Armor designs for females?

[CrackedChair]

So I was wondering, over the few editions of D&D, how did armor look for female characters?

I'd imagine it got a bit more modest as the years went by, considering D&D's audience in the early years...

[Millstone85]

Probably, yeah. But even then, going through the 4e PHB...

http://i.imgur.com/J02bMN8.png
https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/dnd4/images/a/ae/Half-ElfPHB.jpghttp://blogofholding.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/belly.png
Now to go through the 5e PHB...

[Nifft]

So I was wondering, over the few editions of D&D, how did armor look for female characters?

This is how I handled girl armor in 1e:


http://i.imgur.com/bzDLQiU.jpg


I still handle it basically like that.

[Millstone85]

Welp, the 5e PHB seems to have been extra careful with that.

[Nifft]

Welp, the 5e PHB seems to have been extra careful with that.

Yeah the 5e artwork seems to be good on a lot of fronts.

[Talakeal]

Yeah the 5e artwork seems to be good on a lot of fronts.

Tell that to the 5E halflings.

[Millstone85]

Yeah the 5e artwork seems to be good on a lot of fronts.
Tell that to the 5E halflings.They are a sad exception. Such big heads and tiny feet.

[Arbane]

"Not wanting to die is unisex."

[goto124]

Welp, the 5e PHB seems to have been extra careful with that.

As I recall, they got really specific when asking for art from the artists, having to lay down every detail to ensure they got a variety of sexes, races, and armor that covers the body. Too bad I can't find the article detailing the artistic process of the 5e PHB, it's amazing.

[Anonymouswizard]

Tell that to the 5E halflings.

Why, do halflings tend towards impractical armour?. But yeah, horrible, horrible little demonses with heads twice the size of their bodies, what was WotC thinking?

[Lord Torath]

Why, do halflings tend towards impractical armour?. But yeah, horrible, horrible little demonses with heads twice the size of their bodies, what was WotC thinking?Maybe they spent too much time watching (in his own words) a Sexy, Shoeless, God of War!!!! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0439.html)? I mean, most of his weight is in his head (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0165.html)...

[Anonymouswizard]

Maybe they spent too much time watching (in his own words) a Sexy, Shoeless, God of War!!!! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0439.html)? I mean, most of his weight is in his head (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0165.html)...

I would like to point out that, despite being a stick figure, Belkar is more normally proportioned than 5e halflings.

[scalyfreak]

This is how I handled girl armor in 1e:


http://i.imgur.com/bzDLQiU.jpg


Same here.

Being female and playing in groups that were at least 50% female has of course influenced my perspective. As it turns out, girl warriors have their vital organs positioned in the same place as boy warriors... meaning effective armor is for the most part not gender specific.

[pwykersotz]

Same here.

Being female and playing in groups that were at least 50% female has of course influenced my perspective. As it turns out, girl warriors have their vital organs positioned in the same place as boy warriors... meaning effective armor is for the most part not gender specific.

Yeah, if you're going for basic utility, sure. But what about FASHION, man! Fashion! Adventurers wearing tin cans may stay alive, but since you basically sleep in this stuff and wear it before kings and dragons alike, it may as well look good!

Tongue in cheek there, but only partly joking. Realists with regards to armor have their point, but I make character sheets for my whole group. Nice custom ones with character portraits that I pull from online based on the desires of the players. Inevitably the more fashionable portraits win out. This is one that is currently in use:

http://orig04.deviantart.net/10b0/f/2014/009/e/e/feriel_by_kerembeyit-d1k62wz.jpg

You can look attractive and be badass in a fantasy game. Nothing wrong with that. The only problem comes when people try to shoehorn others into taking their stereotypes instead of playing what they want to play within the accepted confines of the game. That applies to horny nerds, history nuts, and over-reaching GM's alike.

[scalyfreak]

Yeah, if you're going for basic utility, sure. But what about FASHION, man! Fashion! Adventurers wearing tin cans may stay alive, but since you basically sleep in this stuff and wear it before kings and dragons alike, it may as well look good!


No problem. I'm a big fan of this kind of plate armor for female fighters, for aesthetics reasons as well as practicality.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ec/91/dd/ec91dd58fa34c0bc5897b0385937c573.jpg

[Lord Raziere]

For Fantasy
Well my general rule about armor is that I don't mind it as long it covers the whole body as its designed to. It can be absurdly artistic, it can be fancy, it can have boob plate, but as long as its covers the whole body, I can make allowances for the fantasy. its fantasy, there are some thing you should be allowed to deviate from reality.

For Realism:
if you want realism, the whole armor thing is actually much different than one would think: wearing plate armor give you more protection and it doesn't restrict movement as much as you think- but it is heavier and does make you hot, so fighting in it does mean that you tire out quicker. while some fighters would prefer freedom of movement as its simply more comfortable and more viable to fight longer in lighter armor- skimpiness can work but only as long as you have a good shield. Basically you trade passive defense of armor for more active defense of paying attention, dodging and blocking. The whole point is to basically instead of allowing the opponent to hit wherever they want, you control it so that they hit only where you want them to hit- the shield- and thus use that to get openings to kill them.

At the same time, any culture if they had access to heavy armor, would probably go for heavy armor. While skimpiness can work if your good, it requires you to pay constant attention and hold your shield at the ready. if a warrior is using skimpy dodge shield blocky tactics, its probably because they are in personal defense combat rather than being in an actual battle they are preparing for, don't have the resources for it, or are being VERY foolhardy.

mostly because, heavy armor was only worn when you were CERTAIN you were going into battle. Like weapons like halberds, spears, warhammers, maces and heavy armor, all that were only put on when you were expecting a big battle to come. you didn't wear it when you were just traveling and needed a form of self defense, you just had a sword, a shield and some gambeson/padded armor to do that. because swords were the trusty side arm, the back up weapon, the self-defense weapon you use when nothing specialized is called for and thus used when travelling.

In this light, this could technically explain adventurer attire in some way if you think about it. so many heroes wield swords because they know its the versatile side arm weapon so they might as well just use that as they don't have the time to get the resources for more specialized weapons and while they constantly expect combat, which means they wear some form of armor, they don't always wear heavy armor because they need to travel for long periods of time and fight for long periods of time and heavy armor is actually better for fighting short bursts, because of how it tires you out. as long as they have shields they can direct all hits to that and why purchase any heavier armor? its just heavy, it'll weigh you down, you'll get tired after one or two fights, its expensive, and really its just better for big battles where you have time to actually prepare for the battle. so as long as the adventurers have shields its probably good as far as realism is concerned. Alternatively they wear lots of armor because they always expect battle and train themselves to always work with armor on to build up their stamina.

In short both heavy and light armor can work- gambeson and padded armor were widely used for a reason- but they work better in different situations. bringing plate armor and two handed weapons to a small adventure is kind of like bringing a rocket launcher to busting a mafia operation when really it belongs in a war movie.

[Malimar]

No problem. I'm a big fan of this kind of plate armor for female fighters, for aesthetics reasons as well as practicality.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ec/91/dd/ec91dd58fa34c0bc5897b0385937c573.jpg

My problem with this isn't with the armor, but with the hair. Doesn't that get all caught and tangled in the joints of the armor like ugh? (I say this as a person with long hair.)

[Lappy9001]

I always get a kick out of this tumblr http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/

Impractical female (and honestly male armor for that matter) is a pet peeve of mine but If I'm gonna run a game that allows magic, disallowing impractical armor is just silly.

[Talakeal]

@Lord Raziere:

Historically armor that covers the entire body is the exception rather than the rule, not sure why you would have that as your hard line for fantasy armor design.

[goto124]

Since it's fantasy, armor on female characters should be just as unrealistic as armor on male characters.

By this metric, if a female character's coworker is wearing full plate she should not be wearing a chainmail bikini, but spikes of villainy, horns on helmets, and tge dozen other unrealistic things that male characters also suffer from are perfectly fine.

[Talakeal]

Since it's fantasy, armor on female characters should be just as unrealistic as armor on male characters.

By this metric, chainmail bikinis are out, but spikes of villainy, horns on helmets, and tge dozen other unrealistic things that male characters also suffer from are perfectly fine.

The problem there is that trying to dress a female in the same thing that male barbarians or gladiators typically wear would get the game banned in a heartbeat.

[goto124]

The problem there is that trying to dress a female in the same thing that male barbarians or gladiators typically wear would get the game banned in a heartbeat.

Most games just paste a piece of cloth over the chest. The rest of the body that's uncovered on the male character can also be uncovered on the female character.

[Lord Raziere]

@Lord Raziere:

Historically armor that covers the entire body is the exception rather than the rule, not sure why you would have that as your hard line for fantasy armor design.

Notice the tags? I said for FANTASY.

your talking about REALISM, which I covered. Realism is not fantasy. it is in fact, the opposite of fantasy. I agree historically that is true, but unless I'm playing a HISTORICAL game rather than a FANTASY game, I don't see how its relevant. assume that I'm not counting the head.

[2D8HP]

As I recall, they got really specific when asking for art from the artists, having to lay down every detail to ensure they got a variety of sexes, races, and armor that covers the body. Too bad I can't find the article detailing the artistic process of the 5e PHB, it's amazing.


Perhaps you meant:

this (https://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/gencon-first-impressions-hope-for-the-fuuuuuture/)

and

this (https://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/dd-5e-why-so-many-wimmenz/)?

[goto124]

Afraid not. The post I read was more detailed and had a professional tone.

[scalyfreak]

My problem with this isn't with the armor, but with the hair. Doesn't that get all caught and tangled in the joints of the armor like ugh? (I say this as a person with long hair.)

That is my problem with that picture as well, actually. Long hair seems like it would be incredibly inconvenient for all kinds of fighters, regardless of gender, at if you wear it the way Elizabeth does here.

[Talakeal]

Notice the tags? I said for FANTASY.

your talking about REALISM, which I covered. Realism is not fantasy. it is in fact, the opposite of fantasy. I agree historically that is true, but unless I'm playing a HISTORICAL game rather than a FANTASY game, I don't see how its relevant. assume that I'm not counting the head.

I am aware.

Its just really unusual to see someone who has a narrower range of acceptable fantastical options than realistic ones.

[2D8HP]

That is my problem with that picture as well, actually. Long hair seems like it would be incredibly inconvenient for all kinds of fighters, regardless of gender, at if you wear it the way Elizabeth does here.


The Spartans greased and braided their long hair, otherwise maybe shorter haircuts is why the Roundheads won against the Cavaliers?

[Lord Raziere]

I am aware.

Its just really unusual to see someone who has a narrower range of acceptable fantastical options than realistic ones.

Depends. I don't really count loin cloth and bras as armor. I mean, you can wear something, but that doesn't mean its armor. a chainmail bikini doesn't actually cover anything that needs to be protected so its not actually armor, its decoration, and therefore gives no bonus to AC. :smallwink: Though you might get a decoration bonus to your charisma in certain private situations. :smallamused:

and sure there are many cultures that didn't use full armor, but y'know what they did use? SHIELDS.

[scalyfreak]

The Spartans greased and braided their long hair, otherwise maybe shorter haircuts is why the Roundheads won against the Cavaliers?

I always assumed those were a poorly thought-out attempt to avoid the appearance of helmet hair. Their version of a mullet.

[Deophaun]

Since it's fantasy, armor on female characters should be just as unrealistic as armor on male characters.

By this metric, chainmail bikinis are out
Apparently because they're too covering.
http://i.imgur.com/bh1YLFj.jpg

[goto124]

I knew I should've added an extra note for exceptions. I went back to edit the post.

When I said 'chainmail bikini', I was thinking of this (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2076/2116151555_912c038a50.jpg).

https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/monsterhunter/images/f/f7/Bone-Gunner.png/revision/latest?cb=20100523064614

https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/monsterhunter/images/7/77/FrontierGen-Kukubo_Armor_%28Blademaster%29_Render_2.png/revision/latest?cb=20140328080212

[Deophaun]

Well, at least she doesn't have a pair of anvils welded to her shoulders, so I think hers is still more practical.

[2D8HP]

....When I said 'chainmail bikini'...


I didn't read all of the pages, but I'm pretty sure that last time (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?508241-Female-Armor-Any-Explanation&highlight=female) "chainmail bikinis" were discussed someone referenced:

http://media.oglaf.com/comic/newmodelarmy3.jpg

and who am I to defy tradition?

[goto124]

Those aren't chainmail bikinis! They're just regular bikinis!

Oglaf delivers.

[Anonymouswizard]

Since it's fantasy, armor on female characters should be just as unrealistic as armor on male characters.

By this metric, if a female character's coworker is wearing full plate she should not be wearing a chainmail bikini, but spikes of villainy, horns on helmets, and tge dozen other unrealistic things that male characters also suffer from are perfectly fine.

Now I want to see a chainmail bikini with spikes of villainy...


The problem there is that trying to dress a female in the same thing that male barbarians or gladiators typically wear would get the game banned in a heartbeat.

Eh, if a female PC wants to walk around with their chest uncovered in my games, that's generally fine. I mean, not while in a city or most towns, but it really does depend on the area, and once you're outside of the city most people will be fine with that. I still recommend keeping them under control when fighting, but as a man I'm nowhere near an expert on that topic.

I think for me the acceptability of armour design comes down to three things: time period, is it low or high fantasy, and what is the other gender wearing. If men are running around in loincloths or leaving their chests exposed the same is fine for women, and this is more acceptable in a high magic game than a low magic one.

(I've designed female characters who wear everything from sensible plate to a skirt and nothing else [although she was a mage], I've got no problem with revealing armour as long as the torso is covered because it would be a bit hypocritical)

[Dragonexx]

With magical armor, I've more ruled that matters more is the enchantment, over the actual armor itself. So, you can totally run around in nonsensical sexy armor like below provided it's magical. Doesn't matter one way or the other what the opposite gender is doing. Style is style and I like my characters to be aesthetically pleasing.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/dragonslair/imageproxy.php?url=http://i960.photobucket.com/albums/ae89/dragonexx/145210-preview0828591478f756e7b978a2dffe2807c2.jpg?t=1356 743273

Of course what I should start posting in these threads is this.

The only people you need to satisfy are the people you play with.

The only people you need to satisfy are the people you play with.

The only people you need to satisfy are the people you play with.

[Anonymouswizard]

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/dragonslair/imageproxy.php?url=http://i960.photobucket.com/albums/ae89/dragonexx/145210-preview0828591478f756e7b978a2dffe2807c2.jpg?t=1356 743273

Please, that's like quarter-plate at most! :smalltongue:


The only people you need to satisfy are the people you play with.

This is true. If the entire group is fine with full plate consisting of two cups and a thong then who am I to argue? Meanwhile, if the group tells me that my leather armour has to cover my chest to get AC bonuses, I should probably concede.

Obligatory OotS reference (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0675.html).

[EccentricCircle]

Given the layers of padding and chainmail that have to be worn under a suit of full plate armour, the shape of the metal bit on the outside doesn't really reflect the shape of the person bit on the inside at all.
No matter how busty someone is they aren't going to need a bump on the outside of their breast plate, but that doesn't mean that they won't put a bump there for fashions sake.

[goto124]

Meanwhile, if the group tells me that my leather armour has to cover my chest to get AC bonuses, I should probably concede.

In such a group, there had better be Dex or Cha bonuses for not covering up. Female or otherwise :D


but that doesn't mean that they won't put a bump there for fashions sake.

Agreed. Males also get abs on their armor for no reason other than to look impressive. There're even real-life examples.

[Satinavian]

Agreed. Males also get abs on their armor for no reason other than to look impressive. There're even real-life examples.
But not for full plate.

While armor is often very ornamental and where muscle cuirasses exist, a boob plate has its place, societies that were advanced enough to really forge full plates with working joints everywhere had long figured out the optimal design for the torso plate to deflect blows and provide the most stability.

Neither white armor nor Gothic armor is ever seen with modeled abs. The even better known Maximilian armor doesn't feature it either.




So while i don't have a problem with boob plate at all, the general armor and tech level has to fit it.

[goto124]

Does that extend to absplate? I've always advocated for gender-equal unrealism.

[CharonsHelper]

A girl in my college group joked that her armor looked like the worst sorts of female fantasy armor, but it really protected everything. Females just all get their armor glamoured for free to look like that to distract male foes.

[goto124]

I should look for art of a warrior in full plate, but with skin badly painted on the armor. Like the armor version of body shirts, or whatever they're called.

[Airk]

I should look for art of a warrior in full plate, but with skin badly painted on the armor. Like the armor version of body shirts, or whatever they're called.

Let's not forget stuff like this. (https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-908f5163eaca0d1dfa23c5a88a71f06b)

But the way early editions worked was women didn't wear armor. :P Early editions of D&D portrayed women adventurers rarely, and when they did, they were usually wizard types. The exception that I can recall is, oddly, is the cleric in the old Mentzer red box starting adventure, who wore reasonably covering (if still strangely skin tight) chainmail.

[Mechalich]

Let's not forget stuff like this. (https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-908f5163eaca0d1dfa23c5a88a71f06b)

But the way early editions worked was women didn't wear armor. :P Early editions of D&D portrayed women adventurers rarely, and when they did, they were usually wizard types. The exception that I can recall is, oddly, is the cleric in the old Mentzer red box starting adventure, who wore reasonably covering (if still strangely skin tight) chainmail.

Early editions of D&D retained the physical ability score limits for female characters, so there was a significant mechanical reason why female martials would not be abundant.

[1337 b4k4]

Let's not forget stuff like this. (https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-908f5163eaca0d1dfa23c5a88a71f06b)

But the way early editions worked was women didn't wear armor. :P Early editions of D&D portrayed women adventurers rarely, and when they did, they were usually wizard types. The exception that I can recall is, oddly, is the cleric in the old Mentzer red box starting adventure, who wore reasonably covering (if still strangely skin tight) chainmail.

There's actually a decent bit of women in armor in early D&D artwork. Everyone remembers the sexy sorceresses, but the adventurers tended to at least be wearing ranger gear. To be sure, there's a lot less of them than men, but it's not quite a TnA fest that it's sometimes portrayed as either. Some examples:


https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/148592467259
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/147596853377
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/146556123392
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/145259366322
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/144349278835
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/144251517880
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/144201890056
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/144150722933
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/141260463812
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/141094613413
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/140975482492
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/140804678493
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/139606203121
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/134468340597
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/122947807272
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/118210358127
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/97065979922
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/94735313191
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/90263933675
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/146899046788
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/145757999087

Good bit of boob plate still, but looking at the limitations of some of that artwork, I wonder if the use of that wasn't at least partially about coding the character as a woman rather than the default assumption of a man. And let's not forget what I consider to be the quintessential picture of a D&D adventuring party:

http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DRAS/dragon-slayers-and-proud-of-it

[CrackedChair]

Well shoot. I thought D&D was a bit more lecherous in the early years when it came to armor for females, but it looks like it's not too extreme.

[2D8HP]

Well shoot. I thought D&D was a bit more lecherous in the early years when it came to armor for females, but it looks like it's not too extreme.


Oh, aren't you a naughty one.

I suspect that your looking less for "armor", than for such "gems" as "The Amazon" from the original 1974 rules, and of course the "Succubus", and the DEMON Type V (Marilith, etc.) from page 19 of the 1977 Monster Manual, which don't however hold a candle to the divinities of the 1980 Deities & Demi-Gods tome, such as on pages 24, 36, 50, 52, 60, 64, 69 ("Why, how now, Hecate! You look angerly"),76, 78, 89, 95, 110 126, etc. which inspired a lifelong interest in mythology, in me when I was 12.

Get your own dang copy.

[CrackedChair]

Oh, aren't you a naughty one.

I suspect that your looking less for "armor", than for such "gems" as "The Amazon" from the original 1974 rules, and of course the "Succubus", and the DEMON Type V (Marilith, etc.) from page 19 of the 1977 Monster Manual, which don't however hold a candle to the divinities of the 1980 Deities & Demi-Gods tome, such as on pages 24, 36, 50, 52, 60, 64, 69 ("Why, how now, Hecate! You look angerly"),76, 78, 89, 95, 110 126, etc. which inspired a lifelong interest in mythology, in me when I was 12.

Get your own dang copy.

Haha, thanks but no thanks. Tis just a weird thought after my sister made a comment about armor in fantasy and how she imagined fantasy writers making it look like.

[1337 b4k4]

Well shoot. I thought D&D was a bit more lecherous in the early years when it came to armor for females, but it looks like it's not too extreme.

Oh for sure there was leching to be found, the monsters notably. Larry Elmore, the artist behind that dragon hunters party made plenty of shapely women in shapely poses or "completely impractical fantasy armor" art (like so http://www.larryelmore.com/store/CAYL/caylinns-journey and this one isn't even the most risqué), but he (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/ANCP/ancient-powers) had a (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/ANCW/ancient-white) good bit (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/APPE/appeasing-karita) of completely (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/AVAL/avalyne-the-life-giver) respectable, non-exploitive (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DDCM/dungeons-and-dragons--cities-of-mystery) artwork, and it's (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DDRB/dungeons-and-dragons--endless-quest--return-to-brookmere) a shame (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DANJ/dangerous-journeys) that a lot (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DARC/dark-conspiracy) of that (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DEAS/death-from-the-swamp) get's lost (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/AADA/dragon-attacking-a-small-party) when the (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DLAT/dragonlance--autumn-twilight-94) discussion focuses (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DLCA/dragonlance--cataclysum) on the (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DLCL/dragonlance--companions-of-the-lance) bad stuff (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DLDS/dragonlance--death-of-sturm) that came (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DRAA/dragonlance--dragons-of-autumn-twilight) out of (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DRAW/dragonlance--dragons-of-winter-night) the early (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DLIB/dragonlance--ice-boats) D&D years (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DLSA/dragonlance--the-saga). BTW if (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DLWN/dragonlance--winter-night-94) you can't (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DRIZ/drizzt-and-companions) tell I really (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/GATE/gateway) enjoy Elmore's (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/MYST/mystical-plains) work and (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/NSTH/no-second-thoughts) if you're (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/TTDA/places-of-power--through-the-deeps) not familiar (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/SHAW/shadows-daughter) with his (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/SNOW/snow-brother) work you're (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/TEAM/teamwork) missing out (http://www.larryelmore.com/store/TENS/tense-moment) even if he loves drawing the cheese cake as much as he draws the good stuff.

[Jay R]

In original D&D, the problem was solved very simply.The warrior class was named "Fighting Man".

[Satinavian]

Does that extend to absplate? I've always advocated for gender-equal unrealism.
Obviously yes. Boobplate and absplate are basically the same. Same tech level, same drawbacks, same vanity. Ignoring cultural reasons, either both should exist or neither.

Which means, absplate as part of sophisticated fullplate is as stupid as boobplate as part of sophisticated fullplate. But if your inspiration is more 6th century than 16th, both are reasonable while probably rare (most famous cultures would prefer chain).

[War_lord]

Sexy armor in fantasy is just the dumbest trend. If I wanted to see sexy people in various states of nakedness, I have the internet. If you include that kind of crap in your product as a creator, all it does is kill any qand all respect I might otherwise hold for you.

[1337 b4k4]

Sexy armor in fantasy is just the dumbest trend. If I wanted to see sexy people in various states of nakedness, I have the internet. If you include that kind of crap in your product as a creator, all it does is kill any qand all respect I might otherwise hold for you.

It's fantasy. Being a sexy shoeless god of war has been a part of fantasy since the days of the Greeks. See also James Bond and any of the avengers. Not at all saying that TTRPG art needs to be just this side of a porn mag, (see my reference above for my image of a D&D party) but I'm not keen on this neo-puritan streak that seems to be the other side of the pendulum. Like most things in life, the key is moderation.

[War_lord]

It's fantasy. Being a sexy shoeless god of war has been a part of fantasy since the days of the Greeks. See also James Bond and any of the avengers. Not at all saying that TTRPG art needs to be just this side of a porn mag, (see my reference above for my image of a D&D party) but I'm not keen on this neo-puritan streak that seems to be the other side of the pendulum. Like most things in life, the key is moderation.

Except the problem is that this particular "fantasy" isn't for the people it's depicting. Male warriors are always depicted as scarred muscular badasses, attired in suitably martial armor. Meanwhile you get female "warriors" with perfect hair and makeup prancing around in things like chainmail bikinis and boobplates with no backing that no woman going into battle or on an adventure would ever chose to wear. It's male fantasy, and more importantly it's a way of watering down female characters who could be powerful by presenting them as objects for cheap gratification.

5e should be praised for very consciously bucking the trend. But it's a pity that in 2017 it's something that has to be lauded, instead of just being the norm.

[Anonymouswizard]

Except the problem is that this particular "fantasy" isn't for the people it's depicting. Male warriors are always depicted as scarred muscular badasses, attired in suitably martial armor.

Are you telling me that my long haired, lithe, male half elf Barbarian clad in a tailcoat is doing it wrong? I mean, he blocks attacks with his class rather than his muscles, doesn't have enough of those to spare, but I like to think he's warrioring right.


Meanwhile you get female "warriors" with perfect hair and makeup prancing around in things like chainmail bikinis and boobplates with no backing that no woman going into battle or on an adventure would ever chose to wear. It's male fantasy, and more importantly it's a way of watering down female characters who could be powerful by presenting them as objects for cheap gratification.

Yeah, where's the hot men in skimpy armour? Sure, we get the occasional barbarian and gladiator, but the chainmail speedo doesn't seem to have taken off anywhere near as much as it's counterpart.

(No, I am never going to apologise for being bisexual)


5e should be praised for very consciously bucking the trend. But it's a pity that in 2017 it's something that has to be lauded, instead of just being the norm.

Completely true. I mean, I wouldn't mind if those out of armour had differences in clothing while still showing approximately the same amount of skin while those in armour are dressed almost identically, but it's the fact that we have to go 'yes, we do want sensible warrior woman' so loud that's annoying.

Of course, I've accepted form hugging chain and leather as a sacrifice for some artists wanting to make the gender of their characters clear, but I'm only okay with it when the chest is still fully covered.

[Max_Killjoy]

Maybe I'm just too much of a snarky curmudgeon, but whenever I look at some of the armor that female characters have been tarted up in, I think the only fantasy that it could titillate would be snuff -- because those women are going to get themselves killed. :smallmad:

[Satinavian]

Except the problem is that this particular "fantasy" isn't for the people it's depicting. Male warriors are always depicted as scarred muscular badasses, attired in suitably martial armor. Meanwhile you get female "warriors" with perfect hair and makeup prancing around in things like chainmail bikinis and boobplates with no backing that no woman going into battle or on an adventure would ever chose to wear. It's male fantasy, and more importantly it's a way of watering down female characters who could be powerful by presenting them as objects for cheap gratification.But it is not "always". It is "occasionally" at best. (At least if you avoid Asian MMOs and deviantart)


5e should be praised for very consciously bucking the trend. But it's a pity that in 2017 it's something that has to be lauded, instead of just being the norm.The majority of fantasy RPG systems has had reasonable female armor illustrations for decades. D&D5 should not be praised for finally, at last doing the very same thing. It is good that they do. But it is hardly "bucking the trend". The only trend it goes against is its own history. 3.x was... mixed at best and 4E went for more fantastical, more edgy to get attention with new customers. I like the 5E art as contrast. Reminds me of other games i have played a lot in the 90s and 00s.

[Floret]

The problem there is that trying to dress a female in the same thing that male barbarians or gladiators typically wear would get the game banned in a heartbeat.

In America, maybe. In Germany, Dark Eye (At least in 4th and a bit in 5th edition) has been doing exactly that.
To be quite honest, the barbarian woman in nothing but the kilt looks way more fitting next to her male counterparts than any attempt of a bra ever could... But that might be personal taste ;)

[CharonsHelper]

But it is not "always". It is "occasionally" at best. (At least if you avoid Asian MMOs and deviantart)

I will say - maybe it's just the media I consume - but I hear people complaining about the extreme/silly female armor more often than I actually see it outside of anime. (and male armor in anime is generally just as silly/nonexistent albeit less revealing)

[Knaight]

It's fantasy. Being a sexy shoeless god of war has been a part of fantasy since the days of the Greeks. See also James Bond and any of the avengers. Not at all saying that TTRPG art needs to be just this side of a porn mag, (see my reference above for my image of a D&D party) but I'm not keen on this neo-puritan streak that seems to be the other side of the pendulum. Like most things in life, the key is moderation.

Wanting armor specifically to be depicted as something reasonably functional isn't puritanical - as can be seen in plenty of fantasy series that both have fairly functional armor (in terms of basic coverage anyways, there's still frequently room for nitpicking) and explicit sex scenes. Take A Song of Ice and Fire (books) or A Game of Thrones (TV show), both of which are really big right now. You've got scenes bordering on pornography, and you've got generally sensible armor, where the people with the money for full coverage have it and those that don't generally cover their torso first. There's a bit of a helmet shortage, and there's a clear lack of understanding of how armor works in a fight, but it comes across as a legitimate attempt at useful armor by someone with limited knowledge and not as a ridiculous attempt to force sexiness where it just doesn't make sense.

Another good example is science fiction. A space suit that leaves bare skin open is going to come across as really stupid to most of the audience. That's not being puritanical, that's wanting a space suit to look like something that's plausibly a space suit. This doesn't prevent these settings from having plenty of stuff that earns the puritan seal of disapproval elsewhere.

[Arbane]

But it is not "always". It is "occasionally" at best. (At least if you avoid Asian MMOs and deviantart)

The majority of fantasy RPG systems has had reasonable female armor illustrations for decades.

WoW is Asian now? When did that happen? (I remember a while back seeing a WoW cartoon contest that specifically said 'no jokes about female armor', otherwise that was ALL THEY'D GET.)

Which RPGs had reasonable female armor in the 1980s?

Also, this blog goes on about stupid armor in fantasy media, and why Conan is not equivalent to Red Sonja (http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/false-equivalence/). (As has been said, one's a fantasy for men, and the other is... also a fantasy for men.) Not always SFW, you have been warned.

[Anonymouswizard]

The majority of fantasy RPG systems has had reasonable female armor illustrations for decades. D&D5 should not be praised for finally, at last doing the very same thing. It is good that they do. But it is hardly "bucking the trend". The only trend it goes against is its own history. 3.x was... mixed at best and 4E went for more fantastical, more edgy to get attention with new customers. I like the 5E art as contrast. Reminds me of other games i have played a lot in the 90s and 00s.

I mean, it can vary wildly. Anima: Beyond Fantasy seems to be okay with armour, but rubbish for clothing. I also hated the character on the front of the Savage Worlds Fantasy Companion as soon as I saw them, it's just a stupid outfit. Conversely games like Keltia tend not to have female warriors in art, but do have the women sensibly dressed. I find science fiction games tend to be better, with both genders wearing similar clothes (but if someone is in skimpy clothing it's more likely to be women).

Then, of course, you get games like Victoriana, which have settings where anyone wearing 'sexy' armour would likely be shunned.

[ImNotTrevor]

WoW is Asian now? When did that happen? (I remember a while back seeing a WoW cartoon contest that specifically said 'no jokes about female armor', otherwise that was ALL THEY'D GET.)

Which RPGs had reasonable female armor in the 1980s?

Also, this blog goes on about stupid armor in fantasy media, and why Conan is not equivalent to Red Sonja (http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/false-equivalence/). (As has been said, one's a fantasy for men, and the other is... also a fantasy for men.) Not always SFW, you have been warned.

Just pointing out that the majority of relevant depictions cited here are between 10 and 30 years old but still being referenced as if contemporary.

If the assertion is that the problem is here NOW, then citing illustrations from the 80's is as relevant as citing medieval tapestries.

[War_lord]

I mean, it can vary wildly. Anima: Beyond Fantasy seems to be okay with armour, but rubbish for clothing. I also hated the character on the front of the Savage Worlds Fantasy Companion as soon as I saw them, it's just a stupid outfit.

Just going by Google Savage Worlds seems to have an issue with this. The Gothic companion is a sexy redhead vampire wearing a very ungothic red stringy... thing under her cloak. The Superhero companion is a Brunette wearing what can only be described as a bathing suit made from unsold stock from a fetish store. The Sci-Fi companion cover is a bit better as the character is wearing clothes and looks to commanding a ship in battle. But the outfit is way too tight and she's contorted to give maximum view of both her ass and boob, leading me to hope starfleet in her setting has good scoliosis care.

[Anonymouswizard]

Just going by Google Savage Worlds seems to have an issue with this. The Gothic companion is a sexy redhead vampire wearing a very ungothic red stringy... thing under her cloak. The Superhero companion is a Brunette wearing what can only be described as a bathing suit made from unsold stock from a fetish store. The Sci-Fi companion cover is a bit better as the character is wearing clothes and looks to commanding a ship in battle. But the outfit is way too tight and she's contorted to give maximum view of both her ass and boob, leading me to hope starfleet in her setting has good scoliosis care.

The sci-fi companion is at least better than the first draft of the cover was, and the current superhero companion is okay if you look at it from representing the genre. But yeah, it's such a shame because the core rules have a great cover.

[Nifft]

In America, maybe. In Germany, Dark Eye (At least in 4th and a bit in 5th edition) has been doing exactly that.
To be quite honest, the barbarian woman in nothing but the kilt looks way more fitting next to her male counterparts than any attempt of a bra ever could... But that might be personal taste ;)

IIRC, in New York it's legal for women to go around topless in public -- except if they're working at a place that serves alcohol, then they need to cover up.

So it's not just Europe that allows topless gladatrix costumes.

[2D8HP]

Except the problem is that this particular "fantasy" isn't for the people it's depicting. Male warriors are always depicted as scarred muscular badasses....


A bit of a vexation for me, is that when I look for art to use for my Myth-Weavers D&D PC "sheets", for the men I find pages and pages of scowling steroids abusers who look as if they weigh 300 pounds, and are enduring a bad smell.

I think the trend started first with Dwarves and WarHammer Space Marines (and their elephant scale feet).

In terms of potential women PC illustrations, besides the issues cited already, even when a woman is pictured wearing suitable full armor, for some strange reason she is wearing high stiletto heels, with tiny tiny feet in contrast to the men pictured who seem to have boots that are 7 times the size!

C'mon! Men and women IRL are just not scaled that far apart!

Besides other crimes against human scale proportions, women are often illustrated with tiny child sized boots/shoes, and men are pictured having boots sized for rhinos and elephants!



....leading me to hope starfleet in her setting has good scoliosis care.


That cracks me up.

[Talakeal]

One thing I don't get, people only bring up the lack of protection argument when armor is sexy or shows a lot of skin.

I don't think I have ever heard someone complaining about the outfits in a genre where people engage in sword fights without armor unless it is sexy or revealing. Pirates of the Caribbean, the Three Musketeers, Zorro, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Sinbad the Sailor; everyone is sword fighting all the time in these franchises but almost no one wears armor of any sort, and no one ever brings it up.

But if you have a gladiator in a chainmail bikini, a barbarian in a leather thong, or a super hero with a boob window suddenly everyone is saying "I'm not a puritan, I just don't like outfits which won't protect the character in battle!"

[Keltest]

One thing I don't get, people only bring up the lack of protection argument when armor is sexy or shows a lot of skin.

I don't think I have ever heard someone complaining about the outfits in a genre where people engage in sword fights without armor unless it is sexy or revealing. Pirates of the Caribbean, the Three Musketeers, Zorro, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Sinbad the Sailor; everyone is sword fighting all the time in these franchises but almost no one wears armor of any sort, and no one ever brings it up.

But if you have a gladiator in a chainmail bikini, a barbarian in a leather thong, or a super hero with a boob window suddenly everyone is saying "I'm not a puritan, I just don't like outfits which won't protect the character in battle!"

Its because the Chainmail bikini is dumb at every level. Even if you just wanted to be sexy rather than protected, it would still be intensely uncomfortable to wear. Nobody would actually look at it and think 'Yes, this is a good idea".

And superhero outfits are usually complained about because of how over the top they are, not just because they aren't protective.

[Talakeal]

Its because the Chainmail bikini is dumb at every level. Even if you just wanted to be sexy rather than protected, it would still be intensely uncomfortable to wear. Nobody would actually look at it and think 'Yes, this is a good idea".

Which is a different argument than I was responding to.


But, if you want me to respond to that argument, yeah, most fantasy armor is uncomfortable and impractical.

But again, people complain about the revealing armor orders of magnitude more than they do any of the other far more impractical fantastical tropes like armor that is covered with giant spikes or shoulder pads that would weigh hundreds of pounds.

[Max_Killjoy]

One thing I don't get, people only bring up the lack of protection argument when armor is sexy or shows a lot of skin.

I don't think I have ever heard someone complaining about the outfits in a genre where people engage in sword fights without armor unless it is sexy or revealing. Pirates of the Caribbean, the Three Musketeers, Zorro, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Sinbad the Sailor; everyone is sword fighting all the time in these franchises but almost no one wears armor of any sort, and no one ever brings it up.

But if you have a gladiator in a chainmail bikini, a barbarian in a leather thong, or a super hero with a boob window suddenly everyone is saying "I'm not a puritan, I just don't like outfits which won't protect the character in battle!"


Did the pirates, muskateers, sailors, martial arts "hidden world" members, etc, who fought with swords all actually wear armor?

[Keltest]

Which is a different argument than I was responding to.


But, if you want me to respond to that argument, yeah, most fantasy armor is uncomfortable and impractical.

But again, people complain about the revealing armor orders of magnitude more than they do any of the other far more impractical fantastical tropes like armor that is covered with giant spikes or shoulder pads that would weigh hundreds of pounds.

Let me rephrase. The chainmail bikini is not armor. It does not pretend to be armor. It pretends to be fashionable clothing. It fails at that as well. When characters swordfight in street clothes, its because theyre wearing actual clothing that they would wear. No, it isn't as protective as armor, but in situations where armor is unavailable or impractical, youll just be wearing your normal clothes.

[Deophaun]

(As has been said, one's a fantasy for men, and the other is... also a fantasy for men.)
Yes, because Conan and Fabio have nothing in common. Have you seen romance novel covers? Any of the shirtless male bodies (because you often don't get faces) would be at home in an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel with nary a change of costume.

[Talakeal]

Let me rephrase. The chainmail bikini is not armor. It does not pretend to be armor. It pretends to be fashionable clothing. It fails at that as well. When characters swordfight in street clothes, its because theyre wearing actual clothing that they would wear. No, it isn't as protective as armor, but in situations where armor is unavailable or impractical, youll just be wearing your normal clothes.

I'll agree there.


In a visual medium the purpose of combat is typically as an exhibition of physical prowess which is both exciting and pretty to look at.


As I see it the problem is finding something that shows off the character's physique without looking anachronistic or pornographic.


In the modern world athletic people can wear all manner or revealing work-out clothes; tank tops, tennis skirts, gym shorts, sports bras, yoga pants, leotards, speedos, or actual bikinis. This would look very out of place in an ancient setting.


In the ancient world people tended to compete in athletic events fully nude. This would look pornographic to a modern audience.


So artists try, and usually fail, to find some acceptable balance between the two.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'll agree there.

In a visual medium the purpose of combat is typically as an exhibition of physical prowess which is both exciting and pretty to look at.


More's the pity... I'd rather they showed off the combat itself, and also avoided wallowing in ignorance and tropes (for example, avoid swords going through plate armor like butter).




As I see it the problem is finding something that shows off the character's physique without looking anachronistic or pornographic.


In the modern world athletic people can wear all manner or revealing work-out clothes; tank tops, tennis skirts, gym shorts, sports bras, yoga pants, leotards, speedos, or actual bikinis. This would look very out of place in an ancient setting.


In the ancient world people tended to compete in athletic events fully nude. This would look pornographic to a modern audience.


So artists try, and usually fail, to find some acceptable balance between the two.


Most of those things you listed are often out-of-place in a modern setting as used in film and art.

[Anonymouswizard]

One thing I don't get, people only bring up the lack of protection argument when armor is sexy or shows a lot of skin.

I don't think I have ever heard someone complaining about the outfits in a genre where people engage in sword fights without armor unless it is sexy or revealing. Pirates of the Caribbean, the Three Musketeers, Zorro, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Sinbad the Sailor; everyone is sword fighting all the time in these franchises but almost no one wears armor of any sort, and no one ever brings it up.

But if you have a gladiator in a chainmail bikini, a barbarian in a leather thong, or a super hero with a boob window suddenly everyone is saying "I'm not a puritan, I just don't like outfits which won't protect the character in battle!"

Okay, this might not be exactly what you're getting at, but this is my take on it.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in full gothic plate.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in chainmail, half plate, or any other form of armour. Even if their arms and legs aren't fully protected.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in ordinary clothes (and actually, if they aren't expecting combat, it makes a lot of sense).

I have no problem with people sword fighting in their underwear. I'd question if it was strictly necessary, but I'm fine with it.

I have no problem with people sword fighting completely naked. Male or female. Ideally with abs for all, because abs are hot.

I have a problem with people sword fighting in 'armour' that fails to protect the vitals and is designed to show off their bodies (note: the Slithuri duelling vest is one of the few things I dislike about Rocket Age). If the armour isn't going to work as armour just have them fighting in whatever clothes they want.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in tank tops and tracksuit bottoms, but if your armour shows cleavage or your stomach then please redesign it.

I also dislike massive shoulder plates and spikes of villainy, because I think armour looks cool enough as it is, but what annoys me more is stuff that is meant to remind me of armour while failing at it (unless of course it's equal-opportunity revealing).

So I have no problem if you want your amazon to be in a bikini (no clue why, but it's your amazon), I'll get annoyed if that bikini is made of chain unless my Barbarian is wearing a chainmail speedo.

[Talakeal]

Okay, this might not be exactly what you're getting at, but this is my take on it.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in full gothic plate.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in chainmail, half plate, or any other form of armour. Even if their arms and legs aren't fully protected.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in ordinary clothes (and actually, if they aren't expecting combat, it makes a lot of sense).

I have no problem with people sword fighting in their underwear. I'd question if it was strictly necessary, but I'm fine with it.

I have no problem with people sword fighting completely naked. Male or female. Ideally with abs for all, because abs are hot.

I have a problem with people sword fighting in 'armour' that fails to protect the vitals and is designed to show off their bodies (note: the Slithuri duelling vest is one of the few things I dislike about Rocket Age). If the armour isn't going to work as armour just have them fighting in whatever clothes they want.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in tank tops and tracksuit bottoms, but if your armour shows cleavage or your stomach then please redesign it.

I also dislike massive shoulder plates and spikes of villainy, because I think armour looks cool enough as it is, but what annoys me more is stuff that is meant to remind me of armour while failing at it (unless of course it's equal-opportunity revealing).

So I have no problem if you want your amazon to be in a bikini (no clue why, but it's your amazon), I'll get annoyed if that bikini is made of chain unless my Barbarian is wearing a chainmail speedo.

The problem is that there is no historically accurate clothing that shows a lot of skin, before the modern age people tended to wear full clothing or nothing at all.

Thus people are stuck trying to imagine revealing clothing that modern audiences would not see as overly anachronistic or pornographic, and a common way to do that is to take modern designs and use medieval looking materials like mail or studded leather.


More's the pity... I'd rather they showed off the combat itself, and also avoided wallowing in ignorance and tropes (for example, avoid swords going through plate armor like butter).




Most of those things you listed are often out-of-place in a modern setting as used in film and art.

Maybe so. Armor that doesn't stop anything in movies bugs me too.

While I agree that movie fights often downplay realism to their detriment, I am pretty sure that simply trying to have every fight be perfectly realistic and technically accurate would get pretty boring after a while. They have to find a balance, and unfortunately that balance is going to be at a different point for every creator and audience member.

[Anonymouswizard]

The problem is that there is no historically accurate clothing that shows a lot of skin, before the modern age people tended to wear full clothing or nothing at all.

Thus people are stuck trying to imagine revealing clothing that modern audiences would not see as overly anachronistic or pornographic, and a common way to do that is to take modern designs and use medieval looking materials like mail or studded leather.

I'm fine with people in a fantasy setting wearing historically-inspired styles or modern styles. I mean I might be using colour-infused Victorian clothes to fit in with someone who's more renaissance (I didn't want any poofs, and decided I could pattern Victorian clothes so it would just look like a different culture and/or social lass). As long as it's consistent.

I'd rather they just have the characters naked if they're not going to be wearing clothes that don't fit with the setting, but if everyone is wearing more modern stuff then the bikini fits right it. It's more the inconsistency than the clothes themselves for me.

(So, for example, a movie about amazons and barbarians with a chainmail loincloth and chainmail bikini is a lot less annoying than a movie about knights with a female knight with included cleavage window, to use extreme examples).


Maybe so. Armor that doesn't stop anything in movies bugs me too.

While I agree that movie fights often downplay realism to their detriment, I am pretty sure that simply trying to have every fight be perfectly realistic and technically accurate would get pretty boring after a while. They have to find a balance, and unfortunately that balance is going to be at a different point for every creator and audience member.

Yeah, balance is always important, but I'd rather they have the characters close enough to theoretically hit each other most of the time.

[ImNotTrevor]

The downside to fight choreography with realism is that it puts the actors/stunt doubles in a position of unnecessary risk. There are sources out there from LotR dvd extra features where they talk about John Rhys-Davies behaving realistically-ish as Gimli. He didn't really choreograph fights. He just actually whacked the crap out of the extras and would leave bruises and etc as he went.

I had a very.... broad range of studies in college because I was indecisive. But part of that was a few film classes. And yeah, the stuff like "space sound" and "audible sharpness" exist because unfortunately demonstrating a sword's sharpness visually in just a few seconds is more contextually difficult to justify than making it go "shwing." It would be equally silly for every really sharp weapon in film to have to take a second or two to demonstrate its sharpness. (Or more silly.)

Everyone knows that swords don't hum with audible sharpness. But that ringing hum is storytelling shorthand. It communicates the concept of being very sharp without blatantly shoving it in your face.

Anyways. Random aside is random. TL;DR most seemingly dumb tropes exist for a reason, and things would be even dumber if we avoided all of them.

[Jay R]

The final decision in the movie will be based on whether they think it will make more money that way. Fantasy movies aren't documentaries.

Similarly, illustrations in RPG rules have as at least one purpose to increase the number of people who will buy the book.

[If they wanted to make it realistic, they would start by eliminating the dragons.]

[Max_Killjoy]

The final decision in the movie will be based on whether they think it will make more money that way. Fantasy movies aren't documentaries.

Similarly, illustrations in RPG rules have as at least one purpose to increase the number of people who will buy the book.

[If they wanted to make it realistic, they would start by eliminating the dragons.]

"But dragons! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?445781-The-quot-BUT-DRAGONS!-quot-Fallacy)" :smallconfused:

The presence or absence of dragons has nothing to do with the level of detail, functionality, or verisimilitude applied to other elements of a setting.

Honestly, I'd love to see a movie or television series just blow all these stupid myths and tropes about pre-firearms weapons and armor out of the water. Hell, it could even start out with some naive character from a city, who has heard all sorts of tall tales about swords cleaving armor in half and arrows set on fire in combat and whatnot, who goes out on some adventure and gets all his stupid ideas shoved in his face.

[pwykersotz]

Honestly, I'd love to see a movie or television series just blow all these stupid myths and tropes about pre-firearms weapons and armor out of the water. Hell, it could even start out with some naive character from a city, who has heard all sorts of tall tales about swords cleaving armor in half and arrows set on fire in combat and whatnot, who goes out on some adventure and gets all his stupid ideas shoved in his face.

The hilarious part is that it would be largely hated because of exactly the thing we see on these threads. You'd hit the uncanny valley of accuracy. People would make statements or demonstrations and approach it from someone's not-quite-preferred viewpoint or make a minor slip and it would be the greatest possible sin and worthy of trashing the whole movie. Heck, people can't even agree on actual reality.

But I agree. I don't want a decrease in the fantastic stuff, but I'd love to see an increase in how awesome real stuff can be with a devoted focus towards as much accuracy as possible.

[2D8HP]

....So I have no problem if you want your amazon to be in a bikini (no clue why, but it's your amazon), I'll get annoyed if that bikini is made of chain unless my Barbarian is wearing a chainmail speedo.


Because it's VERY VITAL RESEARCH, I dug up and looked at "Book 1: Men & Magic" of the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons rules, and the Barbarian on page 16's shorts do not appear to be chainmail (or are those tights over shorts?)

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/02/89/e5/0289e5d8392f93d4fc7cae4b1c93194d.jpg

and the Amazon on page 27 (pictured next to the "Beautiful Witch" who looks similar enough to be the Amazon's sister), has briefer shorts that also do not appear to be chainmail. In common with the Barbarian the Amazon has a sword and belt, but no top.

So no chainmail bikinis or speedos in original D&D.

YOUR WELCOME.

[1337 b4k4]

Except the problem is that this particular "fantasy" isn't for the people it's depicting. Male warriors are always depicted as scarred muscular badasses, attired in suitably martial armor. Meanwhile you get female "warriors" with perfect hair and makeup prancing around in things like chainmail bikinis and boobplates with no backing that no woman going into battle or on an adventure would ever chose to wear. It's male fantasy, and more importantly it's a way of watering down female characters who could be powerful by presenting them as objects for cheap gratification.

5e should be praised for very consciously bucking the trend. But it's a pity that in 2017 it's something that has to be lauded, instead of just being the norm.

So I guess you're going to go ahead and ignore the entire set of imagery I linked demonstrating that this was not the case? Also I'm going to call bull on half naked muscular men and strong sexy women not being female fantasy. Maybe not all women, but then again, the muscular men and sexy women aren't always the male fantasy either. As for "perfect hair and makeup", I again refer you to tropes like James Bond who (baring more modern depictions that try to muss him up) will infiltrate a party in diving gear and step out in perfectly tailored tuxedos. Yes, men want to be James Bond, and women want to be Wonder Woman. It turns out, no matter what genitals we have, we all like to fantasize about being the sexy, collected and powerful figure that makes our objects of desire want us.


I will say - maybe it's just the media I consume - but I hear people complaining about the extreme/silly female armor more often than I actually see it outside of anime. (and male armor in anime is generally just as silly/nonexistent albeit less revealing)

This has been my experience too. In fact, the surprise for me when I was browsing that classicdndart site was actually how much "women in reasonable armor" there was back then given how badly that time period is viewed now. In fact, just for gits and shiggles I went back and looked through my old D&D books.

In the rules cyclopedia, the first woman you encounter is outfitted in full chain, with shield and helmet.

There are 9, reasonably outfitted women (of those 7 are in reasonable adventuring gear and 1 is in ornate dress, 1 is a ghost noble woman in gown) and 2 unreasonably outfitted women depictions in this book (1 sorceress in j-lo style dress, 1 woman dungeoneering in essentially a sun dress. Lastly there's 1 "ambiguous" picture, it's at too far of a distance to determine the reasonableness of the dress, but the curves clearly mark the character as a woman. So roughly 16% sexualized in some way.

To be sure there are at least 3 times as many images of men as there are of women, and probably more so ratio of representation is low. But as far as quality of representation, only the sorceress image could really be considered as titillating. The rest of them, the absolute worst you could argue is that most of the women when you could see their legs were wearing armor dresses, so the legs tended to be bare until you got to the boots. Hardly the boob plate nipple fest the basic D&D era is remembered for.

But the Rules Cyclopedia is largely a reference book, with minimal art all around. So let's look at the B/X and BECMI books, across 6 books (I don't have X, just B):

24 reasonable depictions of women adventurers (23 adventuring gear, 1 portrait w/ off the shoulder dress not really sexualized)
and 7 unreasonable (1 woman in dress being carried away in a rescue from monsters [which has been depicted for men before but I'm trying to be scrupulously fair], 1 in a "ranger" dress, but posed for thigh showing, 1 barely contained chest in a dress, 1 monster in a bra, 1 silky sorceress, 1 sorceress on B/X cover, 1 midriff elf),
and 1 ambiguous (face only of sorceress casting spell).

So a little worse here at 21% sexualized. And, YMMV, I tried to be strict when putting things into the unreasonable (eg, the ranger dress). I would also point out that even though it's 21%, it works out to roughly 1 image per book. But my ultimate point here is that women in reasonable armor and gear has definitely been around and (at least for the Basic D&D sets, I don't have AD&D handy) was far and away the majority. And while I didn't do a count a flip through the GURPS 3e book shows the same trend.


Wanting armor specifically to be depicted as something reasonably functional isn't puritanical - as can be seen in plenty of fantasy series that both have fairly functional armor (in terms of basic coverage anyways, there's still frequently room for nitpicking) and explicit sex scenes. Take A Song of Ice and Fire (books) or A Game of Thrones (TV show), both of which are really big right now. You've got scenes bordering on pornography, and you've got generally sensible armor, where the people with the money for full coverage have it and those that don't generally cover their torso first. There's a bit of a helmet shortage, and there's a clear lack of understanding of how armor works in a fight, but it comes across as a legitimate attempt at useful armor by someone with limited knowledge and not as a ridiculous attempt to force sexiness where it just doesn't make sense.

Another good example is science fiction. A space suit that leaves bare skin open is going to come across as really stupid to most of the audience. That's not being puritanical, that's wanting a space suit to look like something that's plausibly a space suit. This doesn't prevent these settings from having plenty of stuff that earns the puritan seal of disapproval elsewhere.

OK, let's take it as a given that you at least agree with me that sexiness is part of fantasy for both genders. The thing that ASIF and GoT and other books and shows and movies have that TTRPGs don't is time. They have hundreds to thousands of pages, and hours of time to dedicate to showing characters in all types of scenarios. They can demonstrate that the character hidden behind inches of personality hiding armor is sexy outside of that armor. TTRPG books don't get that luxury without delving into turning some of their artwork into borderline smut (which is what we're already railing against in the first place). So let's say you're publishing a TTRPG book, you get to have 100 illustrations of monster, heroes and gear. Do you waste 5 or 10 of those on explicitly sexy imagery out of armor and gear so that you can convey the sex part of fantasy and still keep the armor pure, or do you go with designing characters in action that can also show sexiness? Books and movies have far more story telling resources to get sexiness across than TTRPG rule books do.



Which RPGs had reasonable female armor in the 1980s?


D&D. See aforementioned links, and above analysis on Basic D&D rule books and if you don't believe me go look for yourself, they're on DTRPG.



Also, this blog goes on about stupid armor in fantasy media, and why Conan is not equivalent to Red Sonja (http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/false-equivalence/). (As has been said, one's a fantasy for men, and the other is... also a fantasy for men.) Not always SFW, you have been warned.

Yes I've seen this before, and frankly, I find it unconvincing. For one, no one whose ever said "half naked muscular men are male power fantasies, not female sex fantasies" has ever given a good example of what would be a sex fantasy for women but would not be a male power fantasy (short of BSDM, which let's face it folks, there's plenty of men who find submission a turn-on too). But more than that, I've played in a number of groups D&D and other games. I've had the fortune of usually playing in mixed company. And my experience, and the experience of others (including the women) whom I've played with (and for whom we've had discussions on this) is that once you're out of high school, the hyper sexualized women characters are created, dreamed up, and played by the women in the groups. And most of the women I play with are happily married or otherwise engaged, so it's not a "doing what we think the guys will like" thing (and how sexist is that assumption, as if single women couldn't enjoy fantasizing being a powerful and simultaneously sexy woman). And they play those characters to the hilt, sexing up the guards and bus boys as much as any male player is sexing up the tavern wenches.

Do all women do this? Of course not, and not all men play buffed fighters with steroid inducing muscles. But if the group is college age or older (and mixed gender) 9 times out of ten, the woman character with a bust large enough to make Dolly Parton look androgynous is played by a woman, for her own reasons.


Its because the Chainmail bikini is dumb at every level. Even if you just wanted to be sexy rather than protected, it would still be intensely uncomfortable to wear. Nobody would actually look at it and think 'Yes, this is a good idea".

And superhero outfits are usually complained about because of how over the top they are, not just because they aren't protective.

I mean, fantasy art in general is full of dumb at every level gear. Remember the "make armor out of ALL THE BELTS" phase of fantasy art? And again, I'm not saying that leching doesn't go on. I'm not saying that there aren't some games or editions of games that should have had an editor with an eye towards their female audience go "but what about chicks in chainmail?". But what I am saying is that we're not in now, and in the past weren't in either, some dark age where a woman in reasonable armor is as rare as rain in California. And we do a huge disservice to our hobby by holding up the examples of our worst, and not recognizing the examples of our best.

[2D8HP]

(at least for the Basic D&D sets, I don't have AD&D handy) .


For AD&D? Here you go:

https://panzerleader.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/1e-races.jpg?w=245&h=300

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uK1_voHccFg/VZ3Vwbeu8QI/AAAAAAAAEdA/la5lsXwulUg/s1600/PHB%2Bart.png

That's pretty much it (unless you're looking for post '81 stuff, which I really didn't get)

The few "racy" images until Deities & Demi-Gods were mostly of monsters, with things like horns, wing, the lower half of the body being that of a snake, etc. which were a clue, even Deities didn't have images more um.. inspiring than many illustrated books of mythology (BTW Hecate was way cooler than Aphrodite, just sayin').

"Google": "art by gygax and arneson Blog of Holding" if you really want to see early D&D art without buying the books your dang selves cheapskates
Why haven't you bought the books? These games don't play themselves you know!

[Max_Killjoy]

Looking beyond strictly RPG art and fiction, to the broader arena of "genre works"... I don't think it helps that phrases like "she's an empowered woman" and "she's in control of her own sexuality" have been so often used as faux-equality-fig-leaves over female characters who are clearly just written and drawn as titillation fuel for male writers and male artists and male consumers.

[Deophaun]

Yes, men want to be James Bond, and women want to be Wonder Woman. It turns out, no matter what genitals we have, we all like to fantasize about being the sexy, collected and powerful figure that makes our objects of desire want us.
Eh, there's a fair number of "unremarkable woman who is inexplicably beset by a wide range of supernatural suitors" that's played serious. (::ahem:: Twilight ::ahem::) You generally have to go to the Japanese comedy harem for the male to be in that role (Tenchi... no man wants to actually be Tenchi).

[ImNotTrevor]

Looking beyond strictly RPG art and fiction, to the broader arena of "genre works"... I don't think it helps that phrases like "she's an empowered woman" and "she's in control of her own sexuality" have been so often used as faux-equality-fig-leaves over female characters who are clearly just written and drawn as titillation fuel for male writers and male artists and male consumers.

How does one tell the difference, then, between these characters and those who are legitimately empowered and in control of their own sexuality? Without harrassing the creators about it, of course.

Or are these characters flat-out forbidden just in case?

[awa]

The problem is that there is no historically accurate clothing that shows a lot of skin, before the modern age people tended to wear full clothing or nothing at all.



think that calls for a citation needed, I seem to recall a lot of peoples outside of Europe wearing clothing that shows some skin.

[Talakeal]

think that calls for a citation needed, I seem to recall a lot of peoples outside of Europe wearing clothing that shows some skin.

True, this is a fairly eurocentric view.

Note, however, that I was sepcifcally talking about athletes.

As far as I have ever heard the concept of specially designed activewear is only about a hundred years old, before that people simply wore their sreet clothes or went fully or partially naked. If you really need a citation you should be able to find confirmation pretty quickly, for example a quick google search revealed https://www.leaf.tv/articles/history-of-activewear/

[pwykersotz]

Great post

Agreed on pretty much every level. Well said.

[1337 b4k4]

Eh, there's a fair number of "unremarkable woman who is inexplicably beset by a wide range of supernatural suitors" that's played serious. (::ahem:: Twilight ::ahem::) You generally have to go to the Japanese comedy harem for the male to be in that role (Tenchi... no man wants to actually be Tenchi).

Interestingly I think these are both actually the same trope, with a minor difference. They're both fill the "I don't want to be someone else, I want everyone to want me for me" fantasy. Rather than imagining we're different, and because of that, everyone wants us (James Bond / Wonder Woman), we instead imagine that everyone else is different, and because of that, everyone wants us. It's notable that these sort of harem (male and female) stories (at least that I'm familiar with) usually have the harem consisting of "different" (be it supernatural or alien) people, for whom our very ordinariness is exotic in its own right. The primary difference between Bella and Tenchi I think (admitting that I haven't read twilight and am only passingly familiar with the overall story) is that Bella attempts to take control over her situation and destiny, where as Tenchi is largely being carried away by the current of his life rather than steering the boat. Tenchi fulfills that fantasy of being wanted for our plainness, but I think is designed to let the fantasizer further fantasize that they would do different and take control.

[Hackulator]

I love it when a woman's armor has two distinct breasts on the breastplate.

"HEY LETS DESIGN THIS ARMOR TO DIRECT THRUSTS STRAIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE CHEST!"

[CharonsHelper]

Eh, there's a fair number of "unremarkable woman who is inexplicably beset by a wide range of supernatural suitors" that's played serious. (::ahem:: Twilight ::ahem::) You generally have to go to the Japanese comedy harem for the male to be in that role (Tenchi... no man wants to actually be Tenchi).

That is interesting - the Tenchi sort of role is semi-common in anime (average guy surrounded by wacky hot women who want him) but I can't think of what in the west has that premise for men. Generally the guy surrounded by ladies who want him actually is exceptional in some way.

I wonder if that's a east vs west culture thing or just a trend in anime specifically, and I don't know if it's as common in anime now as it was shortly post-Tenchi's success. (Also - I believe that the original Tenchi show had him actually be special due to being 1/4 alien and the heir to the empire who was the only one who could wield some techno-magic sword. I don't remember - I only got a few episodes in.)

[Nifft]

I love it when a woman's armor has two distinct breasts on the breastplate.

"HEY LETS DESIGN THIS ARMOR TO DIRECT THRUSTS STRAIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE CHEST!"

If it worked like that, then they'd just strengthen that one part, and it would be a frequently-copied innovation since that would legitimately make the armor perform better with less overall material.

Also: greek_breastplate_with_abs.jpg

[Deophaun]

Tenchi fulfills that fantasy of being wanted for our plainness, but I think is designed to let the fantasizer further fantasize that they would do different and take control.
No, I'm saying Tenchi is not a male fantasy; he does not exist for a male viewer to project himself on to. Every male that I've come across that's seen the series sees Tenchi as a buffoon and probably someone in need of a good face smashing. They would all rather believe that if they possessed the type of cosmic power Tenchi does, they wouldn't be as incompetent or oblivious. And because Tenchi exhibits that incompetence, the fact that all these women are still interested in him becomes a comedy.

Men do not want to be celebrated for their plainness; they would rather find what they excel at, show the world and get the girl that way.

And honestly, I don't think any man would want Tenchi's choices anyway. Let's see, you've got your sadist aunt, her pre-pubescent sister, a psychopath, a mad genius psychopath that likes to pretend to be a pre-pubescent girl, and a galactic ditz. Meanwhile, the only sane and non-flesh shivering one of the bunch is too busy being responsible to care about you.

Bella, however, is a female fantasy. If you're a woman, you're supposed to read that and swoon over the idea of having vampires and werewolves fight over you for no damn good reason.

[2D8HP]

No problem. I'm a big fan of this kind of plate armor for female fighters, for aesthetics reasons as well as practicality.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ec/91/dd/ec91dd58fa34c0bc5897b0385937c573.jpg

Truly from a Golden Age.

As awesome as Cate Blanchett's as Queen Elizabeth was, how about:

http://www.maidofheaven.com/maid_assets/extras/joanposterbergman.jpg

http://www.doctormacro.com/Images/Bergman,%20Ingrid/Annex/Annex%20-%20Bergman,%20Ingrid%20(Joan%20of%20Arc)_02.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/64/9b/1c/649b1cab4b0d7518163c6b169788968e.jpg

http://classiccinemagold.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Ingrid-Bergman-1948-Joan-Of-Arc.jpg

[Vitruviansquid]

What's weird to me is that I once thought there was a fetishistic delight in women wearing skimpy armor.

Nowadays, I perceive there to be a fetishistic delight in women wearing full armor.

[Max_Killjoy]

Even if the motivations and underlying thought processes are entirely different...

[2D8HP]

Nowadays, I perceive there to be....


Are you insinuating something?

:confused:

[Nifft]

What's weird to me is that I once thought there was a fetishistic delight in women wearing skimpy armor.

Nowadays, I perceive there to be a fetishistic delight in women wearing full armor.

Me at 14: I want to play games with my friends and also see pictures of pretty girls in skimpy outfits. Oh, this product is a game and has such pictures! I will buy it.

Me today: I want a game that I can show the girls in my group so we can enjoy playing a game about all of our characters kicking ass. Oh, this product has females kicking ass! I will buy it.

What changed: at some point the cooties inoculations started working, and girls stopped being unapproachable idealizations. They became accomplices.

What's the same: I still like seeing pretty girls in skimpy clothing, but I don't need a gaming product for that. Just be a good game with pictures that help draw in my players -- including the girls who are players.


tl;dr - fetishes are forever, but the relative value of pandering changes.

[Vitruviansquid]

Meh.

The idea that skimpy fantasy armor exists for a male sexual fantasy is a pile of horse plop because the idea there is you can't have anything sexy whatsoever, but the people who think this don't want to admit that they just don't like sexy pictures for a variety of reasons.

You have a girl wearing sexy armor in a suggestive pose and people say "ah-ha! There's the male power fantasy because sexist men like to see objectified women!
You have a girl wearing sexy armor in a non-suggestive pose and people say "ah-ha! That's just the male power fantasy undermining the empowered pose with a sexy outfit!"
You have a girl wearing non-sexy armor in a suggestive pose and people say "ah-ha! That's just the male power fantasy objectifying the woman in non-sexy outfit because men just can't stand a woman not in a suggestive pose!"
So you are left with the only possibility being a girl in a non-sexy outfit with a non-suggestive pose.

... which would be insane, because that would require art fail to acknowledge there are women who have sexy body types out there, there are outfits that are both practical and visually sexy (look at the skirts on classical Greek and Roman soldiers!), there are people who like to dress and feel sexy.

So you should see that the idea that sexy female characters in art only exists for the male sexual fantasy is not smart. Actually, if you are drawing fantasy art, where the armor is going to mostly be unrealistic and expressive anyways, it would *not be realistic* to never have sexy outfits.

But as long as we're trying to read artists' minds by accusing them of including sexy pictures to be dirty perverts, I don't see why we're ruling out another perfectly viable reason. Sex, as well as violence, is a way to signal that some subject matter is mature. Tabletop RPGs sensibly need a way to get people to say "it's like playing pretend, BUT NOT JUST FOR KIDS" so sexiness, as well as violence, in these games' art help them advertise what they are to the audiences they want, and actually gives them an air of respectability.

But the culture has changed now, and maturity is now signalled by non-sexiness (due I would say to the nature of present-day internet feminism, but that is a whole other can of worms).

So when you get down to it...

People who used to enjoy sexy fantasy art did so because it signalled how mature their fantasy game/show/whatever was.
People now enjoy non-sexy fantasy art do so because it signals how mature their their fantasy game/show/whatever is.

It's the same.

[Lord Raziere]

What's weird to me is that I once thought there was a fetishistic delight in women wearing skimpy armor.

Nowadays, I perceive there to be a fetishistic delight in women wearing full armor.

Well its like, y'know, you hide it from somebody and when you finally reveal it, its more powerful when its all hidden and you only see it for special moments, because it makes seeing it at all special and beautiful. So its trading quantity of seeing it for quality, see? Much like how something can be your favorite food, but only enjoy it every once in a while so that it doesn't become normal and boring, see? If you skimpied everyone all the time, eventually people would grow up not seeing it as abnormal or skimpy at all and thus attach no meaning to it, and thus no pleasure from it, see?

so its like a natural backlash to preserve the pleasure, see?

[goto124]

When the appeal of sexiness wears off, such sexiness comes off as cheap and tacky, see? Nice use of accent, see? :smalltongue:

My main argument is that skimpiness isn't an issue in and of itself, but its overuse in contexts that make no sense in order to sell more books /games/whatever is applicable, since this extends outside tabletop games).

Then again, someone posts that the overuse of sexiness doesn't actually exist, and another person offers the idea that non-sexiness is also a method of selling books.

[scalyfreak]

So I have no problem if you want your amazon to be in a bikini (no clue why, but it's your amazon)

That because you didn't spend puberty developing a pair of over-sized mammary glands, padded with clumps of fat cells, at the front of your torso.

If you want a clue, try doing these steps, in order:



Borrow, and put on, a large bra.
Stuff the cups with two cantaloupe melons.
Do jumping jacks for 30 seconds



Now you understand why amazons wear bras.


Also, I think 1337 b4k4 is winning this thread.

[Arbane]

Yes I've seen this before, and frankly, I find it unconvincing. For one, no one whose ever said "half naked muscular men are male power fantasies, not female sex fantasies" has ever given a good example of what would be a sex fantasy for women but would not be a male power fantasy (short of BSDM, which let's face it folks, there's plenty of men who find submission a turn-on too).

Shortpacked tries to explain it. (http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/)

[Satinavian]

WoW is Asian now? When did that happen? (I remember a while back seeing a WoW cartoon contest that specifically said 'no jokes about female armor', otherwise that was ALL THEY'D GET.)
- WoW is quite tame compared to a lot of Asian MMOs.
- WoW has stupid armor for everyone. Granted, it sexualizes women far more, but that does not mean that female armor is that much more stupid or less functional than the male version with its shoulder pauldrons of ridiculousness
- I explicitely said "occasionally". I fully agree that it does happen and that WoW is quite bad for a western RPG at female armor.


Which RPGs had reasonable female armor in the 1980s?I didn't play RPGs in the 80s. Didn't get those imperialist consumer products behind the iron curtain. But afaik some of the most famous RPGs from the 80s that were not D&D were e.g.

-Runequest
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b0/RuneQuest_deluxe_3rd_edition_boxed_set_1984.jpg

-TDE

https://nandurion.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/DSA2-Abenteuer-Basis-Spiel-Helden-Cover.jpg

-Midgard

http://www.midgard-wiki.de/images/thumb/9/9d/Midgard_2_DFR.jpg/415px-Midgard_2_DFR.jpg


You might not like it, but D&D is more the odd outlier than the norm and has been for a very long time.

[goto124]

Took me too long to realise you did not say Runescape.

[Vitruviansquid]

That cover has possibly the best posse I've ever seen on an RPG book.

[Calthropstu]

"Boob plate" was not a thing to my knowledge except for very few female commanders.
As for heavy plate, it was rarely used by anyone but knights due to the high cost. Most used leather or chain.
Women rarely used armor at all since few women in any civilization were allowed into combat... it's genetically stupid to allow women into war after all.
As for drawing female armor to show cleavage... I can see it being a thing. Not for dungeon delving maybe, but as formal wear or around town when you're trying to gather information etc. You're still mostly protected, and many women DO like to show off that particular part of their body.
Personally, I don't care how covered a character is. It's a pretend fantasy game... run around butt naked for all I care. Getting into arguments about how covered someone else's character is is just plain silly.

[Anonymouswizard]

What's weird to me is that I once thought there was a fetishistic delight in women wearing skimpy armor.

Nowadays, I perceive there to be a fetishistic delight in women wearing full armor.

Darn, you discovered my secret! :smalltongue:


That because you didn't spend puberty developing a pair of over-sized mammary glands, padded with clumps of fat cells, at the front of your torso.

If you want a clue, try doing these steps, in order:



Borrow, and put on, a large bra.
Stuff the cups with two cantaloupe melons.
Do jumping jacks for 30 seconds



Now you understand why amazons wear bras.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say 'I don't know why they'd be wearing a bikini instead of toplessness', I meant 'I don't know why they'd wear a bikini instead of normal clothing (including cheat support)'. On the other hand, as I said, it's your Amazon, if she doesn't want to wear a robe then that's cool, feel free to dress your characters however you want. I've played enough bare chested sexy men in my time to throw stones.

[Kardwill]

Another good example is science fiction. A space suit that leaves bare skin open is going to come across as really stupid to most of the audience.

It's been done, though. Look at the Mass Effect series. In #1, all characters use spacesuits with full helmet when doing missions in dangerous environment, and are in full body armor while in combat. These ARE form-fitting armors with boob plates, sure, but they don't look too much out of place.
And then theres #2, where you find characters fighting almost nude or with deep-cleavage chestplates and where several female character's "spacesuit" (Jake and Miranda) consist of revealing clothes with lots od skin exposed and a flimsy mouth-and-nose mask, when their male counterparts wear full bodysuits with helmets.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xuvfYwzKp7g/TFkPz1Dk1xI/AAAAAAAAAno/hnm96V4sl48/s1600/MassEffect2+pretty1.jpg



And in #3, the stocky, badass female marine has been zapped into some curveous top-model I didn't even recognize at first glance

[Kardwill]

I love it when a woman's armor has two distinct breasts on the breastplate.

"HEY LETS DESIGN THIS ARMOR TO DIRECT THRUSTS STRAIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE CHEST!"

Bonus point if said cleavage between the boob plates is left exposed, as seen in many "female plates" ^^

But I find it on par with horned helmets and soulder spikes

"Hey, let's add some horribly heavy stuff that will drive near misses toward my head and upper body, and transform glancing blows into direct full-force hits. What could happen?"

[Pugwampy]

Now you understand why amazons wear bras.

The word Amazon means "without a breast." Supposedly they chopped or burnt off one of their bewbs to improve their archer efficiency . :smallbiggrin:

This is why we prefer girl monks and wizards . They can show as much thigh as they want to .

[Calthropstu]

Bonus point if said cleavage between the boob plates is left exposed, as seen in many "female plates" ^^

But I find it on par with horned helmets and soulder spikes

"Hey, let's add some horribly heavy stuff that will drive near misses toward my head and upper body, and transform glancing blows into direct full-force hits. What could happen?"

To be fair, it's not a bad idea once magic protection becomes involved... "Let's make this area here look visibly unguarded, but put the highest magical protection known to man there anchoring it to the less protective metal/leather... because it LOOKS exposed, the attacker will wail ineffectively at this one spot allowing an opening in their defenses to strike."
Such a tactic would lure what an attacker would assume is a fatal strike and bam... deflected by magical defense and now you have a sword in your attacker's ribcage.

[goto124]

No story or game ever seems to use that tactic, though.

[Satinavian]

I had once a character doing that. Only instead of providing magical protection to exposed body parts using illusions to hide the proper armor parts.

Wasn't really mechanically relevant but seemed the obvious thing to do after getting access to something similar to glamor armor enchantments.

[awa]

No story or game ever seems to use that tactic, though.

that's technically not true there was a forgotten realms character who had a boob window protected by a small wall of force.

[Pugwampy]

I kinda fell hard for that PF Players handbook half elf girl wearing the yellow bikini/undies example .

I basically played her as a priestess running around in the yellow bikini . I wore armour but i always stated it covered my torso only and my bikini bottom always poked out ....

[Kardwill]

To be fair, it's not a bad idea once magic protection becomes involved... "Let's make this area here look visibly unguarded, but put the highest magical protection known to man there anchoring it to the less protective metal/leather... because it LOOKS exposed, the attacker will wail ineffectively at this one spot allowing an opening in their defenses to strike."
Such a tactic would lure what an attacker would assume is a fatal strike and bam... deflected by magical defense and now you have a sword in your attacker's ribcage.

Well, that would explain the logic behind the "leather armor" in the second post, where the whole torso is protected except the heart.

[Knaight]

It's been done, though. Look at the Mass Effect series. In #1, all characters use spacesuits with full helmet when doing missions in dangerous environment, and are in full body armor while in combat. These ARE form-fitting armors with boob plates, sure, but they don't look too much out of place.
And then theres #2, where you find characters fighting almost nude or with deep-cleavage chestplates and where several female character's "spacesuit" (Jake and Miranda) consist of revealing clothes with lots od skin exposed and a flimsy mouth-and-nose mask, when their male counterparts wear full bodysuits with helmets.

Sure, and these spacesuits with uncovered skin all look really stupid. It's one thing when you've got something like the Guardians of the Galaxy spacesuit - a translucent energy field fits the setting, and there's still something there, even if the something in question doesn't match up with actual space suits in any way. Similarly, there's plenty of science fiction with skin tight space suits with small helmets, which also work and do a decent job conveying that the culture behind them has been in space long enough to make more minimalist designs, and those work. It's when you've got a space suit that fails in function so bad that it's just not plausible as a space suit no matter how far one stretches their disbelief that it gets really dumb, and the same thing applies to armor*.

*Among other things - there are certainly other pieces of a material culture that can be screwed up so much that it is just jarring. Stupidly oversized weapons often fit in this category, and there are some sci-fi vehicles that are hilariously bad.

[goto124]

It's when you've got a space suit that fails in function so bad that it's just not plausible as a space suit no matter how far one stretches their disbelief that it gets really dumb

https://retconpunchdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/boobs-in-space.jpg?w=593&h=605

[Kardwill]

https://retconpunchdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/boobs-in-space.jpg?w=593&h=605

Well, there's Jake's "Dominatrix G-string with mouthmask spacesuit, while we're fighting enemise that routinely use chemical and nannite warfare" in one of my previous posts. I still think it's worse, since it covers maybe 5% of her torso and 20% of her head, tops. But I think it's at least partly because the game-designers were lazy and didn't care to design a spacesuit for the "sexy" new characters.

Your example, though is mind-numbingly glorious in its stupidity, though, so I'm willing to concede you the win oO

(BTW, isn't the torso the part where you would REALLY want to put the rigid parts of the spacesuit to hold internal pressure, even if it's not an armor and you don't care about cold and radiation?)

[Satinavian]

(BTW, isn't the torso the part where you would REALLY want to put the rigid parts of the spacesuit to hold internal pressure, even if it's not an armor and you don't care about cold and radiation?)pressure is only 1 atm difference. Skin can hold that fine. you don't really explode in space. It is actually far more important to maintain oxygen supply and to prevent use of body fluids. So the depicted variant actually does protect the more important areas better.

It is still an utterly stupid idea for way to many reasons. Just not as instantly deadly as one might think.

[goto124]

Just not as instantly deadly as one might think.

That sounds worse, to be honest.

[Max_Killjoy]

From what I've read, a skintight impermeable suit is enough to protect the skin from pressure differences, it's the temperature differences, hypervelocity dust grains, etc, that require heavier suits.

The challenge for the skin tight suit is that any gaps or wrinkles or folds do tend to produce devilish "hickies" via creating low-pressure pockets.

[Anonymouswizard]

Sure, and these spacesuits with uncovered skin all look really stupid. It's one thing when you've got something like the Guardians of the Galaxy spacesuit - a translucent energy field fits the setting, and there's still something there, even if the something in question doesn't match up with actual space suits in any way. Similarly, there's plenty of science fiction with skin tight space suits with small helmets, which also work and do a decent job conveying that the culture behind them has been in space long enough to make more minimalist designs, and those work. It's when you've got a space suit that fails in function so bad that it's just not plausible as a space suit no matter how far one stretches their disbelief that it gets really dumb, and the same thing applies to armor*.

*Among other things - there are certainly other pieces of a material culture that can be screwed up so much that it is just jarring. Stupidly oversized weapons often fit in this category, and there are some sci-fi vehicles that are hilariously bad.

This is a very good explanation of why the exact line varies with the person and the piece of media.


https://retconpunchdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/boobs-in-space.jpg?w=593&h=605

But... but... why? There's no reason to have specifically those bits uncovered.

On the subject of skintight spacesuits, isn't there research into those in real life?

[Max_Killjoy]

On the subject of skintight spacesuits, isn't there research into those in real life?


There is -- which is where I got my info.

[Arbane]

Women rarely used armor at all since few women in any civilization were allowed into combat... it's genetically stupid to allow women into war after all.

As for drawing female armor to show cleavage... I can see it being a thing. Not for dungeon delving maybe, but as formal wear or around town when you're trying to gather information etc. You're still mostly protected, and many women DO like to show off that particular part of their body.

Women have always fought. (http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/) Not as many as men, but they have.

As for cleavage-plate, GREAT IDEA! it's as expensive, heavy, and uncomfortable as real armor, but without the protective qualities!

Ubermagic _barely_ justifies it, but again, with magic that good, why not just enchant normal clothes and save some weight?

[CharonsHelper]

Women have always fought. (http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/) Not as many as men, but they have.


I don't see how that in any way contradicts what he said.

Everyone knows that some women have always fought (amazons have been mentioned multiple times in this thread) just as everyone knows that they were a rather rare exception (varying how rare depending upon the place/time/culture) to the general rule of them not fighting.

[Deophaun]

From what I've read, a skintight impermeable suit is enough to protect the skin from pressure differences, it's the temperature differences
Space is a near-vacuum. There is no temperature difference to worry about. Although you will lose a massive amount of heat through evaporative cooling, but that's what the impermeability is for.

Now, thermal radiation (in addition to all the other kinds of radiation), yes.

[CharonsHelper]

Space is a near-vacuum. There is no temperature difference to worry about. Although you will lose a massive amount of heat through evaporative cooling, but that's what the impermeability is for.


To add to that - from what I understand astronauts have to worry about not overheating when they're out in space. Their space suits have small AC units to compensate.

[Max_Killjoy]

Space is a near-vacuum. There is no temperature difference to worry about. Although you will lose a massive amount of heat through evaporative cooling, but that's what the impermeability is for.

Now, thermal radiation (in addition to all the other kinds of radiation), yes.


To add to that - from what I understand astronauts have to worry about not overheating when they're out in space. Their space suits have small AC units to compensate.

I did say "temperature differences", not "you'll freeze really fast"...

[scalyfreak]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say 'I don't know why they'd be wearing a bikini instead of toplessness', I meant 'I don't know why they'd wear a bikini instead of normal clothing (including cheat support)'. On the other hand, as I said, it's your Amazon, if she doesn't want to wear a robe then that's cool, feel free to dress your characters however you want. I've played enough bare chested sexy men in my time to throw stones.

For the same reason female athletes occasionally wear only a sports bra to a strenuous workout: Maximum mobility and comfort. To me, a bra on a warrior woman in a hot climate where men g shirtless, makes perfect sense for these reasons.

Especially if it's a bra that is easy to remove when you need an effective distraction on short notice.

[Max_Killjoy]

For the same reason female athletes occasionally wear only a sports bra to a strenuous workout: Maximum mobility and comfort. To me, a bra on a warrior woman in a hot climate where men g shirtless, makes perfect sense for these reasons.


Without being a bit crude, might I suggest you consider the differences between a "sports bra" and a "bikini top", and contemplate why the two garments are only superficially similar... both how much more the typical example of the former covers than the latter, and just why that might be...




Especially if it's a bra that is easy to remove when you need an effective distraction on short notice.


:smallconfused: These forums really need a "facepalm" emote...

[goto124]

And certain real-life tribes in hot climates don't even bother with the bra.

[1337 b4k4]

What's weird to me is that I once thought there was a fetishistic delight in women wearing skimpy armor.

Nowadays, I perceive there to be a fetishistic delight in women wearing full armor.

Let's be completely honest, if it exists, it's a fetish for at least one person if not more.


Shortpacked tries to explain it. (http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/)

Yeah, I've seen this one too, and while it makes for an amusing comic, it:
A) Completely neglects and erases women who do like the big muscly man, and don't like the lean, big eyed and big lipped.
B) Doesn't account for why so many more women (at least in my experience) seem to find Chris Hemsworth's Thor far more attractive than Orlando Bloom's Legolas, or even Val Kilmer's Batman.
C) Completely glosses over the fact that women are (like men) complex individuals who find a multitude of things attractive. I know women for whom aforementioned Thor is a turn on, and for whom Sephiroth is equally a turn on. And I know others whose taste in men is decidedly and strictly average, where neither the pretty boy look nor the Conan look do anything for them.


You might not like it, but D&D is more the odd outlier than the norm and has been for a very long time.

Yet as I pointed out, even D&D wasn't an outlier. What you saw on those covers is largely what early D&D art looks like too.


Without being a bit crude, might I suggest you consider the differences between a "sports bra" and a "bikini top", and contemplate why the two garments are only superficially similar... both how much more the typical example of the former covers than the latter, and just why that might be...


OTOH, short of using something like wraps/binding (which then get into restriction of movement / heat issues), it's difficult to build a "sports bra" (which relies on modern elastics) out of primitive materials.

Also, I would venture that given the gender marker of the person you're replying to, they may have a bit more hands on experience vis-a-vis the effectiveness and tradeoffs of various bra types than you're giving her credit for.


Edit
-------

While considering this today, an idea crossed my mind, inspired by Talakeal's assertion that some of this may be a result of trying to mash anachronistic modern styles with an earlier period look. With respect to the bared midriff armor (and not the boob window/plate thing), it seems to me in digging through mounds of artwork for this thread, that the armor that doesn't cover your midriff is a trend of the mid 90's - early 2000's fantasy artwork. Coincidentally, that same time period is really peak bared midriff shirts and spaghetti strap tops for women's fashion. Likewise in this period you see a reduction in the number of armor skirts that were popular in 80's fantasy art (a time of mini skirts and such in women's fashion). I think it's very possible that Talakeal is on to something here that at least some of this is meshing modern fashion with old materials. For the folks with 5e D&D and recently (say the last 7 years) published TTRPGs, are there any trends in the fantasy artwork that are more or less armored versions of modern fashion?

[goto124]

A) Completely neglects and erases women who do like the big muscly man, [snip]
C) Completely glosses over the fact that women are (like men) complex individuals who find a multitude of things attractive.

I've been asking similar questions about men's tastes in women. It may be the media goes for a well-known standard that is most marketable and appeals to most people (men?). There may even be a self-reinforcing cycle.

That bit about modern fashion is really interesting. Not sure what's the current fashion though...

[CharonsHelper]

Yeah, I've seen this one too, and while it makes for an amusing comic, it:
A) Completely neglects and erases women who do like the big muscly man, and don't like the lean, big eyed and big lipped.
B) Doesn't account for why so many more women (at least in my experience) seem to find Chris Hemsworth's Thor far more attractive than Orlando Bloom's Legolas, or even Val Kilmer's Batman.

My sister has joked that girls (up into their teens) like the 'heartthrobs' while women like the 'real men'. (And yes - she is really into Thor. And liked the werewolf more than the sparkly vampire. And teases her husband about both... girls are complicated.)

[goto124]

girls are complicated.)

With the people I've met and talked to, of different sexes and genders and sexual orientations, humans are complicated. Including straight men.

[1337 b4k4]

I've been asking similar questions about men's tastes in women. It may be the media goes for a well-known standard that is most marketable and appeals to most people (men?). There may even be a self-reinforcing cycle.


Absolutely I think media is going to generally go for a least common denominator (generally the rule for items targeted at mass consumption), but even in media I think you'll find a surprising range of "sexy". Looking at recent super hero movies, consider the differences between Black Widow (who does the skin tight suit, but really doesn't show a lot of skin), to Wonder Woman (boob plate a hoy!), to Pepper Potts (business attire, fancy dresses and wit to match Tony Stark, yowza), to Nebula and Gamora (turning on the Captain Kirk contingent) to even Peggy Carter (classic turn of the century sexy).

For the women (from my perspective with some slight input from the women in my life) you likewise have Thor (doing the big muscles thing), Tony Stark (the confident, collected swagger), Bruce Banner (the damaged soul), Hawkeye (lean [pouty lips? maybe. could one of our women commenters weigh in on this], confident and scruffy), and Captain America (the "All American" boy/man).

What is notable in the differences (and this is something sociologists have found time and again) is that media targeting men for "sexy" generally conveys it via imagery (although I'd argue in Potts and Cater's cases it's also personality / attitude) and when targeting women it tends to aim at personalities / emotions (with the possible exception of Thor), which may explain why static artwork has a harder time being broadly appealing to women as opposed to men. With static art it's harder to convey personality. At least that's a possible theory, bearing in mind that I am neither sociologist, psychologist nor a woman.

[goto124]

A huge chunk of media using static imagery to appeal to men for years means there's a well-developed basis for static image appeal that's easy to build off and that the auidience quickly understands.

If someone wants to use static imagery to appeal to women, that basis is a bit less developed. Possible, just harder.

[2D8HP]

(And yes - she is

I've been asking similar questions about men's tastes in women. It may be the media goes for a well-known standard that is most marketable and appeals to most people (men?). There may even be a self-reinforcing cycle....


IIRC what I've read, most on-line dating messages are sent by men to the same minority of women, but women have a wider variety of "types".

Yes men have different "types", and yes women do share "types", but two random American men are more likely to share what they regard as an attractive women, than two random American women are to regard who is an attractive man. Women are more likely to have different tastes in men, but men are more likely to have the same taste in women (image wise).

How much media images are influencing tastes vs. how much tastes cause media images, I have no idea.

I haven't given any links because I'm just not in the mood to read on the subject again (maybe someone else can verify or disprove).

[ImNotTrevor]

(And yes - she is



IIRC what I've read, most on-line dating messages are sent by men to the same minority of women, but women have a wider variety of "types".

Yes men have different "types", and yes women do share "types", but two random American men are more likely to share what they regard as an attractive women, than two random American women are to regard who is an attractive man. Women are more likely to have different tastes in men, but men are more likely to have the same taste in women (image wise).

How much media images are influencing tastes vs. how much tastes cause media images, I have no idea.

I haven't given any links because I'm just not in the mood to read on the subject again (maybe someone else can verify or disprove).

From my advertising class, it's usually that the way society is moving influences the media representation (at least in advertising.)

It's also worth noting that the most likely source to produce a standard of beauty for women is other women, not men. (Ads appealing to women tend to come from companies that aren't exactly full of male employees, as a general rule.) This is exactly as true the other way. Male masculinity standards come from other men. This should be neither controversial or surprising, but you'd be amazed the backlash you can receive for merely suggesting this.

That and target audiences are usually assigned to a target market AFTER they see who it appeals to and rarely before. Doing it the other way is risky, and large companies don't stay large by taking needless risks.

[scalyfreak]

Without being a bit crude, might I suggest you consider the differences between a "sports bra" and a "bikini top", and contemplate why the two garments are only superficially similar... both how much more the typical example of the former covers than the latter, and just why that might be...



OTOH, short of using something like wraps/binding (which then get into restriction of movement / heat issues), it's difficult to build a "sports bra" (which relies on modern elastics) out of primitive materials.

It is equally difficult to build an equivalent of the modern-day bikini top, since they almost always rely on the elasticity of the material to stay in place and cover what needs to be covered. However, in theory a long scarf and a few ribbons can be as effective as a modern day sports bra, if your goal is to keep involuntary movement to a minimum, as long as you wrap and tie tightly enough. Not all women are built like Pamela Anderson, after all. Especially not those who spend their adolescence pushing their bodies towards peak physical performance - look at the average female gymnasts and ballerinas, for example.

Remember, our goal here is function, not form. If a female warrior's top priority when she dresses for work is to look sexy, what she chooses to wear isn't really the problem. So a non-elastic bikini on the amazon who fights alongside the bare-chested barbarian makes perfect sense to me.

I feel like I'm getting way too close to the realm of what the forum rules call "inappropriate topics" as we keep talking about this.. I should probably shut up now.



Also, I would venture that given the gender marker of the person you're replying to, they may have a bit more hands on experience vis-a-vis the effectiveness and tradeoffs of various bra types than you're giving her credit for.

Please stop confusing things by using common sense like that. :smallbiggrin:

[scalyfreak]

Hawkeye (lean [pouty lips? maybe. could one of our women commenters weigh in on this],

Hawkeye doesn't have superpowers like the other Avengers do. He has an outdated weapon and a good grasp tactics - skill and confidence are a turn-on for a lot of women, regardless of what his face looks like. (The fact it does look quite nice is a pleasant bonus though.)

[Satinavian]

Yet as I pointed out, even D&D wasn't an outlier. What you saw on those covers is largely what early D&D art looks like too.I admit that i don't know early D&D.

When i started D&D mid/end 90s, i noticed that the illustrations were far less realistic and that women usually got more sexualized/less functional armor compared to males and were more often depicted as damsels to be rescued by male heroes than in illustrations of other RPGs i played. This impression didn't change when 3rd and 4th edition came (not that i actually played a lot of 4E). The damsels vanished, but the stupid armor/attire stayed or got even worse.

No, i am not saying that D&D never had resonable pictures of women or what the percentage of good/bad was. Only that it was significantly worse than competitors (excluding D&D clones and Pulp RPGs )

5E just shouldn't get credit for being "progressive" by immitating art styles that are standard fare elsewhere. Sure, if you want to say, 5E art is not actually different to earlier art regarding female armor/closthing, go ahead. But that would be a quite difficult sale.

[Anonymouswizard]

Are you all saying I'm weird for finding small, geeky women with flat chests and relatively masculine faces incredibly sexy? Because you wouldn't be the first, I'm just trying to be clear about all this.

On the record for the bra discussion, I'll concede to the experts in this field, but I don't see warrior women wearing a faux sports bra as stupid or anyway. I just think they want support and to be cool (as in not overheating).

[Floret]

Especially if it's a bra that is easy to remove when you need an effective distraction on short notice.

Why do people assume breasts are magic like that? Just having a bare chest in front of you, especially in a life-or-death situation really isn't particularly distracting. Especially when this bare chest belongs to someone currently trying to kill or injure you. (And thanks to larping, I can even say that with experience... And even the straight men who were with us had no problems pushing the "oh, breasts!" reflex aside for combat situations.)


Are you all saying I'm weird for finding small, geeky women with flat chests and relatively masculine faces incredibly sexy? Because you wouldn't be the first, I'm just trying to be clear about all this.

On the record for the bra discussion, I'll concede to the experts in this field, but I don't see warrior women wearing a faux sports bra as stupid or anyway. I just think they want support and to be cool (as in not overheating).

You're bi, so a bit of attraction to androgyny might be par for the course. :smallwink: (Works this way for me, at least...)
...To be fair, I'd need to know more about your taste in men to actually qualify this.

While I do understand the wish for chest support, Modern-style bras just kinda tend to seem strange to me in medieval-style settings. Because of the need for elastic materials, which are at least a good bit anachronistic, mostly. Though I will accept things that basically look like a string of cloth pulled more or less tightly around the chest - since that is perfectly possible with even antique technology, and there is historical precedent for that being used.
Anything that looks just... loosely put there or forming distinct cups though tends to break my immersion at least a bit.

[Anonymouswizard]

You're bi, so a bit of attraction to androgyny might be par for the course. :smallwink: (Works this way for me, at least...)
...To be fair, I'd need to know more about your taste in men to actually qualify this.

Yeah, I do actually have an attraction to androgyny, I like pretty men and handsome women, it's just more pronounced one way (with women over men). It's also round faces that do it for me for both genders.

On the other hand, I know people who just couldn't care about gender when it comes to attraction, and are attracted to people all across the masculine/feminine spectrum. I've just come to view human attraction as a great big ball of confusing.


While I do understand the wish for chest support, Modern-style bras just kinda tend to seem strange to me in medieval-style settings. Because of the need for elastic materials, which are at least a good bit anachronistic, mostly. Though I will accept things that basically look like a string of cloth pulled more or less tightly around the chest - since that is perfectly possible with even antique technology, and there is historical precedent for that being used.
Anything that looks just... loosely put there or forming distinct cups though tends to break my immersion at least a bit.

I mean, when I say a faux sports bra I'm thinking a tight(ish) piece of cloth, maybe with straps to help keep it in place (depending on exact degree of tightness). I essentially agree with you, although I think due to not having experience or done much research I'm a bit more willing to stretch things.

[scalyfreak]

Why do people assume breasts are magic like that? Just having a bare chest in front of you, especially in a life-or-death situation really isn't particularly distracting. Especially when this bare chest belongs to someone currently trying to kill or injure you.

Because typically the sight of something completely unexpected and out of place throws someone off for a moment, regardless of what it is. In my old group we used to bring the halfling's mastiff into all sorts of social situations where a dog was completely out of place, for the same reason. It worked surprisingly often, especially if we used illusions to turn him into a weird color.

Though I'm mainly humoring you at this point, since it seems I failed at conveying that initial comment was intended to be a joke. :smallsmile:

[Kardwill]

pressure is only 1 atm difference. Skin can hold that fine. you don't really explode in space. It is actually far more important to maintain oxygen supply and to prevent use of body fluids. So the depicted variant actually does protect the more important areas better.

It is still an utterly stupid idea for way to many reasons. Just not as instantly deadly as one might think.

Oh, I know people don't "pop" in vacuum (that's a fact I love to teach to my DMs when they go crazy about the dangers of space-that-will-kill-you-instantlytm), but I thought a low pressure over the chest and abdominal cavities (and especially around the lungs) for extended periods of time were still bad ideas. I'm no specialist, so I'm probably wrong, though. :)

[Calthropstu]

For the ridiculous space suits, it could be hand waived as being forcefield reinforced.
But the old adage "sex sells" is quite correct. Especially true for the audience trpg's generally tends to attract. So it's stupid silly, yes, but if an image of unrealistic sexy silly space suit girls increases my bottom line, I would include it.

[Max_Killjoy]

OTOH, short of using something like wraps/binding (which then get into restriction of movement / heat issues), it's difficult to build a "sports bra" (which relies on modern elastics) out of primitive materials.

Also, I would venture that given the gender marker of the person you're replying to, they may have a bit more hands on experience vis-a-vis the effectiveness and tradeoffs of various bra types than you're giving her credit for.


I'm not in the habit of looking at those markers, it's very rarely relevant to the points being discussed.

My point was that going into a melee in something like a "sports bra"-like-thing is a very different thing in all sorts of ways than going into combat in a bikini top.




While considering this today, an idea crossed my mind, inspired by Talakeal's assertion that some of this may be a result of trying to mash anachronistic modern styles with an earlier period look. With respect to the bared midriff armor (and not the boob window/plate thing), it seems to me in digging through mounds of artwork for this thread, that the armor that doesn't cover your midriff is a trend of the mid 90's - early 2000's fantasy artwork. Coincidentally, that same time period is really peak bared midriff shirts and spaghetti strap tops for women's fashion. Likewise in this period you see a reduction in the number of armor skirts that were popular in 80's fantasy art (a time of mini skirts and such in women's fashion). I think it's very possible that Talakeal is on to something here that at least some of this is meshing modern fashion with old materials. For the folks with 5e D&D and recently (say the last 7 years) published TTRPGs, are there any trends in the fantasy artwork that are more or less armored versions of modern fashion?


That's an interesting observation.

In examining this, I'd want to try to distinguish between authentic elements of armor, and stylistic anachronisms -- armor "skirts" of some sorts are certainly authentic period design elements for reasons of function and/or form.

[ellindsey]

Oh, I know people don't "pop" in vacuum (that's a fact I love to teach to my DMs when they go crazy about the dangers of space-that-will-kill-you-instantlytm), but I thought a low pressure over the chest and abdominal cavities (and especially around the lungs) for extended periods of time were still bad ideas. I'm no specialist, so I'm probably wrong, though. :)

Low pressure over your chest and abdomen are very bad ideas, because while your skin can handle the pressure fine, your lungs can't. Human lungs have a low ability to handle greater interior than exterior pressure, so if your chest and abdomen is exposed to vacuum while your life-support system is still providing pressurized air to your lungs, your lungs will over-inflate and then rupture. This is why those spacesuit designs which rely on your skin to hold pressure against the vacuum still need to provide positive mechanical pressure over your chest and abdomen, to keep your body cavities properly pressurized and your lungs intact. So a spacesuit with a bare midriff is just never going to work.

[Arbane]

While I do understand the wish for chest support, Modern-style bras just kinda tend to seem strange to me in medieval-style settings. Because of the need for elastic materials, which are at least a good bit anachronistic, mostly. Though I will accept things that basically look like a string of cloth pulled more or less tightly around the chest - since that is perfectly possible with even antique technology, and there is historical precedent for that being used.
Anything that looks just... loosely put there or forming distinct cups though tends to break my immersion at least a bit.

You know how in most D&Dish worlds, dwarves are several hundred years ahead of everyone else in metallurgy and machinery? Drow are like that with underwear design. :smallbiggrin:

[2D8HP]

You know how in most D&Dish worlds, dwarves are several hundred years ahead of everyone else in metallurgy and machinery? Drow are like that with underwear design. :smallbiggrin:


Hence the common saying:


* If the monk brings a 9-year old kid on a dangerous job to slay a gang, and the bard threatens to leave the party if the kid dies, and the monk counter-threatens that he'll plan to leave first if the kid dies, then both PCs should really listen to the ranger when he asks why for the love of Lolth's blue panties did you bother bringing a nine year old kid to a gang fight?! Your babysitting privileges are hereby revoked! :smallannoyed:....


The Ranger does gain bonus points from swearing by Lolth's blue panties....


...look forward to me selling genuine Lolth Brand Underdark MadeTM silk undergarments and nightwear at regular prices (the demand is too high at the moment for discounts). :smallbiggrin:


* Just because I have 21st century knowledge when I got transported to the Xanth-esque world, it doesn't give me free reign to "invent" all the modern world conveniences here and start a consumer goods empire.

[Floret]

Because typically the sight of something completely unexpected and out of place throws someone off for a moment, regardless of what it is. In my old group we used to bring the halfling's mastiff into all sorts of social situations where a dog was completely out of place, for the same reason. It worked surprisingly often, especially if we used illusions to turn him into a weird color.

Though I'm mainly humoring you at this point, since it seems I failed at conveying that initial comment was intended to be a joke. :smallsmile:

I would argue not long enough to compensate your for your distraction - even throwing my cape at opponents usually only worked when it hit them square in the face and took their sight ;)
But, okay - yeah, I have seen this argument made in earnest one too many time to be able to just assume it a joke when there is no indicator^^


Yeah, I do actually have an attraction to androgyny, I like pretty men and handsome women, it's just more pronounced one way (with women over men). It's also round faces that do it for me for both genders.

On the other hand, I know people who just couldn't care about gender when it comes to attraction, and are attracted to people all across the masculine/feminine spectrum. I've just come to view human attraction as a great big ball of confusing.

(Yeah, human attraction is just... Something. Beyond the joke I do know enough bi people for having known someone into pretty much every distribution imaginable. My comment was rather tongue-in cheek.)


I mean, when I say a faux sports bra I'm thinking a tight(ish) piece of cloth, maybe with straps to help keep it in place (depending on exact degree of tightness). I essentially agree with you, although I think due to not having experience or done much research I'm a bit more willing to stretch things.

Oh, this has less to do with reasearch and more to do with what "feels" right. I am sure research would go some way to destroy even my misconceptions - I for one know that I am dubious about accepting straps as a thing for these, but know that those date back to at least the 15th century. (Still would be wrong on barbarians, though)

And (not responding to the quoted parts anymore), sure, certain elements in Fantasy settings can explain more modern styles. But the fact that you can explain something doesn't take away the initial impulse of "uhm, what's that doing here", and that, for me is the problem. No matter how well something might be explained, if the first impulse is that it doesn't fit the rest of the setting, that will be the general impression.

[scalyfreak]

I would argue not long enough to compensate your for your distraction - even throwing my cape at opponents usually only worked when it hit them square in the face and took their sight ;)
But, okay - yeah, I have seen this argument made in earnest one too many time to be able to just assume it a joke when there is no indicator^^

That's... disturbing and sad. :smallconfused:



And (not responding to the quoted parts anymore), sure, certain elements in Fantasy settings can explain more modern styles. But the fact that you can explain something doesn't take away the initial impulse of "uhm, what's that doing here", and that, for me is the problem. No matter how well something might be explained, if the first impulse is that it doesn't fit the rest of the setting, that will be the general impression.

A large part of the problem is most likely that different people have such different triggers for that impulse, that it's practically impossible to create fantasy art that is guaranteed not to trigger it in anyone.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A large part of the problem is most likely that different people have such different triggers for that impulse, that it's practically impossible to create fantasy art that is guaranteed not to trigger it in anyone.

I agree.

I've found myself that if I try to analyze any piece of media (art/movie/book/etc) with that attitude ("why is that there? How does that even work?") I've lost the suspension of disbelief and lose interest. It means that I have a much better time with things that conspicuously don't take themselves seriously. If you try to tell me that it's a period-accurate artwork and make stupid mistakes, I'm out. On the other hand, if it's clear the art is a pastiche and not designed to be taken literally, I'm fine with it. For me, most "bad" fantasy art sends the message of "look how powerful/amazing/sexy/exotic I am" rather than "this is what I actually fight in." It's stylized with a particular (era-dependent) style. And I'm (mostly) fine with that. I'm not fond of the focus on the erotic that often occurs, but that's not for verisimilitude reasons but for personal moral reasons.

[Max_Killjoy]

I agree.

I've found myself that if I try to analyze any piece of media (art/movie/book/etc) with that attitude ("why is that there? How does that even work?") I've lost the suspension of disbelief and lose interest. It means that I have a much better time with things that conspicuously don't take themselves seriously. If you try to tell me that it's a period-accurate artwork and make stupid mistakes, I'm out. On the other hand, if it's clear the art is a pastiche and not designed to be taken literally, I'm fine with it. For me, most "bad" fantasy art sends the message of "look how powerful/amazing/sexy/exotic I am" rather than "this is what I actually fight in." It's stylized with a particular (era-dependent) style. And I'm (mostly) fine with that. I'm not fond of the focus on the erotic that often occurs, but that's not for verisimilitude reasons but for personal moral reasons.

I find that I'm kinda the opposite. I'd rather they at least try to be accurate and functional. And I really hate symbolism of the "look how powerful/amazing/sexy/exotic I am" sort -- especially as it gets sillier and less functional or just plan ignorant/idiotic.

If they really want to convey something about a character as a sexual being, they should just show them out of armor at some point in a scene where it makes sense for them to be out of armor and that fits in the story (rather than being gratuitous). If they can't fit it in to a natural point in the story and can't do it out of combat, I'd suggest that it's just not that important to the story and they should move on without it.

[Talakeal]

I find that I'm kinda the opposite. I'd rather they at least try to be accurate and functional. And I really hate symbolism of the "look how powerful/amazing/sexy/exotic I am" sort -- especially as it gets sillier and less functional or just plan ignorant/idiotic.

If they really want to convey something about a character as a sexual being, they should just show them out of armor at some point in a scene where it makes sense for them to be out of armor and that fits in the story (rather than being gratuitous). If they can't fit it in to a natural point in the story and can't do it out of combat, I'd suggest that it's just not that important to the story and they should move on without it.

Ok, well what if we have a character who has only two important character traits: Badass warrior & incredibly sexy.

Now, we are doing an illustration of that character for an RPG supplement, and we only have the space and the budget to dedicate a single image to any given character.

Wouldn't trying to somehow depict both facets of the character in the same image work better than completely indulging in one at the expense of the other?

[Max_Killjoy]

Ok, well what if we have a character who has only two important character traits: Badass warrior & incredibly sexy.


Then I think you've got a 2d character who needs some work.




Now, we are doing an illustration of that character for an RPG supplement, and we only have the space and the budget to dedicate a single image to any given character.

Wouldn't trying to somehow depict both facets of the character in the same image work better than completely indulging in one at the expense of the other?


1) Don't do either at the expense of faithfulness to the setting.
2) Find a way to convey both that works them in together, and doesn't violate #1, and doesn't rely on cheap visual shorthand.

[Deophaun]

Low pressure over your chest and abdomen are very bad ideas, because while your skin can handle the pressure fine, your lungs can't. Human lungs have a low ability to handle greater interior than exterior pressure, so if your chest and abdomen is exposed to vacuum while your life-support system is still providing pressurized air to your lungs, your lungs will over-inflate and then rupture. This is why those spacesuit designs which rely on your skin to hold pressure against the vacuum still need to provide positive mechanical pressure over your chest and abdomen, to keep your body cavities properly pressurized and your lungs intact. So a spacesuit with a bare midriff is just never going to work.
Not never. It works for as long as you remember to not hold your breath. It's a spacesuit with a bare midriff and a helmet that is never going to work.

[goto124]

Talakeal: Use (semi-)realistic armor that also hints at sexiness. What sort of warrior is she? A pirate can show her shoulders, bare her midriff, wear tight pants, or have a shirt with a neckline just low enough to show a bit of her cleavage without being unfunctional. Not all armor is full plate.

You could also show her flirting with someone else, or otherwise showing that she acts with sexiness instead of just looking sexy. Any character can show charisma by offering a rose to the audience and winking, whether in a chainmail bikini or in full plate.

[scalyfreak]

I feel a need to interrupt the current tangential debate to point out that wearing something sexy does not automatically mean wearing something that bares a lot of skin.

That kind of cliche is just lazy.

[Max_Killjoy]

I feel a need to interrupt the current tangential debate to point out that wearing something sexy does not automatically mean wearing something that bares a lot of skin.

That kind of cliche is just lazy.

Agreed -- "show skin to convey sexy character" would be the sort of cheap visual shorthand that I cautioned against a few post ago.

[Ashiel]

Talakeal: Use (semi-)realistic armor that also hints at sexiness. What sort of warrior is she? A pirate can show her shoulders, bare her midriff, wear tight pants, or have a shirt with a neckline just low enough to show a bit of her cleavage without being unfunctional. Not all armor is full plate.
But as long as it isn't, people will still complain about it. And when it is, they'll complain some more.

Despite the fact that there is literally mountains of fantasy artwork that depicts characters modestly, both in and out of D&D, often in the same books (compare Mialee the Wizard's dress to Lidda the Rogue's outfit and Gimble's robes to Hennet's), people will always complain about whichever art grinds against their personal sensibilities and morals. Doesn't matter if those morals are based in some puritan religious belief, being religiously politically correct, or simply a personal quirk that drives them to piss in everyone else's cheerios.

You usually see the same tired reasons. It usually begins with some variation of "think of the children women!", and then when lots of people rightfully note that lots of women eat it up as much or more than the dudes do, then it switches to "but historical accuracy / realism!" in a game where you have fantasy barbarians that can skydive onto asphalt and come away with a bruise, and fighting giant godlike super lizards who spit fire so hot that it can slag a suit of full plate in three seconds flat, where heroes wear armors that never existed in the first place (like studded leather), and being a higher level makes your skin more resistant to swords.

IMHO, consume the art you like, ignore the art you don't, and let others do the same. Or don't. At least as long as people are fighting about it, I get to loot kickass art from the crossfire. I found so many amazing Larry Elmdore pictures in this thread, lots of classic D&D stuff, and various sexy fantasy pinups that it would have rivaled an afternoon of pinterest searches. :smallamused:

[Recherché]

While I do understand the wish for chest support, Modern-style bras just kinda tend to seem strange to me in medieval-style settings. Because of the need for elastic materials, which are at least a good bit anachronistic, mostly. Though I will accept things that basically look like a string of cloth pulled more or less tightly around the chest - since that is perfectly possible with even antique technology, and there is historical precedent for that being used.
Anything that looks just... loosely put there or forming distinct cups though tends to break my immersion at least a bit.

Eh while you couldn't make a modern sports bra without elastic, leather (especially certain types) has enough elasticity that you could use it to make a pretty decent bra. Nalebinding (kinda similar to crochet but much older) is older than the vikings and you could use that to make pseudo-knitted fabric with a certain amount of stretch. Underwires and cups are also possible using medieval sewing tech and we actually have evidence of female undergarments with cups by the 15th century. Heck you could even make underwires and install them without too much issue. All in all the equivalent to a sports bra is possible using medieval tech and materials, but it would not look like a bikini top exactly. Alternatively a laced up leather bodice, possibly with cups and underwires would be a pretty decent way to keep the bust from jiggling while adventuring and look sexy at the same time. Armor on top would help with the not dying from being stabbed part though.

[Max_Killjoy]

But as long as it isn't, people will still complain about it. And when it is, they'll complain some more.

Despite the fact that there is literally mountains of fantasy artwork that depicts characters modestly, both in and out of D&D, often in the same books (compare Mialee the Wizard's dress to Lidda the Rogue's outfit and Gimble's robes to Hennet's), people will always complain about whichever art grinds against their personal sensibilities and morals. Doesn't matter if those morals are based in some puritan religious belief, being religiously politically correct, or simply a personal quirk that drives them to piss in everyone else's cheerios.

You usually see the same tired reasons. It usually begins with some variation of "think of the children women!", and then when lots of people rightfully note that lots of women eat it up as much or more than the dudes do, then it switches to "but historical accuracy / realism!" in a game where you have fantasy barbarians that can skydive onto asphalt and come away with a bruise, and fighting giant godlike super lizards who spit fire so hot that it can slag a suit of full plate in three seconds flat, where heroes wear armors that never existed in the first place (like studded leather), and being a higher level makes your skin more resistant to swords.


So you've decided to combine a really distorted representation of others' positions, with the "But Dragons!" fallacy...

[Ashiel]

So you've decided to combine a really distorted representation of others' positions, with the "But Dragons!" fallacy...

Far from it. I'm calling them as I've seen 'em, time and time again, on this forum and others. It always comes down to the same things.

1. Someone bemoans that it's dude-centric.
A. People point out that girls like sexy girls too. Go figure.

2. So then it's all about historically accurate realism!
A. Except, that's a load of crap because nothing is historically accurate or realistic.

3. You think it looks ridiculous or it's stupid design (like with that goofy "space suit").
A. Cool, I agree with you. 100%. Someone else might like it though. It's not your aesthetic and that's cool.

It's demonstrably a load of crap. Time and time again. So then we come down to what's more likely and that's aesthetic appeal. Either due to personal, moral, or ethical quirk, you prefer X style are over Y style art. So far so peachy. But then, someone goes and tries to hoist that off onto other people, usually through some sort of appeal to emotion or morality.

I actually have the utmost respect for people that are honest and either admit that it's because of their personal views on morality, or a simple desire for a particular style. If you just don't want to see adventurers dressed like Conan or Sonya (D3 barbarian), that's cool. There's tons and I mean tons more art out there. If you don't want cutesy, or sexual, or grim, or high fantasy, or steampunk, or whatever, that's cool too. Just say so.

But lots of people do like those things and there's not a damn thing wrong with that. :smallamused:

[Max_Killjoy]

Far from it. I'm calling them as I've seen 'em, time and time again, on this forum and others. It always comes down to the same things.

1. Someone bemoans that it's dude-centric.
A. People point out that girls like sexy girls too. Go figure.

2. So then it's all about historically accurate realism!
A. Except, that's a load of crap because nothing is historically accurate or realistic.

3. You think it looks ridiculous or it's stupid design (like with that goofy "space suit").
A. Cool, I agree with you. 100%. Someone else might like it though. It's not your aesthetic and that's cool.

It's demonstrably a load of crap. Time and time again. So then we come down to what's more likely and that's aesthetic appeal. Either due to personal, moral, or ethical quirk, you prefer X style are over Y style art. So far so peachy. But then, someone goes and tries to hoist that off onto other people, usually through some sort of appeal to emotion or morality.

I actually have the utmost respect for people that are honest and either admit that it's because of their personal views on morality, or a simple desire for a particular style. If you just don't want to see adventurers dressed like Conan or Sonya (D3 barbarian), that's cool. There's tons and I mean tons more art out there. If you don't want cutesy, or sexual, or grim, or high fantasy, or steampunk, or whatever, that's cool too. Just say so.

But lots of people do like those things and there's not a damn thing wrong with that. :smallamused:


So like I said, you're going to present the most slanted and insulting version of what people have actually said to you, and then pretend to know their motives better than they do.

You're treating everyone who disagrees with you as a single person, or as if they all speak with a single voice. Just because one person disagrees on objectification grounds, and someone else objects on practicality grounds, and someone else objects on historical grounds, and someone else objects on aesthetic grounds, and maybe those objections came in a certain order, doesn't mean it plays out in the manner you're asserting here.

[Deophaun]

Just because one person disagrees on objectification grounds, and someone else objects on practicality grounds, and someone else objects on aesthetic grounds, and maybe those objections came in a certain order, doesn't mean it plays you in the manner you're asserting here.
No, but that happening once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action.

[CharonsHelper]

No, but that happening once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action.

It's the Illuminati!!!

[Anonymouswizard]

A. Cool, I agree with you. 100%. Someone else might like it though. It's not your aesthetic and that's cool.

I think this is the key thing.

I'll cop to it, I don't actually mind chainmail bikinis as such. I mind when it's one aesthetic for men and another for women, and this is normally fully clothed men with skin showing women.

Now there are some aesthetics I prefer, in my science fiction settings you're more likely to see shirts and trousers (for bother genders) over jumpsuits or spaceswimsuits. My spacesuits are also almost always tight padded affairs with helmets or fully enclosed powered armour. Heck, my universes tend to feature spaceships which are sleek but dull and slightly battered, not boxy.

If you don't like that you don't have to play in my science fiction universe, like I don't play in ones with overly stripperific aesthetics (barring obviously parodic ones).

[Ashiel]

So like I said, you're going to present the most slanted and insulting version of what people have actually said to you, and then pretend to know their motives better than they do.
Whose motives am I pretending to know? Hm?

Did I call anyone out? Did I do other than to say that, like many times before, I see the same ol' same ol' hashed out?

Tell me how it doesn't come down to simple stylistic preference if it is not predicated by some sense of moral principles. If I'm so wrong, why not tell me why I'm wrong, rather than being indignant and insulted on behalf of nobody.


You're treating everyone who disagrees with you as a single person, or as if they all speak with a single voice.
Who am I disagreeing with? :smallconfused:

And who are the imaginary people that are being condensed into a single imaginary person, with one voice shouting many different things? Reveal this ghostly specter! Reveal it, that it might deliver the utmost highest truth, to cast down the one who disagrees with the non-existent. :smallamused:


Just because one person disagrees on objectification grounds, and someone else objects on practicality grounds, and someone else objects on historical grounds, and someone else objects on aesthetic grounds, and maybe those objections came in a certain order, doesn't mean it plays out in the manner you're asserting here.
Your point being? You've basically complained about what I've said but haven't really even brushed against any reason as to why it's wrong. :smallcool:


Anonymouswizard

Re: Armor designs for females?


A. Cool, I agree with you. 100%. Someone else might like it though. It's not your aesthetic and that's cool.
I think this is the key thing.

I'll cop to it, I don't actually mind chainmail bikinis as such. I mind when it's one aesthetic for men and another for women, and this is normally fully clothed men with skin showing women.

Now there are some aesthetics I prefer, in my science fiction settings you're more likely to see shirts and trousers (for bother genders) over jumpsuits or spaceswimsuits. My spacesuits are also almost always tight padded affairs with helmets or fully enclosed powered armour. Heck, my universes tend to feature spaceships which are sleek but dull and slightly battered, not boxy.

If you don't like that you don't have to play in my science fiction universe, like I don't play in ones with overly stripperific aesthetics (barring obviously parodic ones).
See, this wizard gets it.

EDIT:

No, but that happening once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action.
I lol'd. :smallbiggrin:

[Talakeal]

Then I think you've got a 2d character who needs some work.




1) Don't do either at the expense of faithfulness to the setting.
2) Find a way to convey both that works them in together, and doesn't violate #1, and doesn't rely on cheap visual shorthand.

Obviously its a 2d character, I stripped it down to bare-bones for the example.
For #1 what do you mean by faithfulness to the setting? In most fantasy settings impractical armor is a part of the setting, so are you saying to make sure to go with the same aestetic, or are you saying the entire setting is cheapened by having impractical armor?
#2 Is ideal, but my point was that it is a lot easier said than done.



Talakeal: Use (semi-)realistic armor that also hints at sexiness. What sort of warrior is she? A pirate can show her shoulders, bare her midriff, wear tight pants, or have a shirt with a neckline just low enough to show a bit of her cleavage without being unfunctional. Not all armor is full plate.

You could also show her flirting with someone else, or otherwise showing that she acts with sexiness instead of just looking sexy. Any character can show charisma by offering a rose to the audience and winking, whether in a chainmail bikini or in full plate.

Sexiness is not sexuality. While it is obviously in the eye of the beholder, seeing someone flirting with people and offering them flowers is, to me, going to greatly diminish how sexy someone is.


Far from it. I'm calling them as I've seen 'em, time and time again, on this forum and others. It always comes down to the same things.

1. Someone bemoans that it's dude-centric.
A. People point out that girls like sexy girls too. Go figure.

2. So then it's all about historically accurate realism!
A. Except, that's a load of crap because nothing is historically accurate or realistic.

3. You think it looks ridiculous or it's stupid design (like with that goofy "space suit").
A. Cool, I agree with you. 100%. Someone else might like it though. It's not your aesthetic and that's cool.

It's demonstrably a load of crap. Time and time again. So then we come down to what's more likely and that's aesthetic appeal. Either due to personal, moral, or ethical quirk, you prefer X style are over Y style art. So far so peachy. But then, someone goes and tries to hoist that off onto other people, usually through some sort of appeal to emotion or morality.

I actually have the utmost respect for people that are honest and either admit that it's because of their personal views on morality, or a simple desire for a particular style. If you just don't want to see adventurers dressed like Conan or Sonya (D3 barbarian), that's cool. There's tons and I mean tons more art out there. If you don't want cutesy, or sexual, or grim, or high fantasy, or steampunk, or whatever, that's cool too. Just say so.

But lots of people do like those things and there's not a damn thing wrong with that. :smallamused:

The problem is that people object to armor designs for so many different reasons, and the people doing the objecting are not unified in their views. Thus every discussion about this topic tends to go in a circle with the goalposts constantly shifting from one topic to another before they can really be analyzed.

[Max_Killjoy]

That's the thing -- when someone is going into a situation wearing an outfit that will get them killed, simply because said outfit is supposedly "sexy", then objectively, there's an issue.

Going into hard vacuum in a getup that offers no protection is stupid... objectively stupid.

Going into combat wearing a "sexy" getup that offers no protection from the weapons being used, no camouflage, no utility, nothing useful at all... objectively stupid.

When an artist show me a character who's doing objectively stupid things, they're not telling me the character sexy or confident or whatever... they're telling me that the character is an idiot, or ignorant, or insane, or has a death wish.

I honestly don't understand how "this character is going to die" is sexy to begin with.

[Talakeal]

That's the thing -- when someone is going into a situation wearing an outfit that will get them killed, simply because said outfit is supposedly "sexy", then objectively, there's an issue.

Going into hard vacuum in a getup that offers no protection is stupid... objectively stupid.

Going into combat wearing a "sexy" getup that offers no protection from the weapons being used, no camouflage, no utility, nothing useful at all... objectively stupid.

When an artist show me a character who's doing objectively stupid things, they're not telling me the character sexy or confident or whatever... they're telling me that the character is an idiot, or ignorant, or insane, or has a death wish.

I honestly don't understand how "this character is going to die" is sexy to begin with.

And yet for some reason this argument only comes up about "sexy" armor, not the thousands if not millions of characters who go into battle unarmored without anyone blinking an eye.

As I said above, there are many genres, both historical and fantastic, where armor simply isn't a thing despite an abundance of melee combat.

[Keltest]

And yet for some reason this argument only comes up about "sexy" armor, not the thousands if not millions of characters who go into battle unarmored without anyone blinking an eye.

As I said above, there are many genres, both historical and fantastic, where armor simply isn't a thing despite an abundance of melee combat.

Depending on the circumstances involved, that could be for a lot of reasons. Enemy weapons invalidating armor, where in the world you are, who the combatants are, quality of materials available for armor and weapon construction, magic... all of those can affect what armor, if any, is being worn.

[Max_Killjoy]

Obviously its a 2d character, I stripped it down to bare-bones for the example.
For #1 what do you mean by faithfulness to the setting? In most fantasy settings impractical armor is a part of the setting, so are you saying to make sure to go with the same aestetic, or are you saying the entire setting is cheapened by having impractical armor?
#2 Is ideal, but my point was that it is a lot easier said than done.


In regard to #1, yes, in a way, the entire setting is kinda cheapened.

[Max_Killjoy]

And yet for some reason this argument only comes up about "sexy" armor, not the thousands if not millions of characters who go into battle unarmored without anyone blinking an eye.

As I said above, there are many genres, both historical and fantastic, where armor simply isn't a thing despite an abundance of melee combat.


Depends on the setting, then -- is this one where lack of armor is fitting, or one where the writers/artists are just being ignorant?




Depending on the circumstances involved, that could be for a lot of reasons. Enemy weapons invalidating armor, where in the world you are, who the combatants are, quality of materials available for armor and weapon construction, magic... all of those can affect what armor, if any, is being worn.


Indeed -- and we can separate those settings in which we've been shown why little or no or "ornamental' armor is worn, from those settings in which everything we've been shown and told would seem to indicate that armor would be functional and yet functional armor is not worn.

[Ashiel]

That's the thing -- when someone is going into a situation wearing an outfit that will get them killed, simply because said outfit is supposedly "sexy", then objectively, there's an issue.
It's usually an aesthetic thing, as I noted. Of course, the same could be said for having a character with long braided hair. Y'know, the kind that's perfect for an enemy to grab and yank you down with. And since armor doesn't necessarily equate to greater survivability in fantasy (remember those barbarians who can eat a hobgoblin's sword and walk it off), they might just like being flashy.

Maybe they like getting drunk and charging into battle with their sword swinging, along with their two handed axe.


Going into hard vacuum in a getup that offers no protection is stupid... objectively stupid.
It probably appeals to somebody (http://artisancrab.com/pics/sj-coas-frontcover.jpg).


Going into combat wearing a "sexy" getup that offers no protection from the weapons being used, no camouflage, no utility, nothing useful at all... objectively stupid.
Incidentally, not wearing armor or wearing very little actually does provide useful benefits in D&D/Pathfinder. Particularly in regard to Dexterity based skills. There's functionally no difference between Mialee the wizard (http://pre04.deviantart.net/2a4b/th/pre/i/2013/301/3/5/mialee_by_felsus-d6qxlj7.jpg)'s outfit and Nebin the wizard's outfit (https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/dungeonsdragons/images/f/fe/Nebin.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20141012062444). So demonstrably Mialee is doing nothing more or less stupid than Nebin. In fact, if her outfit is somehow lighter, she's actually probably better equipped for adventuring.

And y'know what, you're free to think it's stupid. Power to you. Some people like it though. That's okay. If they're choosing to be a sexy shoeless god(or goddess) of war, who are we to judge. Enjoy what you like, others will enjoy what they like. Everyone wins.


When an artist show me a character who's doing objectively stupid things, they're not telling me the character sexy or confident or whatever... they're telling me that the character is an idiot, or ignorant, or insane, or has a death wish.
Maybe all of the above. Or maybe they have different priorities. Maybe they don't like wearing 40 lbs. of metal while walking around in a forest. Maybe they read too much Conan the Barbarian. Maybe they don't want to drown if they fall in water. :smallwink:


I honestly don't understand how "this character is going to die" is sexy to begin with.
Haha, here we go again. :smallamused:

So it doesn't jive with your preferences. That's cool man. Some people just like to do things a little differently.
Maybe like this (https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/godofwar/images/1/19/Kratos_rendering_concept.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/310?cb=20100727072252). Or like this (https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/001/696/176/large/coldrim-knight-2014-12.jpg?1451133412). Or perhaps like that (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d9/d4/51/d9d451baa6c5607e1af86c79eecfa889.jpg). Or even that (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/31/bc/70/31bc70ca6f11787aed0bdc8086d738ca.jpg). Or something like this (https://artfiles.alphacoders.com/177/thumb-17707.jpg).

So we can see that you prefer your aesthetics a certain way. Kudos. Good for you. That's cool. :smallcool:

[Ashiel]

Depends on the setting, then -- is this one where lack of armor is fitting, or one where the writers/artists are just being ignorant?
The irony of being offended on behalf of no one, while calling artists and authors ignorant. Perhaps there is a certain aesthetic appeal that they preferred. It might not be your cup of tea, but someone likes chocolate milk.


Indeed -- and we can separate those settings in which we've been shown why little or no or "ornamental' armor is worn, from those settings in which everything we've been shown and told would seem to indicate that armor would be functional and yet functional armor is not worn.
You must really hate all those pictures with knights not wearing their helmets. :smallamused:

[Satinavian]

And yet for some reason this argument only comes up about "sexy" armor, not the thousands if not millions of characters who go into battle unarmored without anyone blinking an eye.
This argument comes up with sexy armor. It hardly ever comes up with sexy clothing. The sexy armor is usually still heavy and/or rigid and very certainly uncomfortable. Yes, it is usually far worse then plain clothing arguably worse than being naked.

Sexy clothing however is usually not worse than other clothing (baring climate concerns). In any setting, where people go into battle in normal clothing doing so instead in sexy clothing would not be a problem


Going unarmored into battle when armor is availableand helps against contemporary weapons is also rarely a good idea, regardless how that armor looks. Most people going into battle without armor did so because they didn't have any or it was ineffective against contemporary weapons. The rich barbarian fighting the knight naked ia just an idiot.

You must really hate all those pictures with knights not wearing their helmets. :smallamused:It is fast to equip a helmet. You won't have it on all the time. But yes, someone with any significant armor should have a helmet somewhere.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's usually an aesthetic thing, as I noted. Of course, the same could be said for having a character with long braided hair. Y'know, the kind that's perfect for an enemy to grab and yank you down with. And since armor doesn't necessarily equate to greater survivability in fantasy (remember those barbarians who can eat a hobgoblin's sword and walk it off), they might just like being flashy.

Maybe they like getting drunk and charging into battle with their sword swinging, along with their two handed axe.


It probably appeals to somebody (http://artisancrab.com/pics/sj-coas-frontcover.jpg).


Incidentally, not wearing armor or wearing very little actually does provide useful benefits in D&D/Pathfinder. Particularly in regard to Dexterity based skills. There's functionally no difference between Mialee the wizard (http://pre04.deviantart.net/2a4b/th/pre/i/2013/301/3/5/mialee_by_felsus-d6qxlj7.jpg)'s outfit and Nebin the wizard's outfit (https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/dungeonsdragons/images/f/fe/Nebin.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20141012062444). So demonstrably Mialee is doing nothing more or less stupid than Nebin. In fact, if her outfit is somehow lighter, she's actually probably better equipped for adventuring.


Using rules designed around form-over-function genre-driven setting design to excuse the problems with that genre and setting is... circular, to say the least.

Not only that, but you're committing the classic GitP error of assuming we're discussion D&D-like rules.




Haha, here we go again. :smallamused:

So it doesn't jive with your preferences. That's cool man. Some people just like to do things a little differently.
Maybe like this (https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/godofwar/images/1/19/Kratos_rendering_concept.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/310?cb=20100727072252). Or like this (https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/001/696/176/large/coldrim-knight-2014-12.jpg?1451133412). Or perhaps like that (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d9/d4/51/d9d451baa6c5607e1af86c79eecfa889.jpg). Or even that (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/31/bc/70/31bc70ca6f11787aed0bdc8086d738ca.jpg). Or something like this (https://artfiles.alphacoders.com/177/thumb-17707.jpg).

So we can see that you prefer your aesthetics a certain way. Kudos. Good for you. That's cool. :smallcool:


The only preferences that "this character is going to die" would seem to appeal to is known as "snuff". If anyone doesn't know what that refers to, looking it up is probably going to get you NSFW hits.


The problem is, you keep looking at this as an issue of subjective aesthetics, when it's not -- it's an issue of objective functionality. And in the case of settings that claim to be historically accurate, grounded, or inspired, there's the issue of objective accuracy or at least the attempt at it, as well.

[Max_Killjoy]

This argument comes up with sexy armor. It hardly ever comes up with sexy clothing. The sexy armor is usually still heavy and/or rigid and very certainly uncomfortable. Yes, it is usually far worse then plain clothing arguably worse than being naked.

Sexy clothing however is usually not worse than other clothing (baring climate concerns). In any setting, where people go into battle in normal clothing doing so instead in sexy clothing would not be a problem


Important point -- if you're going to the expense and trouble of wearing around armor, why wear armor that's useless?




Going unarmored into battle when armor is available and helps against contemporary weapons is also rarely a good idea, regardless how that armor looks. Most people going into battle without armor did so because they didn't have any or it was ineffective against contemporary weapons. The rich barbarian fighting the knight naked is just an idiot.


Indeed -- aesthetics be damned.

[Vitruviansquid]

ITT: People prefer a certain aesthetic, argues that others are stupid for not preferring the same aesthetic.

It'll be really interesting to think which side of the argument people think this applies to.

[Ashiel]

ITT: People prefer a certain aesthetic, argues that others are stupid for not preferring the same aesthetic.

It'll be really interesting to think which side of the argument people think this applies to.
Pretty much this.


Not only that, but you're committing the classic GitP error of assuming we're discussion D&D-like rules.

You don't say? But wait a minute...

So I was wondering, over the few editions of D&D, how did armor look for female characters?

I'd imagine it got a bit more modest as the years went by, considering D&D's audience in the early years...

It's almost like the pros and cons of more or less armor is somehow connected to how it works out in fantasy roleplaying games that are D&D-like. It was probably aliens.


Important point -- if you're going to the expense and trouble of wearing around armor, why wear armor that's useless?You're proud of your pecks. Amusingly, an armor that grants +0 armor is still potentially useful in D&D. :smalltongue:

But here's some more pictures of Mialee. :smallsmile:
Mialee (https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/disp/4542ea12364963.562674b1279cc.jpg) #1
Mialee (http://img11.deviantart.net/32a1/i/2012/311/8/2/standing_mialee_by_chamakoso-d5kaxh7.jpg) #2
Mialee (https://i.warosu.org/data/tg/img/0283/75/1384973691790.jpg) #3
Hennet (https://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxb8lu23dq1r7jgtpo1_500.jpg) as a bonus.

EDIT:

The only preferences that "this character is going to die" would seem to appeal to is known as "snuff". If anyone doesn't know what that refers to, looking it up is probably going to get you NSFW hits.
It's no more snuff material than swashbuckling pirates. That's factual. You can't say characters like Mialee are snuff bait if Captain Jack Sparrow isn't too. :smallamused:


The problem is, you keep looking at this as an issue of subjective aesthetics, when it's not -- it's an issue of objective functionality. And in the case of settings that claim to be historically accurate, grounded, or inspired, there's the issue of objective accuracy or at least the attempt at it, as well. And which fantasy setting is that by the way? Every one I've ever seen doesn't really mesh with that idea. We've got armor spikes (terrible design), helmets with flashy horns and stuff on them, spiked chains, and all kinds of goofy (but awesome) stuff.

Or maybe you mean NOT-D&D, in which case, I guess that also includes things like Star Wars, Star Trek, and lots of other fantasy and/or sci-fi settings where people go about and fight and do crazy stuff without wearing armor. :smallsmile:

[Donnadogsoth]

I find it a little strange people are debating the real-world merits of various types of women's armour, when most people here when they play TRPGs are probably playing TRPGs that don't feature particularly realistic rules for hand-to-hand combat.

[Dragonexx]

Important point -- if you're going to the expense and trouble of wearing around armor, why wear armor that's useless?


Rule of cool/sexy. Because GASP! Some people have more fun with selective realism, than constant realism.

[Ashiel]

I find it a little strange people are debating the real-world merits of various types of women's armour, when most people here when they play TRPGs are probably playing TRPGs that don't feature particularly realistic rules for hand-to-hand combat.
Indeed. Even things like Shadowrun have folks running around in a biker jacket and a wolf claw necklace while fighting cyborg samurai and trolls with rocket launchers. This all goes back to what I said before.

1. Someone has some style they don't like. They then proceed to...

A. "Think of the children women!"
B. "Think of the realism (but ignore studded leather, combat mechanics, space pirates, and everything else that's not realistic and/or spits on historical accuracy)!"
C. "I don't like it and you shouldn't either!"

It's repeated every single time. They come up with delightful little ways of justifying why their position must be the right position. Often wiggling and waggling around themselves as some instances are fine but others aren't. Sure it's fine for Han Solo to run around in a vest while getting shot at. That's just the setting (except it isn't). It's snuff fetishism to have a lady barbarian running around in some hide scraps and swinging swords, but it's high adventure when Captain Jack Sparrow wear's a thin shirt and a hat while fighting sea monsters and soldiers with swords and guns and not snuff fantasy.

It's so old it's classic. Notice that nobody has actually addressed anything I said directly as well. We've gotten indignation, insulting artists, some herp-de-derp about circular logic, etc. Yeah, it's aesthetics. My brother likes stuff like this (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/52/d4/51/52d45136010fd88d7173e89500299def.jpg). Meanwhile, another friend likes stuff like this (http://i.imgur.com/0yiOG1I.jpg). Another still, likes stuff like this (https://succupedia.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/cropped-tumblr_mu24tw1fg61rmg7i0o1_1280.jpg).

They're a great group.
EDIT: Bonus points of you can guess the sex of the loli vampire and the succubus appreciators. :smallamused:

[War_lord]

It has nothing to do with aesthetics, it's a matter of how women are depicted in fantasy, and the real world attitudes that depiction dovetails into. People bring up realism because it brings up the logical question "why is this character dressed this way". If you can actually come up with a logical answer, like that as an inhuman fiend who's entire gig is seduction of course that succubus is going to go around half naked, it's fine. If your only answer is "because boobs", there's a problem, and it's a pandering problem.

[Donnadogsoth]

Indeed. Even things like Shadowrun have folks running around in a biker jacket and a wolf claw necklace while fighting cyborg samurai and trolls with rocket launchers. This all goes back to what I said before.

1. Someone has some style they don't like. They then proceed to...

A. "Think of the children women!"
B. "Think of the realism (but ignore studded leather, combat mechanics, space pirates, and everything else that's not realistic and/or spits on historical accuracy)!"
C. "I don't like it and you shouldn't either!"

It's repeated every single time. They come up with delightful little ways of justifying why their position must be the right position. Often wiggling and waggling around themselves as some instances are fine but others aren't. Sure it's fine for Han Solo to run around in a vest while getting shot at. That's just the setting (except it isn't). It's snuff fetishism to have a lady barbarian running around in some hide scraps and swinging swords, but it's high adventure when Captain Jack Sparrow wear's a thin shirt and a hat while fighting sea monsters and soldiers with swords and guns and not snuff fantasy.

It's so old it's classic. Notice that nobody has actually addressed anything I said directly as well. We've gotten indignation, insulting artists, some herp-de-derp about circular logic, etc. Yeah, it's aesthetics. My brother likes stuff like this (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/52/d4/51/52d45136010fd88d7173e89500299def.jpg). Meanwhile, another friend likes stuff like this (http://i.imgur.com/0yiOG1I.jpg). Another still, likes stuff like this (https://succupedia.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/cropped-tumblr_mu24tw1fg61rmg7i0o1_1280.jpg).

They're a great group.
EDIT: Bonus points of you can guess the sex of the loli vampire and the succubus appreciators. :smallamused:

I agree. There is a place for realism laced with selected unrealism, though, I'm sure you'd agree. Just because magic exists in a setting doesn't mean that the world has to be upside down and inside out and reverse polarity, with talking bunny rabbits and binary stars in the sky "because it's just fantasy". (Similar to my pet peeve of when people say "It's just a movie".) We can construct realistic worlds that happen to have a few fantastical elements. So, I can accept a magical land where women wear practical armour etc, just as I can accept that the setting can be so fantastical that women wear chainmail bikinis.

[Ashiel]

It has nothing to do with aesthetics, it's a matter of how women are depicted in fantasy, and the real world attitudes that depiction dovetails into.
Yeah, and I'm sure vidja gaems make people violent too. :smallamused:


People bring up realism because it brings up the logical question "why is this character dressed this way". If you can actually come up with a logical answer, like that as an inhuman fiend who's entire gig is seduction of course that succubus is going to go around half naked, it's fine. If your only answer is "because boobs", there's a problem, and it's a pandering problem.
What's the logical reason for Conan the Barbarian to dress like the cover of a women's romance novel dudebro?

I mean, the dude fights wizards and warriors in a pair of fur boots and some booty shorts.

Because some people like it that way. :smallcool:

[Vitruviansquid]

It's only "pandering" when other people get what they want.

When you get what you want, man, that's just good aesthetics.

[Mike_G]

Eh.

Art is subjective. It's what you like. Rubens painted a lot of classical figures from mythology running around nekkid in dangerous situations.

I think it comes down to what you want your art to represent.

I think chainmail bikinis are silly, but I think Conan in a jock strap is equally silly. Both characters are poorly dressed for a swordfight. I can handle poorly armored pirates, because they don't want to fall overboard in 40 pounds of steel, and they expect to face muskets and cannon where armor won't help anyway.

I'm not against showing skin in fantasy art, but I'd like it make sense. Scantily clad sorceresses or gold bikini Leia are narratively logical because a sorceress is protected by magic and a slave in a harem is...well...objectified on purpose.

If you like full plate with a bare midriff, well, that's what you like. But it does seem counter productive to put on all that armor and leave the vitals uncovered. Like the half naked barbarian fighting frost giants on a snowy mountain. It breaks my immersion in the fantasy.

My biggest peeve is the huge Anime weapons that look like they weigh fifty pounds and have a skinny little handle for a blade two feet wide. I think they look preposterous, but people like them.

I've gotten too old and tired to waste my time hating other people's favorite art. I like what I like, which runs to realistic armor, but that doesn't mean you have to like it.

[Ashiel]

I agree. There is a place for realism laced with selected unrealism, though, I'm sure you'd agree. Just because magic exists in a setting doesn't mean that the world has to be upside down and inside out and reverse polarity, with talking bunny rabbits and binary stars in the sky "because it's just fantasy". (Similar to my pet peeve of when people say "It's just a movie".) We can construct realistic worlds that happen to have a few fantastical elements. So, I can accept a magical land where women wear practical armour etc, just as I can accept that the setting can be so fantastical that women wear chainmail bikinis.
Exactly. That's the beauty of it. Hennet and Tordek both exist in the same setting. Everyone wins. Whether you're a burly mail covered rack of meat, or a lean dude with a well oiled chest and a bondage fetish. You do you. :smallamused:

So riddle me this Bat-people: what aesthetic am I defending? :smallconfused:
For bonus points, what sorts of art do you suspect I use for my characters? :smallsmile:

[Ashiel]

I think chainmail bikinis are silly, but I think Conan in a jock strap is equally silly. Both characters are poorly dressed for a swordfight. I can handle poorly armored pirates, because they don't want to fall overboard in 40 pounds of steel, and they expect to face muskets and cannon where armor won't help anyway.

Psst...I agree with everything you said, but armor totes works against muskets (you got me on the cannons though). :smallwink:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree about the aesthetics issue. In addition, the art is rarely intended as a literal depiction. It's in large part symbolic (like wings on angels). On a female warrior it depicts "I'm sexy and BA at the same time." Not all art is photorealistic. In fact, most art isn't. So complaining about realism is completely missing the point.

Note:I don't like the style because in many cases it borders on soft-core porn, just like the covers of romance novels or the swimsuit edition of SI. That's a personal moral thing.

Frankly, realism doesn't do much for me. I play games to escape reality, if but a bit. I prefer the fantastic, where I can have gnomes riding inside golems and people with improbable pauldrons. YMMV, but de gustibas and all that. Remember: "I don't like it" is not the same as "it's bad".

[Ashiel]

I agree about the aesthetics issue. In addition, the art is rarely intended as a literal depiction. It's in large part symbolic (like wings on angels). On a female warrior it depicts "I'm sexy and BA at the same time." Not all art is photorealistic. In fact, most art isn't. So complaining about realism is completely missing the point.

Note:I don't like the style because in many cases it borders on soft-core porn, just like the covers of romance novels or the swimsuit edition of SI. That's a personal moral thing.

Frankly, realism doesn't do much for me. I play games to escape reality, if but a bit. I prefer the fantastic, where I can have gnomes riding inside golems and people with improbable pauldrons. YMMV, but de gustibas and all that. Remember: "I don't like it" is not the same as "it's bad".
And as noted before, +1 respect to you, good Phoenix. I wish more people would be as honest and open-minded. :smallsmile:

[scalyfreak]

I think chainmail bikinis are silly, but I think Conan in a jock strap is equally silly. Both characters are poorly dressed for a swordfight. I can handle poorly armored pirates, because they don't want to fall overboard in 40 pounds of steel, and they expect to face muskets and cannon where armor won't help anyway.

The main reason Conan in a jockstrap is silly is that the freezing cold climate in his home land would have killed him before he had a chance to get into a real fight.

And when discussing pirates without armor, we should probably keep in mind that in the time period of Jack Sparrow and his piratical colleagues (late 1600s to mid-170s), members of various national navy forces around the world didn't really wear armor either. Fighting in regular clothing was kind of normal. Though naked would have been safer - bits of clothing getting stuck in a wound and infecting it was the leading cause of death for rapier fighters there for awhile.

[Vitruviansquid]

I think realism is cool. the Dar-emon Souls series has some of my favorite armor designs that cleave to realistic.

I think that unrealism is cool as well.

People just need to acknowledge that the appearance of realism is as much an aesthetic choice as departure from realism.

[Mike_G]

Psst...I agree with everything you said, but armor totes works against muskets (you got me on the cannons though). :smallwink:

I'll give you that. Good armor will work against muskets. But anything heavy enough to stop a musket ball would be hard to wear climbing the rigging or swinging on ropes or otherwise bucking one's swash.

[ImNotTrevor]

I think realism is cool. the Dar-emon Souls series has some of my favorite armor designs that cleave to realistic.

I think that unrealism is cool as well.

People just need to acknowledge that the appearance of realism is as much an aesthetic choice as departure from realism.

There is a significant amount of Dark Souls armor that is just flat unrealistic.

Havel the Rock's armor is not practical at all.
The Thorn Armor? Your first roll on a wooden surface would see you attached to that surface and stuck.

Understated fantasticalness is not the same as realism.

[Vitruviansquid]

There is a significant amount of Dark Souls armor that is just flat unrealistic.

Havel the Rock's armor is not practical at all.
The Thorn Armor? Your first roll on a wooden surface would see you attached to that surface and stuck.

Understated fantasticalness is not the same as realism.

Well, that's why I used the word "some"

[Deophaun]

It has nothing to do with aesthetics, it's a matter of how women are depicted in fantasy, and the real world attitudes that depiction dovetails into.
Man, what have people been feeding that bull? Thing needs to go on a diet.

People bring up realism because it brings up the logical question "why is this character dressed this way".
Because it looks cool/neat/sexy/stylish/like how the artist felt that day.

If you can actually come up with a logical answer, like that as an inhuman fiend who's entire gig is seduction of course that succubus is going to go around half naked, it's fine. If your only answer is "because boobs", there's a problem, and it's a pandering problem.
Why is it a problem? What is pandering? Is that like "giving customers what they want?" That's a problem, now? Is it pandering if you're the artist and you like that style? Are you allowed to draw what you like? Because that's what most artists and authors do: they draw or write what they like, and if other people like it, great. Is that also a problem?

The only problem is if you've paid for the artwork and the artist didn't give you what you agreed upon. THEN it's a problem. Do you have a bad experience hiring from Deviant Art where your heroine got F cups when you specified Bs?

[LordCdrMilitant]

My 2c on fantasy female armor: The debate is not about practicality, because we have a fairly good idea what "practical" looks like for armor. The question is "what impracticality should women's armor be allowed". There's the obvious double standard that the impracticalities allowed for women's armor tend to be different than those allowed for men, and that's the crux of the debate.


What I believe is important is that I am satisfied with the appearance of my own outfit. This applies to both men and women.

If I do, or don't, want to wear a shaped breastplate, that's my prerogative.

[2D8HP]

....You must really hate all those pictures with knights not wearing their helmets. :smallamused:



...It is fast to equip a helmet. You won't have it on all the time. But yes, someone with any significant armor should have a helmet somewhere.


If there's one thing that I've learned from Game of Thrones, it's that the important people don't wear helmets!


Important point -- if you're going to the expense and trouble of wearing around armor, why wear armor that's useless?




Indeed -- aesthetics be damned.


Well I have a question for you....

http://rushist.com/images/rome/gladiators-mosaic.jpg

....do you like gladiator movies?

[Dragonexx]

My 2c on fantasy female armor: The debate is not about practicality, because we have a fairly good idea what "practical" looks like for armor. The question is "what impracticality should women's armor be allowed". There's the obvious double standard that the impracticalities allowed for women's armor tend to be different than those allowed for men, and that's the crux of the debate.

The answer is: As much or as little as the author wants. If they want women to be fighting in nothing but pasties, while men fight in full plate, that's their prerogative. There's nothing wrong with that.

[Dragonexx]

If there's one thing that I've learned from Game of Thrones, it's that the important people don't wear helmets!

Seconded. Enthusiastically.

[Lord Raziere]

The answer is: As much or as little as the author wants. If they want women to be fighting in nothing but pasties, while men fight in full plate, that's their prerogative. There's nothing wrong with that.

A noble sentiment.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where you stop having consequences just because of a preference.

the whole debate is because of the whole "other people are going to see and learn things from it" argument, as well as "what you express in your art says something about you" deal.

Sure, its a thing that you CAN choose to do, your free to do that. But that won't stop people pointing to it as
a perpetuation of double standards and thus teaching people things they consider bad. Nor will it stop people from downrating you for using the ol' cliched T&A look.

Nor will it stop the fact that if people really want to look at naked bodies for sexy times, they'd just get some porn from the internet. Every detail you include in a work has to be important and serve a purpose, in setting or out of setting. The whole T&A look made more sense before the internet: you put something sexy on the cover, and well sex sells y'know? that and poor man's porn. Things you get to use for porn, when you couldn't get porn before there was internet.

But now, there is internet. the original purpose of the look is lost. Sure you can do that, but if I really want to look at an athletic woman's naked body, I can look up pics that discard the pasties altogether as well as any story that you write as an excuse for that look to exist. The looks purpose as "poor man's porn." is no longer needed. So yeah you can make that sort of thing but know that your essentially competing with thousands of works on deviantart that make the normal chainmail bikini look seem tame and normal by comparison.

meaning your either going to lose that competition right quick, or your going to have to reframe it as being nostalgic for an earlier era. a throwback. and while there is audience for that, its not going to be around forever. in turn it says something about you that your doing that: other people are going to have opinions on what this piece of art and story says about you, what your write, what you draw is a reflection upon you and what you value, and the people who value feminism and rights and what not, are going to see that negatively upon you whether you want that or not.

Sure you can technically do and say whatever you want like any medium, but like any medium of communication, there are expectations and standards. say something insulting in conversation, your breaking polite conversation and being a jerk. write or draw something people consider insulting in a book or a picture, and it will stay around for YEARS, and people will criticize that for as long as they remember it and think you much worse, because unlike normal conversation, art stays around, its a big vast indirect method of communication of ideas through story and characters. therefore what you communicate in that work requires much more thought, because once its out there- you can't do backsies. you fired that bullet that now its out there, hitting the targets and if you didn't aim right, your not going to like the communication-bullets people are going to aim back at you.

Therefore, there is a measure of responsibility for what you communicate through any medium. and you have no one to blame but yourself if your not clear about what your trying to get across and what you value.

[Donnadogsoth]

A noble sentiment.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where you stop having consequences just because of a preference.

the whole debate is because of the whole "other people are going to see and learn things from it" argument, as well as "what you express in your art says something about you" deal.

Sure, its a thing that you CAN choose to do, your free to do that. But that won't stop people pointing to it as
a perpetuation of double standards and thus teaching people things they consider bad. Nor will it stop people from downrating you for using the ol' cliched T&A look.

Nor will it stop the fact that if people really want to look at naked bodies for sexy times, they'd just get some porn from the internet. Every detail you include in a work has to be important and serve a purpose, in setting or out of setting. The whole T&A look made more sense before the internet: you put something sexy on the cover, and well sex sells y'know? that and poor man's porn. Things you get to use for porn, when you couldn't get porn before there was internet.

But now, there is internet. the original purpose of the look is lost. Sure you can do that, but if I really want to look at an athletic woman's naked body, I can look up pics that discard the pasties altogether as well as any story that you write as an excuse for that look to exist. The looks purpose as "poor man's porn." is no longer needed. So yeah you can make that sort of thing but know that your essentially competing with thousands of works on deviantart that make the normal chainmail bikini look seem tame and normal by comparison.

meaning your either going to lose that competition right quick, or your going to have to reframe it as being nostalgic for an earlier era. a throwback. and while there is audience for that, its not going to be around forever. in turn it says something about you that your doing that: other people are going to have opinions on what this piece of art and story says about you, what your write, what you draw is a reflection upon you and what you value, and the people who value feminism and rights and what not, are going to see that negatively upon you whether you want that or not.

Sure you can technically do and say whatever you want like any medium, but like any medium of communication, there are expectations and standards. say something insulting in conversation, your breaking polite conversation and being a jerk. write or draw something people consider insulting in a book or a picture, and it will stay around for YEARS, and people will criticize that for as long as they remember it and think you much worse, because unlike normal conversation, art stays around, its a big vast indirect method of communication of ideas through story and characters. therefore what you communicate in that work requires much more thought, because once its out there- you can't do backsies. you fired that bullet that now its out there, hitting the targets and if you didn't aim right, your not going to like the communication-bullets people are going to aim back at you.

Therefore, there is a measure of responsibility for what you communicate through any medium. and you have no one to blame but yourself if your not clear about what your trying to get across and what you value.

You're saying there's a time limit on the market for TRPG cheesecake? If the "feminism and rights and what not" are going to come down on cheesecake producers, won't they come down all the harder on actual porn, of which there is a borderline infinite supply?

[Mike_G]

The answer is: As much or as little as the author wants. If they want women to be fighting in nothing but pasties, while men fight in full plate, that's their prerogative. There's nothing wrong with that.

I think there's a little wrong with that.

Naked Conan and a naked sorceress fighting a naked giant: Silly, maybe a bit cheesy, but not offensive.

Full plate knight and female warrior in three sequins and a bootlace fighting tentacle beasts: Yeah...just a bit misogynistic. A little bit icky.

I'm not pro censorship. Not saying they can't depict art that way. I'm just saying it's kind of sexist

[Arbane]

If there's one thing that I've learned from Game of Thrones, it's that the important people don't wear helmets!



http://www.nerfnow.com/img/1040/1654.png (http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/1040)



The answer is: As much or as little as the author wants. If they want women to be fighting in nothing but pasties, while men fight in full plate, that's their prerogative. There's nothing wrong with that.

Actually, there kind of is, as it strongly implies that the absolute top priority, above coherence, logic, "realism", egalitarianism, or originality, is pandering to fanboys by showing off Teh Sexay, which generally doesn't imply high quality at anything else.

[Lord Raziere]

You're saying there's a time limit on the market for TRPG cheesecake? If the "feminism and rights and what not" are going to come down on cheesecake producers, won't they come down all the harder on actual porn, of which there is a borderline infinite supply?

You read that and somehow came to that conclusion? How? Your missing the point. :smallannoyed:

I'm not saying that at all, I'm just pointing out how things used to be and how things are now, and how people should be responsible with how they communicate. which is far more important than however you got to this. I'm honestly confused as to how you got there, because I don't really care for it. :smallconfused:

[Mike_G]

The answer is: As much or as little as the author wants. If they want women to be fighting in nothing but pasties, while men fight in full plate, that's their prerogative. There's nothing wrong with that.

I mean, that's basically this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiQq5FU-e3A):

[Vitruviansquid]

I think on the flip side, people should also be a bit more responsible about accusing artists of acting on sexism.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think on the flip side, people should also be a bit more responsible about accusing artists of acting on sexism.

I disagree. Responsibility is so dull. I think if you want to have sexism in your art, that's your right, but if consumers leave behind snarky comments, that is both their right and far more amusing.

[Vitruviansquid]

I disagree. Responsibility is so dull. I think if you want to have sexism in your art, that's your right, but if consumers leave behind snarky comments, that is both their right and far more amusing.

What if the art wasn't sexist to begin with, but you thought it was because you're one of the many people online who don't know a dang thing about art?

[LordCdrMilitant]

If there's one thing that I've learned from Game of Thrones, it's that the important people don't wear helmets!




If I were to put on a helmet then the enemy wouldn't know who it was who slew them!


Though, to be honest, I'm not a huge fan of helmets, or at least closed-face ones. That's for villains.

[Talakeal]

I can't speak for others, but for me there is an immeasurably vast gulf between appreciation for the beauty of the human form and pornography.

[Dragonexx]

http://www.nerfnow.com/img/1040/1654.png (http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/1040)




Actually, there kind of is, as it strongly implies that the absolute top priority, above coherence, logic, "realism", egalitarianism, or originality, is pandering to fanboys by showing off Teh Sexay, which generally doesn't imply high quality at anything else.

Where did I say that that was the highest priority? The highest priority is creating the work you want to create.

[Lord Raziere]

Where did I say that that was the highest priority? The highest priority is creating the work you want to create.

Which is still subject to scrutiny, standards, expectations, interpretation and replies like any other form of communication, which you ignore at your own peril. Unless your not sharing the work you make with anyone.

[Keltest]

Where did I say that that was the highest priority? The highest priority is creating the work you want to create.

The use of the word imply means that it was not directly stated, but rather inferred.

[Dragonexx]

Well, of course, but again, why should I care? If i want to fill my works with people attractive to me, then why shouldn't I?

[scalyfreak]

Though, to be honest, I'm not a huge fan of helmets, or at least closed-face ones. That's for villains.

And for heroes who don't need peripheral vision.

And Lord Raziere is saying that you can communicate however you want, verbally or through art, as long as you understand and own that the way the world around you perceives you and your message is entirely up to them. If your art leads them to think you are a misogynist, that could easily be your doing, because it's your art and your decisions that created it. And once they believe that about you, that begins to matter a lot more than whether you actually are a misogynist or not.

[Lord Raziere]

Well, of course, but again, why should I care? If i want to fill my works with people attractive to me, then why shouldn't I?

Why shouldn't you care? If thats all you value, you can do that, but then all people will see of you is that your a shallow person only concerned with looks and not the people underneath, nor of accurately portraying life which is not always about attractive people, nor of discussing issues and problems with people being attractive or unattractive or what effect this has on their mental status, or the culture, or how we can fix those problems, or anything.

Your doing the artistic book/picture equivalent of saying: "BOOOOOBS!" or "I like attractive people!" without actually contributing to the wider conversation in any constructive or worthwhile manner. Sure making a big book thats basically nothing but "Boobs" has its audience, but its not likely to be one has anything worth saying other than.... "I like boobs".

Like yes we know. People like these things.

Have anything else to say?

Anything else to add?

No?

Just going to stop there?

Ok.

I'm going to do find something more interesting to read, or actual porn then.

[scalyfreak]

Why shouldn't you care? If thats all you value, you can do that, but then all people will see of you is that your a shallow person only concerned with looks and not the people underneath, nor of accurately portraying life which is not always about attractive people, nor of discussing issues and problems with people being attractive or unattractive or what effect this has on their mental status, or the culture, or how we can fix those problems, or anything.

I think you and I posted at the same time (or you posted while I added my edit). Either way, I'm happy to see someone else get's it as well. :smallsmile:

[Honest Tiefling]

Well, of course, but again, why should I care? If i want to fill my works with people attractive to me, then why shouldn't I?

Why can't other people have that too? No armor for anyone! Whoohoo!

On a more serious note, I dislike it when the quality of non-fan service work suffers to shove boodies or pecs onto the screen. I like both as much as the next guy but if you are trying to convince me that's a competent warrior, maybe there should be more iron adorning her body then the iron content of her tits alone. If the plot, setting or characters start to get confusing or nonsensical for fan service, not my taste.

[Dragonexx]

Okay. Let's ask this. Why do people think having attractive characters is mutually exclusive to having an interesting plot, setting, personalities, or anything. Yes, i like boobs. But don't ever assume that that's all I or someone else like me enjoys in a work. Or that it has to be there at all for me to appreciate a work. It's not because I'd rather look at porn. It's that it's an added bonus that makes the work even more enjoyable.

EDIT: ninjaing makes direct replies kinda awkward.

[Arbane]

Where did I say that that was the highest priority? The highest priority is creating the work you want to create.

No, for professional artists, the highest priority is creating the work the customer will PAY FOR.

[Dragonexx]

No, for professional artists, the highest priority is creating the work the customer will PAY FOR.

You can still do what you want. People will pay for all sorts of things as deviantart, patreon, and other independant media shows. Doesn't mean you have to go for the widest appeal or lowers common denominator. Which leads into my original point, about this in relation to TTRPG.

The only people you have to satisfy are the people you play with.

[Vitruviansquid]

Why can't other people have that too? No armor for anyone! Whoohoo!

On a more serious note, I dislike it when the quality of non-fan service work suffers to shove boodies or pecs onto the screen. I like both as much as the next guy but if you are trying to convince me that's a competent warrior, maybe there should be more iron adorning her body then the iron content of her tits alone. If the plot, setting or characters start to get confusing or nonsensical for fan service, not my taste.

You want to be convinced that a character is a competent warrior by seeing her wear heavy armor?

This seems like a situation where you only have a hammer, so everything looks like a nail. Just because we are in a thread talking specifically about portrayals of armor, it seems reasonable that a competent warrior should wear competent warrior armor.

But then, you can also show that someone is a competent warrior by drawing them doing things competent warriors would do - like kill people without getting killed back. You can show that a character is a competent warrior by what happens in the narrative or with what the character says if our picture is accompanied by words. You can even show that a character is a competent warrior by subtleties like their facial expression in a certain situation.

Like, I don't need to see Conan in heavy armor to be sold that he is a competent warrior.

[Lord Raziere]

Okay. Let's ask this. Why do people think having attractive characters is mutually exclusive to having an interesting plot, setting, personalities, or anything. Yes, i like boobs. But don't ever assume that that's all I or someone else like me enjoys in a work. Or that it has to be there at all for me to appreciate a work. It's not because I'd rather look at porn. It's that it's an added bonus that makes the work even more enjoyable.

Technically, yes it is possible to have an interesting plot and character while having......interesting plots, if y'know what I mean. I like Kill La Kill, I'll admit.

In practice, a lot of companies don't put any effort into plot or characters and use the the sexiness as a replacement for interesting plots and characters and such. This is bad, because the work is trying to distract you from its flaws by flashing the characters boobs at you, while still trying to have a half-done plot that isn't as good as it should be.

This is unfortunately prevalent most in superhero comics, manga and anime. the boob cleavage window? the skintight superhero outfits? the fanservice? shower scenes? panty shots? so on? so forth? these are all used to pad things out or as thing to use instead of actual characterization or good writing. the chainmail bikini is just the medieval fantasy version of that. thats the nature of some works: they're not actually made for quality, but to sell, so they don't actually care for having good contents, just things that make you buy and read it, like boobs, appealing to your basest urges without giving you anything else for your money. and if your going to indulge your basest urges, you might as well save money and find a picture on deviantart that does it without wasting a few dollars.

So yes, your right, but the reality of the situation is that we live in a capitalist world full of companies working to sell products no matter what, exploiting the sexy times for their greedy ends. and unfortunately, sexy times is a more reliable money maker than interesting plots, settings and personalities according to them, therefore safer to include over anything else worth having for their purposes. Its not that your wrong, its that reality hasn't caught up to you yet: we're still trying to make sure the interesting plots, settings and personalities are the core of what we want, before we can start including boobs as a bonus without any of this nonsense see?

[Arbane]

"I really don't see what's objectionable about his posts tbqh. they are obviously tongue-in-cheek and fairly insightful besides; he takes lovely fantasy cheesecake tropes and turns them on their heads as a means of pointing out that the real problem isn't revealing clothing, it's the fact that many writers and consumers genuinely have trouble (or no interest in) identifying female fantasy characters as strong and nuanced individuals as opposed to collections of appealing traits. you can put a female fantasy character in the baddest-rear end historically accurate armour, make her scarred and homely, give her a shining sword and a legion of fanatically loyal soldiers, and all your average fantasy schlock consumer will see is an unsexy chick as opposed to a mighty general and peerless warrior.

even the most progressive and genuinely imposing depictions of joan of arc tend to portray her as a pretty waif with alabaster skin, because nobody would like them otherwise. it's really quite sad. " - Angry Diplomat, grognards.txt (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1342#post396477573)

[SaurOps]

You want to be convinced that a character is a competent warrior by seeing her wear heavy armor?

It suggests it much more strongly than wearing what amounts to intensely uncomfortable lingerie. Art is visual media and uses a visual language, after all.



This seems like a situation where you only have a hammer, so everything looks like a nail. Just because we are in a thread talking specifically about portrayals of armor, it seems reasonable that a competent warrior should wear competent warrior armor.

But then, you can also show that someone is a competent warrior by drawing them doing things competent warriors would do - like kill people without getting killed back. You can show that a character is a competent warrior by what happens in the narrative or with what the character says if our picture is accompanied by words. You can even show that a character is a competent warrior by subtleties like their facial expression in a certain situation.

These would all be undermined by bikini "armor" if they were included alongside it.



Like, I don't need to see Conan in heavy armor to be sold that he is a competent warrior.

Which Conan? Because novel Conan would wear armor - actual, functional armor - if he was expecting a fight. Not, you know, some kind of kinky bedroom number made out of metal. That just doesn't help, ever. Well, maybe if you were trying to seduce someone in private. Maybe.

[scalyfreak]

Which Conan? Because novel Conan would wear armor - actual, functional armor - if he was expecting a fight. Not, you know, some kind of kinky bedroom number made out of metal. That just doesn't help, ever. Well, maybe if you were trying to seduce someone in private. Maybe.

Comic book Conan was hit or miss in that department.

[Honest Tiefling]

You want to be convinced that a character is a competent warrior by seeing her wear heavy armor?

If it works, it works. If a character has a minimal introduction due to a medium such as film or a DnD cover, it could seriously work better when trying to wade into battle with the metallic version of the latest fashions from Fredrick's of Hollywood.


This seems like a situation where you only have a hammer, so everything looks like a nail. Just because we are in a thread talking specifically about portrayals of armor, it seems reasonable that a competent warrior should wear competent warrior armor.

Competant warrior armor is going to trend to the covering, not the revealing.


But then, you can also show that someone is a competent warrior by drawing them doing things competent warriors would do - like kill people without getting killed back. You can show that a character is a competent warrior by what happens in the narrative or with what the character says if our picture is accompanied by words. You can even show that a character is a competent warrior by subtleties like their facial expression in a certain situation.

If you show someone in a metal bikini slaughtering their foes, you're basically showing two contradictory images and expecting everyone to take it seriously because some people want to see tits. I like my characters to make sense, and a woman who is competent AND pretty is far more appealing then one who can't sneeze or her top might fly off. I want my stories to have SOME shread of logic in there. Also just my personal opinion that female characters are more appealing if they can be appealing without having to resort to blatant and nonsensical wardrobe choices. (Damn you, producers of Voyager and your infernal wardrobe choices for Seven of Nine!)


Like, I don't need to see Conan in heavy armor to be sold that he is a competent warrior.

It has been pointed out that even he wore armor sometimes. I'd also say that having Conan running around half-naked is equally silly. And I don't think you could have him be seen as a competent warrior just because he sneered at the camera.

[Donnadogsoth]

You read that and somehow came to that conclusion? How? Your missing the point. :smallannoyed:

I'm not saying that at all, I'm just pointing out how things used to be and how things are now, and how people should be responsible with how they communicate. which is far more important than however you got to this. I'm honestly confused as to how you got there, because I don't really care for it. :smallconfused:

I like cheesecake, and you seem to be ripping Dragonexx for liking it too and not "discussing issues and problems with people being attractive or unattractive or what effect this has on their mental status, or the culture, or how we can fix those problems, or anything" as if any of that is, or should be, relevant or mandatory to fantasy art. Like we've got an agenda here, some kind of agenda, hmm. Cheesecake doesn't need a reason to exist other than it's tasty. Killjoy feminist theory can go have its party somewhere else.

[Vitruviansquid]

Technically, yes it is possible to have an interesting plot and character while having......interesting plots, if y'know what I mean. I like Kill La Kill, I'll admit.

In practice, a lot of companies don't put any effort into plot or characters and use the the sexiness as a replacement for interesting plots and characters and such. This is bad, because the work is trying to distract you from its flaws by flashing the characters boobs at you, while still trying to have a half-done plot that isn't as good as it should be.

This is unfortunately prevalent most in superhero comics, manga and anime. the boob cleavage window? the skintight superhero outfits? the fanservice? shower scenes? panty shots? so on? so forth? these are all used to pad things out or as thing to use instead of actual characterization or good writing. the chainmail bikini is just the medieval fantasy version of that. thats the nature of some works: they're not actually made for quality, but to sell, so they don't actually care for having good contents, just things that make you buy and read it, like boobs, appealing to your basest urges without giving you anything else for your money. and if your going to indulge your basest urges, you might as well save money and find a picture on deviantart that does it without wasting a few dollars.

So yes, your right, but the reality of the situation is that we live in a capitalist world full of companies working to sell products no matter what, exploiting the sexy times for their greedy ends. and unfortunately, sexy times is a more reliable money maker than interesting plots, settings and personalities according to them, therefore safer to include over anything else worth having for their purposes. Its not that your wrong, its that reality hasn't caught up to you yet: we're still trying to make sure the interesting plots, settings and personalities are the core of what we want, before we can start including boobs as a bonus without any of this nonsense see?

It's like from the first line, I thought you already understand there's a difference between art with sexy aesthetics and art where the sexy aesthetics are used to hide bad everything else.

But then I read the rest of your post, and I have to wonder, do you?

Why be mad at what "most" comics, manga, and anime do? Most of everything is bad.
Those texts that are bad and try to hide it with sexiness won't become good if you got rid of the sexiness.
You already understand that there are exceptions where a comic, manga, or anime can both have sexiness and be good, so sexiness shouldn't signal bad quality to you.
Why talk about companies using sex for greedy ends? They wouldn't stop being greedy if the sexiness went away.

So I thought we were here to argue why the use of sexiness is bad for the text by itself, and I don't buy this last sentence that we need to have interesting plots, settings and personalities before we worry about boobs. Because *I* also care about good art. I care that the art is of high quality craftsmanship, that it expresses interesting or at least cool ideas. And if it takes boobs to do it, sure. And if it takes no boobs to do it, sure. And I am also confused as to why we need all these things BEFORE boobs, because this way of seeing makes me imagine you believe that there is some finite amount of competence that can go into a work, and if too much competence is allocated into boobs, everything else suffers. I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. I'm pretty sure that an artist or group of artists will simply make everything the best they can, given their limitations, and if that artist or group of artists tends to be interested in boobs, then their best work will include boobs.

[SaurOps]

I like cheesecake, and you seem to be ripping Dragonexx for liking it too and not "discussing issues and problems with people being attractive or unattractive or what effect this has on their mental status, or the culture, or how we can fix those problems, or anything" as if any of that is, or should be, relevant or mandatory to fantasy art. Like we've got an agenda here, some kind of agenda, hmm. Cheesecake doesn't need a reason to exist other than it's tasty. Killjoy feminist theory can go have its party somewhere else.

No, the takeaway here is don't mix pinups and porn with war. The former tend to feature far less blood, sepsis, and death, aka the real killjoys of funtime.

Edit: As a more demonstrative effort, consider the following - characters in video games should probably have more than one outfit and manner of dress. Say, armor (ample metal coverage over a gambeson), casual (court or civilian-ish clothing), and casual but warned (gambeson, possibly with lighter armor). Note that metal lingerie is not any of those, but if there's a scene where it makes diegetic sense, such as a couple meeting in a bedroom, then have another outfit or two for that, too.

[Donnadogsoth]

No, the takeaway here is don't mix pinups and porn with war. The former tend to feature far less blood, sepsis, and death, aka the real killjoys of funtime.

How much blood and sepsis are portrayed in a typical D&D battle?

Eros and thanatos are capital psychic forces. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they merge in gentle fantasy art.

EDIT: I can't speak for videogames. Not interested.

[scalyfreak]

It has been pointed out that even he wore armor sometimes. I'd also say that having Conan running around half-naked is equally silly. And I don't think you could have him be seen as a competent warrior just because he sneered at the camera.

I seriously doubt there is anything that movie could have done to make movie-Conan come across as a competent warrior... the novels and comic book did a pretty good job though. At least as I remember... I have, sadly, lost most of my copies.

[SaurOps]

How much blood and sepsis are portrayed in a typical D&D battle?

Have you seen the old Player's Option crit tables? Because they describe plenty of terrible injuries, which the art also depicts. Besides, the DMG has rules for lasting injury and infection, among other terribly un-sexy things. I guess, unless you're a necromancer or something...



Eros and thanatos are capital psychic forces. It shouldn't surprise anyone that they merge in gentle fantasy art.

Eros and thanatos are psychobabble. They also don't serve to explain why men are perpetually clad in full armor and looking like they're ready for a fight, while women are pouting, awkwardly posed, and in metal lingerie.



EDIT: I can't speak for videogames. Not interested.

I'm amazed that you thought that was the principle at work here - video games vs tabletop.

[Vitruviansquid]

Stuff from last post

I am looking through the Wayne Reynolds art from Pathfinder, and I'm not having trouble taking it seriously, even thought it is full of its fair share of impractical armor.

And I think this might be our difference of opinion, because you say the following:



If you show someone in a metal bikini slaughtering their foes, you're basically showing two contradictory images and expecting everyone to take it seriously because some people want to see tits. I like my characters to make sense, and a woman who is competent AND pretty is far more appealing then one who can't sneeze or her top might fly off. I want my stories to have SOME shread of logic in there. Also just my personal opinion that female characters are more appealing if they can be appealing without having to resort to blatant and nonsensical wardrobe choices. (Damn you, producers of Voyager and your infernal wardrobe choices for Seven of Nine!)

But to me, Wayne Reynolds is drawing seriously because his message to the audience is not "here is a realistic world," his message to his audience is "here is an awesome world you want to spend time in. It is full of cool, over-the-top personalities who do cool, over-the-top things in a cool world that can be over-the-top sometimes." If you're not okay with that because you need realism, okay, but I actually think it would be a fairly bad move to present Pathfinder, and by extension most D&D as perfectly realistic, because these games are about character-driven heroic fantasy.

As for which Conan I'm talking about, I'm talking about the hottest, bulge-havingest, nudest Conan you can find, because Arnold Schwarzennegger and Frank Frazetta have both sold me that Conan is a competent warrior while keeping him pretty underdressed.

side note: How come it is always the people who want characters in art to be covered up that keep bringing up snuff and gore?

[SaurOps]

I am looking through the Wayne Reynolds art from Pathfinder, and I'm not having trouble taking it seriously, even thought it is full of its fair share of impractical armor.

And I think this might be our difference of opinion, because you say the following:



But to me, Wayne Reynolds is drawing seriously because his message to the audience is not "here is a realistic world," his message to his audience is "here is an awesome world you want to spend time in. It is full of cool, over-the-top personalities who do cool, over-the-top things in a cool world that can be over-the-top sometimes." If you're not okay with that because you need realism, okay, but I actually think it would be a fairly bad move to present Pathfinder, and by extension most D&D as perfectly realistic, because these games are about character-driven heroic fantasy.

As for which Conan I'm talking about, I'm talking about the hottest, bulge-havingest, nudest Conan you can find, because Arnold Schwarzennegger and Frank Frazetta have both sold me that Conan is a competent warrior while keeping him pretty underdressed.

side note: How come it is always the people who want characters in art to be covered up that keep bringing up snuff and gore?

See, if it's hot, wearing minimal coverage could be justifiable, but you're still going to want a cloak to keep the sun off. Else, you'll get sunburned to Kalidnay and back.

[Talakeal]

Eros and thanatos are psychobabble. They also don't serve to explain why men are perpetually clad in full armor and looking like they're ready for a fight, while women are pouting, awkwardly posed, and in metal lingerie.

Haven't there already been enough examples in this thread to point out that this isn't the case?