General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Gamers Online Now: 1,138
189 members and 949 guests
Most users ever online was 4,029, 8th April 2009 at 05:04 PM.
This product is 56 pages long and free. Cover, credits, intro and ToC take up 4 pages. I counted 17 pages of adds many of them for other Rite... [Read More]
Evocative City Sites Lorn's Entrepot (Abandoned Warehouse) by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. This product is 47 pages long. Cover, Credits, two pages of... [Read More]
Feats 101 by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. I have not yet played using these feats my review is based on reading the feats and checking a few against... [Read More]
The Plane Below: Secrets of the Elemental Chaos is a 4e D&D product describing some of the different planes in the 4e Cosmology. The book is a typical hard bound book that Wizards of the Coast... [Read More]
Good lord. It this Dragonboob nonsense still going on? I thought we got this out of our systems before the game even came out.
*sigh* For the record, evolution don't enter into it. In most D&D worlds the races look the way they look because thats how it amused the gods to create them.
Besides, the real question is: Do dragonborn males have two penises like real world reptiles?
__________________ -Andor
"Congratulations. You just invented 'negligent regicide.'" - Schlock Mercenary
Yeah, there's nothing quite as sad as poorly cobbled rationalizations to try and justify what is nothing more than anthropomorphism and shoddy art work.
As noted, monotremes don't come with teats, and creatures whose young can walk within hours and thus don't need to be carried about for years at a time by nursing mothers don't have their mammary glands 4+ feet off the ground.
But furries with cow-udders on their stomachs don't sell as well as furries with human-style "boobs." They'd be even far less marketable-looking with the application of the very biology they try to use to excuse "putting jugs on them," than if they just gave up on trying to stick breasts on every female in the PHB. Would it have been so hard to just pay extra attention to the faces, eyes, and maybe attach some differentiating "plumage" type effects? I mean, they gave them a hair-substitute already.
(I am using links from TV Tropes because I believe roleplaying games are all about the narrative experience, much more than about the simulationist consistency)
__________________ "I am King of the Romans and above the rules of grammar!" - Sigismund, Roman Emperor and my new hero
"Craft and profession skills are a tax on people who believe characterization and back-story are important." - Obryn
"Another thing to keep in mind is that the typical D&D party is to medieval armies what the A-team is to modern police." - Eamon
"I realize falling isn't specifically a push, pull, or slide, but I'd heavily argue that gravity is forced movement." - Old Gumphrey
My only problem is the arrogance of WotC's designers to admit that they made a mistake. They should have just said "Yeah... that artwork is wrong. They don't have boobs." and be done with it. Instead, they just have to appear to know what they're doing and write some contrived bullcrap to justify their nonsensical decision in the first place.
The whole thing stinks of "That's not a bug, that's a feature" syndrome, wherein you never want to look like you didn't think things through and fouled up, but look as though you intended it from the start, usually with some lame explanation to go along with it.
__________________
LONG LIVE 4E
Known as ObiWayneKenobi (formerly WayneTheGame) on the Wizards forums.
This is the internet, not kindergarten. If you can't deal with what people say, get off the playground.
If you have a problem with a poster, you can put them on ignore, report the post, or (preferably) discuss the issue. What you can't do is make snide and insulting comments to them. We expect folks to behave like adults, and that means not picking a fight just because you don't like someone's posting style. There are better solutions.
Please drop me an email if there are any questions about this.
__________________ - Piratecat, EN World Admin
Check out the membership drive and War of the Burning Sky adventure path. Support EN Publishing, get excellent modules!
I see your scientifical impossibility and raise you with Bellisario's Maxim, the Rule of Cool, and the recommendation that you should just relax and enjoy.
Though for my mileage, I don't give much of a rat fart about dragonbewbs (though I do think they're frickin' hilarious).
I don't like the fact that they're dragonBORING, though (see my wit! oh-ho-ho-ho!). Urbis's take on them as Zionists without a homeland is interesting...
What is silly to me is that folks are defending and rationalizing dragonboobs:
"Don't think to hard about fantasy."
"Their monotremes so they can have boobs."
"Dragons aren't reptiles so therefore dragonborn can have boobs."
...and on and on and on.
Its all nonsense on its face. Dragons are obviously reptilian in nature, they aren't monotremes, they do not have boobs. I don't need RAW to tell me that dragons are magical, reptilian monsters and the whole "well the RAW doesn't call them reptiles so therefore there is a rationale for dragonboobs" makes no sense because dragons, the creatures most related to dragonborn do not have breasts.
The only reptilian races in D&D with breasts are crossbreed races such as half-dragons and yuan-ti crossbreeds. No purely reptilian race in D&D or any fantasy game, movie, literature I am aware of has breasts unless it is partly mammal. There are no known humanoid monotremes in D&D.
The artists who draw dragonborn with breasts are doing so likely because the art direction told them to do so. Art direction told them to do so so that 10-13yr olds would face the crippling intellectual dilemma "Well I want to play a female dragonborn, but how will anyone know she's female!!!"
The answer...add breasts.
Yeah its dumb, yeah its lazy and yes it demonstrates that WoTC, on some level, believes that D&D players are unsophisticated nimrods who can't even conceive of differentiating an anthropomorphic reptilian species in any way other than by adding breasts to the females.
Other more sophisticated option (that anyone who ever read about reptiles or watched TLC could understand):
1.) The genders have different coloration. The males can be more colorful and the females more drab. This is common in nature.
2.) One of the genders has a crest, or both have different crests. They can attract mates by flaring their crests or to show agression.
3.) Different physiology such as males having thicker tales shorter necks and females having longer necks and thinner tales or vice versa (I know they don't have tails but they should).
...There are potentially countless options that are no only more interesting but that do not require rationalizations or intellectual gymnastics in order to justify the existance of the abberation that is breasts on a non-part mammalian creature. Dragonboobs are pandering, creatively lazy and a sad little act of handwaving that presumes a lack of sophistication on the part of the D&D audience.
When I was 12 and started playing D&D, I was a savvy enough tween to know that creatures that looked like lizardfolk (ie. all humanoid reptilian races) don't look right with breasts.
Wyrmshadows
__________________ "... I seek not death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaunted halls of Valhalla. I do not know, nor do I care. Let me live while I live, let me know the riches of red meat and stinging wine on the palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content." - Conan
Therin lies much of the issue with dragonboobs. People look at them and think "Oh come on, that's just LAZY."
Look, I think you're just not seeing the bigger picture, here. Echnidnafolk and Platypeople are just around the corner. It's all part of a bold new strategic direction for D&D. Just wait, you'll be clamouring for "The Complete Marsupials Handbook" just like everyone else.
What is silly to me is that folks are defending and rationalizing dragonboobs:
"Don't think to hard about fantasy."
"Their monotremes so they can have boobs."
"Dragons aren't reptiles so therefore dragonborn can have boobs."
...and on and on and on.
Its all nonsense on its face. Dragons are obviously reptilian in nature, they aren't monotremes, they do not have boobs. I don't need RAW to tell me that dragons are magical, reptilian monsters and the whole "well the RAW doesn't call them reptiles so therefore there is a rationale for dragonboobs" makes no sense because dragons, the creatures most related to dragonborn do not have breasts.
No, they aren't. Dragons are not reptiles in any way, shape or form. Reptiles do not have six limbs. Reptiles are not warm blooded. No reptile flies. The only reptilian thing about dragons is scales. Guess what? CHICKEN'S have scales.
You might be able to call dragons saurial, but, not really.
Quote:
The only reptilian races in D&D with breasts are crossbreed races such as half-dragons and yuan-ti crossbreeds. No purely reptilian race in D&D or any fantasy game, movie, literature I am aware of has breasts unless it is partly mammal. There are no known humanoid monotremes in D&D.
"No known humanoid monotremes"? This is false. Dragonborn are. But, in any case, WHO CARES?
Quote:
The artists who draw dragonborn with breasts are doing so likely because the art direction told them to do so. Art direction told them to do so so that 10-13yr olds would face the crippling intellectual dilemma "Well I want to play a female dragonborn, but how will anyone know she's female!!!"
The answer...add breasts.
Yeah its dumb, yeah its lazy and yes it demonstrates that WoTC, on some level, believes that D&D players are unsophisticated nimrods who can't even conceive of differentiating an anthropomorphic reptilian species in any way other than by adding breasts to the females.
Wow, way to say that anyone who likes the artwork is an unsophisticated nimrod. Good luck with that.
Quote:
Other more sophisticated option (that anyone who ever read about reptiles or watched TLC could understand):
1.) The genders have different coloration. The males can be more colorful and the females more drab. This is common in nature.
Oh boy, we can make half the artwork ugly. That's better than giving them breasts.
Quote:
2.) One of the genders has a crest, or both have different crests. They can attract mates by flaring their crests or to show agression.
Wow, let's REALLY appeal to the geeks out there. "Hey, is that a male or female dragonborn?" "Well, the crest is exactly 15 centimeters long, so it must be female."
Quote:
3.) Different physiology such as males having thicker tales shorter necks and females having longer necks and thinner tales or vice versa (I know they don't have tails but they should).
Or, give them different physiology, like, boobs.
Quote:
...There are potentially countless options that are no only more interesting but that do not require rationalizations or intellectual gymnastics in order to justify the existance of the abberation that is breasts on a non-part mammalian creature. Dragonboobs are pandering, creatively lazy and a sad little act of handwaving that presumes a lack of sophistication on the part of the D&D audience.
When I was 12 and started playing D&D, I was a savvy enough tween to know that creatures that looked like lizardfolk (ie. all humanoid reptilian races) don't look right with breasts.
Wyrmshadows
Good for you. Unfortunately, for you anyway, there's a pretty large number of people out there for whom this is completely a non-issue and have no problems with separating their amateur biologist impulses from gaming.
__________________ Best line from current campaign:
The pirates assembled on your deck are wearing an assortment of fishnet stockings, high heels and fashionable earrings. They brandish dim and dented cutlasses.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
No, they aren't. Dragons are not reptiles in any way, shape or form. Reptiles do not have six limbs. Reptiles are not warm blooded. No reptile flies. The only reptilian thing about dragons is scales. Guess what? CHICKEN'S have scales.
OMG, what a can of worms WOTC has opened here. Kenzer doesn't need to parody D&D with Hackmaster anymore, these days it's DIY.
Flying reptiles = pteranodon, pterodactyl? Or are they dinosaur proto-birds?
Monotremes don't breathe fire, btw...but they could!
"Durned firebreathing platypus in the lettuces again, ma! Git mae wand o' magic missils!"
Of course, since you ignored the warm blooded, SIX LIMBED parts, and simply picked one little piece out, I shouldn't expect more.
Then again, my experience with scaly folk was Assaathi from Scarred Lands, and they had bewbs and no one cared.
__________________ Best line from current campaign:
The pirates assembled on your deck are wearing an assortment of fishnet stockings, high heels and fashionable earrings. They brandish dim and dented cutlasses.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Of course, since you ignored the warm blooded, SIX LIMBED parts, and simply picked one little piece out, I shouldn't expect more.
Does this mean wyverns can be reptiles? Two wings, two legs. Oh right, the flying thing...
You know, nowhere in the core rules is it stated that wyverns aren't fungi. I think we need more taxonomy in the MM. I mean, the one thing you could say about the Phantom Fungus is that you knew where you stood with it with regard to what Kingdom it was from. Being invisible is quite clearly a thing that reptiles can't do, either, so clearly it's a fungus.
Last edited by rounser; 13th July 2008 at 10:08 AM..
I'm not claiming anything. Burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that dragons are reptiles. Prove it. Other than they both have scales, what makes dragons reptiles.
Heck, fish have scales. I guess dragons are fish.
What we need a whole lot less of is amateur biologists trying to apply real world taxonomy to fantasy.
__________________ Best line from current campaign:
The pirates assembled on your deck are wearing an assortment of fishnet stockings, high heels and fashionable earrings. They brandish dim and dented cutlasses.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
I'm not claiming anything. Burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that dragons are reptiles. Prove it. Other than they both have scales, what makes dragons reptiles.
Nothing. Clearly they're monotremes. Obviously.
Quote:
Heck, fish have scales. I guess dragons are fish.
There is a monster called the dragonfish, yeah? I wonder what taxonomical adventures await you there.
Quote:
What we need a whole lot less of is amateur biologists trying to apply real world taxonomy to fantasy.
Gamers Online Now: 1,138
Linear Mode
