Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on January 19, 2022, 04:07:24 PM
I will admit I am mixing you and Fixable together. You are mostly stating your personal preference, as opposed to demands like Fixable did.
I will take back your point about claims of ownership, and apologize.
I will say that I don't see emperiled women illustrations being a problem in need of fixing, and there are times when it gets on my nerves as well, but mostly in manga.

Thanks, Shrieking Banshee. That's cool. I've mixed up posters before too.

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM

Quote from: S'mon on January 18, 2022, 12:53:18 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 17, 2022, 09:18:42 PM
But this idea that Red Sonja herself is portrayed as helpless more than Conan is simply not there in the pictures.

There are some 'heroine' characters who are frequently portrayed as helpless for purposes of titillation, but Red Sonja was a really bad example to pick!

Red Sonja wasn't my choice of example - it was picked by Jaegar, and I simply used the same source to discuss his broader claims. I'm fine to concede on that character. I never intended this to be about Red Sonja in particular.

You were wrong about the character because you came with in a pre-existing expectation, and imposed it on the art. Instead of looking at the art itself.

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.

What we should do is recognize that art isn't and doesn't have to match some arbitrary standard of "representation". Above all, it should match the subject material. If you're writing about Song era China, then Inuit and 1950s era white men don't belong. Secondly, it's nice to give shout outs. The 1970s and 1980s RPG community was very heavily biased toward boys and men, though not to the the same degree as the wargaming communities. It wasn't until the 1990s and Vampire that some degree of parity was reached in a large section of the market. So naturally, there will be more things in the RPGs that appeal to boys, or men. That includes a lot of male characters in the art, maybe some sexiness (depending on your audience, family friendliness, and the image you want to convey; most of the time it's just inappropriate). But unlike the trenches of WW1 where women would be scarcer than cockatrice's teeth, fantasy has a lot of female heroes, from Jirel of Joiry to Red Sonja to Eowyn. So there will naturally be female characters. And it's good to give shout outs to an audience as well. Women and girls did play, and deliberately putting in a few things that show that they're welcome is a good thing (see the art above the how the create a section in B/X, for instance). It doesn't have to be 50/50, just as there don't have to be 50% men in a knitting circle. It's just nice if it's there.

Quote from: Jaeger on January 18, 2022, 08:04:32 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:53:27 PM
...
I would agree that women have been instrumental in how illustrations work in the past - i.e. it was the culture of both men and women,  not just something imposed on women by men. But I don't think it is purely hardwired. Majority taste doesn't mean that it's right either way, but in this case, the majority seem to no longer prefer those tropes - at least to the degree that they did in the 1970s.

Except that is simply not true at all.

In the case of comics or RPG's it is Just a small subset of "women", who got into positions where they could shame-scold companies from serving their customers and into reducing the amount of what they perceive as "problematic" art.

It gets even better. This is women shame scolding other women. Because a fair majority of D&D artists were women. And alot of the non mainstream adult artists are women.

Quote from: S'mon on January 19, 2022, 02:21:56 AM
Anyway Red Sonja and other Action Girls are aimed at men, not women. And Red Sonja types are aimed at nerdier men like most of us, who enjoy dominant butt-kicking action heroines. Most Hollywood writers are nerds too, so they tend to like this kind of character, perhaps a bit too obsessively.

Actually they are aimed at attracting a female reader base. Not men.

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The women here don't convey actiony adventurers to me. The left one is obviously panicked. The right one isn't as obvious, but it's still pointed that while others are brandishing weapons and shield, the woman is putting her hand to her chest.

You are just parroting the screed of the worst of the feminists now.

Quote from: Jaeger on January 19, 2022, 02:35:53 PM

All this is classic D&D art from the bad old days when the wokeoso's tell us that D&D "lacked representation"...

#DON'TDRINKTHEKOOLAID

No no no! Don't you see? ALL those women are in peril and are really weak and helpless because... PATRIARCY!

Its not representation either because theres more men than women or more maybe whites than non-whites. Or the non-whites arent non-white enough. Or the really-non-whites arent really-non-white enough. And then of course when you appease that. They are TOO-really-non-white and thats just terribled!

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.

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

How do you define a female miniature? Because a lot of figures can go either way, but are typically assumed to be male, unless there's one of a short list of stereotypical female characteristics to signal it's not. But that's less a problem with the figures than the people who need to be disabused of their assumptions. To give a simple example, consider the stick figure. Two sticks for arms, two for legs, maybe a stick for a body, and a circle for a head. Male or female? There's nothing about a stick figure that dictates it must be male or female. But typically, the default stick figure is considered male, and to be recognized as female must had something like a skirt or a pony tail added. The problem isn't the stick figure, it's the viewer's assumptions.

And if you're not the typical audience, it can be hard to find perfect fits. For instance, if you want to play a chunky super hero and there's only a 1 template for the chunky hero in an online hero builder, and a dozen for more fit types. That's because you're playing a less common type. There's an argument for reaching out to new audiences even if they are only a small minority, but it's not an entitlement. You don't deserve equal numbers of pregenerated characters. It's not some right that's being violated. The idea that everything needs to revolve around you and your specific characteristics is incredibly entitled thinking.

Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 07:40:02 PM
There's an argument for reaching out to new audiences even if they are only a small minority, but it's not an entitlement. You don't deserve equal numbers of pregenerated characters. It's not some right that's being violated. The idea that everything needs to revolve around you and your specific characteristics is incredibly entitled thinking.

Agreed. I don't deserve to get what I want in D&D, and equally, you don't deserve to get what you want in D&D either.

It's up to the owners of the IP to produce what they want, which currently is Wizards of the Coast. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to buy it - but they're not entitled to demand change.

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 08:03:07 PM

Quote from: Pat on January 19, 2022, 07:40:02 PM
There's an argument for reaching out to new audiences even if they are only a small minority, but it's not an entitlement. You don't deserve equal numbers of pregenerated characters. It's not some right that's being violated. The idea that everything needs to revolve around you and your specific characteristics is incredibly entitled thinking.

Agreed. I don't deserve to get what I want in D&D, and equally, you don't deserve to get what you want in D&D either.

It's up to the owners of the IP to produce what they want, which currently is Wizards of the Coast. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to buy it - but they're not entitled to demand change.

And yet change is demanded of them all the time by "progressives" claiming the game is sexist, racist and exclusionary.

Quote from: jhkim on January 17, 2022, 04:01:44 AM
There's nothing wrong with sexiness. The issue is when sexiness is used as an excuse for women adventurers to be portrayed as victims.

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

Quote from: jhkim on January 19, 2022, 12:52:11 PM
The women here don't convey actiony adventurers to me. The left one is obviously panicked. The right one isn't as obvious, but it's still pointed that while others are brandishing weapons and shield, the woman is putting her hand to her chest.

Well of course they are panicked. 
A woman has got to know her limitations. 
Clearly they are waiting for the man to kill the spider, mouse or whatever thing it is.

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."

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...

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.