D&DNext: Playtest Review

Wrathzog · Post by **Wrathzog** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:48 pm

I'll agree with you that D&D really isn't (and shouldn't be) about people's delicate parts, but the art definitely is. If I was the Art Director for D&D Anything, I would do whatever I needed to to hire Adam Hughes and Frank Cho to draw a bunch of cheesecake and it would be fantastic.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:57 pm

Do their choice for art means we're finally seeing a reaction to the "spikes everywhere" cartoony WOW/WH inspired visuals?

This is ... rather good. I'm not sure if I elaborated on this idea here before, but I'd totally buy RPG books that were simply chock-full of beautiful, moody and/or inspiring art.

Of course, coupled with a shitty system, this can lead to disappointment. I'll never forget the shock I had when I finally got my hands on Planescape and saw how boring the rules were. DiTerlizzi's art alone had sold Planescape to me.

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:09 pm

shadzar wrote:
the problem is the piece he chose that isnt copyright to someone else, really doesnt say D&D i have had about 100 people look at the picture and tell me what they think it means, and NOT ONE mentioned D&D.

Except Maj and I.

for a piece of art to have a meaning it must depict in some way the subject. there is nothing really about a swimming/bathing scene, or a select-your-prostitute scene, or some such that says D&D.

It says D&D a great deal, actually. Either your imagination is too limited, your definition of adventure too narrow or your definition of porn is far too wide, or all of the above.

Even if you only take the really basic aspect of the painting 'guy with nymphs,' there are a hell of a lot of ways to make that part of D&D. And very, very few touch on sex in any fashion.

Not sure what your issue with Ogrebattle's pic is either. Classical wrestling is win.

nockermensch wrote:Do their choice for art means we're finally seeing a reaction to the "spikes everywhere" cartoony WOW/WH inspired visuals?

This is ... rather good. I'm not sure if I elaborated on this idea here before, but I'd totally buy RPG books that were simply chock-full of beautiful, moody and/or inspiring art.

Yeah, I hope this is actually a representation of the art style they are aiming for, rather than a gimmick. Though as a gimmick, it would be odd since classical art has a lot less appeal to their target demographic than the 4e style fantasy schlock. As shadzar illustrates pretty well, with his 'ew, titty cooties, reaction.'

codeGlaze · Post by **codeGlaze** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:58 am

Speaking of art.
Did Paizo buy the artists that did the art for Eberron? Or was there overlap at one point? ... because I loved a majority of it... and it looks similar to what I've seen come out of Pathfinder.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:16 am

codeGlaze wrote:Speaking of art.
Did Paizo buy the artists that did the art for Eberron? Or was there overlap at one point? ... because I loved a majority of it... and it looks similar to what I've seen come out of Pathfinder.

Wayne Reynolds did some (but not all) of the art for Eberron, and likewise for Pathfinder. Book covers, in particular.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:30 am

Voss wrote:Not sure what your issue with Ogrebattle's pic is either. Classical wrestling is win.

while greco-roman wrestling is depicted well in that picture, the statue of David, does have groin covering, because you just cant have that in public. Likewise a penis, let alone a man grabbing another man's penis would get ANY D&D book a giant NO and EXPLICIT rating on the book.

not really the thing to get younger viewers to be interested when the book is only allowed to be sold to persons 21 (18 in some places) and up. book of vile darkness had the explicit content sticker, a did BoEF. HASBRO/WotC wont risk another BoEF situation. or they would be fools to do so.

the game is aimed at 11 and up... you have to have art that fits that age range as set but all those parents groups and such that like banning books n school libraries, or they will boycott stores like Toys-R-Us to prevent D&D books from showing up with just a single suggestive image in it.

rasmuswagner · Post by **rasmuswagner** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:39 am

shadzar wrote: for a piece of art to have a meaning it must depict in some way the subject. there is nothing really about a swimming/bathing scene, or a select-your-prostitute scene, or some such that says D&D.

Random. Harlot. Table. Published by Saint Gygax himself, motherfucker.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:50 am

Shadzar: Failing at reading comprehension since forever.

More generally, I like the nymph picture. It's fairly low-key fantasy. Running into fairies and elves in the woods in a thing which can, in fact, happen in D&D.

And wasn't it, like, Dragonlance or something which had the Sea Elf who ran around naked? I remember it being in Dragons of Winter Night.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:57 am

Bullshit Shadzar. Moldvay and Mentzer are 10+ and they're so full of suggestive cheesecake it's not even funny. The female characters are seriously wearing loincloths tied at the waist and fluttering in the breeze, high-heeled leather boots, and a low-cut bustier, and 80's hair.

Cock-grabbing moves are certainly out thanks to the law and all, but a bit of cock-punching wouldn't go astray at all. The picture of a wardog should totally be a dog biting someone in the groin, as that's what wardogs were trained to do.

Also, dude, go read what Nymphs are. You look stupider than normal.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:58 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Bullshit, OgreBattle. Where is their magical geegaw and stat-giving blingee? That's like half of D&D right there.

What if I told you they were wizards.

...
I do wonder why they didn't use say, Orlando Furioso though

It's got female nudity, but also an armored knight charging a monster from griffonback

Though I bet they probably thought "we don't want to offend our female player"

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:05 pm

tussock wrote:Bullshit Shadzar. Moldvay and Mentzer are 10+ and they're so full of suggestive cheesecake it's not even funny. The female characters are seriously wearing loincloths tied at the waist and fluttering in the breeze, high-heeled leather boots, and a low-cut bustier, and 80's hair.

For Pete's sake, Morgan Ironwolf's nipples are so hard they show through her chainmail!

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:36 pm

It is indeed encouraging to see D&D artists showing that they have ever taken an art history class and discussing D&D in terms of classical art depicting adventures and fantasy encounters. I do find it more than a little weird that one of the artists apparently suggested a Christ's Passion piece for discussion.

That last one is bullshit on a bunch of levels. There's no adventure in that story, it's just a guy getting tortured to death. Leaving aside the fact that it has obvious and strongly religious themes, or that The Passion specifically is tied up with some incredibly creepy anti-semitism and blood libel, it's just not a part of the story that has any fantastic or adventurous elements in it at all. All the dead raising, tree blasting, and demon fighting in the Christian body of lore take place in different stories. Stories that for all their qualities and faults are not the fucking Passion, you fucking asshole.

-Username17

talozin · Post by **talozin** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:04 pm

hogarth wrote:
tussock wrote:Bullshit Shadzar. Moldvay and Mentzer are 10+ and they're so full of suggestive cheesecake it's not even funny. The female characters are seriously wearing loincloths tied at the waist and fluttering in the breeze, high-heeled leather boots, and a low-cut bustier, and 80's hair.
For Pete's sake, Morgan Ironwolf's nipples are so hard they show through her chainmail!

Hell, the sorceress on the fvcking cover of red box Basic is showing a lot of thigh for someone about to be eaten by a dragon. Then there's the elf with the bared midriff who appears to be wearing a sports bra and a chainmail bib.

Libertad · Post by **Libertad** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:24 pm

Since cheesecake has been brought up:

I'm all in favor of having more women in practical clothing and armor in D&D art than stripperific clothing. I don't mind or have a problem with nude classical art, and in some ways it can be appropriate. But it's all how it's done.

I don't want to see virtually every female picture in a book becoming blatant wank material, or the only reason a women's clad in a chainmail bikini or assuming a spine-breaking pose is because "it's hot."

Classical nude nymphs? Fine. Escher Girls? Not so fine.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:15 pm

Libertad wrote:Since cheesecake has been brought up:

I'm all in favor of having more women in practical clothing and armor in D&D art than stripperific clothing. I don't mind or have a problem with nude classical art, and in some ways it can be appropriate. But it's all how it's done.

I don't want to see virtually every female picture in a book becoming blatant wank material, or the only reason a women's clad in a chainmail bikini or assuming a spine-breaking pose is because "it's hot."

Classical nude nymphs? Fine. Escher Girls? Not so fine.

I agree entirely. I think it's OK to include a little cheesecake as an homage to earlier editions, but the majority of the artwork should have practically clothed characters. I think Pathfinder is maybe the closest to this, their Cleric iconic is practically dressed, but every other one of their female iconics has some concession to cheescake.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:23 pm

3rd edition was closer still. Alhandra, Lidda, Ember, and Vadania all wore basically practical clothing. Mialee did not, but no one even noticed, because they decided to make her look like a hideous alien creature.

-Username17

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:44 pm

Juton wrote:I agree entirely. I think it's OK to include a little cheesecake as an homage to earlier editions, but the majority of the artwork should have practically clothed characters. I think Pathfinder is maybe the closest to this, their Cleric iconic is practically dressed, but every other one of their female iconics has some concession to cheescake.

The paladin doesn't seem to cheesecake-y to me, but maybe I don't have the right fetish:

I'm not sure what the cheesecake appeal of the druid is supposed to be, either (big image):

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:16 pm

I never noticed the Druid was a female before, so that point is yours. Regarding the Paladin, my problem is with her armour. It may be a minor point to most but armour with breasts, for lack of a better term, is a really bad idea. The area between them is much more likely to catch a weapon and absorb the full force of a attack. Basically it turns what should be the strongest part of the armour into one of the weakest.

Aside from the Cleric and the Druid, all the female Iconics seem to be sporting clevage. On the Iconics who rely on armour, showing the skin in front of the heart/lungs is a incredibly bad idea.

I like the Tumblr, Women Fighters in reasonable armour because for the most part it is women warriors in practical, quasi-realistic armour.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:20 pm

Juton wrote:Aside from the Cleric and the Druid, all the female Iconics seem to be sporting cleavage.

The barbarian doesn't show any cleavage (at least in the stock picture), but she has a bare midriff, slight "side boobage", etc.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:42 pm

tussock wrote:Bullshit Shadzar. Moldvay and Mentzer are 10+ and they're so full of suggestive cheesecake it's not even funny. The female characters are seriously wearing loincloths tied at the waist and fluttering in the breeze, high-heeled leather boots, and a low-cut bustier, and 80's hair.

Cock-grabbing moves are certainly out thanks to the law and all, but a bit of cock-punching wouldn't go astray at all. The picture of a wardog should totally be a dog biting someone in the groin, as that's what wardogs were trained to do.

Also, dude, go read what Nymphs are. You look stupider than normal.

you are ALL missing the point. Jon S gave us the name of the picture, "Hyla and the Nymphs". in a museum you can see the name of the picture also. ON A D&D BOOK COVER, there is NO ARTWORK NAME. if you take the image without its name, what does the ART say?

assume this image was used on the cover of the D&D PHB for DDN. all the nude art was hidden inside the books back then, like fake porn. playboys hidden until pre-teens mattresses where mom couldnt find them, etc.

depictions of nude dont belong in D&D, since it is all about wearing armor and wielding weapons. the nude adventurer is likely to be a quickly dead on, nor does the subject need to be presented in the books. let people add the "sex module" at their own tables. a designer should NOT be supplying rules for sex between PCs and NPCs/monsters.

rasmuswagner wrote:
shadzar wrote: for a piece of art to have a meaning it must depict in some way the subject. there is nothing really about a swimming/bathing scene, or a select-your-prostitute scene, or some such that says D&D.
Random. Harlot. Table. Published by Saint Gygax himself, motherfucker.

a designer should NOT be supplying rules for sex between PCs and NPCs/monsters. (or NPCs/monsters and other NPCs/monsters, or PCs and PCs.)

in case you missed it in my portion responding to tussock, so you would know it addresses your post as well.

you can worship Gygax all you fucking want, but i have said no less than 1000 times he as ALL designers fucked up some simple things.

sex need not be mentioned.

Succubus shows a nude winged female form that doesnt show anything (penis, anus, nipples, vagina).

Desc: Succubi seduce men and steal their lifeforce.

you have faithfully represented a succubus, without mentioning sex. seduction doesnt always mean sex, and people that want to discuss sex with others they game with are allowed to, and people that dont, or pre-teens that maybe shouldnt while om is fixing dinner at the kitchen table they are playing at... SHOULDNT even have sex mentioned if the game makers want mom to keep buying them the books.

if mom wanted the kids to have pornographic discussions, she could save a LOT of money and just get them issues of Penthouse, Hustler or Playboy/Playgirl, for cheaper than the starting price of D&D.

again, D&D is about BOTH killing things and taking their stuff, AND traipsing through faerie rings and talking to the little people, NOT fucking things and taking their stuff.

YOU are allowed to add or remove anything from D&D, but it should start with a decent base game, ergo random harlots table removed, because it wasnt appropriate for the game. ALE CAN BE REMOVED, because nothing says the tavern has to serve it.

also nymphs are NOT the essence of D&D in any way shape or form, he failed his "essence of D&D" when he went on a tangent to connect a previous series of articles with this one.

IF you need a name for a picture or words to go with it to depict its subject, then YOU HAVE FAILED with your artwork. the Campbell's Soup Can painting needs NO title to tell you what it is.

another reason why Jon S fails, because he his artwork is so poor at depicting what the subject of the artwork is, he has to explain it.

you people are all missing that. the ONLY connection you make to the art is from the article or the side of the image TELLING YOU what the picture is of.

just looking at the picture or describing it to someone (young man sitting at waters edge as a dozen at least topless young females sit in the water), in NO way depicts D&D. it is a bathing scene of some sort without the title having "Nymphs", or if someone doesnt know the meaning of the word "nymph".

talozin · Post by **talozin** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:18 pm

hogarth wrote: I'm not sure what the cheesecake appeal of the druid is supposed to be, either (big image):

That looks more "pedo" than "cheesecake" to me.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:20 am

Juton wrote:It may be a minor point to most but armour with breasts, for lack of a better term, is a really bad idea.

It isn't a minor point.

It's a fucking big gigantic asshole of a point.

ANYONE who brings up that point, like say, you, should shut the fuck up and step AWAY from the fantasy art because you are going to ruin it for fucking everyone.

I and the vast majority of sane people in the world do not give a flying fuck about the "realistic practicality of breasts on armour". Easily the majority of D&D, fantasy and fantasy art fans even those who want to see less skin LIKE breasts on armour. So much even the MEN will have often have impractically contoured manly breasts on their breast plates. BECAUSE IT FUCKING LOOKS GOOD.

And anyone who has a "I know it's minor but SPERG SPERG SPERG" fit over it is a fucker who should be kicked in the ass and public ally shamed for having such a stupid destructive opinion about FANTASY ART.

Juton · Post by **Juton** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:26 am

PhoneLobster wrote: It isn't a minor point.

It's a fucking big gigantic asshole of a point.

ANYONE who brings up that point, like say, you, should shut the fuck up and step AWAY from the fantasy art because you are going to ruin it for fucking everyone.

I and the vast majority of sane people in the world do not give a flying fuck about the "realistic practicality of breasts on armour". Easily the majority of D&D, fantasy and fantasy art fans even those who want to see less skin LIKE breasts on armour. So much even the MEN will have often have impractically contoured manly breasts on their breast plates. BECAUSE IT FUCKING LOOKS GOOD.

And anyone who has a "I know it's minor but SPERG SPERG SPERG" fit over it is a fucker who should be kicked in the ass and public ally shamed for having such a stupid destructive opinion about FANTASY ART.

U mad bro?

Seriously, you are that angry that I disagree with you on an aesthetic point. Go the fuck outside, live your life.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:59 am

talozin wrote:
hogarth wrote: I'm not sure what the cheesecake appeal of the druid is supposed to be, either (big image):
That looks more "pedo" than "cheesecake" to me.

lets look at the image again Jon S chose then shall we?

Hylas and the Nymphs (1896) by John William Waterhouse

Hylas wrote:In classical mythology, Hylas (Greek: Ὕλας') was a youth who served as a companion of Heracles (Roman Hercules). His abduction by water nymphs was a theme of ancient art, and has been an enduring subject for Western art in the classical tradition.

[quote="naiad/water nymph]In Greek mythology, the Naiads (play /ˈneɪæd/ or /ˈneɪəd/ or /ˈnaɪæd/ or /ˈnaɪəd/; Ancient Greek: Ναϊάδες, Naiades, from νάειν, "to flow", or νᾶμα, "running water") were a type of nymph (female spirit) who presided over fountains, wells, springs, streams, brooks and other bodies of freshwater[/quote]

nymph wrote:Different from goddesses, nymphs are generally regarded as divine spirits who animate nature, and are usually depicted as beautiful, young nubile maidens
~~~
The Greek word νύμφη has "bride" and "veiled" among its meanings: hence a marriageable young woman. Other readers refer the word (and also Latin nubere and German Knospe) to a root expressing the idea of "swelling" (according to Hesychius, one of the meanings of νύμφη is "rose-bud").

nubile wrote:Nubile refers to a young woman who is ready or suitable for marriage by virtue of her age or [sexual] maturity

sexual maturity wrote:Sexual maturity is the age or stage when an organism can reproduce. It is sometimes considered synonymous with adulthood, though the two are distinct. In humans, the process of sexually maturing is termed puberty.

females at puberty, abducted hylas. so females aged @ 9~16 years of age, or depictions thereof is what the greeks considered nymphs.

again "a young man kneeling at waters edge, where a bunch of pre-teen to teen girls are sitting nude in the water."

the girls surely look like they could be "swelling" due to "puberty" to me.

sure the thought of the past was akin to "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed", ergo the marriageable age was puberty (Joseph 30+ married Mary 13...Jesus of Nazareth's "parents") in THOSE times. but today the common gamer wont really know all the myths.

if you drew or painted an image today of a late teen male crouching at a riverside full of 9~16 year old nude females, and it wasnt in poverty stricken 3rd-world countries depicting the life there; you ALL know what the "art" would be classified as.

so without knowing who the fuck Hylas is, anyone can tell the females are younger, or just less endowed, and doesnt really say anything about adventure WITHOUT all that context. even knowing what nymph means could lead to confusion and not present with a mythological connotation.

some here can understand the history and what the words mean where they come from, but throw that picture in D&D in the bible-belt, and just how well do you think it will go over? it is not appropriate for all audiences, because it is TOO VAGUE, so not aligned with the idea of D&D.

so combining his and Wyatt's Nymph arguments with their articles and the respondents to them, Jon S failed to really say anything about the "essence of D&D" because he narrowly focused too tight on a sidetrek argument. it seems more like he picked that picture to say "Hey Wyatt, this is what nymphs look like not that monster thing from one of the WotC versions of D&D", and missed the whole "essence of D&D" bit he was talking about ALL through the article.

group of persons riding horseback, pre-victorian garbed people around a fire, fighting persons in suits of armor with dated pre-firearms weapons, magic flying around, anything WITHOUT MODERN TECHNOLOGY, could depict a PART of D&D; so long as it doesnt narrow in too focused like Jon S did with something that is like shooting a needle at a broadside of a barn and the needle going through a crack rather than sticking into the side of the barn, BECAUSE it is so narrow!

Mask_De_H · Post by **Mask_De_H** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:16 am

Juton wrote:I never noticed the Druid was a female before, so that point is yours. Regarding the Paladin, my problem is with her armour. It may be a minor point to most but armour with breasts, for lack of a better term, is a really bad idea. The area between them is much more likely to catch a weapon and absorb the full force of a attack. Basically it turns what should be the strongest part of the armour into one of the weakest.

Aside from the Cleric and the Druid, all the female Iconics seem to be sporting clevage. On the Iconics who rely on armour, showing the skin in front of the heart/lungs is a incredibly bad idea.

I like the Tumblr, Women Fighters in reasonable armour because for the most part it is women warriors in practical, quasi-realistic armour.

If that bit above the breasts is a solid piece, then it's fine. It's only when the breast armor is "form fitting" you get strikes directed into the sternum like you said.

And how the hell couldn't you tell the Druid was a girl? It has proper boobplate, too.