D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't like that cover, but this little tagname is just priggish and sexist poppycock.

"Gee, she has cleavage... SHE'S A WHORE!"

Go back to the farm Jebediah.

Er, you first, Bobby-Joe McLovessexistart. The artist, WAR, is male. He's the one who has forced the poor girl into the outfit. It is not the character's empowered decision to dress in a bizarre and suicidal manner. Dressing to die is a long and retarded tradition when horny male artists decide to draw females, and it's funny how their male characters never seem to make the same idiot armour-related decisions.

Let me be ultra-clear:

The top shows off her boobs and allow easy strikes from above, particularly by thrusting weapons and arrows - this really defeats much of the purpose of a breastplate, and oh guess what, it kind of looks like a corset?

Her leg armour is only thigh-high, and inexplicably, she's not wearing an armour-skirt to cover one of the most vulnerable and potential fatal locations on the body, the femoral arteries. Indeed, the "armour", a term I only use because my lawyer advises me to, looks to me like it would tend to send blows TOWARDS that area. Jeez!

As GreatLemur says, it's titillation (of male players) over common sense. Do you think my wife or my friend's GF is going to go "Oh I should play a fighter!" if she sees that, or is she going to think "Oh great, sexist idiocy", because I can tell you it won't be the former.

I will defend the term Hookerplate to the end, because it's not an attack on women, on the contrary, it's a term I use to mock the worthless "armour" some male artists (some of whom, like WAR, should know better) insist on squeezing their female characters into.

It's quite possible to be sexy in full plate. It's even possible to show a bit of skin in full plate, and for it to not look retarded (e.g. one of the Artesia comic covers). It's just that in this case, and SO MANY others, it does. Artesia = attractive woman in plate. PHB cover = hookerplate.

Hell, I came up with the term because my wife once said she wished that one of the plate sets in WoW didn't make her look like an armoured hooker

I found this to be true.

My wife is an on/off gamer. For the most recent campaign, I am doing all of the character design work for her PC. The reason: she could care less about the rules. She just wants to socialize with the group and have her PC kick the snot out of bad guys.

What's funny is, in my group, that describes one of the male players far better than my wife, who frickin' loves rules and optimizing her character to the maximum possible degree. Not true for us. So, YMWV.

 

[Moonshade]

This... is from an FR novel, not an actual romance novel or one those dodgy looking perv novels they sell to men in business suits in train station bookshops? Thats... wow. I'm just glad I don't read FR novels any more. They weren't ALWAYS like that were they?

Greenwood created a setting I've enjoyed a great deal and, according to all the reports I've read, is very gracious and helpful when dealing with Realms fans, but unfortunately his novels only offer entertainment on the "Wait, what?!" level. There's some good enough pulp fantasy in the FR novel line but Greenwood's books, while not always as bad as the Silverfall excerpts, are not ones I'd recommend.

About the PHB cover: I think it would be much better if it featured the other 4E WAR pic of the green dragon facing the adventurers. Teamwork and danger! It would also avoid making a variant of one of the most derided RPG cliches (chainmail bikini) part of the first image potential buyers will see.

 

[wgreen]

I use Klingon. Green, lumpy, violent, ridiculously designed exotic slashing weapon -- it's a Klingon.

Yep. It's also why I kill the non-Lawful requirement for barbarians in 3e. Klingons are totally Lawful barbarians. IMHO.

Any fule kno that Orcs talk with a lower-class Southern English accent and as if through a mouth full of "teesh" and a throat full of gravel.

I've never seen this in person, but it seems familiar. I can see how it could work.

-Will

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I've never seen this in person, but it seems familiar. I can see how it could work.

It seems familiar because I was as I was delighted to see at the time, that's how the Orcs talk in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies, the Orc-orcs at least, and some of the Uruk-Hai.

I'd heard people doing "Orc voices" like that around WHFB tables and in AD&D sessions for years.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

Though the name could certainly use a tune-up, that's really not what is being said, and I think it is ingenuous to suggest otherwise.

If you genuinely don't realize what is being alluded to, then I apologise, and will explain as best I can. The scantily clad woman woman in question is supposed to be wearing protective plate-mail, but it isn't actually protecting several very import vital locations (those already being discussed in a previous post). It is particularly noxious because it is the front cover of the core rulebook for the most widely played role-playing game, and so paints an unflattering perception of women by that social group. However, even if it were crammed in the back somewhere, it would still be a problem. Armour should protect. This is just a plate-mail wonderbra.

I do understand the argument that her armor isn't realistic, but neither is the very existence of the creature standing behind her; the one shooting a bolt of lightning from its hand.

Look, this game accepts that a completely unarmored monk can use her "sixth sense" and mystical leveling-skillz to get the equivalent of plate armor... or better. So lets not get too picayune about what is realistic in D&D.

The real underlying issue here is eternal battle of those that are bothered by skimpy clothing on males/females and those that aren't.

I am a firm moderate here.

I like scantily clad i.e. this and this just as much as I like armor i.e. this and this.

Therefore I get irked at this comment:

It is particularly noxious because it is the front cover of the core rulebook for the most widely played role-playing game, and so paints an unflattering perception of women by that social group.

Noxious? Unflattering?

Wrong.

That is your subjective opinion and has little basis in fact.

Both my girlfriend and several of her girlfriends flip through my fantasy art and rule books all the time, and they enjoy the artwork. In fact, there's more positive buzz over the "scantily-clad" pics than the armored ones.

It's a dumb outfit. Object to the fact that Ruin Explorer pointed it out in a colorful and entertaining manner if you need to, but his point is completely solid. Old W.A.R. clearly went for titillation over common sense, there, and it stands out enough to be obnoxious. Chick's face is pretty much hilarious, too.

Titillation IS common sense when marketing to teen boys as your PRIMARY demographic.

Obnoxious? Once again, subjective opinion.


My problem with the cover is the ridiculous tiefling, a cheap twinky race (and poorly drawn too). Where the hell are the elf or dwarf? They are FAR more iconic.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Go back to the farm Jebediah.

Please don't be rude to other posters.

Thanks

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I do understand the argument that her armor isn't realistic, but neither is the very existence of the creature standing behind her; the one shooting a bolt of lightning from its hand.

Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater eh? Magic works in D&D. Monsters exist. We get that. It doesnt mean everything is automatically gonzo wahoo crazytime. Physics *generally* operate as they do in our world. Water flows downhill, and armor plates designed to deflect blows INTO unarmored areas will do so as well.

Or maybe the armor is made from whatever magic operates on shields of missile attraction, and all blows are automatically drawn into the metal bits. Yeah... thats the ticket!

 

[Lord Zardoz]

In my line of work, I work with a number of artists. I specifically asked a few about why there are never any pictures of women who could be described as ugly CHUD like people.

The basic response was that artists often have to spend hours looking at what they draw. Not many would want to spend 50 plus hours looking at a hideous female.

More generally, artists usually appreciate beauty, and I think its safe to assume they like to create it in their art. I suspect that there really are not that many talented artists who would be interested in doing work that basically involved creating artwork that people in general would, by definition, not really want to spend a great deal of time looking at.

Personally, I would love to see a picture of say, a female spell caster with choppy, oily hair, broken teeth, severe acne, a bushy unibrow, and a collection of massive scars. But do you think you will be able to find anyone wanting to draw it?

END COMMUNICATION

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

Er, you first, Bobby-Joe McLovessexistart.

The artist, WAR, is male. He's the one who has forced the poor girl into the outfit. It is not the character's empowered decision to dress in a bizarre and suicidal manner.

Uh.... you do realize this "poor girl" is merely a non-living collection of coordinated color, and that as such, any "empowered decision" is quite irrelevant?

It seems almost creepy that you are campaigning for the rights... of a picture.

As GreatLemur says, it's titillation (of male players) over common sense.

Wow, a sexist generalization of males. How deep.

And common sense is fine, if that is what YOU wish to surround yourself in. I however like a little of both.

I will defend the term Hookerplate to the end, because it's not an attack on women, on the contrary, it's a term I use to mock the worthless "armour" some male artists (some of whom, like WAR, should know better) insist on squeezing their female characters into.

Fine. I wil continue to pour derision on the assertion that a woman in skimpy armor is a whore; it is prudish & sexist.

Artesia = attractive woman in plate.

Yup, I was actually looking for her picture to use in my previous post.

 

[Cadfan]

Titillation IS common sense when marketing to teen boys as your PRIMARY demographic.

I sort of agree with this from a cold, hard, marketing perspective. But how far are you going to take this?

Anyways, I have extremely negative personal opinions of the sorts of people who get all hot and bothered over artwork of women in D&D. I wouldn't mind throwing the lot of them under a bus in order to make the game less repulsive to (currently) non gamer women who might play if the game wasn't marketed as some kind of boy's club that girls are only welcome in if they accept our rules about a woman's proper role in the gaming world.

I mean, honestly, if I have to hear one more time about "this one gamer chick I know who totally doesn't mind chainmail bikinis, in fact, she players characters who wears them and one time she wanted to roleplay sex!" I swear I'll snap.

Also, please avoid writing this

Titillation IS common sense when marketing to teen boys as your PRIMARY demographic.

and this

Quote:
As GreatLemur says, it's titillation (of male players) over common sense.

Wow, a sexist generalization of males. How deep.

so close together.