| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wolfhound75 |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 16:54:29
Continued from the discussion that the Drow scroll developed:
To sum up the discussion so far, fantasy armor is getting to the point of skimpy and rediculous in the opinions of many scribes. The armor, as depicted by many artists these days, is less than functional and appears more as 'metallic lingerie' than anything remotely useful in deflecting and attenuating the blows received during combat. By less than functional, I mean to state that the armor provides minimal protection, the prevalent example being a chain mail bikini. Yes, it's technically a chain mail but there is no plausible way it provides the same type of protection that full chain mail provides.
The counter point to this is the Suspension of Disbelief argument basically stating that this is fantasy and reality should not enter too heavily into it. Scribe Old Man Harpell made a very valid point regarding a world where dragons and mages tossing fireballs are relatively common. If you allow too many real-world properties to take over, the dragon will simply squash the adventurer by stepping upon or landing on them. Realistic armor is therefore pointless.
So where do we as a group come down in our preferences for depictions of armor? Realistic depictions which include common parts of armor and its design to deflect and attenuate blows? More fantastic versions requiring more suspension of disbelief and taking into account magical properties? Or does our preference lie in between with basic armor components being designed for visual appeal?
Discuss but, remember we are each expressing our OPINION and each scribes opinion is as valid as your own. Therefore, I ask that the tone remain civil.
Good Hunting!
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 15 Nov 2012 : 00:51:49
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Anyhow, we should see a rugged female warrior in full plate saving a 'pretty-boy' Prince from a dragon - not only do you turn the stereotype on its head, its also pretty funny. If you put the Prince in a chainmail bikini, it becomes hilarious. 
Nah, it merely becomes more Bioware. Making a clown stand on his head and calling it a creative breakthrough was their schtick, right?.. 
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I personally believe it was an embellishment enjoyed by leaders (who weren't always the ones 'in the fray'). Its was more ornamental then functional, is what I am getting at (like Machiavellian armor). There is also evidence that some horns may have been detachable (lending credence to the theory they were ornamental, and could be discarded quickly if needed).
Why not? After all, plumages don't go well with all helmets and may be damaged by a mild rain.
Also, if it's not attached too hard, it probably breaks away when any great force is applied, which eliminates the worst problems.
quote:
Originally posted by Kajehase
As for how to tell them apart from other barbarians... well, I'd say we do it based on them being just that sliver more awesome than all other barbarians. (The whole "looks and sounds like tall dwarves" schtick is probably going to help as well.)
(cough) Icewind Dale trilogy (cough)
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Where I object is when gaming companies seem to so often limit the art we see, instead of expanding their field of artists to bring in more varied forms of the female adventurer.
It's because we all clearly are 11 year old semiliterates who will buy the book just to drool on that cover, you see...  |
| Dennis |
Posted - 15 Nov 2012 : 00:09:30
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Found <this take> on male superheroes being stuck in silly, sexualized versions of their costumes. Bwahaha!
With some editing, especially the lower part, and by making the tone of the whole ensemble a bit dark, it can be...good.
-----
Erza Scarlet, a Class S wizard from Fairy Tail, probably has the most number of coolest armors. Some are ridiculously skimpy, though. |
| Zireael |
Posted - 21 May 2012 : 11:45:13
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
He must have used Armor of Ogling.
Which looks just like a chainmail bikini. It gives +5 for each piece worn. It also requires a SR against the wearer's comliness, or be 'stunned' for a number of segments (you minus how much you miss the roll by from your initiative). You also have to wipe the drool from your chin.
No, I didn't create that... but my co-DM did and gave it to his GF. I would use the excuse we were only 19, but he was closer to 30 (he never told us his real age). No-one was offended by it - we had girls in the group and everyone found it funny. It made sense to us - bracers were a 'guy thing'.
Also, a typical chainmail bikini gives adequate protection - in fact, I'd rule it gives full cover.....
To a Jermalin.
Anyhow, we should see a rugged female warrior in full plate saving a 'pretty-boy' Prince from a dragon - not only do you turn the stereotype on its head, its also pretty funny. If you put the Prince in a chainmail bikini, it becomes hilarious.
I love this!!! |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 15:14:05
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
Found <this take> on male superheroes being stuck in silly, sexualized versions of their costumes. Bwahaha!
-snerk- That is amusing.
Hey - if the artist/publishing house/whoever thinks they can sell lots of books (or what have you) with art like that, I say they go for it. No different from 'idealized' female-type art, in my opinion - let the market determine what sells and what doesn't. It'll sink or swim on its own merits. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 20 May 2012 : 02:37:21
Found <this take> on male superheroes being stuck in silly, sexualized versions of their costumes. Bwahaha! |
| Dennis |
Posted - 15 May 2012 : 04:40:31
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Anyhow, we should see a rugged female warrior in full plate saving a 'pretty-boy' Prince from a dragon - not only do you turn the stereotype on its head, its also pretty funny. If you put the Prince in a chainmail bikini, it becomes hilarious.
You watch far too many anime. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 11 May 2012 : 17:12:18
He must have used Armor of Ogling.
Which looks just like a chainmail bikini. It gives +5 for each piece worn. It also requires a SR against the wearer's comliness, or be 'stunned' for a number of segments (you minus how much you miss the roll by from your initiative). You also have to wipe the drool from your chin.
No, I didn't create that... but my co-DM did and gave it to his GF. I would use the excuse we were only 19, but he was closer to 30 (he never told us his real age). No-one was offended by it - we had girls in the group and everyone found it funny. It made sense to us - bracers were a 'guy thing'.
Also, a typical chainmail bikini gives adequate protection - in fact, I'd rule it gives full cover.....
To a Jermalin.
Anyhow, we should see a rugged female warrior in full plate saving a 'pretty-boy' Prince from a dragon - not only do you turn the stereotype on its head, its also pretty funny. If you put the Prince in a chainmail bikini, it becomes hilarious. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 11 May 2012 : 02:43:47
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
All this talk of magical armor got me to thinking about an 18th level wizard I played in a game. I had an Armor Class of 74 I think it was...and that was with minimal cheese...it could have been far worse!
-What edition? And, how the hell did you accomplish that? |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 10 May 2012 : 19:46:29
All this talk of magical armor got me to thinking about an 18th level wizard I played in a game. I had an Armor Class of 74 I think it was...and that was with minimal cheese...it could have been far worse!
As for the ol' Chainmail Bikini...I don't have a problem with it. If women can go to the beach in a bikini, I have no problem with art reflecting a similar image.
Where I object is when gaming companies seem to so often limit the art we see, instead of expanding their field of artists to bring in more varied forms of the female adventurer. I get tired of women being portrayed so often as the same thing...I love it when I see art of a woman in true armor hacking away at an enemy, or a female wizard who doesn't have her robe split up the side to her arse but is instead standing knee deep in the snow of some far north land fighting the good fight of the adventurer.
Give me "realism" in my fantasy any ol' day. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 10 May 2012 : 19:35:48
The art discussion in that article was diffused by a confusion about the term "sexist"--the objection to the portrayals of women in fantasy art isn't that said art is "sexist" (though it is the product of an artist who probably is sexist himself), but that the art is "overly sexualized", i.e., treating female characters as sexual objects, rather than characters. Yes, these are only fictional portrayals, but the style reflects and promotes an opinion of women that is sexist (i.e. women exist for titillation and sexual purposes, they aren't real warriors, etc).
As BEAST put it, the occasional cheesecake is fine, so long as it's honest about being cheesecake, and it's not the ONLY portrayal out there. Women are just as varied as men--they should be allowed to vary in terms of their portrayals, equipment, clothing, etc.
Cheers |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 May 2012 : 17:25:52
Vikings were originally (and equally innacurately) depicted with winged helmets. Maybe we can get those back. {smirk}
Celts used Winged Helmets, and Ancient (pre-Viking) Norse used animal/horned helms, but researchers believe it was ritualistic in nature. While the academia leans toward the clergy (shamans back then), I personally believe it was an embellishment enjoyed by leaders (who weren't always the ones 'in the fray'). Its was more ornamental then functional, is what I am getting at (like Machiavellian armor). There is also evidence that some horns may have been detachable (lending credence to the theory they were ornamental, and could be discarded quickly if needed).
So in art, one 'leader-type' could possibly have such a helmet, but not the whole group. For example, a king (Jarl) on a throne should have something like a winged helm, just to set him apart.
Im my HB world, I took an entirely different route. My northmen-like race (The Vogalts) are non-human, and more like a cross between half-ogres and Krynnish minotaurs. In other words, when they take off their helmets - surprise surprise - the horns are still there!
And yes, I thought about the logistics of that - the helms are split sideways, and latch together at the ears (and the hasp is disguised as part of the ornamentation). Of course it would be simpler for them to just file down their horns to nubs, but Vogalts take pride in their horns the way dwarves do in their beards. Traitors, cowards, and criminals sometimes have their horns cut-off before being ostracized - these are the few you might see in the main campaign area. |
| Kajehase |
Posted - 10 May 2012 : 10:44:36
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
How about horned northmen helmets? They are right up their with Boobmail in anti-functionality. Should we give those up as well?
If we give those up, how will we be able to tell our Viking-types from other barbarians?
First off - yes, we should definitely give up the horned helmets unless, maybem we're depicting some ceremonial event. In fact, I seem to recall the comic-version of Conan being given a helmet like that early in the Conan the Barbarian run - and it was quickly removed because everyone involved thought it looked too silly.
As for how to tell them apart from other barbarians... well, I'd say we do it based on them being just that sliver more awesome than all other barbarians. (The whole "looks and sounds like tall dwarves" schtick is probably going to help as well.) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 May 2012 : 07:04:01
How about horned northmen helmets? They are right up their with Boobmail in anti-functionality. Should we give those up as well?
If we give those up, how will we be able to tell our Viking-types from other barbarians?
|
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 09 May 2012 : 18:41:54
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This just in.
Interesting article, touching upon our side-discussion here.
I actually remember ads like that when I was little. My, how times have changed. Its an interesting read, regardless, and lets us weigh-in on how we want D&D art down the line.
Awesome, thanks for the link! Quite a good post by the artist.
Female warriors wearing 'scanty' armor only makes sense in certain situations, true, but it is a pronounced mistake to make a blanket statement such as 'unrealistic' or 'ludicrous'.
Many worlds support just this sort of armor type, usually the ones with a decent injection of High Fantasy. More mundane, less magical worlds such as Cerilia (Birthright), which has a dearth of magic as well as actual spellcasters, would be unlikely (at best) to support this sort of protection (and I, in fact, do not allow 'boobmail' in my Birthright campaigns).
However, for those worlds that have the magical background/resources for such things, I am willing to suspend my disbelief, and put my real-world mundane prejudices on a shelf. I get enough 'realism' just by getting up in the morning - I'd like a little less realism in my High Fantasy from time to time.
- OMH |
| BEAST |
Posted - 09 May 2012 : 03:05:07
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
This just in.
Interesting article, touching upon our side-discussion here.
To use his accepted definition of sexism as gender stereotyping or gender role stereotyping, then it would seem that if almost all fantasy art depicts women as scantily-clad vixens, that would be a gender role stereotype. It would seem to be depicting all women as sex objects. (Never mind any women who don't look like them; the only ones who matter are the obviously hot ones. And never mind that hot women come in a wide range of forms, either.)
There's nothing wrong--I repeat, NOTHING wrong--with occasionally depicting some sexy boobmail-festooned women here and there. But when that becomes the norm, then a type or even stereotype is being embraced.
Balance is a good thing. Blend in other sorts (of women and men).
That way, when the occasional hotty does make it onto a cover, she (or he) will have that much more pop and pizazz in the eyes of the viewers.
This approach might risk losing some consumers, especially in this short-attention-span, more-more-more, entertain-me-now! age. That's a risk that TPTB have to decide whether they're willing to take.
But I repeat that I didn't go for the hotty boobmail-cover-art books as a kid. Sure, I picked them up and drooled over them. But then I put them back and bought, with my precious limited funds, books that I thought I could take more seriously.
I guess what TPTB really need to decide is what kind of consumers do they ultimately want to court and cater to? |
| Dennis |
Posted - 09 May 2012 : 00:43:00
Fashion itself does not matter. It is the context that must be taken into consideration.
Going back to the boobmail example. If women in a certain culture deem it right to wear boobmail as everyday upper body covering because it exudes a certain sexual appeal and because it makes them feel comfortable and attractive, then fine. But having female warriors wear it in battle is just plain silly. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 08 May 2012 : 22:01:05
This just in.
Interesting article, touching upon our side-discussion here.
I actually remember ads like that when I was little. My, how times have changed. Its an interesting read, regardless, and lets us weigh-in on how we want D&D art down the line.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 21:57:58
quote:
Impquote:
Ayrik
Hey, Bruce Lee was a "legendary" martial artist ... a bullet-resistant vest might've saved his life, his epic skill didn't.
True, but not relevant. In D&D it doesn't really matter where you get your AC from. It still has the same effect - enemy can't hit you.
I think not so easily dismissed, if you assume D&D Bruce Lee received AC from his martial arts class/skills. |
| Imp |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 20:40:06
Err... so? |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 20:23:09
quote:
Originally posted by Imp
quote:
That, or they are an unarmed/unarmored fighter of amazing skill that are deliberately trying to get their enemy to underestimate them.
I have a character in a game that has very good AC without using an armor at all. Heck. He would lose a significant portion of that AC if he would put armor on.
Also a good point. However, male characters might not want to wear a chain bikini, anyways...
- OMH |
| Imp |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 18:18:40
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Hey, Bruce Lee was a "legendary" martial artist ... a bullet-resistant vest might've saved his life, his epic skill didn't.
True, but not relevant. In D&D it doesn't really matter where you get your AC from. It still has the same effect - enemy can't hit you. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 18:05:11
Hey, Bruce Lee was a "legendary" martial artist ... a bullet-resistant vest might've saved his life, his epic skill didn't. |
| Imp |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 17:29:18
quote:
That, or they are an unarmed/unarmored fighter of amazing skill that are deliberately trying to get their enemy to underestimate them.
I have a character in a game that has very good AC without using an armor at all. Heck. He would lose a significant portion of that AC if he would put armor on. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 16:10:35
"Tom & Jerry"?
We are grown men playing with games and toys (and still-in-the-box collectibles).
I have no mind of my own, so I bow to your superior taste. |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 15:48:52
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
*Magic*
It's easy for a magical brassierre to provide actual armor class comparable to, say, a magical bracelet, ring, necklace, medallion, turban, footwear, elbowpad, bandage, or feather. The variety of "unencumbering" magical items which protect the wearer as effectively as a complete suit of metal armor is limited only to creator's talents and imagination. If a wizard wants to make chainmail bikini +3 for his/her own use (or to give to a companion) then so be it - seductive/erotic fashions are no more than a matter of style and preference.
*No-Magic*
Chainmail bikini = victim in any kind of realistic simulation of medieval combat vs opponents who use metal arms and armor.
Exactly. Anyone who sallies forth into battle with a chain bikini with no enhancements of any sort is an idiot, and deserves what they get. That, or they are an unarmed/unarmored fighter of amazing skill that are deliberately trying to get their enemy to underestimate them.
Magic allows for all sorts of things. It's a tad bit discouraging that many of us as tabletop gamers haven't made that connection. 
- OMH |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 21:45:09
*Magic*
It's easy for a magical brassierre to provide actual armor class comparable to, say, a magical bracelet, ring, necklace, medallion, turban, footwear, elbowpad, bandage, or feather. The variety of "unencumbering" magical items which protect the wearer as effectively as a complete suit of metal armor is limited only to creator's talents and imagination. If a wizard wants to make chainmail bikini +3 for his/her own use (or to give to a companion) then so be it - seductive/erotic fashions are no more than a matter of style and preference.
*No-Magic*
Chainmail bikini = victim in any kind of realistic simulation of medieval combat vs opponents who use metal arms and armor. |
| Imp |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 13:59:14
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
@OMH
If it's magical, I still fail to see why the 'condition' has to do with the boobs. She could have just used a ring and wear an ordinary bra.
It is a bra. Metal bra. They don't yet have the technology to make ordinary bras. :P |
| Old Man Harpell |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 12:32:03
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
@OMH
If it's magical, I still fail to see why the 'condition' has to do with the boobs. She could have just used a ring and wear an ordinary bra.
Point taken, and it's actually a good one.
My response is this: Magical upper garment (bikini top/halter/what have you): +1 AC (plus protects as padded or leather, DM's call).
Magical Lower Garment (briefs/skirt/bloomers/whatever): +1 AC (same as above).
Put together: Functions as a Ring of Warmth (oh come on...you had to see that one on the way), plus a further set bonus of +1 or +2 versus Cold attacks, again, DM's call.
And...it leaves their fingers free for Rings of other sorts.
Just sayin'...
- OMH |
| Dennis |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 07:31:32
@OMH
If it's magical, I still fail to see why the 'condition' has to do with the boobs. She could have just used a ring and wear an ordinary bra. |
| sfdragon |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 06:59:40
quote:
Originally posted by BEAST
quote:
Originally posted by sfdragon
though I'd have to wonder what said female warrior was advertising going out like Red Sonya.....
Why, an upcoming novel or comic book, of course!
but its not a red head, its a bruenette and she's japanese and has XXX sized boxxom and dual wields sushi.
no offense to the japanese. |
|
|
