New RQ / Art Direction

[g33k]

I agree that the first picture is a bit "bland," but the 2nd is actively offensive (to my judgement)...  I'd be willing to buy a book in which the "Comparison" piece was typical of the art.  I would NOT be willing to buy a book where the "cool" piece was typical.

Mileages will, of course, vary.

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by g33k
typo. and an embarasing one!

[goldenwheeldancer]

My mileage varies! Prefer the second!

[threedeesix]

For me it depends on what the pictures are trying to convey. I have no problem with the second if its purpose is to detail a specific character. However, I think the first is WAY better with regards to showing the clothing of average inhabitants and members of a community, and would much prefer IT in that capacity.

Rod

[Mankcam]

Those first pics are great in my opinion, as I love seeing how the ordinary people and daily life of different cultural backgrounds are depicted. I would be very happy if much of the RQ book was done like this. However there also needs to be some really great full colour spreads that evoke adventure and classic sword n sorcery flavour. 

[kaydet]

It depends on the kind of game you're playing, too, and the goal of the picture itself. That second piece tells me way more about the character and the artist than it does about the world the character inhabits. In the case of the first image by Jan, the purpose is to familiarize the reader with the look and feel of Glorantha rather than to convey the personality of a particular character.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

I think Jan's drawings do a good job of really getting to the nitty gritty of the clothes and details people of Glorantha wear. And in a sense Glorantha really needs this sort of detail worked out. I think there is also a danger that if that type of schematic illustration was over used, it would become too dry and boring. As mentioned there really needs to be some excitement, a little sword and sorcery, an element of the cinematic. With Glorantha there are plenty of subjects to inspire, from the more mundane but fascinating, to mythical and magical on a breath taking scale. 

For me the second drawing doesn't succeed on any level, it's not something I can relate to. But I can see why it was juxtaposed with the more schematic drawing. Glorantha really needs artists that can capture the depth of glorantha whilst at the same time keeping it exciting.

[TrippyHippy]

I'd like the new RuneQuest layout and art direction to be consistent with Guide to Glorantha. 

[Steve]

On 01/04/2016 at 7:13 PM, Kränted Powers said:

Here the drawing style makes the simple outfit look cool.

"simple outfit" is one way of putting it, I guess ...

 

[styopa]

I think there's quite a bit of distance between the two drawings (mannikin-like display dolls vs scantily-clad bikini warrior) for some common-ground to be available.

(http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/post/21173010945/by-bob-giadrosich)

Female AND somewhat more engaging than a mannikin.

That said, to be 'actively offended' by the second example in the OP...well...I'm not sure any art design needs to try to cater to that level of delicate sensibilities.

"Female armor sucks" - be sure to watch to the very end.

[TRose]

 My two bolgs.

 It is one thing for the evil sorceress to dress as if she in  Victoria secret show. She is  in her Lair.

 Or if a Earth  Priestess want to show off her Motherhood and be bare chested. But the Earth Priestess should also be shown as a Grandmother, not some 18 year old as you don't get there overnight.

 But for your female adventurer who have to deal with thorn bushes, stinging insects, etc,  I would expect to see them dressed more practical, not as if they are going to get the loot by dancing on a brass pole.

[g33k]

8 hours ago, styopa said:

I think there's quite a bit of distance between the two drawings (mannikin-like display dolls vs scantily-clad bikini warrior) for some common-ground to be available.

(http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/post/21173010945/by-bob-giadrosich)

Female AND somewhat more engaging than a mannikin.

That said, to be 'actively offended' by the second example in the OP...well...I'm not sure any art design needs to try to cater to that level of delicate sensibilities.

No.

More than that, HELL NO.

I stand by what I said; "delicate sensibilities" be damned.  The chick in pic #2 is wearing f*@%ing *LINGERIE* and she is supposed to be a exploration-ready & combat-ready "adventurer".  There is a time and a place for chicks in lingerie (hey, I'm a hetero guy... I *loves* me some chicks in lingerie!), but this is *NOT* it.  One illo?  I can probably pass it.  But I specifically called out a book where the style was "typical," and I will go to the mat on that being "actively offensive,"

Gaming, as an industry and as a hobby has already had FAR to many problems along these lines...  I won't participate.  I won't stand silent when I see it, or hear it.  I used to put up with it... but not any more.

I will readily admit:  one could come up with a scenario (such as "captured and all gear taken... has just escaped") where this actually fits... but unless such a premise is ALREADY established (and if so, I may need to see comparably-underequipped male escapees, or I'll still be dubious)... UNLESS it's established, I say:  I'll take my "delicate sensibilities" -- and several gaming groups where I am the GM and/or a player with veto power -- and we will NONE OF US put ANY money into that kind of product; possibly extending to all products from that company.

It IS that important.

I have seen women driven away from gaming-groups (and in at least one case, away from the entire hobby) by books heavy to pics like the one cited... *AND* by excuses like the one above (that such "delicate sensibilities" don't need to be "catered to").  Women in my gaming-circles have spoken up against games featuring images like that; in one case, a non-gaming mother wanted me to teach RPG's to her daughter with another game than the "default" game at the time... because of pix like that.  I once saw a rape-survivor (with messed-up sexuality) flipping through a mainstream RPG book (D&D 3.0 PHB), and the pictures she lingered over... well, it was more than a little bit creepy, and gave me a new perspective on the "art style" within my favorite hobby.

I'll put it succinctly:  sometimes, it's more than a little bit rapey.

It's not so much *MY* delicate sensibilities.  It's that too many gamers are too used to *IN*delicate -- and frankly offensively unequal -- treatments such as are illustrated above.

Okay... I guess I've made my position clear, hm?

 

[Jeff]

18 minutes ago, g33k said:

No.

More than that, HELL NO.

 

I would have rejected the "cool picture" as a submission. It didn't show costuming (bikini with a sleeved three-quarters vest is not a costume, nor are the "bandages" or jeweled headband), didn't give any cultural details (like tattoos, jewelry, relevant sword, etc), nor does it even show background. It appears to be a preliminary sketch from a panel from a comic book. 

I'm not a fan of generic fantasy tropes - in any incarnation. That includes women wearing a bikini with a vest while carrying a stupid looking sword. Or female adventurers who are supposed to be warriors leaning forward just to show off their cleavage. Or any of the other cheesy tropes. 

That being said, the real world has been full of cultures that included female toplessness (for status or for climate), male or female nudity or near nudity, etc., and I have no trouble having Gloranthan cultures display that. I like Classical Hindu/Buddhist statuary, Classical Greek pottery and statuary, Mucha, Von Stuck, and plenty of other Art Nouveau, and so forth - and my art direction will of course reflect that. I don't have much of a taboo concerning nudity in art, just a cheesy art taboo.

[g33k]

Absolutely, Jeff -- you won't see my remarks above over at the "Prince of Sartar Webcomic" -- not even when they featured the fully-topless characters.

 

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, g33k said:

Absolutely, Jeff -- you won't see my remarks above over at the "Prince of Sartar Webcomic" -- not even when they featured the fully-topless characters.

 

Ironically, I think that toplessness or even full nudity in art is usually less titivating than near-nudity done for purely gratuitous purposes. Like wearing a bikini to a battle.

 

[jongjom]

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

Ironically, I think that toplessness or even full nudity in art is usually less titivating than near-nudity done for purely gratuitous purposes. Like wearing a bikini to a battle.

 

titivating? To make decorative additions to; spruce up. [Alteration of earlier tidivate : perhaps tidy

Or do you mean: titillating?

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

All these comments show how important it is to get the tone of art right. 

The scantily clad bikini girl is one cheesey example. Another generic troupe is depicting monsters and hereos as if they all work out in the gym on steroids. Totally loosing all character. From what Jeff is saying I don't think we need to worry about these generic cheesey depictions. 

 

[Mankcam]

Yeah as long as its not a repeat of some of the art we saw in MRQ2, as lot of that was cheesy, and some of it was occasionally gratuitous. I'm happy to say that I think the art direction is going to be much more acceptable

Edited April 5, 2016 by Mankcam

[Steve]

7 hours ago, jongjom said:

titivating? To make decorative additions to; spruce up. [Alteration of earlier tidivate : perhaps tidy

Or do you mean: titillating?

Titivate: 1  ▸ a verb trans. Make small enhancing alterations or attractive additions to; smarten, adorn; put the finishing touches to. Also foll. by off, up.

▸ b verb intrans. Make oneself smart; smarten up.   (a) R. Frame She slapped on her warpaint and titivated her hair.

2 verb trans. = titillate verb 1. (Freq. considered erron.) . titiˈvation noun. titivator noun a person who titivates 

[TRose]

I also don't mind the bare breast in the Gloranthan web comic as its done for story. Heck  , a picture of some Babeestor Gor warriors wearing nothing but an Ax,  shield and helmet and a desire to kill would be OK as the Gauls fought like that. But the chain mail Bikini, ,The female warrior wearing a thong and stockings, etc. I don't think belongs in Modern gaming.

[kaydet]

Jeff made a comment the other day on the Google+ page that the "realistic armor" argument was ahistorical, and I think his point is well taken -- I came across this picture the other day doing some research on Samnites. 

In my mind, the largest difference between the Gloranthan nudity we see in Prince of Sartar/elsewhere, and revealing images in other games is that the Glorantha images I have seen portray it unselfconsciously and as matter of fact, rather than as a fantasy pin-up designed more to entice and excite than to relate a narrative event.

I am no more a fan of the foolishly-dressed female adventurer than most, but the reaction against it can also be so extreme to the point of becoming a witch hunt that rails against even the slightest bit of eroticism or of impraticality. In my experience, people will go to great extremes to appear attractive, fashionable, and powerful, and I doubt that attitude would be absent in the warriors of Glorantha -- but there does need to be a balance. Besides, isn't Deneskerva's army a troop of dancers arrayed in "beautiful costumes"? That certainly sounds like an excuse to see the more typical fantasy garb portrayed in a Gloranthan setting.

Edited April 5, 2016 by kaydet

[goldenwheeldancer]

Come now. Proper adventurers know that style must always come before practicality!

 

But seriously, the problem with the first picture isn't it's lack of partially exposed mammary gland. It's just that it's thematically boring. It doesn't show a living slice of the world it portrays. I will start looking at it and wake up five hours later, snoring all over the page! I also do this when I read some fiction and the writer off loads a pile of information rather than weaving the data into the story.

 

Edited April 5, 2016 by goldenwheeldancer

[hkokko]

I have one player character in my campaign ( a Fonritan masarin) with a passion - Dressed to the Nines... or something similar. Has a palanquin too...

[g33k]

51 minutes ago, kaydet said:

I am no more a fan of the foolishly-dressed female adventurer than most, but the reaction against it can also be so extreme to the point of becoming a witch hunt that rails against even the slightest bit of eroticism or of impraticality. In my experience, people will go to great extremes to appear attractive, fashionable, and powerful, and I doubt that attitude would be absent in the warriors of Glorantha -- but there does need to be a balance. Besides, isn't Deneskerva's army a troop of dancers arrayed in "beautiful costumes"? That certainly sounds like an excuse to see the more typical fantasy garb arrayed in a Gloranthan setting.

On the one hand, there is just the one single picture under discussion.  It's hardly worth going nuclear about it!

On the other hand, people have spoken up about it as a style they prefer, and want to see; THAT needs addressing.

Were I to see this one pic in a RPG book, I'd most-likely have an "omg what were they thinking!?" reaction, and I'd move on; I wouldn't "rail against it."   A book where the art was overwhelmingly in that 1st-pic "bland" style?  I'd think the art-director / editor were steeped in academia, and probably not the best choice to produce an RPG book.  But if the content impressed, I'd buy it (including a piece or two of cheesecake).

If that general SORT of pic (the "cool" example), were common within the book, I wouldn't wonder "what were they thinking:"  I'd presume they were showing EXACTLY what they were thinking... and I'd speak out against it.  I'd do more than "make jokes" about it.  I'd think they were severely sexist and a problem in the industry, and I wouldn't give them a single dime, no matter the content.

Unless, of course, the entire product were intentionally/overtly about titillation (as a few are), rather than overtly about heroic RP'ing in a largely non-genderbiased way (and slipping problem tropes in covertly... as the hobby (unconsciously, I think) used to do A LOT, and alas still does enough (even intentionally, q.v. GamerGate) that it merits being wary, and speaking up).

And I would be HIGHLY dubious about where people were drawing their own personal "witch hunt" lines:  it's a facile way to try to excuse the inexcusable, as well as being a legitimate way to rein in the overly-critical.

RE "impracticality" -- most of what passes for "religious garb" and associated regalia is "impractical" from an explorer/adventurer POV  Usually not titillating (carefully does not notice Uleria-priestess regalia), but lots of spare straps and trim to catch on the underbrush, spare folds of fabric foes can grab/bind the wearer, etc.  OTOH, it's VERY practical from the standpoint of polished marble floors, visiting dignitaries to impress, etc!

RE appearing attractive/fashionable/powerful, and how Gloranthan warriors would approach the matter -- generally, I expect, by gilt and paint and other shallow decor atop FULLY FUNCTIONAL ARMOR (unless their culture forgoes armor, of course!), just as has always been done by warriors 'round the world, throughout history.  First, take care of the basics of survival/function/etc; THEN, worry about how it looks.  "Does this armor make my butt look too big" is *NEVER* a consideration.

 

[Jeff]

57 minutes ago, g33k said:

RE appearing attractive/fashionable/powerful, and how Gloranthan warriors would approach the matter -- generally, I expect, by gilt and paint and other shallow decor atop FULLY FUNCTIONAL ARMOR (unless their culture forgoes armor, of course!), just as has always been done by warriors 'round the world, throughout history.  First, take care of the basics of survival/function/etc; THEN, worry about how it looks.  "Does this armor make my butt look too big" is *NEVER* a consideration.

 

I actually disagree with this to some extent. Armor - especially armor for the wealthy - was rarely a case of function over form. The trefoil disk or even single disk armor of pre-Roman Italy, or the common practice of wearing a bronze cuirass just high enough to deliberately expose one's genitalia (and not wear any protective gear over them) are good examples where the display value of armor was more important than its practicality. A muscle cuirass sacrifices some functionality in order to look more awesome. And so on.

So for example, in an ancient world with high-status women warriors and generals, you might find cuirasses sculpted to display bronze breasts and abdomen - that look much like the statues or icons of goddesses. The butt and upper legs might be just as exposed as they would be with armored male warriors, and so on. You might end up with headdresses that look every bit as dramatic (and impractical) as the garden pot helmets of the Sea Peoples. And so on. I may think that Henry VIII's armored codpiece is ridiculous but I am sure the king thought it looked awesome.

BUT (and this is the important point) - the idea is always to to make the warrior look impressive. If Maran Gor is depicted as black-skinned with painted red feet, but displays her vulva and breasts, then there might well be female warriors that paint their body black and their feet red and fight in the nude. Or even wear a belt and other accoutrements to exaggerate the effect. Just like there are plenty of male warriors who paint or tattoo themselves blue and fight in the nude to better emulate Orlanth. The purpose isn't to titilate - it is to draw upon the power of the deity while intimidating opponents.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Jeff

[Jeff]

As an aside, I think it is important to emphasize that ALL genders would wear armor designed to impress. Orlanthi men and women both wear feathers in their helmets, or paint themselves blue and fight in the nude. Impala men and women fight in the nude (or just wearing a loincloth), Lodrilli, Melib, or Caladralander spearmen might well wear something like a koteka tied into an upright position. And so on.