Armor designs for females?

[CharonsHelper]

But it is not "always". It is "occasionally" at best. (At least if you avoid Asian MMOs and deviantart)

I will say - maybe it's just the media I consume - but I hear people complaining about the extreme/silly female armor more often than I actually see it outside of anime. (and male armor in anime is generally just as silly/nonexistent albeit less revealing)

[Knaight]

It's fantasy. Being a sexy shoeless god of war has been a part of fantasy since the days of the Greeks. See also James Bond and any of the avengers. Not at all saying that TTRPG art needs to be just this side of a porn mag, (see my reference above for my image of a D&D party) but I'm not keen on this neo-puritan streak that seems to be the other side of the pendulum. Like most things in life, the key is moderation.

Wanting armor specifically to be depicted as something reasonably functional isn't puritanical - as can be seen in plenty of fantasy series that both have fairly functional armor (in terms of basic coverage anyways, there's still frequently room for nitpicking) and explicit sex scenes. Take A Song of Ice and Fire (books) or A Game of Thrones (TV show), both of which are really big right now. You've got scenes bordering on pornography, and you've got generally sensible armor, where the people with the money for full coverage have it and those that don't generally cover their torso first. There's a bit of a helmet shortage, and there's a clear lack of understanding of how armor works in a fight, but it comes across as a legitimate attempt at useful armor by someone with limited knowledge and not as a ridiculous attempt to force sexiness where it just doesn't make sense.

Another good example is science fiction. A space suit that leaves bare skin open is going to come across as really stupid to most of the audience. That's not being puritanical, that's wanting a space suit to look like something that's plausibly a space suit. This doesn't prevent these settings from having plenty of stuff that earns the puritan seal of disapproval elsewhere.

[Arbane]

But it is not "always". It is "occasionally" at best. (At least if you avoid Asian MMOs and deviantart)

The majority of fantasy RPG systems has had reasonable female armor illustrations for decades.

WoW is Asian now? When did that happen? (I remember a while back seeing a WoW cartoon contest that specifically said 'no jokes about female armor', otherwise that was ALL THEY'D GET.)

Which RPGs had reasonable female armor in the 1980s?

Also, this blog goes on about stupid armor in fantasy media, and why Conan is not equivalent to Red Sonja. (As has been said, one's a fantasy for men, and the other is... also a fantasy for men.) Not always SFW, you have been warned.

[Anonymouswizard]

The majority of fantasy RPG systems has had reasonable female armor illustrations for decades. D&D5 should not be praised for finally, at last doing the very same thing. It is good that they do. But it is hardly "bucking the trend". The only trend it goes against is its own history. 3.x was... mixed at best and 4E went for more fantastical, more edgy to get attention with new customers. I like the 5E art as contrast. Reminds me of other games i have played a lot in the 90s and 00s.

I mean, it can vary wildly. Anima: Beyond Fantasy seems to be okay with armour, but rubbish for clothing. I also hated the character on the front of the Savage Worlds Fantasy Companion as soon as I saw them, it's just a stupid outfit. Conversely games like Keltia tend not to have female warriors in art, but do have the women sensibly dressed. I find science fiction games tend to be better, with both genders wearing similar clothes (but if someone is in skimpy clothing it's more likely to be women).

Then, of course, you get games like Victoriana, which have settings where anyone wearing 'sexy' armour would likely be shunned.

[ImNotTrevor]

WoW is Asian now? When did that happen? (I remember a while back seeing a WoW cartoon contest that specifically said 'no jokes about female armor', otherwise that was ALL THEY'D GET.)

Which RPGs had reasonable female armor in the 1980s?

Also, this blog goes on about stupid armor in fantasy media, and why Conan is not equivalent to Red Sonja. (As has been said, one's a fantasy for men, and the other is... also a fantasy for men.) Not always SFW, you have been warned.

Just pointing out that the majority of relevant depictions cited here are between 10 and 30 years old but still being referenced as if contemporary.

If the assertion is that the problem is here NOW, then citing illustrations from the 80's is as relevant as citing medieval tapestries.

[War_lord]

I mean, it can vary wildly. Anima: Beyond Fantasy seems to be okay with armour, but rubbish for clothing. I also hated the character on the front of the Savage Worlds Fantasy Companion as soon as I saw them, it's just a stupid outfit.

Just going by Google Savage Worlds seems to have an issue with this. The Gothic companion is a sexy redhead vampire wearing a very ungothic red stringy... thing under her cloak. The Superhero companion is a Brunette wearing what can only be described as a bathing suit made from unsold stock from a fetish store. The Sci-Fi companion cover is a bit better as the character is wearing clothes and looks to commanding a ship in battle. But the outfit is way too tight and she's contorted to give maximum view of both her ass and boob, leading me to hope starfleet in her setting has good scoliosis care.

[Anonymouswizard]

Just going by Google Savage Worlds seems to have an issue with this. The Gothic companion is a sexy redhead vampire wearing a very ungothic red stringy... thing under her cloak. The Superhero companion is a Brunette wearing what can only be described as a bathing suit made from unsold stock from a fetish store. The Sci-Fi companion cover is a bit better as the character is wearing clothes and looks to commanding a ship in battle. But the outfit is way too tight and she's contorted to give maximum view of both her ass and boob, leading me to hope starfleet in her setting has good scoliosis care.

The sci-fi companion is at least better than the first draft of the cover was, and the current superhero companion is okay if you look at it from representing the genre. But yeah, it's such a shame because the core rules have a great cover.

[Nifft]

In America, maybe. In Germany, Dark Eye (At least in 4th and a bit in 5th edition) has been doing exactly that.
To be quite honest, the barbarian woman in nothing but the kilt looks way more fitting next to her male counterparts than any attempt of a bra ever could... But that might be personal taste ;)

IIRC, in New York it's legal for women to go around topless in public -- except if they're working at a place that serves alcohol, then they need to cover up.

So it's not just Europe that allows topless gladatrix costumes.

[2D8HP]

Except the problem is that this particular "fantasy" isn't for the people it's depicting. Male warriors are always depicted as scarred muscular badasses....

A bit of a vexation for me, is that when I look for art to use for my Myth-Weavers D&D PC "sheets", for the men I find pages and pages of scowling steroids abusers who look as if they weigh 300 pounds, and are enduring a bad smell.

I think the trend started first with Dwarves and WarHammer Space Marines (and their elephant scale feet).

In terms of potential women PC illustrations, besides the issues cited already, even when a woman is pictured wearing suitable full armor, for some strange reason she is wearing high stiletto heels, with tiny tiny feet in contrast to the men pictured who seem to have boots that are 7 times the size!

C'mon! Men and women IRL are just not scaled that far apart!

Besides other crimes against human scale proportions, women are often illustrated with tiny child sized boots/shoes, and men are pictured having boots sized for rhinos and elephants!

---

....leading me to hope starfleet in her setting has good scoliosis care.

That cracks me up.

[Talakeal]

One thing I don't get, people only bring up the lack of protection argument when armor is sexy or shows a lot of skin.

I don't think I have ever heard someone complaining about the outfits in a genre where people engage in sword fights without armor unless it is sexy or revealing. Pirates of the Caribbean, the Three Musketeers, Zorro, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Sinbad the Sailor; everyone is sword fighting all the time in these franchises but almost no one wears armor of any sort, and no one ever brings it up.

But if you have a gladiator in a chainmail bikini, a barbarian in a leather thong, or a super hero with a boob window suddenly everyone is saying "I'm not a puritan, I just don't like outfits which won't protect the character in battle!"

[Keltest]

One thing I don't get, people only bring up the lack of protection argument when armor is sexy or shows a lot of skin.

I don't think I have ever heard someone complaining about the outfits in a genre where people engage in sword fights without armor unless it is sexy or revealing. Pirates of the Caribbean, the Three Musketeers, Zorro, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Sinbad the Sailor; everyone is sword fighting all the time in these franchises but almost no one wears armor of any sort, and no one ever brings it up.

But if you have a gladiator in a chainmail bikini, a barbarian in a leather thong, or a super hero with a boob window suddenly everyone is saying "I'm not a puritan, I just don't like outfits which won't protect the character in battle!"

Its because the Chainmail bikini is dumb at every level. Even if you just wanted to be sexy rather than protected, it would still be intensely uncomfortable to wear. Nobody would actually look at it and think 'Yes, this is a good idea".

And superhero outfits are usually complained about because of how over the top they are, not just because they aren't protective.

[Talakeal]

Its because the Chainmail bikini is dumb at every level. Even if you just wanted to be sexy rather than protected, it would still be intensely uncomfortable to wear. Nobody would actually look at it and think 'Yes, this is a good idea".

Which is a different argument than I was responding to.


But, if you want me to respond to that argument, yeah, most fantasy armor is uncomfortable and impractical.

But again, people complain about the revealing armor orders of magnitude more than they do any of the other far more impractical fantastical tropes like armor that is covered with giant spikes or shoulder pads that would weigh hundreds of pounds.

[Max_Killjoy]

One thing I don't get, people only bring up the lack of protection argument when armor is sexy or shows a lot of skin.

I don't think I have ever heard someone complaining about the outfits in a genre where people engage in sword fights without armor unless it is sexy or revealing. Pirates of the Caribbean, the Three Musketeers, Zorro, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Sinbad the Sailor; everyone is sword fighting all the time in these franchises but almost no one wears armor of any sort, and no one ever brings it up.

But if you have a gladiator in a chainmail bikini, a barbarian in a leather thong, or a super hero with a boob window suddenly everyone is saying "I'm not a puritan, I just don't like outfits which won't protect the character in battle!"

Did the pirates, muskateers, sailors, martial arts "hidden world" members, etc, who fought with swords all actually wear armor?

[Keltest]

Which is a different argument than I was responding to.


But, if you want me to respond to that argument, yeah, most fantasy armor is uncomfortable and impractical.

But again, people complain about the revealing armor orders of magnitude more than they do any of the other far more impractical fantastical tropes like armor that is covered with giant spikes or shoulder pads that would weigh hundreds of pounds.

Let me rephrase. The chainmail bikini is not armor. It does not pretend to be armor. It pretends to be fashionable clothing. It fails at that as well. When characters swordfight in street clothes, its because theyre wearing actual clothing that they would wear. No, it isn't as protective as armor, but in situations where armor is unavailable or impractical, youll just be wearing your normal clothes.

[Deophaun]

(As has been said, one's a fantasy for men, and the other is... also a fantasy for men.)

Yes, because Conan and Fabio have nothing in common. Have you seen romance novel covers? Any of the shirtless male bodies (because you often don't get faces) would be at home in an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel with nary a change of costume.

[Talakeal]

Let me rephrase. The chainmail bikini is not armor. It does not pretend to be armor. It pretends to be fashionable clothing. It fails at that as well. When characters swordfight in street clothes, its because theyre wearing actual clothing that they would wear. No, it isn't as protective as armor, but in situations where armor is unavailable or impractical, youll just be wearing your normal clothes.

I'll agree there.


In a visual medium the purpose of combat is typically as an exhibition of physical prowess which is both exciting and pretty to look at.


As I see it the problem is finding something that shows off the character's physique without looking anachronistic or pornographic.


In the modern world athletic people can wear all manner or revealing work-out clothes; tank tops, tennis skirts, gym shorts, sports bras, yoga pants, leotards, speedos, or actual bikinis. This would look very out of place in an ancient setting.


In the ancient world people tended to compete in athletic events fully nude. This would look pornographic to a modern audience.


So artists try, and usually fail, to find some acceptable balance between the two.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'll agree there.

In a visual medium the purpose of combat is typically as an exhibition of physical prowess which is both exciting and pretty to look at.

More's the pity... I'd rather they showed off the combat itself, and also avoided wallowing in ignorance and tropes (for example, avoid swords going through plate armor like butter).

As I see it the problem is finding something that shows off the character's physique without looking anachronistic or pornographic.


In the modern world athletic people can wear all manner or revealing work-out clothes; tank tops, tennis skirts, gym shorts, sports bras, yoga pants, leotards, speedos, or actual bikinis. This would look very out of place in an ancient setting.


In the ancient world people tended to compete in athletic events fully nude. This would look pornographic to a modern audience.


So artists try, and usually fail, to find some acceptable balance between the two.

Most of those things you listed are often out-of-place in a modern setting as used in film and art.

[Anonymouswizard]

One thing I don't get, people only bring up the lack of protection argument when armor is sexy or shows a lot of skin.

I don't think I have ever heard someone complaining about the outfits in a genre where people engage in sword fights without armor unless it is sexy or revealing. Pirates of the Caribbean, the Three Musketeers, Zorro, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Sinbad the Sailor; everyone is sword fighting all the time in these franchises but almost no one wears armor of any sort, and no one ever brings it up.

But if you have a gladiator in a chainmail bikini, a barbarian in a leather thong, or a super hero with a boob window suddenly everyone is saying "I'm not a puritan, I just don't like outfits which won't protect the character in battle!"

Okay, this might not be exactly what you're getting at, but this is my take on it.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in full gothic plate.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in chainmail, half plate, or any other form of armour. Even if their arms and legs aren't fully protected.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in ordinary clothes (and actually, if they aren't expecting combat, it makes a lot of sense).

I have no problem with people sword fighting in their underwear. I'd question if it was strictly necessary, but I'm fine with it.

I have no problem with people sword fighting completely naked. Male or female. Ideally with abs for all, because abs are hot.

I have a problem with people sword fighting in 'armour' that fails to protect the vitals and is designed to show off their bodies (note: the Slithuri duelling vest is one of the few things I dislike about Rocket Age). If the armour isn't going to work as armour just have them fighting in whatever clothes they want.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in tank tops and tracksuit bottoms, but if your armour shows cleavage or your stomach then please redesign it.

I also dislike massive shoulder plates and spikes of villainy, because I think armour looks cool enough as it is, but what annoys me more is stuff that is meant to remind me of armour while failing at it (unless of course it's equal-opportunity revealing).

So I have no problem if you want your amazon to be in a bikini (no clue why, but it's your amazon), I'll get annoyed if that bikini is made of chain unless my Barbarian is wearing a chainmail speedo.

[Talakeal]

Okay, this might not be exactly what you're getting at, but this is my take on it.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in full gothic plate.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in chainmail, half plate, or any other form of armour. Even if their arms and legs aren't fully protected.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in ordinary clothes (and actually, if they aren't expecting combat, it makes a lot of sense).

I have no problem with people sword fighting in their underwear. I'd question if it was strictly necessary, but I'm fine with it.

I have no problem with people sword fighting completely naked. Male or female. Ideally with abs for all, because abs are hot.

I have a problem with people sword fighting in 'armour' that fails to protect the vitals and is designed to show off their bodies (note: the Slithuri duelling vest is one of the few things I dislike about Rocket Age). If the armour isn't going to work as armour just have them fighting in whatever clothes they want.

I have no problem with people sword fighting in tank tops and tracksuit bottoms, but if your armour shows cleavage or your stomach then please redesign it.

I also dislike massive shoulder plates and spikes of villainy, because I think armour looks cool enough as it is, but what annoys me more is stuff that is meant to remind me of armour while failing at it (unless of course it's equal-opportunity revealing).

So I have no problem if you want your amazon to be in a bikini (no clue why, but it's your amazon), I'll get annoyed if that bikini is made of chain unless my Barbarian is wearing a chainmail speedo.

The problem is that there is no historically accurate clothing that shows a lot of skin, before the modern age people tended to wear full clothing or nothing at all.

Thus people are stuck trying to imagine revealing clothing that modern audiences would not see as overly anachronistic or pornographic, and a common way to do that is to take modern designs and use medieval looking materials like mail or studded leather.

More's the pity... I'd rather they showed off the combat itself, and also avoided wallowing in ignorance and tropes (for example, avoid swords going through plate armor like butter).




Most of those things you listed are often out-of-place in a modern setting as used in film and art.

Maybe so. Armor that doesn't stop anything in movies bugs me too.

While I agree that movie fights often downplay realism to their detriment, I am pretty sure that simply trying to have every fight be perfectly realistic and technically accurate would get pretty boring after a while. They have to find a balance, and unfortunately that balance is going to be at a different point for every creator and audience member.

[Anonymouswizard]

The problem is that there is no historically accurate clothing that shows a lot of skin, before the modern age people tended to wear full clothing or nothing at all.

Thus people are stuck trying to imagine revealing clothing that modern audiences would not see as overly anachronistic or pornographic, and a common way to do that is to take modern designs and use medieval looking materials like mail or studded leather.

I'm fine with people in a fantasy setting wearing historically-inspired styles or modern styles. I mean I might be using colour-infused Victorian clothes to fit in with someone who's more renaissance (I didn't want any poofs, and decided I could pattern Victorian clothes so it would just look like a different culture and/or social lass). As long as it's consistent.

I'd rather they just have the characters naked if they're not going to be wearing clothes that don't fit with the setting, but if everyone is wearing more modern stuff then the bikini fits right it. It's more the inconsistency than the clothes themselves for me.

(So, for example, a movie about amazons and barbarians with a chainmail loincloth and chainmail bikini is a lot less annoying than a movie about knights with a female knight with included cleavage window, to use extreme examples).

Maybe so. Armor that doesn't stop anything in movies bugs me too.

While I agree that movie fights often downplay realism to their detriment, I am pretty sure that simply trying to have every fight be perfectly realistic and technically accurate would get pretty boring after a while. They have to find a balance, and unfortunately that balance is going to be at a different point for every creator and audience member.

Yeah, balance is always important, but I'd rather they have the characters close enough to theoretically hit each other most of the time.

[ImNotTrevor]

The downside to fight choreography with realism is that it puts the actors/stunt doubles in a position of unnecessary risk. There are sources out there from LotR dvd extra features where they talk about John Rhys-Davies behaving realistically-ish as Gimli. He didn't really choreograph fights. He just actually whacked the crap out of the extras and would leave bruises and etc as he went.

I had a very.... broad range of studies in college because I was indecisive. But part of that was a few film classes. And yeah, the stuff like "space sound" and "audible sharpness" exist because unfortunately demonstrating a sword's sharpness visually in just a few seconds is more contextually difficult to justify than making it go "shwing." It would be equally silly for every really sharp weapon in film to have to take a second or two to demonstrate its sharpness. (Or more silly.)

Everyone knows that swords don't hum with audible sharpness. But that ringing hum is storytelling shorthand. It communicates the concept of being very sharp without blatantly shoving it in your face.

Anyways. Random aside is random. TL;DR most seemingly dumb tropes exist for a reason, and things would be even dumber if we avoided all of them.

[Jay R]

The final decision in the movie will be based on whether they think it will make more money that way. Fantasy movies aren't documentaries.

Similarly, illustrations in RPG rules have as at least one purpose to increase the number of people who will buy the book.

[If they wanted to make it realistic, they would start by eliminating the dragons.]

[Max_Killjoy]

The final decision in the movie will be based on whether they think it will make more money that way. Fantasy movies aren't documentaries.

Similarly, illustrations in RPG rules have as at least one purpose to increase the number of people who will buy the book.

[If they wanted to make it realistic, they would start by eliminating the dragons.]

"But dragons!"

The presence or absence of dragons has nothing to do with the level of detail, functionality, or verisimilitude applied to other elements of a setting.

Honestly, I'd love to see a movie or television series just blow all these stupid myths and tropes about pre-firearms weapons and armor out of the water. Hell, it could even start out with some naive character from a city, who has heard all sorts of tall tales about swords cleaving armor in half and arrows set on fire in combat and whatnot, who goes out on some adventure and gets all his stupid ideas shoved in his face.

[pwykersotz]

Honestly, I'd love to see a movie or television series just blow all these stupid myths and tropes about pre-firearms weapons and armor out of the water. Hell, it could even start out with some naive character from a city, who has heard all sorts of tall tales about swords cleaving armor in half and arrows set on fire in combat and whatnot, who goes out on some adventure and gets all his stupid ideas shoved in his face.

The hilarious part is that it would be largely hated because of exactly the thing we see on these threads. You'd hit the uncanny valley of accuracy. People would make statements or demonstrations and approach it from someone's not-quite-preferred viewpoint or make a minor slip and it would be the greatest possible sin and worthy of trashing the whole movie. Heck, people can't even agree on actual reality.

But I agree. I don't want a decrease in the fantastic stuff, but I'd love to see an increase in how awesome real stuff can be with a devoted focus towards as much accuracy as possible.

[2D8HP]

....So I have no problem if you want your amazon to be in a bikini (no clue why, but it's your amazon), I'll get annoyed if that bikini is made of chain unless my Barbarian is wearing a chainmail speedo.

Because it's VERY VITAL RESEARCH, I dug up and looked at "Book 1: Men & Magic" of the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons rules, and the Barbarian on page 16's shorts do not appear to be chainmail (or are those tights over shorts?)



and the Amazon on page 27 (pictured next to the "Beautiful Witch" who looks similar enough to be the Amazon's sister), has briefer shorts that also do not appear to be chainmail. In common with the Barbarian the Amazon has a sword and belt, but no top.

So no chainmail bikinis or speedos in original D&D.

YOUR WELCOME.

[1337 b4k4]

Except the problem is that this particular "fantasy" isn't for the people it's depicting. Male warriors are always depicted as scarred muscular badasses, attired in suitably martial armor. Meanwhile you get female "warriors" with perfect hair and makeup prancing around in things like chainmail bikinis and boobplates with no backing that no woman going into battle or on an adventure would ever chose to wear. It's male fantasy, and more importantly it's a way of watering down female characters who could be powerful by presenting them as objects for cheap gratification.

5e should be praised for very consciously bucking the trend. But it's a pity that in 2017 it's something that has to be lauded, instead of just being the norm.

So I guess you're going to go ahead and ignore the entire set of imagery I linked demonstrating that this was not the case? Also I'm going to call bull on half naked muscular men and strong sexy women not being female fantasy. Maybe not all women, but then again, the muscular men and sexy women aren't always the male fantasy either. As for "perfect hair and makeup", I again refer you to tropes like James Bond who (baring more modern depictions that try to muss him up) will infiltrate a party in diving gear and step out in perfectly tailored tuxedos. Yes, men want to be James Bond, and women want to be Wonder Woman. It turns out, no matter what genitals we have, we all like to fantasize about being the sexy, collected and powerful figure that makes our objects of desire want us.

I will say - maybe it's just the media I consume - but I hear people complaining about the extreme/silly female armor more often than I actually see it outside of anime. (and male armor in anime is generally just as silly/nonexistent albeit less revealing)

This has been my experience too. In fact, the surprise for me when I was browsing that classicdndart site was actually how much "women in reasonable armor" there was back then given how badly that time period is viewed now. In fact, just for gits and shiggles I went back and looked through my old D&D books.

In the rules cyclopedia, the first woman you encounter is outfitted in full chain, with shield and helmet.

There are 9, reasonably outfitted women (of those 7 are in reasonable adventuring gear and 1 is in ornate dress, 1 is a ghost noble woman in gown) and 2 unreasonably outfitted women depictions in this book (1 sorceress in j-lo style dress, 1 woman dungeoneering in essentially a sun dress. Lastly there's 1 "ambiguous" picture, it's at too far of a distance to determine the reasonableness of the dress, but the curves clearly mark the character as a woman. So roughly 16% sexualized in some way.

To be sure there are at least 3 times as many images of men as there are of women, and probably more so ratio of representation is low. But as far as quality of representation, only the sorceress image could really be considered as titillating. The rest of them, the absolute worst you could argue is that most of the women when you could see their legs were wearing armor dresses, so the legs tended to be bare until you got to the boots. Hardly the boob plate nipple fest the basic D&D era is remembered for.

But the Rules Cyclopedia is largely a reference book, with minimal art all around. So let's look at the B/X and BECMI books, across 6 books (I don't have X, just B):

24 reasonable depictions of women adventurers (23 adventuring gear, 1 portrait w/ off the shoulder dress not really sexualized)
and 7 unreasonable (1 woman in dress being carried away in a rescue from monsters [which has been depicted for men before but I'm trying to be scrupulously fair], 1 in a "ranger" dress, but posed for thigh showing, 1 barely contained chest in a dress, 1 monster in a bra, 1 silky sorceress, 1 sorceress on B/X cover, 1 midriff elf),
and 1 ambiguous (face only of sorceress casting spell).

So a little worse here at 21% sexualized. And, YMMV, I tried to be strict when putting things into the unreasonable (eg, the ranger dress). I would also point out that even though it's 21%, it works out to roughly 1 image per book. But my ultimate point here is that women in reasonable armor and gear has definitely been around and (at least for the Basic D&D sets, I don't have AD&D handy) was far and away the majority. And while I didn't do a count a flip through the GURPS 3e book shows the same trend.

Wanting armor specifically to be depicted as something reasonably functional isn't puritanical - as can be seen in plenty of fantasy series that both have fairly functional armor (in terms of basic coverage anyways, there's still frequently room for nitpicking) and explicit sex scenes. Take A Song of Ice and Fire (books) or A Game of Thrones (TV show), both of which are really big right now. You've got scenes bordering on pornography, and you've got generally sensible armor, where the people with the money for full coverage have it and those that don't generally cover their torso first. There's a bit of a helmet shortage, and there's a clear lack of understanding of how armor works in a fight, but it comes across as a legitimate attempt at useful armor by someone with limited knowledge and not as a ridiculous attempt to force sexiness where it just doesn't make sense.

Another good example is science fiction. A space suit that leaves bare skin open is going to come across as really stupid to most of the audience. That's not being puritanical, that's wanting a space suit to look like something that's plausibly a space suit. This doesn't prevent these settings from having plenty of stuff that earns the puritan seal of disapproval elsewhere.

OK, let's take it as a given that you at least agree with me that sexiness is part of fantasy for both genders. The thing that ASIF and GoT and other books and shows and movies have that TTRPGs don't is time. They have hundreds to thousands of pages, and hours of time to dedicate to showing characters in all types of scenarios. They can demonstrate that the character hidden behind inches of personality hiding armor is sexy outside of that armor. TTRPG books don't get that luxury without delving into turning some of their artwork into borderline smut (which is what we're already railing against in the first place). So let's say you're publishing a TTRPG book, you get to have 100 illustrations of monster, heroes and gear. Do you waste 5 or 10 of those on explicitly sexy imagery out of armor and gear so that you can convey the sex part of fantasy and still keep the armor pure, or do you go with designing characters in action that can also show sexiness? Books and movies have far more story telling resources to get sexiness across than TTRPG rule books do.

Which RPGs had reasonable female armor in the 1980s?

D&D. See aforementioned links, and above analysis on Basic D&D rule books and if you don't believe me go look for yourself, they're on DTRPG.

Also, this blog goes on about stupid armor in fantasy media, and why Conan is not equivalent to Red Sonja. (As has been said, one's a fantasy for men, and the other is... also a fantasy for men.) Not always SFW, you have been warned.

Yes I've seen this before, and frankly, I find it unconvincing. For one, no one whose ever said "half naked muscular men are male power fantasies, not female sex fantasies" has ever given a good example of what would be a sex fantasy for women but would not be a male power fantasy (short of BSDM, which let's face it folks, there's plenty of men who find submission a turn-on too). But more than that, I've played in a number of groups D&D and other games. I've had the fortune of usually playing in mixed company. And my experience, and the experience of others (including the women) whom I've played with (and for whom we've had discussions on this) is that once you're out of high school, the hyper sexualized women characters are created, dreamed up, and played by the women in the groups. And most of the women I play with are happily married or otherwise engaged, so it's not a "doing what we think the guys will like" thing (and how sexist is that assumption, as if single women couldn't enjoy fantasizing being a powerful and simultaneously sexy woman). And they play those characters to the hilt, sexing up the guards and bus boys as much as any male player is sexing up the tavern wenches.

Do all women do this? Of course not, and not all men play buffed fighters with steroid inducing muscles. But if the group is college age or older (and mixed gender) 9 times out of ten, the woman character with a bust large enough to make Dolly Parton look androgynous is played by a woman, for her own reasons.

Its because the Chainmail bikini is dumb at every level. Even if you just wanted to be sexy rather than protected, it would still be intensely uncomfortable to wear. Nobody would actually look at it and think 'Yes, this is a good idea".

And superhero outfits are usually complained about because of how over the top they are, not just because they aren't protective.

I mean, fantasy art in general is full of dumb at every level gear. Remember the "make armor out of ALL THE BELTS" phase of fantasy art? And again, I'm not saying that leching doesn't go on. I'm not saying that there aren't some games or editions of games that should have had an editor with an eye towards their female audience go "but what about chicks in chainmail?". But what I am saying is that we're not in now, and in the past weren't in either, some dark age where a woman in reasonable armor is as rare as rain in California. And we do a huge disservice to our hobby by holding up the examples of our worst, and not recognizing the examples of our best.

[2D8HP]

(at least for the Basic D&D sets, I don't have AD&D handy) .

For AD&D? Here you go:





That's pretty much it (unless you're looking for post '81 stuff, which I really didn't get)

The few "racy" images until Deities & Demi-Gods were mostly of monsters, with things like horns, wing, the lower half of the body being that of a snake, etc. which were a clue, even Deities didn't have images more um.. inspiring than many illustrated books of mythology (BTW Hecate was way cooler than Aphrodite, just sayin').

"Google": "art by gygax and arneson Blog of Holding" if you really want to see early D&D art without buying the books your dang selves cheapskates
Why haven't you bought the books? These games don't play themselves you know!

[Max_Killjoy]

Looking beyond strictly RPG art and fiction, to the broader arena of "genre works"... I don't think it helps that phrases like "she's an empowered woman" and "she's in control of her own sexuality" have been so often used as faux-equality-fig-leaves over female characters who are clearly just written and drawn as titillation fuel for male writers and male artists and male consumers.

[Deophaun]

Yes, men want to be James Bond, and women want to be Wonder Woman. It turns out, no matter what genitals we have, we all like to fantasize about being the sexy, collected and powerful figure that makes our objects of desire want us.

Eh, there's a fair number of "unremarkable woman who is inexplicably beset by a wide range of supernatural suitors" that's played serious. (::ahem:: Twilight ::ahem::) You generally have to go to the Japanese comedy harem for the male to be in that role (Tenchi... no man wants to actually be Tenchi).

[ImNotTrevor]

Looking beyond strictly RPG art and fiction, to the broader arena of "genre works"... I don't think it helps that phrases like "she's an empowered woman" and "she's in control of her own sexuality" have been so often used as faux-equality-fig-leaves over female characters who are clearly just written and drawn as titillation fuel for male writers and male artists and male consumers.

How does one tell the difference, then, between these characters and those who are legitimately empowered and in control of their own sexuality? Without harrassing the creators about it, of course.

Or are these characters flat-out forbidden just in case?