The Interior Art Needs to Change

[Mechashef]

I know this may prove to be a very unpopular opinion, but I think the interior art of the core book needs to change.

 

The art is of great quality and the artists are very talented. The quality is by far the best of any version of RQ and as good if not better than that I’ve seen in any other RPG.

 

BUT

 

While reading through the PDF on my laptop at my desk at work over lunchtime, I encountered a number of images that would not be considered SFW (Safe For Work).

 

Images that I think are great and acceptable when I’m playing at home amongst friends of a similar age group (late 40s) may not be very suitable for reading on the bus, or at my office desk, or for a teenager playing at school during lunchtime.

 

While images that appeal to the stereotypical teenage male gamer might boost sales amongst that demographic, do we really want him to have to hide it from his mum?  Do we want his sister to be happy playing?

 

This is not a criticism of the artists. The work is fantastic and I hope they/she/he does lots more for future RQ products.

 

 

[Richard S.]

Which pieces in the book are NSFW per say? There's a few that hint at it, but besides the pieces in the cults chapter (the cartoony-looking ones of the gods) that are meant to resemble bronze age artistic styles, there's not any pieces that explicitly show any "parts" IIRC.

[David Scott]

Depends where you work I suppose. In the places I work people would say wow that’s cool. Over here in Europe, I don’t see any of it as a problem. There’s nothing I don’t think you wouldn’t encounter in museums or art galleries (here at least). Some sites won’t let you look at the hon-eel image at it’s considered mature content, however the touring exhibition of his work last year, Mucha, in quest of beauty, contained not only his nudes, but the photos of models posed for them. The school groups didn’t seem concerned (the Glasgow part of the tour even had life models in the exhibition). The body in Ancient Greek art was another excellent exhibition at the British museum. Tastes and taboos are always going to vary, but I doubt very much the art need to change. Best not to read it at work if you think it will offend.

 

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Mechashef said:

I know this may prove to be a very unpopular opinion, but I think the interior art of the core book needs to change.

...

This is not a criticism of the artists. The work is fantastic and I hope they/she/he does lots more for future RQ products.

Aside from the obvious "not gonna happen" response (because they've already been printed & shipped and go on sale next week)... and that the PDF was out for WEEKS (in search of problems before the order at the printer was finalized)...

Can you cite (by page-number, and by position on page if more than one image) a few specific images?

 

[Tobbe-A]

I prefer when Glorantha is presented on it's own terms. Ancients cultures and current fantasy trends are way more visceral than our times. Minioan snake charmers are a simple case in point.

SFW is for your workspace, not my gaming table. I want the full breadth of Glorantha for my games, gore, nipples, warts and all.

[jeffjerwin]

Glorantha is not a prudish game in terms of its stories, let alone its artwork (this has has always been the case, particularly in Wyrms Footnotes).

I raised my daughter to have less hang ups than I did, and let her look through the rulebooks. Of course I am an artist and historian and have many books on religion, mythology, and art, all filled with non-pornographic nudity. None of the women I game with have criticised the art and I know them well enough that I would expect criticism if they were worried about it; they are, however, artists, professors, and writers, so I think art from or representing ancient cultures is no biggie. I think the new art is substantially less lurid than 1st edition D&D or older issues of White Dwarf, or, really, RQ1 and RQ2.

A medieval illuminated bible would have about the same amount of nudity in it.

Of course there may be a simple fix to the pdfs at least of making them imageless but I'm not quite sure how to implement that.

Edited September 17, 2018 by jeffjerwin

[styopa]

Or, just use a tool that lets you read PDFs without images.

https://www.addictivetips.com/windows-tips/pdf-no-img-view-pdf-documents-without-images/

Took <1 min to google.

 

(shrug)  I agree that some of the images might raise eyebrows at some workplaces.

page 22, 51, 86, 158 all might merit a "why you checking out dancing girls at work, Bill?"

I don't see anything wrong with someone wanting a solution, although the suggestion of "then NOBODY should have this in their gaming books" is a bit of overreach.

[Grievous]

Well, I disagree pretty vehemently. Then again, I guess I am a dirty Euro libertine. It could reasonably stand to be even more bold in its presentation, but I can see why not too.

[MOB]

10 hours ago, g33k said:

Aside from the obvious "not gonna happen" response (because they've already been printed & shipped and go on sale next week)... and that the PDF was out for WEEKS (in search of problems before the order at the printer was finalized)...

Exactly.

10 hours ago, g33k said:

Can you cite (by page-number, and by position on page if more than one image) a few specific images?

Supreme Court Justice Potter memorably said he couldn't define what obscene material is, "but I know it when I see it"; I can't think of any art in RQG that goes beyond a PG13 rating.

[Mechashef]

Ok, so some background.

I posted this after getting to work today and finding an email stating that I had to answer a claim of reading pornography at work.  I.e. I had been reported because of the content of the RQG PDF.  

After going through mediation and checking each page it was decided not to take it further as the material was considered borderline.  The agreement was that an official complaint would not be made if I agreed not to read it at work again.

Ironically the page the person complained about wasn't one of the "worst offenders"

For the record, it was decided that the unsuitable pages were:

12, 22, 51, 83, 99, 268, 272, 289, 302, 364, 424.

I later heard the person has a long history of making similar complaints.

 

 

 

[Jeff]

9 minutes ago, Mechashef said:

Ok, so some background.

I posted this after getting to work today and finding an email stating that I had to answer a claim of reading pornography at work.  I.e. I had been reported because of the content of the RQG PDF.  

After going through mediation and checking each page it was decided not to take it further as the material was considered borderline.  The agreement was that an official complaint would not be made if I agreed not to read it at work again.

Ironically the page the person complained about wasn't one of the "worst offenders"

For the record, it was decided that the unsuitable pages were:

12, 22, 51, 83, 99, 268, 272, 289, 302, 364, 424.

I later heard the person has a long history of making similar complaints.

 

 

 

I am sorry that you work in a workplace where pictures based on classical art might be considered pornographic. That is really awful - how does this person survive going to a museum or seeing civic statuary?

[Hteph]

Oh, 'muricas and their fear for the dreaded nipple!

 

ROTFL!

[Raleel]

23 minutes ago, Jeff said:

I am sorry that you work in a workplace where pictures based on classical art might be considered pornographic. That is really awful - how does this person survive going to a museum or seeing civic statuary?

In quite a few places in America, it is quite possible to go through life and never see these things. We are rather young as a whole, and the vast majority of our land mass is rural. Very little statuary to speak of. It is really only common in a few places in the US. 

Our view on the dreaded nipple is slowly changing. It’s greatly improved over the last  70 years or so, and gets a little better every day. Folks who complain like in the OPs situation are getting rarer - enough so that I think they are clearly out of the norm. There is still some cultural hesitancy towards classic nudity because, frankly, we just don’t have lots of it.  

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, Raleel said:

In quite a few places in America, it is quite possible to go through life and never see these things. We are rather young as a whole, and the vast majority of our land mass is rural. Very little statuary to speak of. It is really only common in a few places in the US. 

Our view on the dreaded nipple is slowly changing. It’s greatly improved over the last  70 years or so, and gets a little better every day. Folks who complain like in the OPs situation are getting rarer - enough so that I think they are clearly out of the norm. There is still some cultural hesitancy towards classic nudity because, frankly, we just don’t have lots of it.  

For what it is worth, public art in Indianapolis and Oklahoma City (and many smaller towns) includes statues with both bare-breasts and nipples. 

The OP I believe is in Canberra Australia, not the US.

[styopa]

29 minutes ago, Jeff said:

I am sorry that you work in a workplace where pictures based on classical art might be considered pornographic. That is really awful - how does this person survive going to a museum or seeing civic statuary?

We have a growing group of people who believe it is their right never to see anything that might cause them the slightest discomfort...

...and lots of lawyers.  I feel for you Mechashef, sorry you had to go through that.

 

Then again, there was a pretty extensive discussion recently on these boards about the impropriety of 'eye-candy' art in gaming, and I think even the most self-righteous free-speech libertarian would have to admit that there is at least a fair degree of subjectivity in between "art" and "eye-candy".  For example, I wouldn't post Katsushika Hokusai’s “The Dream of the Fisherman’s Wife”, Klimt’s “Frau bei der Selbstbefriedigung” or Courbet’s “L’Origine du monde" here, (look them up at your peril, certainly NSFW) despite them being absolutely, 100% "classical art" - I (personally) would believe they would be staggeringly inappropriate for a board which is dedicated to gaming and which may be being read by preteens.  

FWIW let's not get all righteous: yes, Americans get all freaked out about nudity...some would say it's about the same degree that Western Europeans commonly overreact to violence.  We all have our cultural shibboleths.

[PhilHibbs]

59 minutes ago, styopa said:

We have a growing group of people who believe it is their right never to see anything that might cause them the slightest discomfort...

...and lots of lawyers.

Oh, accursèd lawyers! 😉

[jongjom]

18 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Oh, accursèd lawyers! 😉

Excluding Jeff of course. Enlightened and on a virtuous path to bring art to the masses of RQ and Gloranthan fans. 

[PhilHibbs]

10 minutes ago, jongjom said:

Excluding Jeff of course. Enlightened and on a virtuous path to bring art to the masses of RQ and Gloranthan fans. 

I think he's secretly drumming up business for colleagues, tipping off the evangelicals to the corrupting material that he's planting on people.

[Raleel]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

For what it is worth, public art in Indianapolis and Oklahoma City (and many smaller towns) includes statues with both bare-breasts and nipples. 

The OP I believe is in Canberra Australia, not the US.

just saying - it's hardly a common thing in many parts of the US.

And i mean, just because he has a platypus as his icon, I can't just assume he's australian  

[Jeff]

7 minutes ago, Raleel said:

just saying - it's hardly a common thing in many parts of the US.

And i mean, just because he has a platypus as his icon, I can't just assume he's australian  

And in the defence of Americans, the few complaints we have gotten about artistic nudity have not been from the US. They've always been from the UK or Australia.

[Raleel]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

And in the defence of Americans, the few complaints we have gotten about artistic nudity have not been from the US. They've always been from the UK or Australia.

maybe we shipped our prudes over there

[styopa]

49 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Oh, accursèd lawyers! 😉

I don't blame Y.Pestis for being the plague.  They are what they are.

[Narl]

Regarding kids viewing the book. As a parent, I am always surprised at other parents who have no problem with their kids seeing copious amounts of violence on TV, in movies, and in video games -- yet anything sexual is completely off limits -- no bare breasts allowed!

It is completely backwards -- do I want my kids to ever have violence be part of their lives? Of course not. I would never want them to have to commit and be subject to a violent act. Do I want sex to be a part of their lives eventually? Of course I do, as I'd like to be a grandparent someday! It must be awfully confusing for some kids....

[Martin]

@mechashef I know how it could of been avoided ...simple...while you are work...work and then read RQG at home

Edited September 17, 2018 by Martin

[d(sqrt(-1))]

4 hours ago, Mechashef said:

Ok, so some background.

I posted this after getting to work today and finding an email stating that I had to answer a claim of reading pornography at work.  I.e. I had been reported because of the content of the RQG PDF.  

After going through mediation and checking each page it was decided not to take it further as the material was considered borderline.  The agreement was that an official complaint would not be made if I agreed not to read it at work again.

Ironically the page the person complained about wasn't one of the "worst offenders"

For the record, it was decided that the unsuitable pages were:

12, 22, 51, 83, 99, 268, 272, 289, 302, 364, 424.

I later heard the person has a long history of making similar complaints.

 

 

 

 

I'd be tempted to take into work a book on classical art and read that instead...

 

Although, given what happened to you at work I can't quite square that with the OP. You were told off for reading something deemed unsuitable for YOU to read at work, and then posted here that the art needs to change? It sounds like you are doing the person attempting to censor you's work for them...

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by d(sqrt(-1))