Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8037117" data-attributes="member: 18">It's not just that though, even the pieces owned by kings and the like (which I've seen in armouries including the Tower) from the 1400s and later drops significantly in terms of ornamentation, and it tends to be more scrollwork and the odd symbol rather than representational work.Most D&D settings don't even have the farmland or transport infrastructure (esp. safe roads) necessary to support the populations or trade systems they say exist for half the places so that's probably slightly beside the point. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yeah and that's the thing - an awful lot of D&D art of "full plate" is pretty clearly derived from 1400s plate looks. Since 3E there's been an increasing amount of "pure fantasy" plate as well of course, which is often ludicrously embellished with incredibly heavy-looking, dangerous and easy-to-damage elements.I think it's fine here so long as it's not "men were sensible armour, women wear boob plates". If both genders have ludicrously embellished armour with stuff like muscle plate (presumably created by fantasy techniques/materials/wizards/etc.), then it can actually contribute to an aesthetic. (Unfortunately dubious approach is precisely what happened with some MMORPGs particularly - same armour looks sensible and has no gaps on men, but like it was some kind of skimpy fetish gear on women - an artist had to go out of their way to draw an entirely different texture for multiple pieces to do that, too.)</blockquote>

Verification