D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Moon-Lancer]

just so everyone is clear, The core of my argument whether or not nudes or cleavage is a appropriate for fantasy rpgs in general. I'm not so much concerned with the practicality of some armors over others at the moment. Sometimes the practicality of armor is important, and sometimes its not or not an issue.

 

[DandD]

But isn't that really the whole point of this thread? That instead of wearing armour that makes sense, most of the drawn women wear metal pieces only covering their nipples, which is primarily meant for men/boys to "lust" over?

 

[Moon-Lancer]

But isn't that really the whole point of this thread? That instead of wearing armour that makes sense, most of the drawn women wear metal pieces only covering their nipples, which is primarily meant for men/boys to "lust" over?

its a muddy subject. In that some posts seem be talking about both simultaneously. Im just making it clear what part I have advertence to.

I understand its important to have visual art that can be used as avatars for characters, but I also feel that d&d as the core fantasy rpg should not forget its roots. We get many threads about d&d becomes something they don't like with 4e but many people don't seem to have an opinion or be against sexuality in d&d. Artworks of Conan, and many others of the 70s and 80s are the life blood of d&d, and I am a bit disappointed with some of the artwork of d&d 3.5 partly because of its advertentce to riskay subject matter that is quite common with swords and sorcery and other fantasy genera.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I understand its important to have visual art that can be used as avatars for characters, but I also feel that d&d as the core fantasy rpg should not forget its roots. We get many threads about d&d becomes something they don't like with 4e but many people don't seem to have an opinion or be against sexuality in d&d. Artworks of Conan, and many others of the 70s and 80s are the life blood of d&d, and I am a bit disappointed with some of the artwork of d&d 3.5 partly because of its advertentce to riskay subject matter that is quite common with swords and sorcery and other fantasy genera.

Uh, for a lot of us, who were only born in the very late 70s, or 80s, or even 90s, well, 70s and 80s "Conan"-type artworks, Boris Vajello etc. are entirely meaningless.

For you, it might be the "lifeblood of D&D", for me? God no. I got into AD&D in 1988 and I loathed that kind of stuff and found it embarassing as a child/teenager, and even as an adult, whilst I can appreciate it more, I don't remotely think of it as important or meaningful to D&D in any way.

I mean, I love Moebius with all my heart and soul, but that doesn't mean Metal Hurlant or Heavy Metal are what I see as "D&D", any more than 1960s/70s Album covers, or panel van paintings or what have you. That's all rockin' and stuff, but it's not "D&D", it's 1970s/80s fantasy, and this, here, is 2007. D&D need to stay with the times, not be all "sexaaaay '70s" (cue chika-chika-bow-wow music). Even if D&D were going for a "sexy" look that was contemporary, I expect you'd dislike it, because it'd be dramatically at variance with the 1970s/80s look (i.e. no gleaming oiled musclemen, chained women, gossamer robes, wierd little perv-goblins etc.).

Anyway, the 2000s are a little prudish, or perhaps just private about sex, to be honest. The 1970s were dramatically less so, so it's hardly surprising that the contemporary look of D&D doesn't incorporate much "Vajello-esque" stuff.

 

[Nifft]

But isn't that really the whole point of this thread? That instead of wearing armour that makes sense, most of the drawn women wear metal pieces only covering their nipples, which is primarily meant for men/boys to "lust" over?

That's only relevant if you can show that men's outfits somehow "make sense".

I think we can safely say that some do, and some do not.
Compare against the hottest halfling to hit the handbooks:

Yeah...

Cheers, -- N

 

[Irda Ranger]

For different reasons, I think Skin Showing is on par with Armor Spikes. Just slapping armor spikes on any suit of armor (or shoulder pad, arm bracer), or revealing skin on any breastplate just comes off as looking stupid - it's impractical (those armor spikes are going to hurt when you need to stop, drop and roll when on fire, or are going to catch on something as you're crawling through that tunnel).

On a non-4e thread another poster made the point that spike-armor is very practical, in D&D-world. You don't see spikes often in the real world because a spike acts like a guide, leading what would be a glancing blow of a slashing or blunt weapon into a direct hit. Their disadvantageous in that way, and provide no great benefit.

However, in D&D world you are often fighting monsters with natural attacks (claw, bite, wing slap, etc.) and constrict or grapple attacks. Depending on the type of campaign you're in, you may be fighting such creatures far more often than you fight armed opponents with steel weapons. When fighting a constrictor or natural attacker, spiked armor suddently because a huge asset, because the creature cannot grapple you without tearing itself to ribbons as well (at least, that's how I've always played - I can't recall if that's the RAW).

Not really germain to this discussion, but food for thought ....

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

While I doubt it will ever happen, it would be interesting to see which way the market would jump, given the choice between the exact same RPG book with two different covers: one in the practical and realistic approach, and one in the pulpy "Conan/half-naked hotties" tradition.

 

[Rechan]

None of the characters "showing skin" are wearing any armour at all.

That's exactly what I'm saying: those without armor can Afford to show off skin. Those with armor can't afford to expose vulnerable areas.

Now, I am ignoring one thing: leather armor. Because I'm not sure exactly how leather armor is supposed to work. What constitutes leather armor? A leather jacket and chaps? Hardened leather? What? I don't know what leather armor looks like, and really what function it has at all. So I'm ignoring Leather Armor as "Don't wear this while exposing skin".

 

[Masquerade]

IMHO, practical, realistic armor is boring to draw and boring to look at. I dislike "chainmail bikini"-type drawings not because the armor designs are unrealistic, but because they're simplistic, because I don't find them "sexy," and because, to quote Aus_Snow, "I would like to be able to take any RPG book I own or plan to buy, hand it to a non-roleplaying family member or friend, and expect that they will either be simply disinterested, or possibly appreciative of the style(s). Not collapsing with laughter at the tragic artwork, put off by the rampant immaturity (or apparent 11-13yo male demographic targeting)." Let's not confuse the issue--I love impractical, over-the-top character/clothing/armor designs, but I can't stand the type of designs that are being discussed by many of the posters in this thread.

And, on another note...

Uh, for a lot of us [..] 70s and 80s "Conan"-type artworks, Boris Vajello etc. are entirely meaningless.

QFT

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While I doubt it will ever happen, it would be interesting to see which way the market would jump, given the choice between the exact same RPG book with two different covers: one in the practical and realistic approach, and one in the pulpy "Conan/half-naked hotties" tradition.

For real fun, you'd make it with four different covers:

Cover one - "Realistic" 2E-style, with sensible, "historically accurate" (hah) armour and weapons, and everyone looking very sensible and prepared, non-action poses.

Cover two - Dungeonpunk bondage armour, more scrollcases, wands and extra daggers than you can shake a portable hole at, and characters in "action" poses.

Cover three - "Shrieking anime" characters and style. No-one looks a day over sixteen, eyes are big, mouths small, swords giant, etc.

Cover four - Conan and his babes. Maybe Conan's on a throne looking sternly at us, or maybe he's fighting some monster and the babes are hiding behind him, or posing seductively, or fighting him in skimpy armour, or something.