I actually agree with your points. But, I would like to see a balance. I think DCC RPG strikes that balance. Just glancing at the art in the book, right up front on the dedication page to Jim Roslof has a sexy depiction of a female elf shooting a bow. Not exploitative, but still sexy in her tube top (very 80s). But, on the inner cover of the book, we have the scantily clad female wizard. Exploitative? I don't think so. Then compare the serpent sorceress on p. 95 to the ass-kicking Warrior on the first page of the Combat section. This art is all good to me.Vanguard wrote:I was responding to DimitriX, not either of you. Being into barely-clothed women isn't bad, but complaining about the PC-ness of newer editions strikes me as odd. The two major changes (removal of demons, human sacrifices etc and a more inclusive approach to the art) have been a net gain for the game, I think.
1) It's distanced the game from the controversies in the 80s where D&D was thought to be a gateway into Satanism. As good as this was for the game for getting young people into it, it's not going to attract people like it used to. It will, however, piss off plenty of parents who don't want their kids participating in imaginary satanic rituals.
2) The game was clearly written for a male audience in its heyday, both in the art direction and the point of view (ie, look at pronouns). Making women appear in similar roles that the men in the books do will attract women to the game, especially if not every girl is sporting an iron bikini in the art.
PC = / = not being attracted to women, it's about balance.
As far as scaring parents with imaginary Satanism, then I think those parents should look at the books on their kids' shelves. I find a lot of what's in Twilight and The Hunger Games a lot more disturbing than anything I saw in a D&D book when I was a kid.
as long as we have the good old fashioned loin cloth, everything will be okay, don't worry to much.
