D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Nifft]

So the secret of the stinky gamer reputation is a passion for historical accuracy?

Proposal: rename "gamers" to "Society for Creative Aromas".

Debating over which type of women are fit to be seen in public is not helping to dispell the sexist gamer image, people.

Hot ones. What's to debate?

To compare, this is Achilles, the tojan hero, as he was depicted for his "fans" back then...not meant as an actual war illustration.

See, that just illustrates the double standard. If you post a picture showing a woman with a penis, people make fun of you.

Feh, -- N

 

[GreatLemur]

*Strange*

I honestly think this picture

is less exploitative than this

I mean, the previous picture, at least she has full movement and nothing will fall out. Sure, she's showing skin but that's all she is showing. She can do flips, tumble and pretty much anything athletic in that outfit (looks like a slightly more risque lyrca sportwear for women)

The other one? Seriously, how the hell does she adventure? The first time she walks, we'll know if the curtains match the drapes. If she bends over, how the hell doesn't she fall out of that outfit?

Good points. I think the Pathfinder cover is easier to give a pass to because it's a damned nice piece of art, the character actually looks cool, and she pretty clearly ain't a melee type. The WotC piece (was that from Magic of Incarnum or something?) is easier to condemn because it simply looks like ass. Seriously, all socipolicital ramifications aside, that outfit is just Hennet levels of retarded.

You're getting too worked up over this whole thing like there is some sort of vast TSR/WotC conspiracy to objectify women. Which is clearly on it's face absurd. The fact that certain artists have chosen to portray women in a tacky manner in no way is a reflection of the opinions of the company.

Saying "This is dumb and they should do better" isn't even similar to accusations of conspiracy or deliberate objectification.

Why is it that every time this topic comes up, there's always this big backlash that says "Okay, maybe that art is lame, but you should stop complaining about it"? What in the Christ does this board exist for if not to complain about admittedly minor annoyances in RPGs? We'll all happily grind away on minutia about the crunch, fluff, and presentation of D&D, but whenever someone adresses this one specific issue, there's always this big "Oh, you're overreacting..." chorus.

 

[Rechan]

I have to disagree. If the skimpy leather/robe works for rogues and mages in Fantasy, then there is no reason why a fighter could not do withouth armor either - especially a swashbuckler/duelist.

Because in general, rogues and mages aren't standing right in front of things with sharp, pointy things?

And yes, a duelist could. A fighter trying to pull off Full Plate with pop-out cleavage, no.

 

[Wormwood]

We'll all happily grind away on minutia about the crunch, fluff, and presentation of D&D, but whenever someone adresses this one specific issue, there's always this big "Oh, you're overreacting..." chorus.

Because whenever this subject comes up, some wit invariably decides to characterize cheesecake art as appealing to "smelly, socially-retarded perverts".

That rarely happens when discussing Two-Weapon Fighting.

 

[Rechan]

Also, Greatlemur, that pic's in Dragonmarked.

 

[DonTadow]

Don, I've asked you to not post in this thread again. I'd appreciate it if you'd comply with that request.

 

[Clavis]

Sigh.

The last time I checked, even in fantasy, fire burns, water's wet, and gravity still works. I could be just as hyperbolic as you and say "Since that's not FANTASTIC, let's throw it out." Anti-gravity for the win!

No matter how "Fantasy" you go, if you're a fighter and you walk out on the battlefield with naked thighs, a bare stomach and chest, you are going to die. We can skip the lecture on Medieval disease and talk about blatantly obvious things like getting stabbed in the stomach.

The problem is, in most fantasy games, fire doesn't burn the way it does in the Real World, water isn't wet the way is is in the Real World, and even gravity doesn't work the way it does in the Real World. If they did, survivors of a Fireball would be hideously scarred for life (if they survived the deadly vacuum left in the spell's wake). Adventurers would have to dry out all their equipment (much of which would be ruined) after every dip in the inevitable magic pool. (Of course, most spaces underground would actually be filled with water). If gravity worked the same way as in Real Life, Giants with human-like proportions would be impossible.

Under those conditions, whose to say that opponents don't just "forget" to aim at a character's unprotected belly?

The funny thing is, I run Low-Fantasy games, where woman wear realistic armor and PCs have to dodge the contents of emptied chamber pots if they walk city streets in the morning. But If people want to run High-Fantasy games with chainmail bikinis and hot elven sorceresses, and want art that reflects that style of play, fine. I maintain that its not the sexy art, but the sexist gamers, that are the problem with attracting more women to D&D.

Incidentally, many Celts used to fight NAKED as a shock tactic.

 

[Rechan]

Because whenever this subject comes out, some wit invariably decides to characterize cheesecake art as appealing to "smelly, socially-retarded perverts".

Which is just as much of a gross hyperbolic generalization as "Overreacting Puritans wanting to put burkhas on all the womenfolk".

That rarely happens when discussing Two-Weapon Fighting.

You listened to anyone discussing Bo9S lately? Generally there's condemnation of "Kewl anime fanboys" and "ruining D&D with WoW kiddies".

Not to mention TWF usually leads to Drizzt.

 

[Wormwood]

Which is just as much of a gross generalizational hyperbol as "Overreacting Puritans wanting to put burkhas on all the womenfolk".

Point taken. Perhaps this subject brings out the worst in both sides because it is a fairly political one, and easily personalized to boot.

You listened to anyone discussing Bo9S lately? Generally there's condemnation of "Kewl anime fanboys" and "ruining D&D with WoW kiddies".

Chainmail Bikini threads are political. Edition Wars are religious.

 

[Rechan]

Under those conditions, whose to say that opponents don't just "forget" to aim at a character's unprotected belly?

That's just ludicrous. The rules assume that every person who's attacking is aiming for every vital area. This is why we don't have called shots in 3e. This is why we have Attacks of Opportunity - because you're leaving yourself open.

If you can leave yourself open and get attacked for it, it flabbergasts me you'd actually say "Well they just FORGET to stab your stomach."

Yes, I understand there's a degree of suspension of disbelief. But I don't consider "The dragon can fly" and "If I jump off the roof and flap my arms, I can fly too" in the same boat.

The funny thing is, I run Low-Fantasy games, where woman wear realistic armor and PCs have to dodge the contents of emptied chamber pots if they walk city streets in the morning. But If people want to run High-Fantasy games with chainmail bikinis and hot elven sorceresses, and want art that reflects that style of play, fine. I maintain that its not the sexy art, but the sexist gamers, that are the problem with attracting more women to D&D.

And people's style of play could be cyberpunk with magic, meaning magical items implanted in their face, and losing their soul due to over-saturation of magic, and tricked out with all kinds of grafts. But the majority of D&D art doesn't support that style. So why should high fantasy naked elf babes in metal bondage qualifying as armor count?

Incidentally, many Celts used to fight NAKED as a shock tactic.

Indeed they did. But then, they wouldn't be wearing an armor bonus for armor then.