D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Rechan]

Find me a chainmail bikini in a WotC book, and then you've got a point.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/Dragonmarked_Gallery/101366.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/EPIC_Gallery/Gallery1/44161_C1_shadowdancer.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ca_gallery/85434.jpg
http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.p...nd/images/completechampion_gallery/104775.jpg
http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.p...wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75100.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75089.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75405.jpg

 

[Cadfan]

Hey. Hey! This is the internet here! You can't expect us to accept that as evidence??

Look. The first image is clearly a silk bikini. Image 2 appears to be leather. Image 3 is a LOINCLOTH. Image four is fur, five appears to be some kind of plate (and its a one-piece not a bikini), and image 6 is cloth again.

 

[Gloombunny]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/Dragonmarked_Gallery/101366.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/EPIC_Gallery/Gallery1/44161_C1_shadowdancer.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ca_gallery/85434.jpg
http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.p...nd/images/completechampion_gallery/104775.jpg
http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.p...wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75100.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75089.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75405.jpg

Thank you.

Though the sixth pic doesn't bother me. It's not lingerie masquerading as armor; it's just skimpy clothes. I don't mind that sort of thing as long as it's not the standard way to depict women.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/Dragonmarked_Gallery/101366.jpg

Not armour.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/EPIC_Gallery/Gallery1/44161_C1_shadowdancer.jpg

Questionable. It's light armour, covers her thoracic area, but leaves the legs uncovered. Of course, she's also a rogue, so armour is a liability.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ca_gallery/85434.jpg

That's a pretty solid one, as long as that isn't a wizard or sorcerer, in which case that's not armour.

http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.p...nd/images/completechampion_gallery/104775.jpg

Not armour. Heck, she's just sitting there eating her lunch. For all we know, she's going to put on a suit of full plate in five minutes. Or are you suggesting that because her legs are bare that there's something wrong with the picture?

http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.p...wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75100.jpg

The armour covers her chest and vitals again. Legs are bare, but that might have something to do with the fact that it's hard to buy off-the-rack leg armour when you have chicken legs. Also, it makes sense to be more forgiving of fiends who wear piecemeal armour since their natural armour bonus makes up for the lack of total coverage, which is not the case in humanoids.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75089.jpg

Not armour.

http://wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75405.jpg

Not armour.

Now, since the premise of the chainmail bikini is that it's stupid to wear armour that doesn't actually protect you, pictures that depict women wearing something skimpy that is not making a pretense of being designed for battle don't count. So if it's not meant to be armour, then the criticism that it's poorly designed for protection, and therefore is there only to titillate, cannot be made. You link a few things that are simply skimpy costumes. They all seem to represent character types that often make a show of fighting in little or no armour, so it's not out of character. We've already been over the "so women aren't allowed to show any skin?" section of the thread, so it's pretty safe to discard them out of hand.

Anyway, you managed to link one possibly solid example, one questionable example, and a slightly questionable one. I take it that's the worst that WotC has to offer. Now, for context, go link all the pictures of women in WotC books that aren't wearing anything questionable. I expect that will take you a few days, since there are quite a lot more. Fortunately, some have already been posted, which reduces the number you'll need to do yourself.

 

[Jhulae]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/Dragonmarked_Gallery/101366.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/EPIC_Gallery/Gallery1/44161_C1_shadowdancer.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ca_gallery/85434.jpg
http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.p...nd/images/completechampion_gallery/104775.jpg
http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.p...wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75100.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75089.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75405.jpg

Actually, only the third is closest to a 'chainmail bikini'.

Most of the others seem to be characters that wear no armor, light armor, or may be relaxing (except for the 5th which is more like 'Breastplate' medium armor).

I'm a woman and none of those pictures offend me nor would they get me to stop playing D&D or any other RPG.

I've played characters who've dressed similar to some of those pictures. I've played characters who've worn more armor than a tank. I've played characters who've dressed in *less* than any of those pictures. It all depends on the concept I have when I make them.

 

[SteveC]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/Dragonmarked_Gallery/101366.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/EPIC_Gallery/Gallery1/44161_C1_shadowdancer.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ca_gallery/85434.jpg
http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.p...nd/images/completechampion_gallery/104775.jpg
http://forums.gleemax.com/leaving.p...wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75100.jpg
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/boed_gallery/75089.jpg
http://wizards.com/dnd/images/cw_ag/75405.jpg

Even though this may make me seem to be a pr0n obsessed sub-creature to some, none of these pictures were offensive to me at all. More to the point, I showed them to my real-live girlfriend, and she laughed at the notion that she should be protected from this sort of thing.

Now she's not a gamer, but this is an indication of why I think I'm a lucky guy: she looked at the pictures and asked if the game was detailed enough that the exposed midriff would give some sort of in-game penalty, meaning can a bad guy actually stab me there? I said no, and her response was that she'd love to play a character like these, because she'd be tough as nails and also hawt! She particularly liked the dervish picture, to which I responded that she was a secret power gamer.

In case you're wondering, she's also an educated, professional woman.

So is this sort of thing anecdotal? Heck yes! But I have consulted one more woman about the perspective of women on those pictures than almost anyone else here has done. Again, note that I've said "almost" here as the comments by folks with wives and significant others have been duly noted and logged.

--Steve

 

[SteveC]

For crying out loud.

I don't know why this is so tough.

[SNIP!]

This has nothing to do with calling women prudes. It has to do with pointing out the silliness of a one dimensional, contextually blind understanding of sexuality in entertainment.

So I'm guessing the answer to both of my questions is "no?" You haven't read any of the historical/fantasy romances and you have no experience marketing products to women?

Let me take a slightly different tact, because I frankly don't know how far apart we are on this issue. Do you really think that the pictures from WotC's site on this page are offensive to women and don't belong in the game? If so, then I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

I will agree that there is a very definite line that can be crossed with gaming products: the Avalanche covers are a good example, because they are likely to make parents go "ick," and are actually traced pictures of actual pornography, which again is likely to make a lot of folks go "ick."

My biggest argument is that this obsession with making gaming safe for women by taking the beauty out of the artwork doesn't do anything. I'd say that this is misguided at best, and prudish at worst.

Look, I think that everyone here is genuinely trying to be helpful and to make the game more successful: I just think that making radical changes to the art style isn't going to do anything positive, and may actually hurt things.

What would help? Making gaming more friendly to women by, to be frank, cleaning up our own act as men and gamers. You know the stereotypes about dress and looks for gamers, and while they're not universally true by any means, there's enough to them to keep a lot of women away.

Once again, just my $.02.

--Steve

 

[Gloombunny]

Wow. There really is no point in discussing this, I guess.

 

[Jhulae]

Wow. There really is no point in discussing this, I guess.

Probably not. Art is very subjective.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/EPIC_Gallery/Gallery1/44161_C1_shadowdancer.jpg

I like this one.

The rest of them left me unimpressed. They're not bad, they're just meh. (This has nothing to do with how much or how little they're wearing -- just a general comment on the art.) IMO. YMMV. Et cetera.