorous survey (as I did once with women in text examples), I doubt posters here would find it any more convincing. Trying to rigorously prove anything about art is difficult even in good circumstances - and essentially impossible with a hostile audience.

I also haven't made any claim about 50/50 parity, nor implied it by claiming about the number of women in illustrations. What I dislike about many older illustrations isn't the *number* of women portrayed, it's about the typical ways they were drawn - especially stance and pose. In my opinion, they typically do not convey heroic action the way that male figures do. There are cases, but I disagree with Jaegar that they are the norm.

Still, having some numbers is a nice-to-have for a few occasions. I remember back in 2007 running D&D for a group of six girls and one boy at an 11-year-old's birthday party. It took some effort to procure good selection of female miniatures, and I was using the Basic Set which had only 4 pregenerated characters - three male and one female.

Yes, I too want to see more landwhales represented in the artwork.

Greetings!

Hey Hermano! *Landwhales*!!!!! *laughing*

That's right. More bloated landwhales shown in the artwork. Beauty at any size, right? *Laughing*

Our culture has gone fucking insane. It celebrates the freaks, the ugly, and the obese.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 21, 2022, 09:23:33 AM

QuoteImagine portraying the weaker sex as victims who need rescuing.  Who'd have thought it?

I mean sure you can have damsels in distress, though tbh against dangers of average OSR world, I guess 88% of male board members here would also fall under DiD label, alas probably showing actions heroines as DiD is some strong incoherence of theme and message.

Damsels in Distress get rescued. Dudes in Distress just die...

Obviously not - like dozens funny comedic sidekicks were frequently DiD-ed and yet saved by their grumpy more heroic team members.

Quote from: SHARK on January 21, 2022, 09:38:22 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 03:01:13 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 07:15:35 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 06:00:50 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The question is wider than that, though. From my experience of general 1970s and 1980s sources, men were more often posed like they were actually doing something - feet firmly planted, engaged in action. Women adventurers were not. As I sit here and scan through a bunch of my old RPG material, the difference stands out to me. Like when I look in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, I see illustrations like these:

Don't disagree. There are differences in how men and women are portrayed. There were also fewer women in those pictures. And you'll find very few black men.

But your methodology is crap. You're trying to prove a point by randomly picking a few examples you think help illustrate your point. That doesn't prove anything, because the examples you picked could easily be unrepresentative. It would require a more rigorous survey to draw any real conclusions.

And in case, parity is a ridiculous goal. You end up with crap like all the commercials that used to show three smiling faces, one black, one white, and one asian. It was pure tokenism, and really highlighted how superficial and racist most claims of "diversity" really are.

I'm not trying to rigorously prove this - I'm just expressing my opinion. I did flip completely through my DMG, PH, and DSG to look at all the cases - which is a cross-check since it's all material I'm familiar with from years of experience.  Even if I did a rigorous survey (as I did once with women in text examples), I doubt posters here would find it any more convincing. Trying to rigorously prove anything about art is difficult even in good circumstances - and essentially impossible with a hostile audience.

I also haven't made any claim about 50/50 parity, nor implied it by claiming about the number of women in illustrations. What I dislike about many older illustrations isn't the *number* of women portrayed, it's about the typical ways they were drawn - especially stance and pose. In my opinion, they typically do not convey heroic action the way that male figures do. There are cases, but I disagree with Jaegar that they are the norm.

Still, having some numbers is a nice-to-have for a few occasions. I remember back in 2007 running D&D for a group of six girls and one boy at an 11-year-old's birthday party. It took some effort to procure good selection of female miniatures, and I was using the Basic Set which had only 4 pregenerated characters - three male and one female.

Yes, I too want to see more landwhales represented in the artwork.

Greetings!

Hey Hermano! *Landwhales*!!!!! *laughing*

That's right. More bloated landwhales shown in the artwork. Beauty at any size, right? *Laughing*

Our culture has gone fucking insane. It celebrates the freaks, the ugly, and the obese.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Gretings hermano, merry Christmass and Happy new year to you, yours and all in this  wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Since I've been away and I'm too lazy to go read how many pages to find out....

Has he made the argument that the representashun is what keeps wahmen from playing elf games?

If not he or some other leftoid will soon parrot the talking point. Because they are Lysenkoists and don't really believe in evolution.

"Strong shirtless men in the art are a male power fantasy!" Must be why the boddice rippers were so popular among men, I mean ALL of the covers of that kind of tripe featured strong, pretty dudes without shirts.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 03:01:13 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 07:15:35 PM
I also haven't made any claim about 50/50 parity, nor implied it by claiming about the number of women in illustrations. What I dislike about many older illustrations isn't the *number* of women portrayed, it's about the typical ways they were drawn - especially stance and pose. In my opinion, they typically do not convey heroic action the way that male figures do. There are cases, but I disagree with Jaegar that they are the norm.

Yes, I too want to see more landwhales represented in the artwork.

I specifically mention stance and pose, and I had cited Macho Women With Guns and my fan page as positive examples. So your reply doesn't seem to connect at all.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 11:22:14 AM
Has he made the argument that the representashun is what keeps wahmen from playing elf games?

If not he or some other leftoid will soon parrot the talking point. Because they are Lysenkoists and don't really believe in evolution.

For reference, SHARK hasn't participated in this thread at all until just now, so he wouldn't know.

The side-topic on illustrations of women started with Shrieking Banshee bringing up chainmail bikinis back in reply #142, which was just around when you dropped out. fixable initially replied with his problems with chainmail bikinis, and then a bunch of others spoke out in support of chainmail bikinis. I weighed in that I didn't have a problem with chainmail bikinis per se, but I overall disliked the 1970s/1980s examples of such, because they tended to not portray women adventurers as equally heroic - especially in pose and stance as I just mentioned. fixable dropped out after a bit, but the side topic has kept up.

And no, I haven't claimed anything about why women used to participate less in tabletop RPGs.

Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2022, 02:15:35 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 03:01:13 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 07:15:35 PM
I also haven't made any claim about 50/50 parity, nor implied it by claiming about the number of women in illustrations. What I dislike about many older illustrations isn't the *number* of women portrayed, it's about the typical ways they were drawn - especially stance and pose. In my opinion, they typically do not convey heroic action the way that male figures do. There are cases, but I disagree with Jaegar that they are the norm.

Yes, I too want to see more landwhales represented in the artwork.

I specifically mention stance and pose, and I had cited Macho Women With Guns and my fan page as positive examples. So your reply doesn't seem to connect at all.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 11:22:14 AM
Has he made the argument that the representashun is what keeps wahmen from playing elf games?

If not he or some other leftoid will soon parrot the talking point. Because they are Lysenkoists and don't really believe in evolution.

For reference, SHARK hasn't participated in this thread at all until just now, so he wouldn't know.

The side-topic on illustrations of women started with Shrieking Banshee bringing up chainmail bikinis back in reply #142, which was just around when you dropped out. fixable initially replied with his problems with chainmail bikinis, and then a bunch of others spoke out in support of chainmail bikinis. I weighed in that I didn't have a problem with chainmail bikinis per se, but I overall disliked the 1970s/1980s examples of such, because they tended to not portray women adventurers as equally heroic - especially in pose and stance as I just mentioned. fixable dropped out after a bit, but the side topic has kept up.

And no, I haven't claimed anything about why women used to participate less in tabletop RPGs.

YET.

In a product who's main audience is male, you would do well in having stuff males tend to like. Your argument is one of representation...

I never saw Mayan's represented anywhere in RPGs, Guess I shouldn't be playing them. Neither have I seen Basques, Galicians... And that covers my ancestry, therefore I shouldn't be playing RPGs.

I'll refer you to the Boddice Rippers covers once more. Tell me, how are women represented on those? And yet women buy them (or used to, maybe things have changed thanks to TV which killed certain type's of comics: Romance mainly) by the millions.

Repeat after me: "Human evolution doesn't stop at the neck, our brains also evolved, humans ARE a sexualy dimorphic species, among ALL sexualy dimorphic animals behaviour is also defferentiated between the sexes, humans ARE a sexually dimorphic animal..."

What you find offensive others don't, don't buy stuff that offends your Lyzenkoist sensibilities.

Quote from: SHARK on January 21, 2022, 09:38:22 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 03:01:13 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 07:15:35 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 06:00:50 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The question is wider than that, though. From my experience of general 1970s and 1980s sources, men were more often posed like they were actually doing something - feet firmly planted, engaged in action. Women adventurers were not. As I sit here and scan through a bunch of my old RPG material, the difference stands out to me. Like when I look in the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, I see illustrations like these:

Don't disagree. There are differences in how men and women are portrayed. There were also fewer women in those pictures. And you'll find very few black men.

But your methodology is crap. You're trying to prove a point by randomly picking a few examples you think help illustrate your point. That doesn't prove anything, because the examples you picked could easily be unrepresentative. It would require a more rigorous survey to draw any real conclusions.

And in case, parity is a ridiculous goal. You end up with crap like all the commercials that used to show three smiling faces, one black, one white, and one asian. It was pure tokenism, and really highlighted how superficial and racist most claims of "diversity" really are.

I'm not trying to rigorously prove this - I'm just expressing my opinion. I did flip completely through my DMG, PH, and DSG to look at all the cases - which is a cross-check since it's all material I'm familiar with from years of experience.  Even if I did a rigorous survey (as I did once with women in text examples), I doubt posters here would find it any more convincing. Trying to rigorously prove anything about art is difficult even in good circumstances - and essentially impossible with a hostile audience.

I also haven't made any claim about 50/50 parity, nor implied it by claiming about the number of women in illustrations. What I dislike about many older illustrations isn't the *number* of women portrayed, it's about the typical ways they were drawn - especially stance and pose. In my opinion, they typically do not convey heroic action the way that male figures do. There are cases, but I disagree with Jaegar that they are the norm.

Still, having some numbers is a nice-to-have for a few occasions. I remember back in 2007 running D&D for a group of six girls and one boy at an 11-year-old's birthday party. It took some effort to procure good selection of female miniatures, and I was using the Basic Set which had only 4 pregenerated characters - three male and one female.

Yes, I too want to see more landwhales represented in the artwork.

Greetings!

Hey Hermano! *Landwhales*!!!!! *laughing*

That's right. More bloated landwhales shown in the artwork. Beauty at any size, right? *Laughing*

Our culture has gone fucking insane. It celebrates the freaks, the ugly, and the obese.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

But then, you repeat yourself.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 02:24:25 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2022, 02:15:35 PM
The side-topic on illustrations of women started with Shrieking Banshee bringing up chainmail bikinis back in reply #142, which was just around when you dropped out. fixable initially replied with his problems with chainmail bikinis, and then a bunch of others spoke out in support of chainmail bikinis. I weighed in that I didn't have a problem with chainmail bikinis per se, but I overall disliked the 1970s/1980s examples of such, because they tended to not portray women adventurers as equally heroic - especially in pose and stance as I just mentioned. fixable dropped out after a bit, but the side topic has kept up.

And no, I haven't claimed anything about why women used to participate less in tabletop RPGs.

YET.

In a product who's main audience is male, you would do well in having stuff males tend to like. Your argument is one of representation...

Not all men prefer 1970s style chainmail bikinis -- just like not all men always want to eat at Hooters, or have naked women on all their playing cards. I'm expressing what I prefer in my game illustrations, and I'm a heterosexual man. I have an active sex life, and I don't feel the need to have passive sexy women strewn in every activity. I'll enjoy bikini-clad women in some games where that's the premise - like Macho Women With Guns or Teenagers from Outer Space. I also enjoy games like Buffy the Vampire Slayer where characters may look appealing but likely aren't in bikinis. I don't think it fits in every game, though, and in particular, I don't find the 1970s trend of more passive-looking women fantasy adventurers more appealing.

But you're clearly not speaking for the people that are offended by any show of female sexuality, overt or implied.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.

D&D Beyond:

"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.

While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.

While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."

Smiteworks said:

"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.

The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."

What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...

Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!

Quote from: jhkim on January 22, 2022, 03:55:52 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 21, 2022, 02:24:25 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 21, 2022, 02:15:35 PM
The side-topic on illustrations of women started with Shrieking Banshee bringing up chainmail bikinis back in reply #142, which was just around when you dropped out. fixable initially replied with his problems with chainmail bikinis, and then a bunch of others spoke out in support of chainmail bikinis. I weighed in that I didn't have a problem with chainmail bikinis per se, but I overall disliked the 1970s/1980s examples of such, because they tended to not portray women adventurers as equally heroic - especially in pose and stance as I just mentioned. fixable dropped out after a bit, but the side topic has kept up.

And no, I haven't claimed anything about why women used to participate less in tabletop RPGs.

YET.

In a product who's main audience is male, you would do well in having stuff males tend to like. Your argument is one of representation...

Not all men prefer 1970s style chainmail bikinis -- just like not all men always want to eat at Hooters, or have naked women on all their playing cards. I'm expressing what I prefer in my game illustrations, and I'm a heterosexual man. I have an active sex life, and I don't feel the need to have passive sexy women strewn in every activity. I'll enjoy bikini-clad women in some games where that's the premise - like Macho Women With Guns or Teenagers from Outer Space. I also enjoy games like Buffy the Vampire Slayer where characters may look appealing but likely aren't in bikinis. I don't think it fits in every game, though, and in particular, I don't find the 1970s trend of more passive-looking women fantasy adventurers more appealing.

If only there was a way in 2022 to produce alternate covers and find out what is most popular.

Alas we will never know.

Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.

D&D Beyond:

"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.

While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.

While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."

Smiteworks said:

"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.

The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."

What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...

Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!

Except, you blatant liar, they DID remove and replace content in Volo's on DNDBeyond!  They "errata'd" the descriptions of a bunch of monster races, and DNDBeyond was required to update the online book and remove the descriptive passages.  You know this, because you posted in that very thread on Dec 27th.  So who is the crazy, you moron, the people who suspect that they will do again what they have already done, or the people who assert that WotC would never replace old content because they want to sell new content.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 22, 2022, 10:47:31 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.

D&D Beyond:

"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.

While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.

While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."

Smiteworks said:

"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.

The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."

What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...

Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!

Except, you blatant liar, they DID remove and replace content in Volo's on DNDBeyond!  They "errata'd" the descriptions of a bunch of monster races, and DNDBeyond was required to update the online book and remove the descriptive passages.  You know this, because you posted in that very thread on Dec 27th.  So who is the crazy, you moron, the people who suspect that they will do again what they have already done, or the people who assert that WotC would never replace old content because they want to sell new content.

But this was never announced as errata you dolt. It's a new book.

Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 11:26:16 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 22, 2022, 10:47:31 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 22, 2022, 07:23:07 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 20, 2022, 11:25:33 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2022, 10:59:28 PM
Well this is going to throw a monkey wrench in the narrative here.

D&D Beyond:

"D&D Beyond has said that Monsters of the Multiverse will not replace existing monsters already purchased by users.

While they have indicated that existing content will not be overwritten, they were unable to share any details on how the new monster stat blocks will be implemented - suggestions might include duplicate entries, or some kind of toggle. This also includes racial traits, which won't replace old material -- the contents of the book will be treated as new content.

While DDB is taking it's lead from WotC on what to do, apparently WotC asked them to take charge of communicating this all to users."

Smiteworks said:

"Customers who want the newer versions of the monsters, newer images, newer tokens, races, etc., will need to purchase the new module for Mordenkainen Presents Monsters of the Multiverse. If a customer owns both the new module and the old modules, then they will see multiple listings for search results and will need to choose which version they want to use.

The Dungeon Master will be able to use the Allow Content or Block Content flags in the library to turn off or on those options within the Library for any players in their campaigns."

What a timely announcement. I'm sure they planned it this way all along, and it had nothing to do with fan commentary...

Two different companies. One is DNDBeyond, one is Smiteworks (Fantasy Grounds). Of course they planned this all along - it's the identical policy both companies have always followed for new books. The only people ever claiming they would REPLACE the content is the batshit crazies here who don't even fucking play 5e or even have DNDBeyond or use Fantasy Grounds with 5e. It was always stupid to think they'd GIVE AWAY FOR FREE the new content (with replacements) rather than charging for it like the normal businesses they are!

Except, you blatant liar, they DID remove and replace content in Volo's on DNDBeyond!  They "errata'd" the descriptions of a bunch of monster races, and DNDBeyond was required to update the online book and remove the descriptive passages.  You know this, because you posted in that very thread on Dec 27th.  So who is the crazy, you moron, the people who suspect that they will do again what they have already done, or the people who assert that WotC would never replace old content because they want to sell new content.

But this was never announced as errata you dolt. It's a new book.

Containing the reworking of old (i.e. previously released) monsters.  Just like in Volo's.  You can't be honest, even when the facts are clear, can you?