A clear case of misgendering by WotC. For shame! They should educate themselves:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/misgendering-what-it-is-and-why-it-matters-202107232553[/url]

As Elmore says, when he paints a woman, there's never a question about her gender.

Next they'll be telling us Clyde Caldwell's figures are ambiguous.

Super7 had a different interpretation:

https://super7.com/collections/dungeons-dragons/products/dungeons-and-dragons-reaction-figures-wave-03-formidable-fighter

After getting into Torg Eternity and then backing out of it because for everything in it I liked I hated something else and ended up needing all the old books to flesh out the huge gaps in the setting anyway, I'm looking at Savage Worlds as my "I want to play Torg, but with a different system" go to.

I'm guessing netrunning in Savage Worlds is now seen as an archaic game mechanic and no longer worth having in a game?

"Chud-upsetting or not"

Oh I see. Insult anyone who thinks this is absolutely fucking stupid given the fact it's a male warrior and always has been. Can WotC do anything except piss off all the people who actually play D&D and aren't merely using it to pander to Marxist sycophants?

Larry Elmore disagrees, but what does he know about it?

https://boundingintocomics.com/2024/05/08/wizards-of-the-coast-purposefully-and-clearly-gender-swaps-warrior-featured-on-dungeons-dragons-red-box-cover-art/?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spot_im_redirect_source=pitc

Article here: https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/character-mini-wizkids-red-box-warrior-female

It's a silly take to say, "This miniature reveals that the warrior on the Red Box was always a woman!"

As others have noted, the image on the Red Box can be interpreted as the same person in the blue, teal, black, and gold boxes. By the black box, we see the person's full-bearded face.

It probably would've been better to make two figures, one male and the other female.

Also, why are we not getting a miniature of the adventurers on the front of the Moldvay and Cook/Marsh boxes?

Thinking about it, the reason I've disconnected from most of the mainstream American entertainment industry is less about originality, and more about aesthetics.

I'll agree with JHKim that execution can, and often does, trump originality. But more importantly, the fact that something is using an existing IP doesn't mean it's entirely unoriginal. The 1999 The Mummy, which happens to be being rereleased to theaters this year, is one of my favorite films. Technically, it's a remake of the 1932 film, which I also really like, but the two are almost not similar at all.

My bigger problem with the recent products of both Hollywood and AAA videogaming is that everything is just so flat and ugly now. I'm not sure whether the culprit is the drive towards photorealism or the woke tendency to hate the concept of aesthetics, but (with a very few exceptions) nothing has any kind of style or glamour to it anymore.  The Marvel films are probably the obvious example, as they just get uglier and uglier over time, but you could also look at the insane aesthetic downgrade between Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films from 20 years ago and the Amazon show last year, despite the advancements in technology and comparable budget. The James Bond films were the standard-bearer for Hollywood style and glamour for decades, and then they let their aesthetics decay to the point where the Kingsman movies were able to come along and snatch their crown, and The list goes on and on.

Quote from: World_Warrior on May 08, 2024, 07:23:38 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 08, 2024, 04:33:26 PMSo the more accurate title for this thread would be "D&D Editions Still Haven't Gone Creative Commons"

Sure. Not yet. But, soon. Which, by the way, was Baptism of Fire published under one of the licenses, or did you manage to avoid that burden? I hadn't heard anything from you (though may have missed it) what your decision was moving forward.

With my books, I leave the ultimate decision up to the publishers. In this case, the publisher put it under the OGL. Personally, I think that a non-clone OSR game doesn't really need to be under any license.

Quote from: WERDNA on May 08, 2024, 08:21:27 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 08, 2024, 04:50:24 PMInstead they surrendered to a quiet mob.

Considering how leftists fill the ranks of gaming news sites, the "mob" was probably the author's coworkers and/or boss. He's probably learned the wages of apoliticism in his industry now.

Yes, I don't typically read that site; I've been told it was popular for Warhammer stuff in the past, but that now it's gone very woke.