New RQ / Art Direction

[Jeff]

59 minutes ago, g33k said:

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

I'll say this much, I don't like that style and am not likely to use it in books I work on. I think the relationships between sex, costume, society, war, etc are all worth pondering when you depict fantasy, and should be thought through whenever you do a commission. "Draw me a sexy woman in sexy adventurer costume" is not something I'm interested in commissioning. Frex, I've relied a lot on Eastern Mediterranean/Near Eastern Bronze Age goddess/high status women depictions for Esrolia and the Ernalda cult - because those costumes emphasized the status of the women/goddess and breasts are displayed as accoutrements of the goddess. The female form is not covered up precisely because high-status women in that society or cult have more authority than high-status men.

In contrast, Dara Happan noblemen traditionally cover themselves up (with their loincloth of purity) and wear long robes to protect themselves from contamination from the impure Earth. But the Lodrilli lower classes wear tunics that do not cover up their genitalia. Or in Loskalm and parts of the Western, stylized physical perfection is emphasized. And so on.

[Noita]

I just want a book that both my partner and my daughter can pick up and be happy flipping through.

Nudity is fine, cheese cake is not. For sure Glorantha is filled with sexuality i just don't need to see women in daft unnatural poses with skimpy clothes. Which i know i wont.

With the huge amounts of money raised each kickstarter i sleep easily knowing that the Chaosium crew will have it sorted.

[g33k]

+1 Iskallor, "i sleep easily knowing that the Chaosium crew will have it sorted"

I just wanted to emphasize that, while this is the "New RQ Art Direction" thread, my (sometimes vehement) remarks are about "the industry at large," not about anything RQ or Chaosium; apologies to Jeff, Rick, MOB, and all the rest over there,  Errr... "over theres"?  How DOES one speak to the virtual/distributed "place" that is Chaosium these days???  (aside from speaking to them with "Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Fthagn! Ph'nglui mglw'nfah Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!" of course...)

Edited April 6, 2016 by g33k
clarified a (possibly lame) joke...

[goldenwheeldancer]

Agreed. This thread is about throwing around widely ranging ideas. I have no doubts that RQ will be great.

[Pete Nash]

16 hours ago, Jeff said:

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.

I would counter-argue that armour, even minimal armour was absolutely a result of economics and functionality, rather than an attempt to look awesome.

For example, the trefoil, round and square pectorals of the Latins, Samnites, Volsci and others were used from Villanovan times to the mid Roman Republic. They were definitely functional, despite lacking full coverage. Beyond simple tradition they were limited in size for a multitude of reasons:

Firstly, bronze armour at the time was expensive, so making a full size cuirass would have often been beyond the means of tribes and towns constrained to less fertile regions. This was so much the case that Polybius and Arrian even claimed the Republican elite troops only wore a greave on the left leg (the leading one behind the shield), which would have saved expense and ensure enough of their wealthier class could fully outfit themselves.

Secondly, whilst a pectoral looks inferior to a full cuirass, it is primarily designed to deflect spear thrusts whilst in formation, where a thrust from your (opposite or near opposite) enemy that landed to one side of the pectoral will likely glance off the ribs (or shoulder) due to the angle of the torso. Thus it would likely result in a superficial wound rather than a lethal one. Throughout most of history, armour has been designed to be just good enough to save your life - not to make you invulnerable.

Thirdly, these troops were often fighting in mountainous regions where full panoply seriously hinders mobility. Too much weight and lack of ventilation would exhaust the warrior, leading to reduced combat effectiveness.

Fourthly, a cuirass or pectoral does not cover the genitalia, because if it reaches much lower than the ribs it hinders the wearer's ability to move and fight. A warrior needs to be able to bend and lean. The vast majority of iconography show cuirass wearers with short tunics, aprons or pteryges to grant additional (if minimal) protection.

Although we have images such as this...

 

...its not about waving your balls in the face of the enemy. Its more to do with the fact that upper thigh and genitalia armour is superfluous as they are already well protected by your shield when fighting in formation. Remember these sort of vase paintings are showing heroic legends, not battlefield warfare. In fact, once spears begin to be replaced by pikes and sarissa you don't need to armour the lower legs at all, since its near impossible to be struck there when maintaining formation.

Fifthly, we have plenty of examples of pectorals which are fairly plain and others that are elaborately decorated. So whether or not the armour looked cool, they maintained the same form and functionality.

Now that's not to say that some armour is exaggerated to look impressive to the point of seeming impracticality; ancient helm crests, feather holders and plumes are an obvious case; but remember they also served a vitally important function too, to identify rank and allegiance in the midst of battle. Once armour became mass produced (thereby providing a standardised appearance) and troops began to face more swung weapons like swords, crests were abandoned for smooth topped helms.

[Jeff]

There's more than a fair amount of support that early armor is at least as much about status and intimidation as it is about practical protection (Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums has some great articles on the subject - in the context of trying to refute the commonly held argument that the Dendra panoply was only for status and display). Now that can be described as "identifying rank and allegiance" but shaving your head and wearing a giant feathered banner on your back is at least as much as showing that you are mighty and to be feared ("I am a Shorn One - fear me!") as it is about organizational concerns. Next time you are in Berlin check out the Villenovan/Etruscan armor at the Altes Museum - those bronze disks were made for nobles who certainly could have had a full cuirass made (bronze cuirasses have been found in Central and Western Europe going back to at least 1000 BC).

That's not to say protection isn't a primarily purpose of armor, just that status and display is also a primary purpose. And sometimes armor might seem impractical - but that's because it is trying to do something else beyond merely protect its wearer.

[g33k]

It's also worth noting the ambiguity of the term "armor" -- sometimes, it really is *JUST* a costume (eek, do I sound hypocritical now???).  By that I mean:  made & worn to impress, and never intended (by maker or wearer) to perform the physically-protective function of armor.

And of course "primitive" (the gods will protect me) cultures will sometimes forgo armor, or wear "armor" that's more about showing <religious / tribal / etc>  <affiliation / superiority / potency / etc> (in short, a "costume") .   However "status" and "intimidation" can be very different things... if you are a "high status" target, you may be who everyone is after; but if you "intimidate" your foes (into uncertainty, or even fleeing outright), that may well provide as much or more protection / survival as metal armor between your body and their weapons (obviously, status and intimidation can sometimes overlap!)

But NONE of these considerations include the wearing of non-protective "armor" that shows NO personal power or status (rather the opposite), but instead displays being a decorative sex-object.  I am unaware of any cultures were eros was a relevant battlefield power to flaunt (though several mention its use as a distraction... and few if any would deny that it has been used in espionage, political dealings, and other "battlefield-relevant" arenas! ) .

 

[Jeff]

32 minutes ago, g33k said:

It's also worth noting the ambiguity of the term "armor" -- sometimes, it really is *JUST* a costume (eek, do I sound hypocritical now???).  By that I mean:  made & worn to impress, and never intended (by maker or wearer) to perform the physically-protective function of armor.

And of course "primitive" (the gods will protect me) cultures will sometimes forgo armor, or wear "armor" that's more about showing <religious / tribal / etc>  <affiliation / superiority / potency / etc> (in short, a "costume") .   However "status" and "intimidation" can be very different things... if you are a "high status" target, you may be who everyone is after; but if you "intimidate" your foes (into uncertainty, or even fleeing outright), that may well provide as much or more protection / survival as metal armor between your body and their weapons (obviously, status and intimidation can sometimes overlap!)

But NONE of these considerations include the wearing of non-protective "armor" that shows NO personal power or status (rather the opposite), but instead displays being a decorative sex-object.  I am unaware of any cultures were eros was a relevant battlefield power to flaunt (though several mention its use as a distraction... and few if any would deny that it has been used in espionage, political dealings, and other "battlefield-relevant" arenas! ) .

 

I do recall a legend where a beautiful queen or a ruler's wife distracted/weakened the enemy by going nude into battle. The awestruck enemy forces were then mowed down by the queen's soldiers. And I always enjoyed Phryne's winning defense in her trial by the Areopagus. Both I could imagine occurring in Glorantha (and at least one of those stratagems has been used by my female players in our HeroQuest game). But again, both of these are not simple cheese-cake pictures. I'm unaware of any story where a female combatant gained an advantage by wearing a bikini and a vest (heck, if you are going to invoke Eros, you really have to go all in).

[Zit]

6 minutes ago, Jeff said:

I do recall a legend where a beautiful queen or a ruler's wife distracted/weakened the enemy by going nude into battle. The awestruck enemy forces were then mowed down by the queen's soldiers. And I always enjoyed Phryne's winning defense in her trial by the Areopagus. Both I could imagine occurring in Glorantha (and at least one of those stratagems has been used by my female players in our HeroQuest game). But again, both of these are not simple cheese-cake pictures. I'm unaware of any story where a female combatant gained an advantage by wearing a bikini and a vest (heck, if you are going to invoke Eros, you really have to go all in).

Although Aphrodite saved Paris during his fight vs. Menelas

[soltakss]

12 hours ago, Jeff said:

I do recall a legend where a beautiful queen or a ruler's wife distracted/weakened the enemy by going nude into battle. The awestruck enemy forces were then mowed down by the queen's soldiers. And I always enjoyed Phryne's winning defense in her trial by the Areopagus. Both I could imagine occurring in Glorantha (and at least one of those stratagems has been used by my female players in our HeroQuest game). But again, both of these are not simple cheese-cake pictures. I'm unaware of any story where a female combatant gained an advantage by wearing a bikini and a vest (heck, if you are going to invoke Eros, you really have to go all in).

One of our Vingans had Distracting Puppies as an ability in HeroQuest ...

 

[g33k]

ISTR the Celtic queen Boudica (Boadicea, etc -- spelling varies) was said to go into battle topless, at times.

And the beauteous wife of one of the Irish heroes, as her husband was duelling a fearsome foe, stood and disrobed to distract said foe, who stood dumbfounded for the moment the hero needed to rally and strike the death-blow.

 

[TRose]

20 hours ago, Jeff said:

I do recall a legend where a beautiful queen or a ruler's wife distracted/weakened the enemy by going nude into battle. The awestruck enemy forces were then mowed down by the queen's soldiers. And I always enjoyed Phryne's winning defense in her trial by the Areopagus. Both I could imagine occurring in Glorantha (and at least one of those stratagems has been used by my female players in our HeroQuest game). But again, both of these are not simple cheese-cake pictures. I'm unaware of any story where a female combatant gained an advantage by wearing a bikini and a vest (heck, if you are going to invoke Eros, you really have to go all in).

  There was a famous battle in China where the Chinese where fighting some Southern Barbarians. The Chinese general sent two dancing girls to dance nude on top of a hill while his army moved around the flank of the Barbarians.

  I read about it in armies and enemies of Ancient China by Wargames research group( I also  miniatures gamer) And Wargame research group does a pretty good job at research . 

[styopa]

On 4/5/2016 at 3:17 PM, g33k said:

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.

 

I'm curious who precisely has "spoken up about it as a style they prefer"?  I couldn't find any.  You refer probably to the scantily-cladness "style"...but that wasn't even nearly the point.

I skimmed back through the thread and one person - the OP of the picture - mentioned that it was more interesting stylistically than the placid mannikin-style figures he/she was comparing it to.  They didn't say "I can't wait to hypersexualize women!", they didn't slaver breathlessly over the sideboob potential.  They didn't really even say the picture itself was "cool", the point was that the active pose made even the silly, simple, trope-ish costume more interesting.  

But hey, if one's already worked up their frothing indignation, who bothers reading for content?

One vague reference to a pose pretty clearly chosen not for it's sexualization but for it's more dynamic, active-person presentation - resulting in not one but two 400+ word nigh-histrionic rants?   That would be the 'delicate sensibilities' I wouldn't bother catering to.  

I agree with Jeff and goldwheeldancer: the image in question wouldn't be suitable for a Gloranthan game because it's uncontextual and frankly dull.  It says nothing.  When art has costs in both $ and column-inches, it needs to deliver something more than tits in a rulebook.  Yet I also AGREE with Kranted Powers (who's probably been intimidated out of the thread, frankly) that the dynamic, action pose IS fundamentally more interesting.  I even agree with g33k in the sense that gratuitous sexualization of women in FRP, while it was delightful to my early-teen self, is not acceptable in a hobby which has thankfully, finally begun to draw more distaff players.  That said, as the Guide and Prince of Sartar have both gloriously shown (and everyone here seems to agree), Glorantha is a place with a LOT fewer Puritanical hangups than 21st century US and doesn't need to be freighted with that baggage either: if we're going to have barbarian men covered only in woad hurling themselves at the dirty Lunars, there's ALSO no reason we have to fear having an informative, interesting, DYNAMIC picture of some topless Babeester Rune Lord kickin' ass too - even if all she's wearing is a belt to hang her prizes on (even Thanatari shudder at *that*)...

Edited April 8, 2016 by styopa

[hkokko]

To add my 2 bolgs - I am far more interested in getting the the tone of the cultural clothing right than unclothing or even dynamic fighting scenes in movie poster/comic style. Think Osprey or almost any of the wonderful cultural pictures in Guide to Glorantha - scene from Glorantha with people in their cultural clothing there or Osprey like pictures. Even any of prince of Sartar scenes are ok for content. I find the mannikins in the same static pose (like standing against a wall on a plice shot) shown on the dull side if they form any major part of the pictures. Rather would have bit bigger pictures with details like in GtG culture pictures or a Gloranthan scene. Of course we need more pictures of Thanatari and Fonritan / Pamaltelan people to show varied looks of the world :-) What is the proper size of the sacrifice and in what phase of the moon to get this future to pass...

[g33k]

3 hours ago, styopa said:

I'm curious who precisely has "spoken up about it as a style they prefer"?  I couldn't find any.  You refer probably to the scantily-cladness "style"...but that wasn't even nearly the point.

I skimmed back through the thread and one person - the OP of the picture - mentioned that it was more interesting stylistically than the placid mannikin-style figures he/she was comparing it to.  They didn't say "I can't wait to hypersexualize women!", they didn't slaver breathlessly over the sideboob potential.  They didn't really even say the picture itself was "cool", the point was that the active pose made even the silly, simple, trope-ish costume more interesting.  

But hey, if one's already worked up their frothing indignation, who bothers reading for content?

One vague reference to a pose pretty clearly chosen not for it's sexualization but for it's more dynamic, active-person presentation - resulting in not one but two 400+ word nigh-histrionic rants?   That would be the 'delicate sensibilities' I wouldn't bother catering to.  

I agree with Jeff and goldwheeldancer: the image in question wouldn't be suitable for a Gloranthan game because it's uncontextual and frankly dull.  It says nothing.  When art has costs in both $ and column-inches, it needs to deliver something more than tits in a rulebook.  Yet I also AGREE with Kranted Powers (who's probably been intimidated out of the thread, frankly) that the dynamic, action pose IS fundamentally more interesting.  I even agree with g33k in the sense that gratuitous sexualization of women in FRP, while it was delightful to my early-teen self, is not acceptable in a hobby which has thankfully, finally begun to draw more distaff players.  That said, as the Guide and Prince of Sartar have both gloriously shown (and everyone here seems to agree), Glorantha is a place with a LOT fewer Puritanical hangups than 21st century US and doesn't need to be freighted with that baggage either: if we're going to have barbarian men covered only in woad hurling themselves at the dirty Lunars, there's ALSO no reason we have to fear having an informative, interesting, DYNAMIC picture of some topless Babeester Rune Lord kickin' ass too - even if all she's wearing is a belt to hang her prizes on (even Thanatari shudder at *that*)...

Yeah, I realize I have come across a bit strong.  Sorry if you're offended by the tone... Or maybe I should suggest you have "delicate sensibilities?"

The image where the 4 "characters and costumes don't look very interesting" was correctly called-out by the OP for the (from the RPG-perspective) lack of action/interest (despite all the cultural detail).  But the risque pic was frankly egregious in the level of risque; and the costume was praised (because of superior "drawing style" (I presume what's meant there is the active pose, & facial expression)).  There was much more of the "let's flash some skin" vibe than there was of the "let's capture some cultural flavor" vibe.

My original response -- that the risque one was "actively offensive" -- was NOT "histrionic," but a brief comment.  NB:  that remark generated a similarly-brief "prefer the 2nd" reply, and I took that to mean it was "the style they preferred."  Apologies to Goldenwheeldancer if I misinterpreted you!

But, styopa:  YOUR reply, a dismissal of my brief remark (that my opinion constituted "delicate sensibilities," and need not be "catered to") is EXACTLY what I won't put up with:  that someone who objects to that kind of sexism deserves no credence.  That a casually-dismissive tone (suggesting that none of us need to worry about it) is the right response.  It is exactly this patronizing, wink-wink nudge-nudge attitude that perpetuates the problems I am objecting to.

Someone suggested my response might be a "witch hunt" -- and I answered that (strongly) too.

And now I'm "nigh-histrionic" for it.

I repeat:  HELL NO.

That original pic was sexist tripe; OFFENSIVE sexist tripe.  And I called it out as such... but I didn't rant about it.

Then you called out the objection as unreasonable.

HELL NO.

And yeah, when I replied it was a bit of a rant.  No apologies for that content.  Because one sexist pic, then everyone moves on?  Well, fine.  Shit happens, we can all deal.  But defending it?  Trying to cast the objection as unreasonable?

HELL NO.

Let me repeat my own personal experience:  a muggle parent who wouldn't let their kids play, because of illustrations like that; multiple women who left gaming-groups, walked out of game-stores, because of attitudes like this; a survivor of molestation who was triggered by art like this.  This is what I've seen, myself.  But apparently, you find my "sensibilites too delicate" to bother "catering" to.  I trust you won't be surprised by my response...

HELL NO.

And no apologies for that.

 

[Trifletraxor]

Getting heated, but we still have a LONG way to go before the New RQ / Art direction thread reach even something resembling the temperature from the MRQ "art" discussions...

[styopa]

I don't mind a heated conversation.  I don't have delicate sensibilities, so I tend to tread heavily on others sacred cows...perhaps sometimes a little bit on purpose, I admit  I don't expect my comments to be taken as personal insults for anyone to cry into their pillow over, either.

FWIW, I know very well that g33k would react even more inflammatorily to the dismissal than the picture.  He/she wildly overreacted to the OP's post (well, actually to what he/she THOUGHT the OP was saying), and nothing enrages a SJW more than disregard for their righteously-inspired opinion.  My apologies to the list for that - no need to do my sportfishing here; that's what Reddit's for. 

g33k: you might not want to strike so hard at any bait that flashes in front of you.  When you take a calming breath, you might *even* notice that you & I entirely agree on your main points.

Pro tip: insisting you're not histrionic by repeating HELL NO four times is...unconvincing.

[K Peterson]

Chaosium's call, of course... but maybe you guys should take it to private message? Or, hell, just ignore one another? Antagonize one another on your own time. 

[K Peterson]

On 4/1/2016 at 11:13 AM, Kränted Powers said:

:

 

Personally, I like 'Example 1' within the context of being an example of Gloranthan cultures, and differences in dress between cultures, social class, and between the sexes. I don't take it as a reflection of what adventuring-types will look like, and the postures/poses they will take. These individuals represent the different social classes found within the cultures - an example of what the people around the adventurers will look like that they will interact with.

I prefer a mix of art representing what adventures/heroes look like within the setting as well what their environment and NPCs look like. I find that more immersive for me than just seeing pictures of cool heroes doing cool shit. It could be argued that these people could be doing more interesting things than standing in line for a mugshot - like interacting with their environment - and I'd agree with that.

Example 2 is just pure drek to me. Something I would expect in a Mongoose Publishing product, not something that I'd expect to be used by Chaosium or Moon Design. Unprofessional, tacky, no reflection of culture. Just ridiculous cheesecake.

[M Helsdon]

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2016 at 7:13 PM, Kränted Powers said:

Here the drawing style makes the simple outfit look cool.

 

 

It may be 'cool' (though the style and anatomy is a bit awry) but it screams generic fantasy, with no underlying cultural context.

If she were better drawn and her costume was a little more realistic, with a better pose, then it might be okay as an RQ illustration.

Regarding the depiction of foreign cultures, there's a distinct line between cheesecake and realism. If you are depicting Inanna's descent to the Underworld and her confrontation with Ereshkigal after the keepers of the gates have gradually stripped her of her jewels and clothing, then her nudity is entirely appropriate; if you are depicting Sumerian priests and priestesses in procession to give offerings at the temple, then their nudity is appropriate; if you are depicting the Vestal Virgins giving their sacrifices, then nudity is not... Similarly, if you are illustrating Conan meeting Zenobia in the dungeons in 'Hour of the Dragon' then presenting her naked is contrary to the text. For that matter, in the majority of Howard's fiction Conan was well armed and armored, and well clothed (and not in a bearskin) but you wouldn't know it from most of the illustrations.

[g33k]

On 4/8/2016 at 5:18 PM, styopa said:

I don't mind a heated conversation.  I don't have delicate sensibilities, so I tend to tread heavily on others sacred cows...perhaps sometimes a little bit on purpose, I admit  I don't expect my comments to be taken as personal insults for anyone to cry into their pillow over, either.

FWIW, I know very well that g33k would react even more inflammatorily to the dismissal than the picture.  He/she wildly overreacted to the OP's post (well, actually to what he/she THOUGHT the OP was saying), and nothing enrages a SJW more than disregard for their righteously-inspired opinion.  My apologies to the list for that - no need to do my sportfishing here; that's what Reddit's for. 

g33k: you might not want to strike so hard at any bait that flashes in front of you.  When you take a calming breath, you might *even* notice that you & I entirely agree on your main points.

Pro tip: insisting you're not histrionic by repeating HELL NO four times is...unconvincing.

Yeah, I had strongly suspected that I was being trolled; I'll not only cop to "histrionic" I'll allow that it was more than a little bit intentional on my part:  while there is an implied criticism (that "histrionic" is a "bad thing"), the literal meaning is simply that it's extra-dramatic and attention-grabbing; and I *meant* it to be that way (so it'd be kinda hypocritical to deny it, hmm?) .   So, yeah:  "histrionic."  Oooooh, ya got me!  I just deny that there's always a problem with "histrionic," and in this case I have no problem with it at all.

Here's the thing, styopa:  while you may feel it's "spearfishing" to "bait" an "SJW" ... that don't matter.  WHY you said it doesn't really matter, in the end.

Because you said it right here (not so much "BRP Central," as in the middle of any geeky-gaming venue & particularly a RQ one).  Where some nascent neogamer with an unfortunate background can wander by, browsing, and decide that this site is (or isn't) for them; this game; this hobby.

THAT is why I had to speak up against "active" cheesecake being superior to the static art showing culture; and why I had to get all "histrionic" when that was dismissed so casually:  I honestly couldn't give a flying !&^@% what some net.stranger in the mood to be a PITA thinks of me or my opinions; but I don't want someone else to decide that this site, or the BRP game, or the hobby overall, is one that's hostile to them.  They should know that even if there are jerks spewing sexism, there are ALSO people calling them out for doing it.

And here's my pro tip for you:  for the real victims (subject to panic-attacks, flashback, triggers, etc), the damage from initial trollbait may not actually be un-done or un-doable by later claims of "just trolling."
 

[Trifletraxor]

@styopa & @g33k :

And let's leave it at that. 

[g33k]

Done.

[styopa]

@Trifletraxor I'm cool with that.  My only comment is that it's all a moot point; Jeff's already amply shown us how he wants to illustrate Glorantha in the guide:

 

where even 'fairly' mannikin-y poses are at least given some life and energy: 

...to which I don't think anyone has a beef at all?

Edited April 12, 2016 by styopa

[soltakss]

And these used to be such nice forums ...