D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Geron Raveneye]

The main problem with RPG artwork is that, in contrast to comic book series, where you can show off the main characters in skimpy clothing easily in "Swimsuit Issues" and the like, it's a lot harder to do something like that with RPGs.

Okay, for RPGs they usually are called artbooks.

And yes, at some point the typical loincloth-wearing barbarian knee-deep in snow that Gloombunny described is too much for my SoD, too.

But I think there's a big range of artwork for fantasy RPGs, and I think that while it overemphasizes "good looks" (in whatever flavour), that's because the creators want the players to BE those characters. I've seen a LOT of ugly character illustrations for NPCs in the last 20 years. But I think one thing holds true for a mojority of gamers...a character shouldn't look ugly. Interesting...yeah. Cool...of course! Attractive...sure. Ugly...I don't think so. Even a missing eye, scars all over, tusks, whatever...but not "ugly".

I don't think I'm generalizing too much when I say that a majority of gamers couldn't strike a pose and look like Conan, Aragorn, Red Sonja, or any other number of fictional heroes...and most of us wouldn't WANT that in the first place, since there is only that much looking like a fool monkey a person can endure. I know I couldn't, and I'm the fittest of my whole group.

In placing illustrations like the ones we frequently see, I'm pretty sure RPG creators and artists aren't trying to give us eye candy...they are trying to give us some escapism chance. I can't look musclebound and powerful to the last stygian mercenary like Conan if I don't spend plenty time with bodybuilding in the real world...but in D&D, I can! I can't look like River, kicking ass in skin-tight clothing while looking burning hot in real life (in my case, not without a sex-op for starters anyway) without a LOT of training, bodyshaping AND stretchable clothes (made by Reed Richards ), but in D&D, I CAN!

Stop viewing those illustrations as eye candy, and see them as enticements, and it might be a bit clearer why they still grace the pages of D&D. And hey, just because there's lots of people who, after 20 years of getting comfy with how they look (or never being uncomfy in the first place) use sensible armor and clothes...for each of those there's a nerd guy who LOVES to play Raagnar the snow-stomping swimming trunks barbarian or a geek girl who prefers the slim, skimpy-clothed elven enchantress Lillandru. Or two.

After all, D&D is trying to sell us our fantasies. And if anybody here tells me he/she NEVER had a fantasy about looking kick-ass while being damn powerful and/or dangerous...I'll simply not believe it. So there.

IMHO, of course. If your mileage varies, it's because I use the metric system.

 

[Gloombunny]

In placing illustrations like the ones we frequently see, I'm pretty sure RPG creators and artists aren't trying to give us eye candy...they are trying to give us some escapism chance.

Of course it's escapism. For male readers who want to be mighty warriors hanging out with hot naked chicks.

That, and it's also eye candy.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

Yes. It takes away the artist's conception.

It is the picture as it was originally inteded by the artist. Your question is illogical as it presuposes that the left one existed first.

... So?

I was challenging the question's integrity through use of fallacious logic... and this is your response? Okay.

It's WAR's picture; he conceived it and painted it. Altering it and trying to sell your revisionism as "better" is a slap in the face of artist creativity. It's not your vision to sell.

It's funny; all this banter about how wrong the armor is, when that shield is just as useless.

1) How is the shield useless?

You didn't notice that enormous wedge missing from it? That baneful cleavage must've been too much a distraction.

That shield not only offers weak protection through an easily bypassed opening, but it makes the whole thing structurally unsound.

But of course people aren't really arguing about the realism of the armor anyway; it's merely window-dressing to argue puritanical attitudes towards the subtext of female sexuality.

2) Um, apparently you havn't been paying attention to the argument. No one has said "No skin at all". You would be right it would be "Puritanical"* if the argument was no skin.

I am using puritanical in the sense of strict in moral matters; rigidly austere. By austere I mean severe in manner or appearance; uncompromising; strict; forbidding.

Victorian works as well... 6 of one thing; half-dozen of another. It still equals prude.

 

[Aloïsius]

You didn't notice that enormous wedge missing from it? That baneful cleavage must've been too much a distraction.

That shield not only offers weak protection through an easily bypassed opening, but it makes the whole thing structurally unsound.

I have seen this kind of "pincer" shield used in LARP games. They are a pain for the attacker, because it allow the defender to block the weapon. And while your weapon is stuck in this damned shield, the wielder of the shield can easily cut you in pieces.
That's the way it works, at least with latex/foam weapons.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Of course it's escapism. For male readers who want to be mighty warriors hanging out with hot naked chicks.

That, and it's also eye candy.

Way to go...you neatly cut this one sentence completely out of context, and pinned a one-sided opinion on it.

Or are you trying to tell me female players are not in it for the escapism, the fun of playing the powerful/seductive/ruthless/(insert own favorite cliché) sorceress who's got a group of hunks hanging around her? Because in my book, the numbers are not that different between male and female players of that kind. If you're an exception, cookies for you, but don't go and generalize one-sided.

Trade you one cliché for another.

And by the way...just because it is eye candy at the same time doesn't mean it's MEANT to be so in its primary function. That's a slant the looker (in this case, you) puts on it.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

So when my wife told me that she thinks the armour on that PHB cover looked "silly" and was "obviously drawn by a man", she was a poor, innocent victim of "puritanical attitudes towards female sexuality".

Ahhhh... now we've veered away from labeling it exploitive to silly. Shifting subject that...

As for silly, of course it is. The whole freaking idea behind the game is a bit silly: A bunch of people sitting around a table pretending they're elvin wizards and dwarven warriors slaying imaginary dragons for non-existent treasure. It's fun as hell, but I can't take my hobby too serious.

I mean just think about a monk... Ember cruises around dungeons wearing little more than cloth, but we pretend that her "sixth sense" and some ninja skillz can give her the equivalent protection of platemail armor.

We are clearly suspending reality here.

So if somebody draws (or picks) a picture of their character showing some leg, with a low cut top, why should I go all reality-police on them?

What's a lot more likely is, aging men and young nerds who enjoy seeing women in sexualized clothing are upset when, god forbid, the women wear sensible clothing/armour, and anyone supports their right to wear sensible clothing/armour, rather than being dressed entirely for male benefit.

Ha. Puuleaze. This is just silly ranting generalizations.

I support acurate clothing/armor. I also support fantasy clothing/armor. You see... from my point of view, it's just a game.

BTW, is anyone actually campaigning (seriously) to forbid women from wearing "sensible" gear?

Well boo-hoo for you 1970s rejects. I'm sorry that you think Boris Vajello is the peak of awesome, and that not many other people do, but the world has changed since then, and women are expected to be as capable and sensible as men.

Eeeeeww. Boris stuff sucks.

Yup, women are just as capable thus no sex-based modifers. Sensibility is the purview of the individual, not some self-appointed prude-patrol.

If you don't wanna wear cleavage-flashing armor... then don't. But you hardly have the authority to tell my girlfriend that she can't draw her character with a bare midriff.

The reason people aren't talking about the shield is obvious. It'd be stupid regardless of gender. If you think that's an excellent excuse to promote sexism, you are well and truly out of touch with reality.

You should really avoid broad assumptions about me; you are woefully unskilled at it.

If you truely think that it is my goal to promote sexism or that my shield example was meant to be all-encompassing, then you are seriously lost in the astral plane.

 

[Klaus]

Here's a question

What should a female barbarian look like?

And to keep with the self-pimping, there's the lady on the left (next to the female dwarf paladin):

 

[Seeten]

This thread is retarded. Sorry to say.

Also I apologize to the mods in advance.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You mean like men and pr0n mags? I'd be the first to admit I give rational thought a miss from time to time where breasts are concerned. Though it's happening less often as I get older.

The difference there is that while women don't enjoy being told that they're fat and ugly, men do, in fact enjoy boobies. So it's not a contradiction.

 

[Rel]

This thread is retarded. Sorry to say.

Also I apologize to the mods in advance.

As a rule of thumb, if you feel the need to apologize for your posts in advance, you probably shouldn't post it in the first place. The apology doesn't make it better. It underscores your understanding that you are consciously threadcrapping. See you Wednesday, Seeten.