Armor designs for females?

[Max_Killjoy]

And you find this fun?

What, the war? Fun would be the wrong word for it, I think.

But I also don't think "fun" is the most applicable metric in all cases.

[Ashiel]

What, the war? Fun would be the wrong word for it, I think.

But I also don't think "fun" is the most applicable metric in all cases.

I might be showing my age but fun has always been a good metric for games played with friends for entertainment, to me.

[Donnadogsoth]

What, the war? Fun would be the wrong word for it, I think.

But I also don't think "fun" is the most applicable metric in all cases.

Do you find violent entertainment fun?

[Lord Raziere]

Do you find violent entertainment fun?

YES! BLOOD FOR THE LEEROY WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!!!!!!

*grabs a choppa made to be ekstra rippy and charges like a lunatic*

I also find sexiness fun. I also find swashbuckling fun. I also find wuxia fun, and warhammer 40,000, Dragon Ball Z, and pokemon as well as shows like Avatar the Last Airbender, Steven Universe and games like Undertale, I can enjoy the mindless fun of fighting games and beat em ups, I can enjoy the strategical elements of Stellaris and Age of Empires, I like Watchmen but that doesn't stop me from liking the idealistic stories where the hero saves the day and everything lives happily ever after. I enjoy soft sci-fi like Doctor Who, but doesn't stop me from appreciating hard sci-fi like Eclipse Phase. I love being a Khornate Berserker, but that doesn't stop me from being Slaaneshi when I want to.

I can have fun with mindless abandon of all logic and sense embrace the craziness of things like impractical armor, even more impractical weapons and crazy superpowers because why not? but I can also think things through, make sense of things, and construct something awesome from a good set of rules and sensible assumptions to create something that has weight to it, that has and authentic down to earth feeling that you don't get from embracing the craziness, and much of the time I like combining the down to earthiness with the craziness to get the comedy inherent in combining the two.

Because I'm a multi-faceted individual of imagination and passion! I enjoy many things and am beyond simple labels. I can be as nonsensically abandoning of all practicality and devotion to historical realism, but that doesn't mean I cast the knowledge and the use of such realism aside entirely, for it is there for a reason it is there and can be useful when the need arises. These are all tools, and sometimes you get so much more mileage out of doing more with less than doing the less with more.

I guess there might someday be a use for a scantily clad heroine- I am planning on making a succubus spy who betrayed hell to become an agent of heaven at some point- but there is also a use for the practically dressed heroine who like any sane person, carries around a round shield and a sword for self-defense in her travels, because that was the go-to self defense weaponry in the historical medieval ages when you weren't expecting a big battle. I can play both, I can have them meet and discuss this entire thing in character and make it funny, and so on.

but as with all things, it needs proper execution. if your going to do something, do it right. if the story calls for something to be sensible down to earth, I make it so. if the story calls for something completely out there and fun and insane, I also do that. Why constrain myself only to making everyone scantily clad for the sake of fun, when I can make and do so much more?

[ImNotTrevor]

And that about nailed it.

People can like many things. Insisting they not like a thing because you don't like it is being a turdburglar.

[1337 b4k4]

Woa this thread took on a heck of a life since the last time I checked in. Not going to get to much, but wanted to hit highlights. First though, can I ask that we stop equating sexy in fantasy art to softcore porn? While I am in agreement that some of it can get very close, the intentions of the two forms of media are completely separate from each other. No one now, or in the past was buying D&D books to get their jollies off. Not saying the occasional horny teen didn't give in to the siren's lure of boobs on a book cover from time to time, but even in the dark ages before the internet, there were bigger and better venues for the young and dumb to find their smut than the scribblings of Gary Gygax and Co.

Have to wonder how many people arguing for Red Sonya would be upset if Conan got replaced with a more conventionally attractive male lead however...

If they replaced Conan for the same reason people are arguing to replace the sexy fantasy women, I absolutely would be. Someone suggesting that we should remove Conan because his armor is unrealistic, or that teenage boys will be made uncomfortable by the presence of sexy men, or that somehow Conan is sending a terrible message to young men around the world would be met with the same arguments from me about keeping the art.

OTOH, you want to replace Conan because you have a more awesome picture than "scowling steroid abuser #357" great, just like I have no problem if you want to replace "suggestively posed sorceress with teasing clothing lines #872" for a more badass go for it. But replace it because the other picture is more awesome, and more badass, or just because it better fits the aesthetic you're going for in the artwork. But replacing it because exposed skin and sex might corrupt or make uncomfortable or send bad messages to the youth strikes me as the 80's "satanic panic" dressed in different clothes but with the same message.

Fun anecdotes.

...

I've seen women quit the game. Never because of boobs. Always because some jerk made the game unfun for everyone. Incidentally, that's the same reason I've seen men quit the game too. Go figure.

Again, this pretty much echoes my own experiences with the game. Our most over sexed and over sexualized women characters were always played by the women players. The few women characters I saw men play were almost always reserved and "modest".

Anyways one of my things about stripperriffic armor in art is that it makes me feel a lot less welcome and safe in the community. When supposedly heroic women are depicted with a focus on sexual attributes and none on practical armor while their male equivalents are depicted in outfits that either are power fantasies or cool looking but non-revealing armors, well it leads me to the conclusion that the women are valued for their sexual attributes while men are valued for what they actually do. This is not a comforting thought. Maybe its possible that the guys at the table won't treat a flesh and blood woman that way but I have no evidence that such is the case and a lot of art suggesting that they won't think of me as a whole person. And maybe this won't lead to violence. Maybe it won't lead to uncomfortable rape jokes or attempts at groping. But gods be damned if it doesn't make me that much more wary. That much less enthused. That much more defensive.

Who knows maybe its a good and accurate warning system that should be preserved?

I truly am sorry that this seems to be your experience with TTRPGs. I consider myself fortunate that I've never encountered games where none (or even half) of the women were depicted as anything other than sex objects, while the men were all power objects. And even more fortunate that I've never been in a situation where I had to question the basic human decency of the people around me based on their possible reactions to the artwork present in the rule books for the game we've sat down to play. All of that said, I would suggest that if sitting down to play a TTRPG with a group finds you defensive and afraid of violence or sexual assault due to the artwork, might I suggest that the issue is less the artwork (and indeed changing it wouldn't solve anything) and more that we've allowed the standards of behavior in our community to devolve to that of a super-max prison. Because the reality is, you should be able to sit down at a table littered with playboy mags and never have to questions once in your head whether the men at that table are going to be inappropriate with you and more than I would fear the same of women sitting down at a table littered with playgirl. If the men you're playing with are predators, that's the problem that needs to be addressed first.

This is why I really don't like art where the men are all fully armored up and the women are mostly naked. It feels like women need to be naked to be interesting.

and

The "sexy = empowerment" argument makes less sense when all the female characters in the game (depending on the game, this may mean 'all three of them' in a cast of 20 characters) is wearing some kind of stripperiffic armor, one of them uses sexiness as a 'distraction technique', another one is a really shy and child-like 18 year old girl with little agency plot-wise or otherwise, and the last one appears for all of 5 seconds to be on the recieving end of a sex joke before disappearing forever more.

Could someone please point me to some examples of games where this is true? I fully admit that my experiences tend towards pre-2e D&D, 4e D&D and later and games like Traveller and GURPS and Dungeon World, so I could be missing swaths of terrible gaming artwork depictions from say White Wolf, but I sincerely can't recall games where this is the case. I'm aware of some of the 3pp d20 crap that went out during the d20 glut, but most of that as I recall was rightly panned. And if we don't have specific examples, can we please stop using this concept of "all powerful men and all sex object women" games, because it does nothing to help the conversation and frankly hurts our industry by treating it as something it isn't.

The implication here is that (young) men's tastes in TRPG fantasy art alienate women from TRPGs. My question is, what would the reverse situation look like?--supposing the TRPG participant world were dominated by (young) women, would their tastes in fantasy art alienate young men?

By extension, if fantasy cheesecake alienates women by indicating a sort of hostile or unfriendly or just icky environment on the part of the men participants, what would the reverse situation look like where [art women like that is {something analogous to what women dislike in fantasy cheesecake}] indicates an analogously hostile, unfriendly, or icky environment on the part of the women participants? Has any man here been repelled by an all-girl group?

There have probably been men repelled from "girl targeted" games or sessions (I'm thinking something like a My Little Pony TTRPG), but honestly I'd expect to find that was mostly a highschool age thing, and certainly the whole "Brony" phenomenon suggests that even things that are heavily women-oriented are not necessarily going to drive all (or even most) men away. I would guess that the closest you could get to fantasy artwork that makes men as a whole uncomfortable and feels hostile to them, it might be lots of pretty-boy / androgyny with yaoi overtones. And even then, I think most of the discomfort would be less about how the artwork treats the men in question so much as the discomfort heterosexual men might feel with the homosexual nature and even that is changing rapidly, to the point where it might only drive heterosexual men away if it required them to be homosexual in the game (much as I would expect a game that required you to act heterosexual to drive away homosexual players).

In fact to be completely honest (and not to get into a completely different topic of depictions of characters) short of actually strongly anti-male art (literally women decapitating or torturing men, for all of the art in the entire game, and even then it may just be an objection to the gore itself not the target), I doubt there's many artistic ways you could depict a man that would make men feel uncomfortable. As a whole we're pretty used to seeing men used as everything from sex symbols to faceless monsters to be killed, to bumbling idiots and fat slobs. It would take a lot to phase me or most of the men I know.

Or rather, they don't appear to have a line at all.

You would be hard pressed to be more condescending to every person who disagrees with you than you are right now.

When was the "Epoch of the Chainmail bikini"?

Yes, this is basically my question from above. I think we've done a bit of disservice to this discussion though lumping everything from midriff baring armor to "boob windows" to neglige armor to chainmail underwear into the same bucket.

I think we have a bit of disconnect or comparing different things here.

As I see it, there a re a few useful categories that will help keep us on the same page.

1. Practical armor. Includes plate, mail, heavy leather or gambeson. Stuff that is designed and intended to protect you from weapons in combat. Generally covers at least the important bits, was often heavy or tiring or uncomfortable, so was usually not worn to dinner, the tavern, out shopping, on the march unless you really really expected to fight. Nobody thinks this is silly, but it might not be "attractive," and often a helmet hinders artistic intent to show the character.

2. Practical clothing. Stuff that would be easy to get around/do your job in, but would protect you from the sun, the cold, thorns, brush, etc, depending on what exactly you are doing. Less protective than armor, but a lot easier to move, climb, swim, etc in.

This would include the outfits of Aragorn or Legolas or Lidda the rogue or Jack Sparrow.

3. Impractical Clothing. Clothing that would interfere with travel or doing your job. It might look sexy or fancy, but it's the kind of thing you wear to be seen in, not to do manual labor in. Generally no or inadequate protection from elements, incidental hazards like thornbushes, and definitely no protection from arrows.

This is the sexy sorceress outfit or the over the top ceremonial garb that would get in the way if you fought in it. It can work for court situations where you want to look good and don't expect to dig any ditches or dodge any arrows. It also works for mages who don't want to wear heavy armor and can be assumed to use magic for protection from cold, heat and stabby devices. Some people consider it silly, but it's easy to explain silly.

4. Impractical armor. Stuff that clearly intends to be armor. Usually made of metal and leather. But it has huge areas of unprotected skin, usually over the heart, the abdominal organs, etc, or has big, awkward pauldrons that would whack you in the head when you moved or that would deflect blows toward your important bits, not away from them.

This is what people think is really silly/would get you killed because while it may not be less protection that the traveling clothes, it's clearly intended for wearing into battle. It would be lousy at keeping swords out of your organs, and lousy for preventing hypothermia/heatstroke/drowning, and would be awkward for sneaking/climbing/etc.

5. Impractical Nudity. The Frazetta style of art where you can wade into the arctic tundra or a rain or arrows wearing furry boots, a leather jockstrap and maybe a steel skullcap.

It is silly, but it's a well established, iconic silly. When the men are all in category 1 and the women in category 5, then it's hard not to admit it's a bit sexist

I would generally agree with your categories, but again, what games actually fall into the "all or most men in category 1 and all or most women in category 5". There must be some out there because people keep complaining about them. But we've already established it wasn't 1980's ish D&D and while I recall some bared midiffs in the 4e art, I don't recall any "impractical nudity" at all, and if 5e is an improvement from there, then it's not those either. GURPS 3e didn't fit the bill (I don't have by 4e book handy to check that). And the early traveller editions I'm familiar with were lucky to have any artwork at all, and certainly not the women in bikinis that is implied to be rampant.

Yeah. Memory lane time.

...

So I'm not saying that it can't happen. Merely I'm skeptical that feeling unsafe and out of the loop is a function of simply having ovaries, rather than a function of the circumstances encircling the individual.

Again this largely mirrors my own experiences and the experiences of the women I've played with. That said, to be completely fair, IF fantasy artwork was driving off whole swaths of women, from gaming, the fact that you haven't encountered any in your gaming experiences would likely be a form of survivor bias rather than evidence that women aren't being driven off. That said, of the women I've known that don't play and have no interest in TTRPGs, I don't think I've ever heard any mention artwork as their turnoff. Again, possible survivor bias still, but without hard data, the best I can go on is my own experiences and those of people I know.

[Max_Killjoy]

YES! BLOOD FOR THE LEEROY WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGH!!!!!!!

*grabs a choppa made to be ekstra rippy and charges like a lunatic*

I also find sexiness fun. I also find swashbuckling fun. I also find wuxia fun, and warhammer 40,000, Dragon Ball Z, and pokemon as well as shows like Avatar the Last Airbender, Steven Universe and games like Undertale, I can enjoy the mindless fun of fighting games and beat em ups, I can enjoy the strategical elements of Stellaris and Age of Empires, I like Watchmen but that doesn't stop me from liking the idealistic stories where the hero saves the day and everything lives happily ever after. I enjoy soft sci-fi like Doctor Who, but doesn't stop me from appreciating hard sci-fi like Eclipse Phase. I love being a Khornate Berserker, but that doesn't stop me from being Slaaneshi when I want to.

I can have fun with mindless abandon of all logic and sense embrace the craziness of things like impractical armor, even more impractical weapons and crazy superpowers because why not? but I can also think things through, make sense of things, and construct something awesome from a good set of rules and sensible assumptions to create something that has weight to it, that has and authentic down to earth feeling that you don't get from embracing the craziness, and much of the time I like combining the down to earthiness with the craziness to get the comedy inherent in combining the two.

Because I'm a multi-faceted individual of imagination and passion! I enjoy many things and am beyond simple labels. I can be as nonsensically abandoning of all practicality and devotion to historical realism, but that doesn't mean I cast the knowledge and the use of such realism aside entirely, for it is there for a reason it is there and can be useful when the need arises. These are all tools, and sometimes you get so much more mileage out of doing more with less than doing the less with more.

I guess there might someday be a use for a scantily clad heroine- I am planning on making a succubus spy who betrayed hell to become an agent of heaven at some point- but there is also a use for the practically dressed heroine who like any sane person, carries around a round shield and a sword for self-defense in her travels, because that was the go-to self defense weaponry in the historical medieval ages when you weren't expecting a big battle. I can play both, I can have them meet and discuss this entire thing in character and make it funny, and so on.

but as with all things, it needs proper execution. if your going to do something, do it right. if the story calls for something to be sensible down to earth, I make it so. if the story calls for something completely out there and fun and insane, I also do that. Why constrain myself only to making everyone scantily clad for the sake of fun, when I can make and do so much more?

Emphasis added.

If you're going to do something, do it right.

If a character is scantily clad, or wearing crazy or useless armor, or doing one of thousands of other "wait a minute..." things... then have an in-setting reason. Make sense of it. Put some thought into it.

[Max_Killjoy]

You would be hard pressed to be more condescending to every person who disagrees with you than you are right now.

Good.

Perhaps I'll care once the "arguments" in favor of useless armor and situationally-impractical getups and the like... aren't so rife with personal attacks, belittlement, attempts to invalidate other people's experiences, false equivalences, irrelevant comparisons stripped of context, etc.

Yes, this is basically my question from above. I think we've done a bit of disservice to this discussion though lumping everything from midriff baring armor to "boob windows" to neglige armor to chainmail underwear into the same bucket.

No, I'd say those all go in exactly the same bucket.

[Nupo]

She actually didn't die. She spent all of her time training falcons and looking fabulous doing it.

She obviously didn't spend much time training falcons, otherwise she would know how to properly carry one on her fist.

[scalyfreak]

All of that said, I would suggest that if sitting down to play a TTRPG with a group finds you defensive and afraid of violence or sexual assault due to the artwork, might I suggest that the issue is less the artwork (and indeed changing it wouldn't solve anything) and more that we've allowed the standards of behavior in our community to devolve to that of a super-max prison. Because the reality is, you should be able to sit down at a table littered with playboy mags and never have to questions once in your head whether the men at that table are going to be inappropriate with you and more than I would fear the same of women sitting down at a table littered with playgirl. If the men you're playing with are predators, that's the problem that needs to be addressed first.

Alternatively. If the men you are playing with are insensitive idiots who fail to understand not only that rape jokes really aren't funny, but that men who find them funny trigger every single creep-alert in a woman's mind, that is also a problem that needs to be addressed. It's less of a problem, since your personal safety isn't at stake, but it's still incredibly unpleasant and creepy, and beyond uncomfortable to sit there and listen to that kind of talk.

Don't stay in that kind of environment. Spell out in great detail why you are leaving, and then leave, and stay gone. You have better things to do with your time.

[Max_Killjoy]

She obviously didn't spend much time training falcons, otherwise she would know how to properly carry one on her fist.

Never mind that she's not even an example of:

• a character wearing useless armor
• a character wearing clothing that's impractical for her apparent situation or potential/likely settings.
• a character who is inexplicably sexualized in attire, pose, etc.

And we don't know what she'd wear into actual combat, or if she's even someone who would go into combat at all -- the sword could be a badge of station, or her people could have a tradition of unarmored duels and that's what she's trained for, not as a battlefield soldier.


But somehow, posts spamming random context-stripped images of tangentially-related characters who happen to not be wearing armor is somehow supposed to "refute" points made about characters wearing useless armor and impractical clothing.

[scalyfreak]

But somehow, posts spamming random context-stripped images of tangentially-related characters who happen to not be wearing armor is somehow supposed to "refute" points made about characters wearing useless armor and impractical clothing.

We don't know what kind of situation she is in, planning to get into, or is coming from. Since we don't know that, her clothing could be utterly impractical and wrong in every way, and the fact you don't see it that way doesn't change that fact. Do you have no understanding of context at all?!

[1337 b4k4]

No, I'd say those all go in exactly the same bucket.

Yes, because your line for art that belongs in a good TTRPG book begins and ends at 100% realistic and no anachronisms as you've said time and again. In addition to those things, you would lump anyone not wearing a helmet in battle, anything with something that could be grabbed by an opponent (horns for example) and Conan the Barbarian and Kitiara into that bucket. For the rest of us whose line's fall somewhere south of "historical textbook accuracy" but somewhere north of "anything as long as there's a sword or wand somewhere", those who aren't interested in holding their fantasy elf games art to the exacting standards that you do, lumping all of those things into the same bucket doesn't do the discussion any good. Again, you're welcome to your opinion, and more power to you, but you're like the person in a performance mod section of a car forum insisting that anything less than a fully rebuilt racing engine is a waste of money. It's a valid opinion, and one that's even true in certain circumstances, but it doesn't do the people wanting to talk turbos and superchargers any good.

Alternatively. If the men you are playing with are insensitive idiots who fail to understand not only that rape jokes really aren't funny, but that men who find them funny trigger every single creep-alert in a woman's mind, that is also a problem that needs to be addressed. It's less of a problem, since your personal safety isn't at stake, but it's still incredibly unpleasant and creepy, and beyond uncomfortable to sit there and listen to that kind of talk.

Don't stay in that kind of environment. Spell out in great detail why you are leaving, and then leave, and stay gone. You have better things to do with your time.

Yes, this too. Don't play with *******s, whether they're being jerks or being creepy or being belittling and condescending. These are things we do in our free time for fun, and it's not worth doing that with people who are ruining your enjoyment of the game.

Edit:
------------

Never mind that she's not even an example of:

• a character wearing useless armor
• a character wearing clothing that's impractical for her apparent situation or potential/likely settings.
• a character who is inexplicably sexualized in attire, pose, etc.

1) She's not wearing any armor, with that sword, in the close combat that implies, she won't last long
2) She's wearing her falconry glove on her sword hand opening her up for death in any circumstance where she will need her sword.
3) Are you not seeing the boob window?

[Max_Killjoy]

We don't know what kind of situation she is in, planning to get into, or is coming from. Since we don't know that, her clothing could be utterly impractical and wrong in every way, and the fact you don't see it that way doesn't change that fact. Do you have no understanding of context at all?!

I'm sure you think you're making a point there... but it's been lost in your rush to be smug and insulting.

[scalyfreak]

I'm sure you think you're making a point there... but it's been lost in your rush to be smug and insulting.

It was actually meant as a joke. The fact you immediately jumped to a smug insult without even considering any other possibility probably isn't a good sign for the rest of this thread, so I'll bow out of your part of it. I leave you to enjoy your corner of the conversation in peace.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, because your line for art that belongs in a good TTRPG book begins and ends at 100% realistic and no anachronisms as you've said time and again. In addition to those things, you would lump anyone not wearing a helmet in battle, anything with something that could be grabbed by an opponent (horns for example) and Conan the Barbarian and Kitiara into that bucket. For the rest of us whose line's fall somewhere south of "historical textbook accuracy" but somewhere north of "anything as long as there's a sword or wand somewhere", those who aren't interested in holding their fantasy elf games art to the exacting standards that you do, lumping all of those things into the same bucket doesn't do the discussion any good. Again, you're welcome to your opinion, and more power to you, but you're like the person in a performance mod section of a car forum insisting that anything less than a fully rebuilt racing engine is a waste of money. It's a valid opinion, and one that's even true in certain circumstances, but it doesn't do the people wanting to talk turbos and superchargers any good.

Not really what I've said, but a pretty interesting caricature.

1) She's not wearing any armor, with that sword, in the close combat that implies, she won't last long
2) She's wearing her falconry glove on her sword hand opening her up for death in any circumstance where she will need her sword.
3) Are you not seeing the boob window?

Asked and answered, but we'll go again:

1) The sword doesn't imply anything other than that she's wearing a sword, and some alternatives to "she's about to go into a pitched battle" were even offered.
2) If this glove is a problem, wouldn't it just make this art an example of an artist who didn't do their homework, and thus invalid as a (supposed, even) counter-example to my points?
3) It's not armor, it's clothing, with some claim to basis-period authenticity in that respect. Not being armor, and thus not having the requirement to protect her most vital spots first, it really doesn't serve as a counter to any of my points.

[Max_Killjoy]

It was actually meant as a joke. The fact you immediately jumped to a smug insult without even considering any other possibility probably isn't a good sign for the rest of this thread, so I'll bow out of your part of it. I leave you to enjoy your corner of the conversation in peace.

How did you expect it to be taken, given what's going on and that this already happened?

[Max_Killjoy]

Here's a good one:

http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumbl...oric-bingo#_=_

I think some of these squares have been filled more than once in this thread...


They probably got most of those in response to their example images for playing the earlier game...

[1337 b4k4]

Not really what I've said, but a pretty interesting caricature.

If you're not saying your line is realism, and that anything not real is silly and useless and shouldn't be, then you're doing a terrible job of conveying that point. Maybe instead of engaging in a weapons grade condescension war with everyone who doesn't agree with you, you might focus on trying to make your points more clearly and leave the hyperbolic "snuff bait" out of it.

3) It's not armor, it's clothing, with some claim to basis-period authenticity in that respect. Not being armor, and thus not having the requirement to protect her most vital spots first, it really doesn't serve as a counter to any of my points.

Your third point was about sexualization. She has a boob window, with no reason for there to be a boob window. By your own definitions, she's being sexualized.

But, that's an aside, notice how you're coming up with all sorts of possible reasons why she might be dressed the way she is? That's what other people do with other fantasy art too. You can't argue on the one hand that the images have to be consumed in the vacuum of exactly what's pictured for imagery that doesn't fit your personal preferences while at the same time give context or excuses to images that do. For example, let's take the image from really early in the thread:

Spoiler: image

Show

Now, why is her midriff exposed on the left side? Well it's possible that this is a completely terrible image by your standard, impractical armor, and it's just sexualized for the geeks that want to get their good times without punching "porn" into google. Or, looking at the armor design, it's clear that the right side of the armor goes on and is then strapped across, so maybe the left side of the armor was damaged beyond simple repair in a previous battle and she hasn't had a chance to get back to town. Certainly that left shoulder armor doesn't go with the rest of the pieces, so maybe she scrounged it up so that at least she had something, which is better than absolutely nothing. Or maybe she was in the middle of donning or doffing her armor in the first place, after all she's clearly surprised just drawing her sword now, and her better armored companion (in the larger image) lies dead with a massive hole in his chest. Maybe she normally wields a shield in that arm, and she chose to wear less armor because it afforded her better range of movement for getting the shield into position.

The point is, all the things we don't know about the image you're defending, we don't know about this image either. The only additional thing we know is that in this image, she's already under attack, and in the one you're defending, the trap hasn't been sprung yet. But put the gal from the image you're defending into this exact scene and she's just as under armored and un prepared and sexualized.

Edit
------

Yeah crap like what you just posted is why you're not getting the respect you want in this thread. Snarky memes are no substitution for actual conversation.

[Mike_G]

I would generally agree with your categories, but again, what games actually fall into the "all or most men in category 1 and all or most women in category 5".

The original AD&D DM's Guide had an armored male fighter in realistic armor seen from the back, a male mage in a floor length robe seen from the back and a basically naked, smokin' hot, blonde female thief(?) being grabbed by an Efreet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Master%27s_Guide

That's a wee bit sexist.

That's the first example I can come up with, but it's the cover of one of the core books of the first edition of AD&D, so it's pretty prominent.

A lot of the 3rd party supplements are worse, overall. And the category of "impractical nudity" includes pretty much all the Frank Frazetta or Boris Vallejo art.

No reason Conan couldn't be pictured in armor, dented and scarred from battle. He could still be as big and physically imposing. Put him in a breastplate and still show bulging biceps. Conan wore armor in the books. And I'm sure he wasn't fighting the Frost Giants in his boxers knee deep in the snow when Howard wrote it.

So, yeah it's iconic and badass and that image has replaced Howard's words on the page as the image that comes into mind when we hear "Conan the Barbarian," but it's damn silly to think a warrior would go out for a swordfight in the dead of winter in the mountains in his underwear.

I'm not saying you can't like that. I like Frazetta's work because it's dynamic and bold and visceral.

But I still think it's a bit silly when you think about it.

[Max_Killjoy]

If you're not saying your line is realism, and that anything not real is silly and useless and shouldn't be, then you're doing a terrible job of conveying that point.

See that stuff in my signature about verisimilitude versus realism? It's there for a reason.

Whenever I see or participate in a discussion that gets into this territory, there's always at least one person who attacks the "this doesn't seem like it could be real" position as if it were a demand for literal realism.

If you go back and read my comments, they're about practicality, functionality, utility... or lack thereof. They're about comparing the armor (and other outfits in some cases) to the times and places that they art is clearly meant to emulate or clearly drawing inspiration from. About looking to those times and places for the real reasons they wore the armor and used the weapons they did, to have something that worked and was designed as it was for real utilitarian reasons, to compare with the thing in the artwork from a fictional world that still at least superficially faces the same needs, challenges, and restraints. Using reality as an example is not a demand for pure unfettered absolute devotion to reality.

Your third point was about sexualization. She has a boob window, with no reason for there to be a boob window. By your own definitions, she's being sexualized.

Not even remotely resembling what I said.

Plus a low cut or "peasant blouse" isn't a "boob window".

And it's not armor, so the exposed chest isn't grossly compromising the function of the garment.

The point is, all the things we don't know about the image you're defending, we don't know about this image either.

I wasn't "defending the image". I was pointing out all the ways in which it wasn't anything even close to a rebuttal of what I'd previously said.

Maybe the problem isn't in how I'm conveying the points...

Yeah crap like what you just posted is why you're not getting the respect you want in this thread. Snarky memes are no substitution for actual conversation.

And never mind the fact that at least half those squares have been filled in this thread... just like they always end up filled in these "discussions".

[Talakeal]

Funny stuff.

That was the most I have laughed to a forum post in a long time, good on you.

However, do be pedantic, I am pretty sure a boob window is something like Power Girl wears where there is actually a square window cut out of the front of an otherwise wholly concealing top, most of the examples you call boob windows are just good old fashioned low cuts.

[Max_Killjoy]

That was the most I have laughed to a forum post in a long time, good on you.

However, do be pedantic, I am pretty sure a boob window is something like Power Girl wears where there is actually a square window cut out of the front of an otherwise wholly concealing top, most of the examples you call boob windows are just good old fashioned low cuts.

But if they can't count low cuts as "boob windows", how will they "prove" their point?

[scalyfreak]

How did you expect it to be taken, given what's going on and that this already happened?

I hope you do realize that when you are pointing to a post that you made, due to an over-reaction to a joke, in an attempt to prove someone else wrong, then it's time to consider taking a break from the thread.

[1337 b4k4]

The original AD&D DM's Guide had an armored male fighter in realistic armor seen from the back, a male mage in a floor length robe seen from the back and a basically naked, smokin' hot, blonde female thief(?) being grabbed by an Efreet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Master%27s_Guide

That's a wee bit sexist.

That's the first example I can come up with, but it's the cover of one of the core books of the first edition of AD&D, so it's pretty prominent.

OTOH, someone else linked the interior images from the AD&D (PHB maybe?) books, and the women were fully clothed. And IIRC, doesn't the DMG have a handful and vignettes of a party in various battles, and while the woman of the party is a sorceress in a dress, it is a fully clothed one to the best of my recollection. And I already went through the BECMI and B/X artwork from the same time period, showing that the majority of the women were fully clothed and in practical armor. So while yes, I can see calling this cover sexist, this doesn't meet the standard of a whole game where the balance is towards women portrayed as sexualized objects. In fact, you'd have a better argument that the artwork was sexist less for its portrayal of the women in it and more for how few women adventurers were portrayed at all.

No reason Conan couldn't be pictured in armor, dented and scarred from battle. He could still be as big and physically imposing. Put him in a breastplate and still show bulging biceps. Conan wore armor in the books. And I'm sure he wasn't fighting the Frost Giants in his boxers knee deep in the snow when Howard wrote it.

So, yeah it's iconic and badass and that image has replaced Howard's words on the page as the image that comes into mind when we hear "Conan the Barbarian," but it's damn silly to think a warrior would go out for a swordfight in the dead of winter in the mountains in his underwear.

I'm not saying you can't like that. I like Frazetta's work because it's dynamic and bold and visceral.

But I still think it's a bit silly when you think about it.

Sure, but silly doesn't make it bad. And when you're aiming for single still images to convey a sense of adventure and excitement, "dynamic and bold and visceral" seem like good ideas compared to "historical and referential accuracy"

See that stuff in my signature about verisimilitude versus realism? It's there for a reason.
...
Not even remotely resembling what I said.
...
Maybe the problem isn't in how I'm conveying the points...

Donkeys and saddles my friend. You're even getting into fights in this thread with people who are generally on your side of the discussion.

[Max_Killjoy]

I hope you do realize that when you are pointing to a post that you made, due to an over-reaction to a joke, in an attempt to prove someone else wrong, then it's time to consider taking a break from the thread.

So in other words, you didn't bother reading it or looking at the quotes it contained, you just saw it was something I posted and thought "here's how I can win".

[Donnadogsoth]

The original AD&D DM's Guide had an armored male fighter in realistic armor seen from the back, a male mage in a floor length robe seen from the back and a basically naked, smokin' hot, blonde female thief(?) being grabbed by an Efreet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_Master%27s_Guide

That's a wee bit sexist.

She might be a princess captured and placed in a harem, for all you know. What more basic plot is there than men defending their women from "monsters"? It's hardly inapropos for a fantasy game dealing with archetypal monsters and magic to feature a damsel in distress.

[scalyfreak]

I'm not saying you can't like that. I like Frazetta's work because it's dynamic and bold and visceral.

But I still think it's a bit silly when you think about it.

I agree on the latter part. I also agree that the dynamic viscera and boldness more than compensate for, and make up for, the silliness. Those black and white Conan comics were brutal, in the best artistic sense of the word. Then they started coloring them, and suddenly the blood wasn't as red, the darkness wasn't as black, and evil wasn't as frightening, because the artwork suddenly looked like a cartoon.

[scalyfreak]

So in other words, you didn't bother reading it or looking at the quotes it contained, you just saw it was something I posted and thought "here's how I can win".

Why on earth would I have any interest at all in "winning"??? Are there points involved? Do we get grades from someone?

What exactly do you think it is we are doing here? Competing?

[Max_Killjoy]

Why on earth would I have any interest at all in "winning"??? Are there points involved? Do we get grades from someone?

What exactly do you think it is we are doing here? Competing?

When people don't even read past the first "gotcha" they think they can find, I have to conclude they're more interested in "winning" than discussing.