The appropriate amount of sexual content in D&D.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:04 pm

On the one hand, sex sells. Rippling naked torsos, nude nymphs with huge breasts, and Dr. Manhattan with a loincloth and a visible bulge titillates and excites the readers

On the other hand, you still want children to pick up the game. Not that I think that showing a small child a limp penis will traumatize them or anything, but D&D can NOT survive the kind of whining that will come about from parents complaining that their kid saw a bare nipple. Also if you put too much sex in your game it'll turn off some people; both the people who see your game as infantile instead of adult (the naked furry loli in Exalted did this for me) and also for the people who are afraid of the next campaign turning into FATAL.

So what's the proper balance in your opinion?

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:24 pm

Teenrated I would guess. Chainmail bikini yes, bodypaint-is-all-this-tribe-wears-to-war no.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:24 pm

There are bare nipples in the Monster Manual.

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:28 pm

Take the amount of eroticism that would be tasteful. Then go ever so slightly beyond that, but only it in the art. That is, just a bit of absurdity is allowed in the name of making things sexy.

But the nymph that everyone remembers is pushing it, and unfortunately the AD&D Monster Manual succubus is going too far for a book that you might market to kids. As you say, it won't bother the kids (I had that book when I was 9), but it might both parents.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:31 pm

D&D was more socially relevant when it had naked sylphs and mariliths in the monster manual. Naked titties. You don't have to go full vag or swinging cock, but honestly I think it might be better if you did.

Straight up have the iron golem be a Greek Statue. Complete with flaccid penis and bulging pectorals. Caryatid Columns are actual Caryatids. Complete with boobs.

-Username17

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:38 pm

I would pay real money to be able to fight a horde of Statue of Davids.

I'm with you on the social relevance thing. It seems to be that the trick is to get the parents to whine (in order to build cred and the forbidden fruit factor) but not whine so much that anything other than a minority of them are forbidding their kids to pick up the book.

Still, if you want to go that route the only way it could really work is if the game was being hipsterly-disinterested/satirical about its nudity. Which unfortunately means that most of the monsters are nudists. I think you can occasionally do a thing like showing what all of the races look like naked, but actually showing nude elves holding a sword above their head with a saucy look on their face might be going too far. Otherwise you get whining parents.

Wesley Street · Post by **Wesley Street** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:06 pm

I think the amount of sexuality displayed in the current edition of D&D is fine. Bare midriffs, big boobies, throbbing pecs. Nothing you wouldn't see outside of a Marvel comic. Until WotC begins an age 16+ imprint, it's not the job of D&D to push that boundary.

That said, I'd be intrigued by a fantasy RPG that portrayed mammalian monsters in a realistic fashion. Hill giants don't need to be crushing hovels with a phallus the length of a windmill tower but, from an artistic standpoint, irrelevant clothing like a loincloth strikes me as silly and pulls me out of the world. Go to a state fair and you'll see plenty of horse cock so I see little reason to have male centaurs portrayed as castrati.

Hell, the Wolf in Sondheim's adaption of "Into the Woods" had a penis sewn into the outside of his costume so there's some precedent there.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:21 pm

I don't think it really needs nudity in the art (consider that the best Dryad, indeed one of the best pieces of "art of a lady", was the 3.0 one, who was clothed, wasn't slutty, and was beautiful and amazingly drawn. I can't even explain how she was so well done). At the level it is mostly at now, it does what the intended purpose probably was: to show humanoids in their prime as being a great thing. For every "Oh exploitive!" girl wearing "not much"* there's a man with bare, rippling pecs and thighs that could crack golems. It doesn't come across as being sexual so much as "This is the true human form. If you weren't a roleplayer you could look like this. Minus the tusks."

So I'd say the current level of art (minus the completely random "lol we drew a nipple on the Fiend Folio cover, for no apparent reason") is probably fine insofar as it mostly portrays the body as an impressive, beautiful thing and doesn't really get uptight parents complaining about their hypothetical children who thankfully haven't been born to see this.

Although I'm totally happy to piss such people off, if that's the angle you want to go for. And as a player, I like to sexify the game (that is, to fight monster-girls in the nude and generally make it all come across as sexy). But yeah. Boobs aren't things that should scar the minds of anyone. But if we care about idiots who are easily offended, the current level is probably the good point. But if you want to piss them off, I will draw all the boobs you need.

*And I can't complain about such, as someone who watches IkkiTousen and Rosario to Vampire.

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:33 pm

Wesley Street wrote:I think the amount of sexuality displayed in the current edition of D&D is fine. Bare midriffs, big boobies, throbbing pecs. Nothing you wouldn't see outside of a Marvel comic. Until WotC begins an age 16+ imprint, it's not the job of D&D to push that boundary.

Yeah, that's about the size of it. Nipples and wangs aren't particularly essential to D&D.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:40 pm

People have been and will be able to add the sexual content they want to any TTRPG, no matter what the game rules and illustrations are. But if a ame is meant to appeal to most, getting too explicit is counter-productive.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 2:41 pm

Koumei wrote:consider that the best Dryad, indeed one of the best pieces of "art of a lady", was the 3.0 one, who was clothed, wasn't slutty, and was beautiful and amazingly drawn.

I'd normally never comment on this, but I have some vague prehistoric memory of Maj and Crissa and Frank saying the same thing back when there was a Nifty. So I guess I might as well get this mini-rant off my chest.

You actually liked that? I, well, while I didn't hate the picture I didn't think it was any good. The dryad was generically cute and so out-of-place she looked stupid. Like if you commissioned the artist of the Disney comic and the people who create aliens for Star Trek to come up with their interpretation of a dryad. From a 'oh, it's so pretty' standpoint I don't really see that either. She's all-right looking. Nothing special. I see a lot better drawn pictures than that on a daily basis, mostly because I'm a SO LONELY pervert.

Now granted I didn't care for the 3.5E replacement, but at least that dryad LOOKED like an alien exotic creature rather than some schoolteacher cosplaying as Demeter.

Wyzzard · Post by **Wyzzard** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:08 pm

You can't put cocks in dnd for a variety of reasons.
Concerned parents were mentioned, but you're also up against the fans themeselves:

Remember, you need these chimps to fork out money for your crap. So, while you can get away with putting tits on the dragonborn or sneaking in the occasional bared breast a la BoVD, dnd is a strickt No Cocks Allowed zone. It's silly, but there you have it.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:29 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:I see a lot better drawn pictures than that on a daily basis, mostly because I'm a SO LONELY pervert. :cry:

I see vast quantities of drawn porn, don't get me wrong here. I just feel that the 3.0 Dryad is well-drawn and beautiful in a way that few pieces of porn capture (although I have been known to save many a pic not because of the boobs or whatever, but because of the rainbow hair or something).

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:41 pm

I doubt anyone would be offended by naked animals in a D&D book. I don't think D&D is targeted at the sorts of people who believe that dogs should wear underwear (and overwear, because underwear alone would be provocative).

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:11 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:I doubt anyone would be offended by naked animals in a D&D book.

It depends. If the illustration under "Horse" in the Monster Manual showed a stallion with a raging boner, I'd probably get a mistaken impression about the game, if not outright offense.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:46 pm

hogarth wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote:I doubt anyone would be offended by naked animals in a D&D book.
It depends. If the illustration under "Horse" in the Monster Manual showed a stallion with a raging boner, I'd probably get a mistaken impression about the game, if not outright offense.

No one is suggesting the use of erect penises, we're talking about flaccid penises like in the classic Greek and Roman (as well as neo-classical work derivative of it) where we get so many of the D&D monsters.

No depicted sexual situations, simply naked minotaurs.

-Username17

mean_liar · Post by **mean_liar** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:05 pm

I don't recall what the 3.0 dryad looked like. Do we have a link?

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:32 pm

mean_liar wrote:I don't recall what the 3.0 dryad looked like. Do we have a link?

I'm not sure what the big deal is. There are many more risqué monsters.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:39 pm

I always liked that one better than the 3.5 one. BTW, where did you find that?

All I could find was the 3.5 one, the old MtG dryad, and a bunch of random art.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:37 pm

CatharzGodfoot wrote:I doubt anyone would be offended by naked animals in a D&D book. I don't think D&D is targeted at the sorts of people who believe that dogs should wear underwear (and overwear, because underwear alone would be provocative).

The powers that be freaked and demanded that in Star Wars, Chewbacca needed pants, even though you couldn't see his junk.

Yes, people will freak. You're giving the American public too much credit here.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:50 pm

People will, yes. In any large number? Apparently not, as last time I checked, Chewie's still walking around pantless and there's something known as the "Wookie Rule."
(If you can't see junk, they don't need clothes)

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:54 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:
hogarth wrote:
CatharzGodfoot wrote:I doubt anyone would be offended by naked animals in a D&D book.
It depends. If the illustration under "Horse" in the Monster Manual showed a stallion with a raging boner, I'd probably get a mistaken impression about the game, if not outright offense.
No one is suggesting the use of erect penises, we're talking about flaccid penises like in the classic Greek and Roman (as well as neo-classical work derivative of it) where we get so many of the D&D monsters.

No depicted sexual situations, simply naked minotaurs.

-Username17

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the bovine dong connoisseur market is pretty small. Smaller than the Victorian prude market, even.

malak · Post by **malak** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:01 pm

hogarth wrote: I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the bovine dong connaisseur market is pretty small. Smaller than the Victorian prude market, even.

Furries?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:07 pm

honestly, it won't even be that (and in fact a lot of furries may get pissed if furry creatures in D&D don't have species correct packages, ie, slits and cloaca, and such). It's more likely that a blase treatment of sexual organs, such as the minotaur's cock just hanging there, not doing anything (And certainly not gold plated) will have more of an effect on the pre-teens and teens looking through ("Holy shit, the minotaur's got a cawk! That's fucking crazy! Imma pick this book up, I gotta show my friends!")

hogarth · Post by **hogarth** » Mon Aug 23, 2010 7:30 pm

malak wrote:
hogarth wrote: I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the bovine dong connaisseur market is pretty small. Smaller than the Victorian prude market, even.
Furries?

Specifically, the subset of furries who'd rather look at a flaccid bull-man than a sexy cat-girl, I guess.