Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!

[Eric Tolle]

If you had been playing a male character, would the window have been over his crotch?

[Lord_Gareth]

If you had been playing a male character, would the window have been over his crotch?

Well, the guy who did it with his male character (after seeing the success rate of mine) did it over his upper torso for the same reason I did it with boob window; to expose the heart.

[Scowling Dragon]

I think Shortpacked did a really good strip about this issue:

Spoiler

Show

And personally I think its right. I do get that feeling of uncomfortability when males are drawn like that.

[Eric Tolle]

I recall one guy on a forum objecting to that strip because it made Batman "a freak". Thus without realizing it, pretty much making the artist's point.

[Scowling Dragon]

I recall one guy on a forum objecting to that strip because it made Batman "a freak". Thus without realizing it, pretty much making the artist's point.

It has to do with sexuality:

If I was a Muscle bound guy in a barbarian outfit I would go "HECK YEAH!" and the chicks would be just a bonus.

But THAT image is drawn from a purely sexual standpoint. It would make me feel uncomfortable.

[Eric Tolle]

Which is what female comic readers (or in our case female gamers) have to put up with constantly. Except it's worse for female readers because they get depictions of Wonder Woman impossibly twisted around to show both her ass and her cleavage.

But at least people are calling artists on that now, and there's at least the start of a dialogue on sexist imagery. And at least rpgs are better than comics in this respect...not that that that's saying much, given how comics these days are basically tracing porn.

[Seerow]

I think Shortpacked did a really good strip about this issue:

Spoiler

Show

And personally I think its right. I do get that feeling of uncomfortability when males are drawn like that.

So I guess all the anime/manga and such is incredibly sexist?

[Scowling Dragon]

So I guess all the anime/manga and such is incredibly sexist?

Im sure that it was reference to the hyper creepy ultra feminine male looking fellows drawn in some manga and anime.

[Sith_Happens]

If I was a Muscle bound guy in a barbarian outfit I would go "HECK YEAH!" and the chicks would be just a bonus.

Of course, this brings up an important question, namely, how many women have that same attitude? Or, to put it differently, how many women would choose to look approximately like a typical comic-book or sword-and-sorcery if they could? Probably less so than the number of males who would, but probably not an insignificant number either. Which itself leads to the obvious question, why the difference (assuming there is one)?

Really, it seems like most of the arguments/controversies about character art are only possible because most people have so heavily internalized the double standard regarding how male vs. female "flaunting" is viewed. THAT'S the real issue that people should be talking about*.

*Preferably on other threads, because this one's gone way far off the rails.

[DefKab]

Personally, if I open a copy of 5th edition, and it's packed cover to cover with images of scantily clad women, and impeccably muscled men, I would be okay with it, because I'm positive that NO where in the rules does it say "Female players will buy armor for cheaper than males, because they use less material." Never has a fantasy game made someone design their character after a particular image. When players do design their characters, their clothing is always in league with the personality. Yes, some female fighters are overtly sexy, but explained away as such. Some are more rigorously clothed, and also explained as to why... However, I've NEVER met a player that made an obese woman his/her avatar. Never... Is that sexist? Maybe. Prejudicial, definitely so. But is it wrong to do so?

[Scowling Dragon]

Of course, this brings up an important question, namely, how many women have that same attitude?

Its not the same comparison.

Boobholes in armor is not the same thing as being ultra buff.

Im sure some women want to be ultra buff, but Im sure no woman wants to be a slutty boob exposed character with only a leather bra bikini in a warzone nearby buff men dressed in practical clothing.

[Seerow]

Its not the same comparison.

Boobholes in armor is not the same thing as being ultra buff.

Im sure some women want to be ultra buff, but Im sure no woman wants to be a slutty boob exposed character with only a leather bra bikini in a warzone nearby buff men dressed in practical clothing.

As opposed to men who are never depicted doing anything of the sort...

[Scowling Dragon]

As opposed to men who are never depicted doing anything of the sort...

Spoiler

Show

Again, Unfair comparison. Because hes drawn that way for power fantasy reasons and not sexual ones.

Men kinda have that advantage over women in the sense that there are allot more ways women can be sexualized in art.

A guy not in a shirt is not the same thing as boobhole macchainbikini

[Seerow]

Again, Unfair comparison. Because hes drawn that way for power fantasy reasons and not sexual ones.

Men kinda have that advantage over women in the sense that there are allot more ways women can be sexualized in art.

A guy not in a shirt is not the same thing as boobhole macchainbikini

So a guy in his underwear slaughtering enemies is a power trip, a woman doing the same thing is sexualization.


You really don't see the double standard there? The sexism isn't in the art, it's in the double standards people hold towards it because of their own sexist perceptions.


I mean really every argument I've seen has boiled down to "it's only sexist when it involves women"


Edit: Oh man imagine if Beowulf had been a woman instead? "Yeah she's a great strong female character... but she literally strips naked to fight Grendel, that's so sexist."

[Scowling Dragon]

BECAUSE ITS DRAWN FOR THE SPECIFIC PERPOUS OF TITALIATION!

If beowulf was a very buff naked lady for whatever reason here, then its not sexist.

If she was drawn naked for the express perpous of sexualization (With a thin feminine physique because buff women aren't as sexy) then thats a different story.

Why aren't woman drawn buff? As in not "Pretty" buff but as in the buff like men.

Because it doesn't titalate.

[Ping Pong Along]

My personal opinion is we should go for realism whenever possible. While that's not quite possible because magic was never real (or was it?...duh, duh, DUH!), we should look at various cultures to make costuming make sense. The boob window could work as ceremonial clothing. Something like that. The culture could even be a male-dominated patriarchal society. By acknowledging this, you can begin to make deeper statements of the world and characters. But that's probably way too much for most people.

[Talakeal]

I think Shortpacked did a really good strip about this issue:

Spoiler

Show

And personally I think its right. I do get that feeling of uncomfortability when males are drawn like that.

The whole thing is a totally sexist double standard.

People complain about women in fantasy, comics, and comics wearing little clothing, but:

Conan wears less than Red Sonja.
HE-man wears less than She-ra.
The Hulk wears less than She-Hulk.
Aqua-Man wears less than Wonder Woman.
The Rock wears less than Ivy
Speaking of pro wrestling most male wrestlers wear nothing but a pair of tights scarcely bigger than a speedo while women wear what amounts to a one piece singlet).
Beowulf wears less than, well, any female character in all of fantasy.

Honestly the reason most "chain mail bikinis" look so impractical is because the artist wants to show a lot of skin, but still has to cover the female chest to keep the art descent, a problem they don't have with men. Still doesn't explain Hennet's belt armor in the 3.0 phb though.

Also, people complain that women about how over sexualized the proportions of women are. But it is much much worse for men. I remember playing Resident Evil 5 and looking at Chris' muscles and thinking to myself "My god, he has been hitting some hard core steroids between Code Veronica and now. You know, if Jill and Sheva's breasts were as over developed as Chris' muscles they would need a wheelbarrow to escape the zombies."

And yes, as that comic is saying, this is because it is a stereotypical fantasy. Well, two things:

First, the stereotypical feminine woman has a small waist, large hips, large bust. The stereotypical manly man has huge muscles, small hips, broad shoulders. This is not a conscious decision on the part of the artist, this is just how our culture and biology view the ideal male and female forms, they are different and have different ideals.

Second: Just because it is a fantasy which appeals to males does NOT NOT NOT mean it is sexism.
My god, if everything that was meant to appeal to a certain demographic was racist that would be insane. Gi joe, transformers, hot wheels, and he man are sexist because they are made to appeal to boys! Barbie, My Little Pony, Rainbow Bright, and Strawberry shortcake is sexist because they are made to appeal to girls!
Virtually every media, from commercials to serious journalism and literature are all intended towards a certain demographic. If that is sexist (or any other sort of discrimination) then all of human society is horribly offensive.

Also, it is simply impossible for a female to be a muscular as a stereotypical male warrior. There simply isn't enough testosterone in their body to achieve that level of muscle mass no matter how much they work out. And these are the same people complaining about "Realism" in armor.

[KnightDisciple]

First, for good female fantasy art: Weomen Fighters in Reasonable Armor.

Second, Seerow: OK, how about this. He-Man is a franchise/show/comic/story/etc made by males for males. It's not a strong leap to say that the intent is for fans to imagine themselves as He-Man, which is to say "a male in incredible shape with phenomenal physical power, able to show off his powerful physique, with loyal followers and a scantily-clad girlfriend".
In the same way, many superheroes (and this admission pains me as a long-time fan of comics) are meant to be characters the fans (again, mostly male) "inhabit" in their fantasies, while the female characters are clearly designed, posted, drawn, shaded, and colored to be taken/possessed in the fantasy of those same male fans. That's why you have horribly impractical superheroine costumes while the males are covered totally from the neck down, or perhaps only expose their arms. No that's not a total sampling. And in some ways it's getting better.

But it seems odd to deny it's a thing that happens, and that it's not good in any way for the genre.

To put this another way, I shouldn't feel awkward or ashamed if someone looks over my shoulder at the comic book, at least not for the costumes of the people within it (unfounded prejudice of comics as a "kid thing" is a different discussion entirely). I shouldn't feel like I'm reading something 1-2 steps away from a mature magazine as the females trot about in skimpy, super-duper form-fitting outfits that are improbably cut. Outfits that make it hard for girls to comfortably cosplay or Halloween costume as these characters.

There's nothing wrong with attractive females in fantasy art. There is something wrong with blatantly objectifying them, both in patently ridiculous body proportions (that tiefling in the article is absurdly, ah, shaped), and in patently ridiculous pieces of clothing (PF sorc, the tiefling, others who might as well be taping everything on, because those laces don't look like they'd hold anything on). As well as in making them less capable (though Pathfinder at least is not as guilty of this).

[thegurullamen]

So a guy in his underwear slaughtering enemies is a power trip, a woman doing the same thing is sexualization.

You really don't see the double standard there? The sexism isn't in the art, it's in the double standards people hold towards it because of their own sexist perceptions.

There is the part where it's a pre-existing archetype. Show a man in a loincloth with an axe and leather boots to a group of men and their first thoughts aren't "Sex model!" They'd be more along the lines of Conan, D&D barbarian, prog rock cover, He-man, primitive warrior or the like with sex appeal taking a very low placing, if it shows up at all. Same type of outfit, but for a woman instead will have sex appeal in the top three guaranteed. Why? The idea of a half-naked viking woman isn't as ingrained in the fantasy zeitgeist, except as cheesecake/titillation. Shamefully, women's place in fantasy literature, movies, gaming, etc. is still largely oriented around sex appeal--just look at the ratios of fully clothed/properly armored men versus the women. Huge slant there. That slant undermines the supposed equivalency here--the artist's intent might have been to make a viking warrior woman in line with the male archetype, but because of everything else going on around depictions of females in gaming/fantasy, the intent isn't as relevant as the baggage the image will have with it. Fantasy depictions of women are going to have to work out that baggage before images of half-clad women are ever going to be considered the same as Conan-style men.

[Seerow]

To put this another way, I shouldn't feel awkward or ashamed if someone looks over my shoulder at the comic book, at least not for the costumes of the people within it (unfounded prejudice of comics as a "kid thing" is a different discussion entirely). I shouldn't feel like I'm reading something 1-2 steps away from a mature magazine as the females trot about in skimpy, super-duper form-fitting outfits that are improbably cut. Outfits that make it hard for girls to comfortably cosplay or Halloween costume as these characters.

So you would be comfortable cosplaying as He Man? You wouldn't be embarassed if someone saw you watching a couple of nearly naked sweaty guys fight on screen? Why is it that skimpy/practically not-there clothing for men is totally acceptable, but women wearing similar clothing (often more as Talakeal points out) is bad? It's a double standard created by sexist people who subconsciously believe that women should not show off their bodies, as it demeans them, while men are encouraged to show off their own.

Now I wouldn't mind seeing more fantasy art with women in full plate, decent dresses, etc. But I also would very much prefer the men in fantasy art to be dressed appropriately. My entire point is that both men and women are equally being displayed in their skin, but people have their own innate prejudices that immediately say nude women = bad, nude men = good. A half naked woman is considered sexualized only because society refuses to accept a woman can wear less clothing without being a sexual object. That is the source of the sexism, not art that if anything is far more egalitarian than society.

*snip*

If that is sexist (or any other sort of discrimination) then all of human society is horribly offensive.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, Talakeal but that last part... there is an argument that could be made there. Something about the way the human mind works lends itself towards stereotyping. It's all pretty much done on the subconscious level to the point that even the most radical egalitarians have their prejudices. I wouldn't consider it too far of a stretch to say that the entire world can be a very offensive place for anyone looking close enough to care about the stereotypes presented often without even thinking about it.

But that's getting pretty far afield from the topic, and probably skirting board rules of serious discussion, so I'm gonna drop it at that.

[Eric Tolle]

Again it's not a double standard when the depictions themselves have different goals- power fantasy vs. sexual fantasy, and when there's differences in the power projection. That is, the posture and attitude is as important as actual outfits. Consider the cover of the 4E players handbook; the mage is depicted with her ass and her breasts thrust out in a purely impractical pose. Both the characters on that cover are depicted in a way that satisfies the male gaze- power fantasy and sexual fantasy.

Nobody is saying they don't want attractive characters- the issue is a more subtle on.e of male gaze and portrayal vs. inclusiveness. Is the art going to be by men for sexist men, our is there going to be at least some effort towards bringing in female gamers?

[Talakeal]

Another two observations / questions on the subject:

1: How do people define "possess" in regards to women? Is it being in any relationship? I would, for example, love to be in a relationship with Cat Woman, but I can't for a second imagine that I would possess her in any way, she would be in control all the time in just about every aspect of a relationship, she is even dominant over the goddamn batman!

2: What do you think of the film Batman and Robin? This movie was directed by a homosexual man, and has plenty of sexualization of batman and robin, including giving them nipples and frequent gratuitous butt shots. Their suits are covered with layers of rubber muscles, and many of the extras are muscular men in speedos. One of the main plot pots of the movie is that both men are stupid and easily manipulated by poison ivy, and require the female bat girl (who does not have rubber nipples) to snap them out of it.

[holywhippet]

From the last thread:

When the Edition Warz broke, I first came in on the side of 4e, defending it against nonsensical complaint such as "it's just like WoW." Over time, I became curious as to why people would cling so fervently to what -- IMHO -- is a strictly inferior system by any measure of mechanical elegance you wish to use. As was once said, the designers of 4e had "done the math" of game design and produced a coherent system that facilitated a party of adventures going into dungeons and slaying dragons. A debater at heart, I engaged in a Socratic inquiry on these forums to better understand the 3.x proponents -- was there something in 3.x I had missed? After lengthy discussions I learned what held the fascination of many 3.x Fans: flavoring aside, they mostly enjoyed the intricacy of multiclassing and feat-chains, not to mention the raw power of certain classes. Neither mechanical complicatedness nor raw power held my fascination, so as the Warz died down, I moved on.

On a similar note, one of the things that I felt was a letdown in 4E was the magical items. In 2nd and 3rd edition you could go to the magical items section of a book (or a magical items book) and start drooling as you found all sorts of items you'd love to get hold of and think about how you could use them.

In 4E for the first campaign I played the DM gave us one free starting magical item - it just had to be 4th level or lower IIRC. I spent a fair amount of time searching my books. I wasn't looking to decide which one I wanted, I was trying to find one I would actually want. Most of them were so limited, weak or so use specific that I just wasn't interested in them.

[Ironvyper]

I am sure nearly no one who liked Megan Fox did so for her character and personality, as she had very little and what she did have was insultingly generic. Mostly I figure if folks said anything at all it would be: Damn Megan Fox was so HOOOTTT! Either way it gets the message across.

As to the article, sometimes articles are just set up to explain the creative process. Why something is as it is, is enough reason to write an article. This goes beyond the potential for gathering some information.

Now personally, I think the "sexy" females look pretty stupid. But not nearly as much as the equipment everyone has. It's ridiculous. It looks nothing like armor, and that sword is horrendously unbalanced to the point of uselessness. But I understand that I'm in a minority on that score and so do not expect to see any change on that score in the near future.

This forum needs a +1 button.

Except that I like sexy females in my fantasy. Its fantasy for christs sake. If you fill it with ugly people it becomes reality. And getting away from that is exactly the point of the game.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Weomen Fighters in Reasonable Armor.

Spoiler

Show

Look at the way the metal armor is molded to fit around her breasts! It's so unrealistic! Seeeeexiiiiiiiiist.....

[kaomera]

On a similar note, one of the things that I felt was a letdown in 4E was the magical items. In 2nd and 3rd edition you could go to the magical items section of a book (or a magical items book) and start drooling as you found all sorts of items you'd love to get hold of and think about how you could use them.

By 3e a number of players had the idea (which is at least partially supported by the rules) that the ''magic-mart'' experience was the default assumption in D&D. They were not just looking at the magic items in the book, they were having their characters go out and buy (or create or trade in other items for) just the ones they wanted. 3.x handled this, just not to the satisfaction of every player / DM. I've had to sit through (and even participate in, in some cases) a number of arguments about magic item balance and/or capabilities. I've seen quite a few players who would take it very personally if they were not allowed to have exactly the magic item they wanted.

With 4e they had to make a decision: if they wanted the system to be robustly balanced they had to either embrace this concept or else make it clear that it was not a core concept in 4e. With the ability to pick and choose magic items well-entrenched in 4e they then had to make sure that none of the items were particularly powerful... And of course there were still balance problems with the system...

How magic items were handled was one of the biggest disappointments I had with 4e. It had been announced, ahead of the launch, that they were moving away from enhancement bonuses or whatever being an integral part of ''the math''; I thought some of what I saw suggested that we would see such purely mechanical bonuses done away with entirely. Unfortunately (for me, at least) it didn't pan out that way - and the later attempts to do away with magic items in favor of just handing out the bonuses I just found to be unsatisfactory.

I think that, in the end, 4e was trying to fix a lot of things that were at least in part an ''issue'' with the players / DM. Not that one side or the other was right (totally lying here, the DM is always right), but if they were not in agreement on how things should be going then the system really wasn't going to change that. Hopefully Next will not fall into the same trap. (Someone should maybe buy the designers a ten-foot pole.)

[Dienekes]

Spoiler

Show

Look at the way the metal armor is molded to fit around her breasts! It's so unrealistic! Seeeeexiiiiiiiiist.....

And to be honest, the sexism doesn't bother me. The fact that having armor designed that way would cause all the pressure from a blow to the breasts to go directly into into the wearer's chest as well as deflect the sword inward instead of away from the body as good armor is supposed to does. And that sword, it's three times as wide as it has any right to be.

And honestly, I'm a completely amateur novice when it comes to recognizes flaws in weapons and armor. It should take 0 effort to actually learn the most basic details of how this stuff works.

Now the black and white chick wearing mail looks perfect. And the fifth one down looks decent, but that sword with parrying hook-bumps annoys me because they serve no purpose.

[MukkTB]

Last female NPC I dealt with was evil. We didn't really worry about whether her breasts were showing or not. We were too busy trying to figure out if she was telling the truth about the evil plan after we captured her.

[Acanous]

So you would be comfortable cosplaying as He Man? You wouldn't be embarassed if someone saw you watching a couple of nearly naked sweaty guys fight on screen? Why is it that skimpy/practically not-there clothing for men is totally acceptable, but women wearing similar clothing (often more as Talakeal points out) is bad? It's a double standard created by sexist people who subconsciously believe that women should not show off their bodies, as it demeans them, while men are encouraged to show off their own.

Reply in spoiler so as not to derail.

Spoiler

Show

Men aren't encouraged to show off their bodies, they are explicitly told there is nothing sexually attractive about the male form, and that it doesn't matter if they go without a shirt, so long as they are not *Un* atractive.
Therin, it is embarassing for a man to go around shirtless, unless he is thin and well muscled, in which case it simply doesn't matter. If a woman were to do the same thing, it would be a statement of sexuality.

Assume the case of a topless beach. Men who go there aren't going there to show off, they're going to see the women show off. This IS a double standard, and a pretty horrible one. Men have very specific, extremely hard to attain standards for what is "Sexy". Most notably you're going to have to be tall, broad shouldered, with a firm behind and a six pack.

Name one superhero that doesn't have a firm behind and a six pack, or who'se costume covers both.

Women can be sexualized pretty much no matter the body type, because society tells us that Women are Sexy. There's something sexually attractive in any woman, just by virtue of her being born the fairer gender.

For example, you have Power Girl, who is the biggest slice of cheesecake I can think of. She's got the wasp thin waist, large bust and hips, with clinging clothing. She's one steriotype. Then there's X-23, who is more muscular, thinner and more waifish, smaller bust, different skin is shown off. Then there's She-Hulk, who is more muscular than any of the female bodybuilders I've seen, but she's STILL sexy.

So women can be sexy while thin, curvy, or muscular. Short, medium, or tall.
Blonde, Brunette, or green-haired, it doesn't matter.

Even the nerd-girl type (Short, thin, pale, small-chested) has a sexualized following.

Just by virtue of them being women who are not obese, they are sexy.

The same is very much untrue for men. We're just told to shut up and take it like a man, because life's not fair.

As far as 5th Ed goes, has there been any news on what they mean about the "Modular" aspect of the game? I've been hoping they aren't simply talking about releasing core rules and a succession of splatbooks ("Moduals") that you can choose to use or not, but that's the impression I keep getting.

[Craft (Cheese)]

As far as 5th Ed goes, has there been any news on what they mean about the "Modular" aspect of the game? I've been hoping they aren't simply talking about releasing core rules and a succession of splatbooks ("Moduals") that you can choose to use or not, but that's the impression I keep getting.

Alright, wall of text ahead. Please keep in mind that much of this is based on speculation, and could be horribly, horribly wrong.

The impression I'm getting is that most of the stuff will be in the core books, with the exception of the relatively rarely-used stuff like mass combat rules.

If I had to model their particular approach, I'd do it like this:

Players
|
V
Mechanics
|
V
Bare Bones
|
V
(Modules)

(I say "Bare Bones" because "Core" implies that the optional modules won't be available at launch, which doesn't seem to be the case.)

The idea is the central game mechanics (attack rolls, the action economy, ability checks, etc.) make calls only to the bare bones, to which the bare bones responds either with a default answer OR with an answer provided by a module, should the DM choose to use one.

For example, how skills work: All checks the player makes are actually ability score checks, with a "skill" being a situational bonus to this ability check. So a "bare bones" character sheet might look like this:

18 STR
10 CON
10 DEX
8 INT
11 WIS
14 CHA

The game mechanics described in the PHB state that, for example, attempting to get the subject to believe a lie (bluff), is a Charisma check, so the character has a 14 to use for charisma checks.

However, if the DM is using the skills module, the skills module contains an extra rule that "Whenever the player attempts to get someone to believe a lie, they add their Bluff skill to their Charisma for the purposes of that check."

So a character sheet using the skills module with, let's say a +5 bonus to Bluff, might look like this:

18 STR
10 CON
10 DEX
8 INT
11 WIS
14 CHA (+5 when attempting to bluff)

So this character has a 14 on their checks for Intimidate attempts, but a 19 on their checks for Bluff attempts. The key idea behind modules is that the main system doesn't reference skills, it only ever references the ability scores.


If you know how Object-Oriented programming works, an easier way to describe this is that modules encapsulate the optional game mechanics, so the main body of the program (the core system) can use data returned by functions (modules) without having to worry about the exact nature (or side effects) of what that function is actually doing.

Furthermore, this encapsulation structure is recursive: Modules can have sub-modules which can have sub-sub-modules. For example, the default way skill selection works within the skill module is that the character gets the background associated with their class, which comes with a bundle of skills. OR, at the DM's discretion they can choose a background that fits their character (2E style), OR they can make their own background with skill points (3E style). (Well, skill points are speculation: We know that building your own background will be possible, but we don't yet know exactly how background construction will work. Still, including skill points as at least a sub-module for background creation to appeal to 3E-lovers sounds plausible enough.)

--------

My big concern with all of this is how they'll balance this all out on the monster design end of the spectrum: A character who has feats (a module confirmed to be in the core book) is strictly superior to a character without feats. How do you design a monster that both the group WITH feats and the group without them can handle? I can think of a few answers but none of them sound like attractive options.