# Dragon’s-Eye View 3/28/2012... now with ENW poll!



## mach1.9pants (Mar 28, 2012)

*Dragon’s-Eye View 3/28/2012... now with ENW poll!*

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Appropriate Armor)

Well I read this article until about 1/10th of the way through and gave up on this utter tripe about full plate: *"Heck, for that matter, can you even guess how you'd get on the horse without a hoist and a couple of guys to help you?"*
Makes me so angry that such rubbish is still spouted by people in the mediaeval fantasy RPG business!

So not sure about what the rest of the article says, when I cool down a bit I'll finish it!

However I thought this image was what the poll was about and was wrong so I'll shove one up here 







So which do you like!


----------



## Blackwarder (Mar 28, 2012)

I voted fantastic realism but I'm more leaning to a point between fantastic realism and photorealism.

But to be perfectly honest I vote for chain mail bikinis!

Warder


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 28, 2012)

First off, I gotta say that the discussion about scimitars and sabers is pretty far off from reality. In fact, an arab scimitar and a cossack's saber actually look nearly identical. That sword that Mr. Schindehette is referring to when he mentions scimitar sounds like a sword from Disney's Aladdin, but the swords in that movie are not actually proper arab scimitars. This undermines his point a bit, since the functionality and purpose of a scimitar and saber (or katana, for that matter) are the same (primarily a slashing cavalry sword), so the necessities of form overwhelm cultural differences. Weapon designs are controlled by practical concerns, so they tend to look alike despite differences in culture.

Anyways, this article sounds a bit like an argument  for continuing 4E's armor aesthetics, so I'll just be blunt. I _hate_ 4E's armor aesthetics. A large part of this is the fact that 4E uses armor design to portray a culture for different races. I don't like that at all. Armor should either be very practical-looking, or very cool (coolness can override practicality any time). It should reflect the character and their immediate surroundings, not try to reflect some made-up culture that isn't even described in a setting book. It should be universally iconic, not a reflection of the art team's worldbuilding.

Another part of the reason I hate 4E armor designs is that they include all the silly armor types from leather through chainmail. The only types of armor that look cool are cloth, plate, or combinations of cloth and plate. Light armor should involve lots of cloth and small, but practical use of metal plates. Heavy armor should have crazy thick plates. I'll attach three images below of  the spectrum. Also, they are all in a more manga style and two are female characters, just for the heck of it.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 28, 2012)

Well I totally disagree with you about what types of armour can look cool, ring mail, chain mail leather and (especially) brigandine/coat of plates types can look awesome
Coat of Plates;




Leather




How about some scale and chain?


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 28, 2012)

Other not represented: a combination of all three and more producing a result that is cool and a bit fantastic but not ridiculous.

Examples: of the three images [MENTION=32536]TwinBahamut[/MENTION] posted above the Black Knight is ridiculous.  The other two are not my preferred style; I don't find them to be cool but at the same time they aren't ridiculous.

Of the three images [MENTION=55946]mach1.9pants[/MENTION] posted in the OP the one on the left is cool, the one in the middle is ridiculous, and I'm not quite sure what the one on the right is - cool with ridiculous elements (e.g. the skull kneecaps) sums it up, I suppose.

Lanefan


----------



## Arytiss (Mar 28, 2012)

Though I voted photorealism in the poll, I generally find myself somewhere between photo and fantastic realism.

In short, I like my armour sensible, but with a touch of something to lend that fantastic element to it.

However, as with Twin Bahamut, I wasn't overly fond of 4e's armour design. Mostly because I felt "chunky" was the best description for it. As the article said, armour should be varying, able to change in appearance from culture to culture.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Mar 28, 2012)

Whatever points he lost, he gained points for the _Merlin_ picture/reference.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 28, 2012)

God, can we kill this idea that "Manga" automatically means less realistic than "fantastic realism". I mean, there are mangas which make a serious effort to show historically appropriate armour as well as ones that go for the silly. Compared to Frazetta they're a model of sensible warriors in sensible armour. Even looking at the images they show, I don't really see much difference between the manga and that horrible fantastic realism one. 

Here, gratis, have a horribly unrealistic manga image. 






If I have to choose, I'd prefer stuff that is right - photorealism in the poll. I'll settle for stuff that looks reasonable - fantastic realism. I utterly reject the idea that the example of fantastic realism they use approaches realism in any way.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 28, 2012)

Overall, if I never heard Manga again on Enworld, I would be a happy man. 

As for the topic, I prefer armor that is mostly realistic, but with a nice flair to it. Definitely not photorealistic, but not the showing enough skin to gag a demon stuff either.  

But overall, with magic around, why isn't armor less realistic? It really should be.


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 28, 2012)

I voted "Other". The game doesn't need to represent what real medieval European soldiers wore. D&D isn't that game.

I would like armor to represent fantasy literature and other fiction. It doesn't need to be over the top (no manga, no chain bikini), but I don't want D&D adventurers to be outfitted like medieval soldiers.

My instance, leather armor can be shown with a leather coat and pants. The artist doesn't have to make a hardened leather suit with a leather skullcap. Likewise, armor can be more form-fitting in artwork; otherwise, everyone in armor looks the same.


----------



## Minigiant (Mar 28, 2012)

Dice4Hire said:


> Overall, if I never heard Manga again on Enworld, I would be a happy man.
> 
> As for the topic, I prefer armor that is mostly realistic, but with a nice flair to it. Definitely not photorealistic, but not the showing enough skin to gag a demon stuff either.
> 
> But overall, with magic around, why isn't armor less realistic? It really should be.




I agree pretty much.

I want fantastic realism but with very little unprotected skin or clunky pieces on heavier armor. Cloth wearers can have their fleshy bits showing. Light armored folk may go with short sleeves, sleeveless, and shorts.

Though I am a bit of a hypocrite as I described a Major NPC as wearing an Erza Scarlet-like bikini-topped, winged, battle dress.  But that was to scare the players into not attacking her. 

I'm okay with over the top armor-dresses and black tie plate armor. My characters got style, baby.


----------



## delericho (Mar 28, 2012)

Of the three options, the one labelled "photorealism" is the best of the three, but still not particularly good. Those spikes have to go, as does the skull motif at the knees. I'm also not a fan of her inability to actually draw that sword she's carrying.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Mar 28, 2012)

The problem is when men are depicted with "photo-realistic" armor and women are depicted with "manga" armor in the same setting/world.


----------



## Yora (Mar 28, 2012)

I am not really sure what the purpose of the image is. "Manga" doesn't have much to do with manga, fantasy realism isn't realistic at all, and photorealistic is something entirely different from what's shown.

But the actual poll in the article doesn't ask which of the three we want to see, and I kind of assume it's another of his carricatures and not an actual illustration to prove his points.


----------



## Henry (Mar 28, 2012)

I actually preferred the styles from the 4E PHB/DMG, because while some were rather stylistic, the majority actually looked real enough to be plausible, and avoided the "Hennet buckles" look or the "XTREME ARMOR" look that got a lot of complaints circa 2000-2001. For example, I absolutely loved the angular/stone/runic look of the Dwarven armor -- it definitely screamed "archetypal Dwarven sensibilities" to me. Failing that, my second favorite is the look of late 1E to early 2E art - fairly no-nonsense armor, the kind that Caldwell & Elmore used to do. That other thread turned me on to Michael Komarck, now that's some pretty practical but good-looking armor represented.


----------



## Iosue (Mar 28, 2012)

Henry said:


> I actually preferred the styles from the 4E PHB/DMG, because while some were rather stylistic, the majority actually looked real enough to be plausible, and avoided the "Hennet buckles" look or the "XTREME ARMOR" look that got a lot of complaints circa 2000-2001. For example, I absolutely loved the angular/stone/runic look of the Dwarven armor -- it definitely screamed "archetypal Dwarven sensibilities" to me. Failing that, my second favorite is the look of late 1E to early 2E art - fairly no-nonsense armor, the kind that Caldwell & Elmore used to do. That other thread turned me on to Michael Komarck, now that's some pretty practical but good-looking armor represented.




The 4e dwarf armor was good, but that's because they shamelessly ripped off the Lord of the Rings art design.


----------



## avin (Mar 28, 2012)

Server is down, so I can't reat that at this moment, so I'll comment about options.

While I love photo realism for some things, D&D is pretty much a Fantasy game, not a Medieval Earth simulation. 

Most of 4E armor and weapons are far from what I'll like to see (dwarven armor is horrible) but the idea isn't bad: armor tries to capture what some fantasy race would wear, not what we, humans, used to wear at middle age.

As for Manga, I see that some people hate it and don't even want to hear about. But we can't just put all mangá in the same basket, that would be like compare Peanuts with Hellblazer. There are things like Sakura Card Captors and there are things like Lone Wolf and Cub... 

So, what I would like to see is fantastic realism. Armor that you look and think that could be really used by somebody, but that also clearly looks different among races... 

...but, please, no more 4E-like dwarven armor... be subtle...


----------



## gyor (Mar 28, 2012)

Fantasy realism. I've said it before, I'll say it again, I love breasts. Not PC, but honest.

  Although I think it should go more by class and race of course. 

 Cleavage makes more sense on say a Bard's armour, then a Paladin's. And a Tiefling rogue's leather armour more likely to show some skin,then say a dwarf rogue.


----------



## gyor (Mar 28, 2012)

Fantasy realism. I've said it before, I'll say it again, I love breasts. Not PC, but honest.

  Although I think it should go more by class and race of course. 

 Cleavage makes more sense on say a Bard's armour, then a Paladin's. And a Tiefling rogue's leather armour more likely to show some skin,then say a dwarf rogue.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 28, 2012)

I went with Fantastic Realism.

Here's how I'd represent the three styles mentioned:

Manga:






Fantastic Realism:






Photorrealism:


----------



## Zireael (Mar 28, 2012)

My favorite is fantasy realism. With the exception of chain mail bikinis. 

That is, I want armor with various unrealistic elements (wings, spikes, giant helmets etc) that wouldn't be worn in RL. But I do not like too much skin showing, since it makes the character easier to hurt (unless the char has protective magic items).


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 28, 2012)

Zireael said:


> My favorite is fantasy realism. With the exception of chain mail bikinis.
> 
> That is, I want armor with various unrealistic elements (*wings*, spikes, giant helmets etc) that wouldn't be worn in RL.




I beg your pardon.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Polish hussars, btw.


----------



## Yora (Mar 28, 2012)

Though it is doubted they were worn in battle.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 28, 2012)

Not that I'm in any way an artist, but I think what I like is fantastical art that is *informed* by realism.  I don't mind things that are fantastical--even unlikely, but I do mind the pieces that leave you with the nagging doubt that the artist has no clue whatsoever about X, but drew it anyway.  

If someone drew, say, a human arm shaped more like the foreleg of a cat, with claws on the hand, and it looks like some combination of a cat and person, you might say, "cool, it's a good drawing of how a cat person arm and hand would look, even if no such thing exists."  If you see the same thing in a context where it is clear that "cat person" is the intent of the whole piece, but you suspect that the artist has paid little attention to the arms and hands of either people or cats, probably not so cool--or if it is cool, probably a happy accident unlikely to be repeated.  A lot of fantasy drawing of armor strikes me as drawn by someone not paying attention to armor and the person wearing it.

There are probably more technical artistic terms to convey what I mean here.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 28, 2012)

I'd definitely go with fantastic realism, and I wouldn't want too much into photorealism as it would seem less like fantasy to me.  Though some photorealism is fine.  With the fantastic realism picture certainly one thing I can think of though with that example, is I wouldn't have female characters wear high-heels in combat, even if they were a spell-caster that flies in combat most of the time.

And I would definitely not like that particular example of manga, which is appropriate to label manga as for this example since it's a very distinct from the others.

Though I certainly feel there should be more of an effort to have show of those culturally "appropriate" armours.


----------



## delericho (Mar 28, 2012)

Klaus said:


> I went with Fantastic Realism.
> 
> Here's how I'd represent the three styles mentioned:
> 
> ...




For some reason, the "Manga" image didn't show up for me. Of the other two of these, though, I'd definitely prefer the second one. Whereas of the three in the OP (and article), only the third looked remotely acceptable.

I think that may be a problem with the three labels - when thinking of my preferred style, it's really a case of "I know it when I see it." (Which isn't terribly helpful, I know.)


----------



## Klaus (Mar 28, 2012)

The first one is an image from Records of Lodoss War.


----------



## delericho (Mar 28, 2012)

There were a couple of things from the article that caught my eye, but I wasn't able to comment on until the WotC site came back up...



> Can you imagine wandering the desert, even on horseback, in that? You'd bake in no time flat. Heck, for that matter, can you even guess how you'd get on the horse without a hoist and a couple of guys to help you? Can anyone tell me what's up with those goofy pointed toes? And forget about making a quick dash to the nearest portable toilet.




"May all those who go to don armour tomorrow, remember to go before they don armour tomorrow." - Prince Edmund, the Black Adder.



> I mentioned environment. I'd like to discuss that topic for a moment. I've heard folks put down images that had people wandering around in nothing but loincloths. Before you discount the style of dress, please ask yourself whether it fit the culture and environment.




The problem is that in a world where other things exist, loincloths _are_ silly. The moment a culture can craft any other type of armour (or, indeed, make anything we would describe as clothing), loincloths disappear - they're simply inferior in terms of protection, hygeine, and durability.

Tarzan doesn't coexist with Charlemagne. In any marginally-realistic world, he finds himself cut down in seconds.



> Now, in terms of culture, while I was looking at armor and considering the topic of appropriateness, I spent a lot of time and energy researching historical female armor. Guess what? There isn't much armor. We can find mentions of Amazons, Valkyrie, and a few female warriors such as Joan of Arc depicted in literature and art, but outside of artistic renderings, we really don't have any solid evidence about what they actually looked like. Many scholars have guessed that they just wore smaller "men's armor" that was appropriate for their culture.




Historically, there really aren't a lot of women-warriors to draw from, at least amongst those who served openly. Of course, there are several tales of women who disguised themselves to serve - in which case they didn't wear "smaller men's armour" - what they wore was simply "men's armour".



> Even though the image is from the BBC "Merlin" series, it's pretty historically correct. So this would be culturally appropriate, right? Well, all except for the part that it wasn't culturally appropriate for a woman to fight in that time period's military forces. That means we have to set aside reality for a moment and start looking at this discussion from the point of view of the hypothetical . . . or from the point of view of the fantasy setting.




I tend to agree. My preference for the implied setting is something like the "Battlestar Galactica" model, where _of course_ a woman can be a warrior, or a fighter-pilot, or president, and nobody gives it even a moment's thought. That's not historically accurate, and it may or may not be 'realistic', but I think it's the best baseline assumption.

Where it comes to armour, then, I think the game would be best served by dressing female warriors in the armour that _would_ exist had such a thing been common in our history. So, chain mail should indeed be as depicted - Morgause from "Merlin", rather than some equivalent of Seven of Nine's catsuit.

Similarly, plate armour should absolutely _not_ be moulded to highlight the warrior's breasts, because that is stupidly impractical - doing so would direct incoming attacks in towards vital areas, rather than away.

We may not have examples, and we may not know how such armour _would_ look, but we can certainly take a guess or two at how it is likely to be designed, given its purpose.

Basically, if the game is going to be serious about depicting female characters in dangerous situations, then it should depict them seriously - they're dungeoneers, not catwalk models!



> So we've got this made-up culture, and now we start envisioning what townsfolk, merchants, nobles, and the military might look like. These guys are made-up, so it doesn't matter that there are no real-world cultural metaphors to draw from for a female fighter in the real-world cultures we pulled from. Instead, we just worry about whether the male and female feel like they are both from the same culture, and that they are appropriately armored for their culture, environment, technology, and materials.
> 
> Now we have two warriors from a particular culture. Each is wearing equivalent armor types of similar materials, gaining equal protection to the same types of threats, and looking like they belong together on the battlefield.




This is exactly what I would like to see. IMO, this is the point where the article is at its best. And the image of the two warriors (which I haven't quoted) is the best in the article. Again, IMO.



> In other words, a male knight in full battle dress, wading through the desert sands, is just about as silly as a female fighter, in a chainmail bikini, forging through the frozen wastes of the Iceland Dale.




Not really. On the one hand, we have a knight who has been stupid enough to don armour inappropriate to his environment. On the other we have a female fighter who has been stupid enough to don 'armour' that is inappropriate to _any_ environment.

Honestly, I'd rather not see chainmail bikinis anywhere in a D&D book. But if you feel you must have them, then fine - just don't pretend they're anything other than cheesecake.


----------



## delericho (Mar 28, 2012)

Probably poor form to quote myself, but something just occurred to me...



delericho said:


> Similarly, plate armour should absolutely _not_ be moulded to highlight the warrior's breasts, because that is stupidly impractical - doing so would direct incoming attacks in towards vital areas, rather than away.




It occurs to me that quite a lot of the armour that we have in museums is actually dress armour - it was used for ceremonial occasions, but probably never intended for the battlefield. Obviously, such armour designed for a female fighter might well be much more "catwalk style" than the real armour used on adventures.

Even so, I would prefer such characters to be dressed appropriately for the individual scene - there's no reason that Alias or Laurana (or Sturm or Wulfgar for that matter) couldn't have one set of armour for the court scenes and entirely another for the dungeon!


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 28, 2012)

delericho said:


> It occurs to me that quite a lot of the armour that we have in museums is actually dress armour - it was used for ceremonial occasions, but probably never intended for the battlefield. Obviously, such armour designed for a female fighter might well be much more "catwalk style" than the real armour used on adventures.




Heh. Reminds me of the scene in Eddings' "Belgariad" series where Ce'Nedra wants some armor with some obvious female attributes--or in her case, actually exaggerated. When the smith complains that it is impractical in combat (not to mention immodest), she says that she isn't going to fight in it, but give speeches.


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Mar 28, 2012)

I voted fantasy realism, but I do not consider the example picture to have anything to do with reality. (Unless we're talking about a different kind of dungeon).


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 28, 2012)

_as I posted in the other thread_

In terms of context that he talks about...

"In other words, a male knight in full battle dress, wading through the desert sands, is just about as silly as a female fighter, in a chainmail bikini, forging through the frozen wastes of the Iceland Dale."

Ok...but do any mechanics support that? In 4E, and honestly just about all versions, the fighter (and Paladin, and maybe cleric...) is probably going to have the heaviest armor possible, and that is full plate, which is a more walkable version of the first pic in the article (I guess technically the walkable version would be field plate) and when the time comes, he is going to go to really hot places and not really be penalized for it. 

Lets take this pic:






Is that appropriate armor, because I bet it sure if hot. 

(yes...I know its a special case...the point here is linking art to the actual game and what happens in it).


----------



## avin (Mar 28, 2012)

Wait a minute, OP just cheated, I want to vote on *Flashy Disco wear*!

After reading the article I couldn't agree more:



> Armor should look appropriate to the culture, environment, materials available, and technology, first and foremost. If the armor doesn't pass that test, then it doesn't matter whether it is being worn by a man or a woman.
> 
> In other words, a male knight in full battle dress, wading through the desert sands, is just about as silly as a female fighter, in a chainmail bikini, forging through the frozen wastes of the Iceland Dale.


----------



## Derren (Mar 28, 2012)

Why shouldn't the ladies have armor like this?





Seriously thought I am for realistic armor and I disagree with that article which point apparently is "Its fantasy, it doesn't have to be realistic (because we define what realistic is)".

No, it does not have to be realistic but I still like to have plausible armor. No spikes, no open bellies, no boob plate. There are many factors which influenced the design of armor and culture was only one of them (and imo a minor one). So even when you take that away you still will get mostly the same type of armor we had in the real world.

PS: Full plate in the desert? Guess what the crusaders wore?


----------



## RangerWickett (Mar 28, 2012)

I imagine the crusaders rode around on horses while wearing light clothing, and when they got near to some place where armor was useful they would get dressed in it.


----------



## Dausuul (Mar 28, 2012)

I wholeheartedly agree with "armor should be appropriate to the environment and the culture." I'm really happy to see more elements of real-world culture being brought into the art. And I love the take on designing armor for male and female warriors that is clearly of similar purpose and origin, without necessarily being identical. The outfits of those two warriors are pefect.

All that makes me feel a little bad about bringing this up, but the poses of those same warriors bug me.  They belong on the same battlefield, but the woman doesn't look like she's actually _on_ a battlefield. The man is posed for combat. He's in a fighting crouch with his feet well apart, he's got a firm grip on his weapon, he's brandishing it ready to swing, his shield is up, he's yelling a battle cry. The woman is posed... well, she's posed. She's standing straight, smiling, her feet are tight together, and she's doing that thing where you're on the ball of one foot and the flat of the other. Her mace is loosely held and her shield is down.

It's not a huge deal, and I'm certainly not saying the female warrior is in a cheesecakey "come-hither" pose like we often saw in the Elmore days. Taken just as it is, this picture is miles better than most fantasy art. But it still bugs me, a little.


----------



## Bluenose (Mar 28, 2012)

Derren said:


> PS: Full plate in the desert? Guess what the crusaders wore?




Chain over a gambeson, typically. Probably a hauberk and leggings, unless you're talking First Crusade before leggings became common. Surcoat on top. Helmets - they vary. And of course Ghulam cavalry on the other side are pretty similar. 

Though compared to Sassanid and Late Roman Clibanarii, they aren't especially heavy. There's a reason those were nicknamed "bakiing-ovens".


----------



## Derren (Mar 28, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> I imagine the crusaders rode around on horses while wearing light clothing, and when they got near to some place where armor was useful they would get dressed in it.




Knights would do this everywhere. No one walks/rides around the whole day in armor.
And thats why the "Knight in desert is silly" argument is, well, silly.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 28, 2012)

I'm with him the entire way through the article, and I really like the African-inspired fantasy folks there at the end -- they look like characters I want to play! 






The picture at the end wonks me a little because I don't see a tremendous difference between the first two pictures. The face on the second one is a little less cartoony, but the body is EVEN MORE cartoony (the horns and the tail seem like they've been glued on!), and the lady at the end certainly isn't dramatically "realistic," though she's closer to what I want than either of those two (seriously, HEELS? a choker? those exposed hips? Are they there to titillate 13 year old boys who don't know that the internet is full of pr0n?), but I think you could take that last one and make it more dynamic and less blocky, too. 

But in the larger point of the article, I am on board so far. I think he makes the case well for not going crazy realistic with the armor, and I think that's smart -- this is a game of dragons and magic, we should not be stuck in what folks in medieval Europe wore. Such a thing may be present in limited ways (okay, a full-plate knight on horseback with a lance in a temperate-to-subarctic clime), but it doesn't need to be the sole representation of armored warriors in the game.


----------



## Mengu (Mar 28, 2012)

This topic always gives me a chuckle, as both sides are often quite passionate about their views.

I like fantasy. That's why I play FRPG's. That's what I want to see in D&D artwork. Sure, they can borrow historical elements, but ultimately, I want it to be obvious that the artwork is not one from a historical game, but one from a fantasy game.

I voted Fantasy realism, but I don't mind variations to the manga side or to the historical side. The armor for a Chalice Knight, may look mostly historical with a hint of fantasy via heraldry and embellishments, while the armor for the Deathknight may have disproportionately large shoulders, a helm with only two pin points for eyes, spikes on the armor, and giant boots that realistically would make it impossible to walk. Both concepts can be drawn in similar styles to belong in the same universe, and yet they obey different "armor realism" rules.


----------



## Derren (Mar 28, 2012)

Mengu said:


> I like fantasy. That's why I play FRPG's.




What is fantasy about armor spikes and "sexy" armor with unprotected belly?


----------



## Mengu (Mar 28, 2012)

Derren said:


> What is fantasy about armor spikes and "sexy" armor with unprotected belly?




Everything.


----------



## Zireael (Mar 28, 2012)

> Polish hussars, btw.




   To forget about them, being Polish...


----------



## Derren (Mar 28, 2012)

Mengu said:


> Everything.




Thats not a real answer.

What is "fantasy" about them?


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 28, 2012)

Honestly, I have to go somewhere between Fantastic Realism and Photorealism, and both should exist with the game.  I tend to favor fantastic realism, but the picture I feel does it unfair service.  Not all fantastic realism is so sexually oriented, though admittedly both men and women tend to have more idealistic bodies.

Photorealism is boring, plus there's no maigc-types in real photos anyway.  And I play a FANTASY game for all it's FANTASTIC elements, so yeah, I like the art to represent that.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 28, 2012)

Derren said:
			
		

> What is "fantasy" about them?




Rule of Cool, man. Also called an Acceptable Break From Reality

Essential in D&D for strict adherence to the Rule of Fun.

For me, as long as the hotness doesn't degenerate into blatant and unblinking Fanservice (Like those first two pictures seem to...and the 4e PHB cover does), it's probably fine.

Of course, like with anything invoking subjective determinations, Your Mileage May Vary, but just because *you* don't think it is doesn't mean it isn't. 

That's why I think some big reasonable pseudo-historical armor should be in the package, but it shouldn't define the limits of what we can do.


----------



## tlantl (Mar 28, 2012)

I vote for all of the above. 

It's art. It's purpose is to be admired. If I'm playing a game where I have to use my imagination I don't much care what the illustrator draws, it's likely not going to fit with my vision anyway. 

Video games do this all the time. They use an art style totally foreign to my imaginings.  

The depictions of scenes pertaining to the subject at hand is more important to me than how little the armor covers or how over the top the style is. I just want to look at a drawing that doesn't make me cringe because the character couldn't possibly actually do anything in the armor they are wearing.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 28, 2012)

I voted for fantastic realism. But the picture is a little bit too fantastic for my tastes. I want a good mix of both, appropriate for the adventure and the depicted person/monster.
A succubus needs some fantastic realism, photorealism would be boring there.
I don´t need chainmail bikinis... although i could imagine adventures where they would fit in.


----------



## Dirge (Mar 28, 2012)

I want photorealistic chainmail bikinis (the perfect blend of fantasy and reality)...

But seriously, just keep it mostly realistic with some fantastical elements (i.e., not anime/manga) and above all make the artwork grand and evocative (with some other nice adjectives thrown in for good effect)...

And, honestly, D&D artwork could actually benefit from a small dose of Frazetta-like inspiration (just with less nudity)...A lot of modern D&D art has become rather dry and/or cartoony and could stand that shot in the arm to reinvigorate interest in the medium...


----------



## Mengu (Mar 28, 2012)

Derren said:


> What is "fantasy" about them?




Spikes on armor are improbable. But we can imagine them being there, and making the armor look more imposing, intimidating, or cool, even if not realistic or functional. Therefore, it's fantasy.

Hot chicks with bare midriffs are attractive. We know it's unlikely a woman would want to fight in such garb. But we (men) like to fantasize about it anyway. So, it's fantasy.

Also fantasy imagery has included these elements for a very long time. And that fits with the expectation of the audience, leading our little brains to process the imagery as fantasy.

And of course, they are merely two of many established icons of fantasy.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Mar 28, 2012)

Photorealism, please.

Most of the races in D&D are more or less humanoid.  I think a good case can be made that the question of how to defend the human(oid) body from weapons by sheathing it in metal plates would have been answered by humanoids on whatever fantasy world in very much the same way it was answered by humans on our own world.

Thus, I feel that "real" fantasy armour should wind up looking not too differently from armour on historical Earth.  To do otherwise would feel less believable to me, and would shake my immersion in any of the art.

Regardless of what they decide, in my campaigns, full plate armour will always has and always will look like this:


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 28, 2012)

RangerWickett said:


> I imagine the crusaders rode around on horses while wearing light clothing, and when they got near to some place where armor was useful they would get dressed in it.




I would imagine that both Yes and No apply to this. Yes, they'd likely only wear armor when necessary, but "necessary" was likely more often than one might think.

Basically, I'd think that once they were outside of a Fortress or a protected area, the armor likely went on. That would probably include long patrols in the hot desert. Enemies tend to not provide the time to "get ready" before they come riding down on you...



Derren said:


> Full plate in the desert? Guess what the crusaders wore?




Plate Armor wasn't in use during the Crusades in the Middle East. They wore Gambeson and Mail, or other armors (Scale, Leather, and combinations of such), and towards the later Crusades in the Middle East (most in Egypt), Transitional Armors would have only just started becoming common (Mail with Plate in certain areas - elbows, knees, armpits, maybe a cuirrass, etc.)...but Full Plate Armor wasn't developed yet during those periods.

However, I get your point...and in actuality, Mail and Gambeson would have been even more uncomfortable than Full Plate.


----------



## BobTheNob (Mar 28, 2012)

Question.

Look at the LOTR films. Of you were to take a drawn image that came damn close to Eowen at the Palenor fields, that would be realism. What about the Nazgul? They have a very "realistic" look (the film made it so), yet they are a complete fantastic race with no grounding in reality.

So the art of the film is "realistic", but the material is fantastic. So when you have the image of Eowen vs the Nazgul, what would you class it as?

(Cause in truth, thats sorta what Im aiming for)


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 28, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> So the art of the film is "realistic", but the material is fantastic. So when you have the image of Eowen vs the Nazgul, what would you class it as?




Fantastical realism.  It's realism...within the scope of a fantasy genre.  

That's what I don't like about the source image for this discussion, "fantasy realism" is more than just cheesecake or beefcake.  It's such a broad moniker it covers anything that wouldn't/didn't exist in reality(such as female warriors and undead knights to loin-clothed barbarians and wanna-be succubi).


----------



## Mattachine (Mar 29, 2012)

I can't imagine a D&D adventurer in realistic full-plate, tromping through a dungeon.

You would be incredibly loud, have extreme difficulty with climbing, tire quickly, and have no peripheral vision.

In medieval times, full armor was for the battlefield and ceremonies, not expeditions.


----------



## Lwaxy (Mar 29, 2012)

Uhm... where, exactly, is the difference between the "Manga" and "fantastic realism" (rather fantastic irrealism to me)? The only difference is the "Manga" version is drawn in Japanese style. 

Both show females in overly sexist outfits with too large . No self respecting woman unless she is of a certain profession would run around like that on a daily basis unless she is of a certain profession... oh wait... *looks at all the belly free slutty fashion styles of today* Well, no one says women in a fantasy setting can't fall slaves to stupid fashion styles, too 

But really, the styles of the first 2 pics may be a bit different but it is basically the same. 

The 3rd picture is best. For a fighter, anyway.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 29, 2012)

Clarification:

The image related to a part of the article that was edited out, so part of the context was lost.


----------



## Ranganathan (Mar 29, 2012)

All of the above. And a whole lot more.

Above and beyond any game play issues I might have had with the more recent editions of D&D, the one thing I hated most was the unified art style of the books. I want a broad spectrum of art, artists, color / black & white, manga, photoreal, magical realism, wood block, what the hell ever. If it's cool and evocative of "D&D" then it's in. Seeing 100s of images in roughly the same style by a dozen or fewer artists is damned annoying in a fantasy RPG, especially if that style isn't what I think of when I day dream about D&D.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Mar 29, 2012)

Ranganathan said:


> All of the above. And a whole lot more.



Yep. I was just coming here to post that too.


----------



## delericho (Mar 29, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Not all fantastic realism is so sexually oriented, though admittedly both men and women tend to have more idealistic bodies.




While that's true, the idealism works differently for the two sexes. The female characters tend to be idealised to project sexiness - exaggerated curves, posed specifically to highlight key areas (sometimes contrary to the limits of anatomy), and so forth. Basically, they're a male fantasy.

The male characters, on the other hand, are idealised to project power - they're tall, with exaggerated muscles, carrying over-large "weapons", and are either scarred or scowling badasses. Those are _also_ a male fantasy.

(Indeed, for a really good example of this, just look at the 4e PHB cover - the male character is fully armoured and posed for combat; the female character is twisted precisely to highlight T&A.)

Believe it or not, this was actually addressed quite recently over on Cracked - if you scroll down to the section on Namor. But be wary - although there's no nudity, I would suggest that a lot of the artwork there is borderline NSFW.

Don't get me wrong - I don't have anything against either idealised bodies or male fantasies. But if they're going down that route, there should be balance - let's have significant representation of badass female adventurers, and let's have the 'sexy' male characters as well.



Dirge said:


> And, honestly, D&D artwork could actually benefit from a small dose of Frazetta-like inspiration (just with less nudity)...A lot of modern D&D art has become rather dry and/or cartoony and could stand that shot in the arm to reinvigorate interest in the medium...




I don't disagree. A lot of the D&D art (and, actually, D&D itself) seems to have fallen into a groove of being overly neat, overly serious, and generally less fun. So, yeah, let's look to the older style of the 1st Ed books, and let's look to Frazetta, and let's look to other media.

And, for that matter, I have no issue with there being nudity in the books either, if that's the direction WotC want to take. (Though somehow I doubt that they would!)


----------



## Wednesday Boy (Mar 29, 2012)

Bluenose said:


> I beg your pardon.
> 
> Polish hussars, btw.




Very cool--Like a cavalry charge of devas!


----------



## Scribble (Mar 29, 2012)

delericho said:


> Tarzan doesn't coexist with Charlemagne. In any marginally-realistic world, he finds himself cut down in seconds.




But I'd say D&D is more of a pulp style world though where those things do exist at one time.

I'm a mix of photo realistic and fantasy realistic. 

I like stuff to have a basic grounding in realism, however I don't like it if it gets hyper focused on realism.  

The manga style presented isn't "bad" it's just too stylized for my personal tastes.


----------



## KesselZero (Mar 29, 2012)

Does anybody else think the "manga" and "fantastic realism" examples look identical except for the eyes and horns? The "photorealism" example is the only one I like at all.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 29, 2012)

KesselZero said:


> Does anybody else think the "manga" and "fantastic realism" examples look identical except for the eyes and horns? The "photorealism" example is the only one I like at all.



No, and while the "Fantastic Realism" example may not be the best example of Fantastic Realism, the "manga" example is a typical example of a JRPG type character with the vaguely schoolgirl type outfit.


----------



## KesselZero (Mar 29, 2012)

Kobold Avenger said:


> No, and while the "Fantastic Realism" example may not be the best example of Fantastic Realism, the "manga" example is a typical example of a JRPG type character with the vaguely schoolgirl type outfit.




I was being a bit off-the-cuff, but honestly, look at those two examples. They both have high boots with stilletto heels, V-shaped waistpieces that reveal the entire upper thigh, chestpieces that cover the breasts and curve down along the ribs but leave the midriff exposed, armbands for the upper arms, something covering the forearms (high gloves or bracers), and axes. The differences are that the manga example has a headband and a little skirt, which actually makes her outfit slightly less revealing than the tiefling's, and that the tiefling has a pouch on her belt.

I think the problem with the cartoon is that it doesn't really capture what it intends to. What people object to about the "manga" style in D&D tends to be that it's hyperexaggerated (see the endless debate about the barbarian's huge sword in Wayne Reynolds' Pathfinder art), but this manga example is no more or less exaggerated than the fantastic realism example, except for the eyes I suppose. Her axe is no more disproportionate than the tiefling's, her armor no more revealing.

Others have mentioned this already, but I also wish they had gone with a different example of "fantastic realism." The example used brings up too many arguments about the depiction of women that I don't think are what Schindehette is originally trying to address. I would have much rather seen a triptych of armor that, from left to right, gets less and less wild, improbable, and fantastical. I think that would have supported the article better. Because ultimately, I do like fantastic realism, but I can't support the image from the example since it's such a piece of cheesecake.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 29, 2012)

KesselZero said:


> I was being a bit off-the-cuff, but honestly, look at those two examples. They both have high boots with stilletto heels, V-shaped waistpieces that reveal the entire upper thigh, chestpieces that cover the breasts and curve down along the ribs but leave the midriff exposed, armbands for the upper arms, something covering the forearms (high gloves or bracers), and axes. The differences are that the manga example has a headband and a little skirt, which actually makes her outfit slightly less revealing than the tiefling's, and that the tiefling has a pouch on her belt.




They're similar, but that's kind of the point.

Really what he's asking is do you prefer extremely exaggerated, slightly exaggerated, or not exaggerated.

The one in the middle is basically taking example 1 and 3 and smushing them together.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 29, 2012)

KesselZero said:
			
		

> Does anybody else think the "manga" and "fantastic realism" examples look identical except for the eyes and horns? The "photorealism" example is the only one I like at all.




Yeah, they're both very fanservice-y. All heels and hips and chokers and bikinis and ridiculousness. About the only difference seems to me to be the betty/veronica dichotomy. 

But I really did like his serious image about the African-inspired folks. They look capable of awesome.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 29, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Yeah, they're both very fanservice-y. All heels and hips and chokers and bikinis and ridiculousness. About the only difference seems to me to be the betty/veronica dichotomy.





Second picture:

Proportions Still way more busty then  a warrior would be but not "out of whack...." like the first image.

Looks more woman then girl.

Slightly more emphasis placed on muscle tones.

Less stylized facial features (eyes aren't the size of her hands for instance...)

More attention to gravity when it comes to clothing and hair, as opposed to picture one where the stuff is just inexplicably flowing around.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 29, 2012)

About the only thing I wouldn't want is for any of them to be chosen as THE STYLE and all the art produced in the same monostylistic tone. 

Chainmail bikinis and oversized swords are silly. The thing to remember is that D&D is partially silly too. Everything done in a single style gets boring eventually no matter how well done it is.


----------



## Derren (Mar 29, 2012)

BobTheNob said:


> Question.
> 
> Look at the LOTR films. Of you were to take a drawn image that came damn close to Eowen at the Palenor fields, that would be realism. What about the Nazgul? They have a very "realistic" look (the film made it so), yet they are a complete fantastic race with no grounding in reality.
> 
> ...




Considering the answers I got, Lotr/GoT would class as realistic because the armor has no spikes and are not sexy.


----------



## KesselZero (Mar 29, 2012)

Scribble said:


> Second picture:
> 
> Proportions Still way more busty then a warrior would be but not "out of whack...." like the first image.
> 
> ...





That's a fair point, but JS's post is about realism and styles of armor, not depictions of women. And the armor of the manga and FR examples is basically the same. I just think the cartoon missed the mark, is all. The rest of the post illustrations were coo and useful, especially the awesome African-inspired drawing. Would have loved some discussion about the "why" of these things-- for example, what sorts of weapons, animals, and environmental challenges would your average Masai warrior come up against, and what resources does he have to work with, that would lead him to wear the armor he wears?-- rather than just drawing on a particular cultural aesthetic.


----------



## Anguirus (Mar 29, 2012)

The creative folks should strive to make armor as realistic as possible, because the marketing gurus WILL try to force it back towards the ridiculous.  We'll get the best balance with the creative folks armed with as much history and good taste as they can.

I voted "photorealism" based on the cartoon, but that's hardly photorealism, and the example for "fantastic realism" is actually a terrible leather bikini THING.  I feel like that actually illuminates my point above.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 29, 2012)

KesselZero said:


> That's a fair point, but JS's post is about realism and styles of armor, not depictions of women. And the armor of the manga and FR examples is basically the same. I just think the cartoon missed the mark, is all. The rest of the post illustrations were coo and useful, especially the awesome African-inspired drawing. Would have loved some discussion about the "why" of these things-- for example, what sorts of weapons, animals, and environmental challenges would your average Masai warrior come up against, and what resources does he have to work with, that would lead him to wear the armor he wears?-- rather than just drawing on a particular cultural aesthetic.




Yeah I get what you're saying... I think he was just trying to go for an overall what style do you prefer better and that was the easiest way to emphasize the differences in a very apparent way? It's not so much how do you want women depicted, so much as the style overall. (It probably would have made more sense if he had used pictures of armor, but... Maybe he wanted something that would really stand out?)


----------



## CleverNickName (Mar 29, 2012)

I voted "fantastic realism," but I almost voted for "photorealism."  Not because I'm torn on the issue, mind you...I wanted to avoid voting for a tiefling.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 29, 2012)

Scrible said:
			
		

> Second picture:
> 
> Proportions Still way more busty then a warrior would be but not "out of whack...." like the first image.
> 
> ...




That makes sense. I guess when I look at them, my first questions is: "What is the _purpose_ of this illustration?"

#1 and #2 seem to fill a purpose that #3 does not.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 29, 2012)

delericho said:


> let's have significant representation of badass female adventurers, and let's have the 'sexy' male characters as well.



Problem is, "powerful" is "sexy" for males.  Though it's arguable that a "strong woman" is a more popular male fantasy today than pure T&A.  Even with all of those articles on Cracked, we're still talking about women who while ridiculously over sexified, could kick just about every real-world male's backside.  There's an S&M argument lurking in here somewhere I'm sure of it.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 29, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> That makes sense. I guess when I look at them, my first questions is: "What is the _purpose_ of this illustration?"
> 
> #1 and #2 seem to fill a purpose that #3 does not.




Yeah I know what you mean, but I guess what he's trying to show is:

Unrealistic Character, Unrealistic  Attire.

Realistic Character, Unrealistic Attire.

Realistic Character, Realistic Attire. 


He probably could have done it without the chainmail bikini thing, but I think it was probably the most apparent way to make the point. Everyone can look at 1 and 2 without having historic knowledge of armor and such and know that it's not going to be a realistic way to protect oneself... And at number three and think the opposite.


*Yeah, realistic is somewhat of a relative term here so don't jump all over me...


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Mar 29, 2012)

Scribble said:


> Yeah I know what you mean, but I guess what he's trying to show is:
> 
> Unrealistic Character, Unrealistic Attire.
> 
> ...




I'll buy that somewhat.  But if it was going to be a good sample, there should have also been an Unrealistic Character, Realistic Attire option.  

And then the set of 4 should have been repeated several times with other examples to filter out stuff specific to the pieces chosen, but I'm getting ahead of the game now.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 29, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I'll buy that somewhat.  But if it was going to be a good sample, there should have also been an Unrealistic Character, Realistic Attire option.
> 
> And then the set of 4 should have been repeated several times with other examples to filter out stuff specific to the pieces chosen, but I'm getting ahead of the game now.




Technically we would have needed a matrix.  Up-down for physical appearance, Left-Right for armor style.

Though we'd probably need a 3-dimensional matrix to take into account different art syles.  Especially since that last image is "comic book", not "photorealism".

EDIT: I was reading through my 4e PHB1, and there really aren't that many cakey images.  Aside from the cover, I think there were 3 or 4 inside, and at least two of which were shirtless males.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 29, 2012)

Crazy Jerome said:


> I'll buy that somewhat.  But if it was going to be a good sample, there should have also been an Unrealistic Character, Realistic Attire option.
> 
> And then the set of 4 should have been repeated several times with other examples to filter out stuff specific to the pieces chosen, but I'm getting ahead of the game now.




Yeah I don't think he was going for world class level statistics gathering here... Just kind of the basics.


And adding that 4th element might actually have confused stuff for a lot of people. 

Start with do you like a mix of unrealistic + realistic then figure out what the type of mix you're looking for is.


----------



## Lwaxy (Mar 29, 2012)

KesselZero said:


> That's a fair point, but JS's post is about realism and styles of armor, not depictions of women.




But the depiction is very unrealistic. Objectifying, too. 

Maybe they should have done examples with males.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 29, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> But the depiction is very unrealistic. Objectifying, too.
> 
> Maybe they should have done examples with males.




I would love to start a discussion to sexual objectification of males.  It wouldn't end well though.


----------



## delericho (Mar 29, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Problem is, "powerful" is "sexy" for males.




There's more to male sexiness than simply the 'idealised' hulking badass. See Han Solo, Captain Jack Sparrow (or, indeed, Captain Jack Harkness), or Colin Firth's Darcy for examples. Not to mention Spike, Eric Northman, or Edward of "Twilight" fame.

I could also talk about posture, and specifically the frequency of 'dominant' and 'submissive' poses in artwork, but I'd rather offer up a litmus test: Dragon #294.

That was the issue that tied in to the new 3e "Deities & Demigods" book, and had a "surfer dude" picture of Hermes. It's not the scowling, over-muscled hulk-man, but it was very definitely intended as a 'sexy' cover.

And the nerdrage was _incredible_. You would have thought the editors had come round to subscribers' houses and kicked their pets, for all the vitriol that was poured over that cover.

(From the letter's page in issue #296, referring to that cover: "I overheard a group of male gamers saying, "What the hell is this? I can't buy this!"", and "Although the cover art on issue #294 is excellent from a technical viewpoint, showing Ms Nielsen's great skill and panache, it's a subject that frankly makes me a bit queasy. If you're going to show someone in very little clothing on the cover, please make it a lady, in deference to the 98 percent male readership of your magazine.")

Anyway, _that's_ my challenge to the WotC art team. If they're going with the standard hyper-sexy, absurdly-posed female characters of previous editions*, then I want to see a reappearance of "surfer dude" Hermes, or similar. Or I want an explanation as to why they feel it is appropriate to portray female characters one way, but not males.

* I should qualify that: that _sometimes_ occur in previous editions - not every depiction falls into this mould, of course! Indeed, the majority do not. But enough do to be notable.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 29, 2012)

delericho said:


> There's more to male sexiness than simply the 'idealised' hulking badass. See Han Solo, Captain Jack Sparrow (or, indeed, Captain Jack Harkness), or Colin Firth's Darcy for examples. Not to mention Spike, Eric Northman, or Edward of "Twilight" fame.



While these guys lack physical might(edward has your typical "vampires are superman" power), that doesn't mean they lack power.  Han Solo oozes "cool" as is a badass behind a blaster or a space ship.  He's basically your "hot guy in a hot car" trope with a little bit of John Wayne mixed in.  Sparrow has the same kind of feeling in a bit more goofy way, Spike is basically Han Solo.

So sure, power isn't just about physical might, but for a man to be sexy they usually have power of some kind.



> I could also talk about posture, and specifically the frequency of 'dominant' and 'submissive' poses in artwork, but I'd rather offer up a litmus test: Dragon #294.
> 
> That was the issue that tied in to the new 3e "Deities & Demigods" book, and had a "surfer dude" picture of Hermes. It's not the scowling, over-muscled hulk-man, but it was very definitely intended as a 'sexy' cover.
> 
> ...



I'm not familiar with that particular instance, but I think it's patently ridiculous.  I mean if I had to provide a list of my ideas of a "sexy woman" there'd probably be 1 out of maybe 10 or 20 images who comes off anything like our earlier "fantastic realism" image.



> Anyway, _that's_ my challenge to the WotC art team. If they're going with the standard hyper-sexy, absurdly-posed female characters of previous editions*, then I want to see a reappearance of "surfer dude" Hermes, or similar. Or I want an explanation as to why they feel it is appropriate to portray female characters one way, but not males.
> 
> * I should qualify that: that _sometimes_ occur in previous editions - not every depiction falls into this mould, of course! Indeed, the majority do not. But enough do to be notable.



I agree that if we've got sexy-posed women, we should have sexy posed men, but then, taking from 4e as an example, browsing through the book there are probably only half a dozen pictures with "sexy poses" as opposed to positions that could be taken as realistic to it's effect.  I think that's a fine number of "sexy" images considering the dozens of images in any given book.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 29, 2012)

delericho said:


> Tarzan doesn't coexist with Charlemagne. In any marginally-realistic world, he finds himself cut down in seconds...




I don't know about this.  I think I can see Tarzan coexisting in a world with Charlemagne.  Sure, Tarzan in France is going to get cut down in a conflict with Chalemagne's Paladins.  But likewise, I think Tarzan would win in a conflict in his environment against the same opponents.

Unfortunately though, such differentiation is poorly modeled with D&D.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 30, 2012)

Thinking into Fantastic Realism, I'd say that spikes on armour would actually be valid when you consider how many monsters out there have tentacles with grapple attacks.  I'd think a Mind Flayer might be a little hesitant trying to eat the brain of someone with a spiky helmet in combat (but that's what mind blast is for).  Though realistic spikes wouldn't be spikes the size of daggers.


----------



## Lwaxy (Mar 30, 2012)

I don't think I want "sexy" in the game at all, at least not in the way of too much naked skin. The depiction of females in the fantasy arts was a big obstacle to getting the girls to play here, and from the younger ones (boys and girls), some were not getting parental permission because of the "porn style" pictures of women. 

The parents didn't want their kids involved with anything "sexy" even if it was just the chance of being exposed to such pictures. Bit weird seeing how they are probably more exposed to such pictures in the pop and fashion world but still. For some not familiar with the whole topic, fantasy gaming seems to equal half naked women and sweaty men. And it doesn't help if I explain that there is no sexy in my games for kids when the official books contain the same style of pictures.


----------



## delericho (Mar 30, 2012)

Kobold Avenger said:


> Thinking into Fantastic Realism, I'd say that spikes on armour would actually be valid when you consider how many monsters out there have tentacles with grapple attacks.  I'd think a Mind Flayer might be a little hesitant trying to eat the brain of someone with a spiky helmet in combat (but that's what mind blast is for).  Though realistic spikes wouldn't be spikes the size of daggers.




To be fair, the idea of a Mind Flayer eating _anyone's_ brain while in combat is rather silly. Subdue first, then dine.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 30, 2012)

Lwaxy said:


> I don't think I want "sexy" in the game at all, at least not in the way of too much naked skin. The depiction of females in the fantasy arts was a big obstacle to getting the girls to play here, and from the younger ones (boys and girls), some were not getting parental permission because of the "porn style" pictures of women.
> 
> The parents didn't want their kids involved with anything "sexy" even if it was just the chance of being exposed to such pictures. Bit weird seeing how they are probably more exposed to such pictures in the pop and fashion world but still. For some not familiar with the whole topic, fantasy gaming seems to equal half naked women and sweaty men. And it doesn't help if I explain that there is no sexy in my games for kids when the official books contain the same style of pictures.




I agree that sexy art should be minimal, but I still want d&d to retain mature art.  I would be dishonest if I felt that didn't include sexual subjects, but it would absolutely kill my love for the game if the art became neutered and childish in an attention to appeal to children.  I consider d&d to be on average a pg-13 game and it's target market appropiately aged.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Mar 30, 2012)

shidaku said:


> I agree that sexy art should be minimal, but I still want d&d to retain mature art.  I would be dishonest if I felt that didn't include sexual subjects, but it would absolutely kill my love for the game if the art became neutered and childish in an attention to appeal to children.  I consider d&d to be on average a pg-13 game and it's target market appropiately aged.



The problem isn't nudity or indeed "sexual subjects." The problem is when art that doesn't call for it unnecessarily focuses on the T&A. That is what _I_ call childish.

If the art can handle it maturely, it's fine. A semi-good example is the races page from the 3.5 PHB. A bad example is the front cover of the 4e PHB (Wayne Reynolds, surprise surprise).


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 30, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> The problem isn't nudity or indeed "sexual subjects." The problem is when art that doesn't call for it unnecessarily focuses on the T&A. That is what _I_ call childish.
> 
> If the art can handle it maturely, it's fine. A semi-good example is the races page from the 3.5 PHB. A bad example is the front cover of the 4e PHB (Wayne Reynolds, surprise surprise).




Yeah, Wayne Reynolds...this guy is clearly capable of drawing real people in real poses in outfits and settings that look...well...realistic.  Why he doesn't exercise any of that talent for his fantasy work just makes me want to wage a personal crusade against his future employment at any gaming company.

To be fair, we're going to get some art that childishly focuses on T&A no matter what.  That's not a battle I'm interested in fighting.  To what degree it focuses on it and how much of it exists is a battle we can actually win.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 30, 2012)

Personally, this is one of my favorite Wayne Reynolds images:






War Waever, from Heroes of Battle.

In fact, this is what I'd love to see wizards wear while adventuring. Loose, yet padded garments, cloak, wand, maybe a buckler for the added defense (imagine a buckler that lets you cast Shield!), and lots of components, potions and doodads.

And this is Fantastic Realism, btw.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 30, 2012)

shidaku said:
			
		

> Wayne Reynolds...this guy is clearly capable of drawing real people in real poses in outfits and settings that look...well...realistic. Why he doesn't exercise any of that talent for his fantasy work just makes me want to wage a personal crusade against his future employment at any gaming company.




Part of me wonders how much the covers of things like the PHB are driven by marketing decisions, rather than design considerations. Not that they can't often be the same thing, just that it's kind of the same reason the _Mass Effect 3_ media all star the buzz-cut hyper-masculine Caucasian dude, even though you can create your own character who may not look anything like that. If thirteen year old boys see a big shiny book with a hooker and a spiky dragon man, that may be somehow demographically appealing in a way that, say, 3e's more "it looks like an old book!" style was not. Art (especially cover art) made for "who do we want to buy this?" considerations rather than "what do we want this to say?" considerations tends to be pretty bad because of that.

Again, the two can often be in synch, but the 4e PHB cover (and, indeed, some of the other 4e design choices) seems to have a disconnect with that.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 30, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Part of me wonders how much the covers of things like the PHB are driven by marketing decisions, rather than design considerations. Not that they can't often be the same thing, just that it's kind of the same reason the _Mass Effect 3_ media all star the buzz-cut hyper-masculine Caucasian dude, even though you can create your own character who may not look anything like that. If thirteen year old boys see a big shiny book with a hooker and a spiky dragon man, that may be somehow demographically appealing in a way that, say, 3e's more "it looks like an old book!" style was not. Art (especially cover art) made for "who do we want to buy this?" considerations rather than "what do we want this to say?" considerations tends to be pretty bad because of that.



I think it's sort of the "judge a book by it's cover" crowd vs the "don't judge a book by it's cover" crowd.  I definately agree that 4e was aimed much more at visual gamers than previous editions, and that's likely the reason for the change to a more visual-oriented cover as opposed to the "ooo I'm a mysterious tome!" design(which was neat, but some covers were insanely busy and I hated looking at them).



> Again, the two can often be in synch, but the 4e PHB cover (and, indeed, some of the other 4e design choices) seems to have a disconnect with that.



Honestly this is pretty common in any edition, some covers are hit and miss, like the PHB1 cover.
The PHB2 cover




Still pulls off the "muscle man and hot chick" imagery, but she is not even slightly as much only for T&A as the PHB1 cover.
The PHB3 cover follows the same pattern of maintaining the "slim and dangerous chick and the big muscle-man brute" imagery, but again, we've still moved away from the shamless T&A of the PHB1.





The Dungeon Master's Guide's 1&2 both feature good 'ol Wayne again, though the first is of a dragon(something he _can_ actually draw well).





Of course, apparently Wayne can't keep his fingers off the T&A button, so we get a rehash of the "I'm posing for no other reason than to show off my lady lumps!"




At this point I'm beginning to see a pattern and the patten appears to be employing Wayne Reynolds.
Even if we jump outside of D&D to Wizard's golden goose MTG: we find that Wayne can apparently attach a very obvious pair of breasts to even the most armored characters he can imagine.




Why this chick who apparently needed more armor and spikes than a spiked-armor factory wanted to have her breasts hang out is a mystery only Wayne can answer.

I mean the list goes on, but over and over and over again the recurring problem seems to be less that Wizards is trying out a new marketing strategy, most of their imagery is pretty good in grabbing your attention and aiming for that fantasy shtick, but the T&A appears again and again in _only_ Wayne Reynolds' art.  This problem is rehashed in just about everything he's done for Pathfinder as well.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 30, 2012)

I'll have to defend Wayne. He's done a LOT of work that don't include T&A (just look at the War Weaver I posted above). That his art *has* T&A doesn't mean it's *only* T&A. His Pathfinder Sorcerer may have T&A, but his Cleric and Paladin don't (well, the *do* have T&A, but they're hidden away).


----------



## Libramarian (Mar 30, 2012)

Klaus said:


> Personally, this is one of my favorite Wayne Reynolds images:
> 
> War Waever, from Heroes of Battle.



I like everything about this image except for the classic Wayne Reynolds pout.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 30, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> I like everything about this image except for the classic Wayne Reynolds pout.



It's more "gritten teeth" than "pout", but it fits here.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Mar 31, 2012)

Klaus said:


> Personally, this is one of my favorite Wayne Reynolds images:



Funny how the best looking Wayne Reynolds image is the one that has the least of the Wayne Reynolds style: few intense angles, only slightly high-contrast (rather than oppressively high-contrast), and only slightly exaggerated physiology with no focus on sex appeal. 

Wait, not funny, what's that other word?

It's not that he's incapable of making good pieces, it's just that his trademark style is... well, you know.


----------



## hamstertamer (Mar 31, 2012)

Yeah, unfortunately T&A is apart of the way a woman expresses her identity as a woman.  A super-woman of course would express themselves in a manner that was super-sexy, well, because they are a super-woman.  Women are far more concerned with their body, in the way they reveal themselves provocatively, and have the desire to influence society and men around them.  They themselves are quite willing to expose themselves and love the attention.  If you are unable to get out of the basement and see the world just look at pics of women and how they dress at comic-cons.  It's apart of their biology.

Criticizing an artist for reflecting this is misguided.  Women love being "sex objects", it's a lie to say they don't.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 31, 2012)

Oh, hamstertamer, you're getting flamed for that one.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Mar 31, 2012)

hamstertamer said:


> Yeah, unfortunately T&A is apart of the way a woman expresses her identity as a woman.  A super-woman of course would express themselves in a manner that was super-sexy, well, because they are a super-woman.  Women are far more concerned with their body, in the way they reveal themselves provocatively, and have the desire to influence society and men around them.  They themselves are quite willing to expose themselves and love the attention.  If you are unable to get out of the basement and see the world just look at pics of women and how they dress at comic-cons.  It's apart of their biology.
> 
> Criticizing an artist for reflecting this is misguided.  Women love being "sex objects", it's a lie to say they don't.



Putting aside the slightly disturbing generalization of that post, I know what you're talking about, and I agree. I have read a few feminist essays that argue that a woman who embraces "to-be-looked-at-ness" is a victim of the scopophilia of male-dominated patriarchal society, but I think that's bull----. I know that I (heterosexual male) like to look as sexy as possible when I appear in public, and I think everyone likes to look good, especially to the opposite sex.

It's a given that, in circumstances when one has the *luxury *of worrying about one's looks, one normally attempts to look good. What we're saying is, most D&D characters *don't have that luxury*_. _A chainmail bikini might look good, but looking good is not as important as *not dying*. 

Even in non-adventuring contexts, looking good is usually not as important as being comfortable, warm, etc.


----------



## Kynn (Mar 31, 2012)

hamstertamer said:


> Yeah, unfortunately T&A is apart of the way a woman expresses her identity as a woman.  A super-woman of course would express themselves in a manner that was super-sexy, well, because they are a super-woman.  Women are far more concerned with their body, in the way they reveal themselves provocatively, and have the desire to influence society and men around them.  They themselves are quite willing to expose themselves and love the attention.  If you are unable to get out of the basement and see the world just look at pics of women and how they dress at comic-cons.  It's apart of their biology.
> 
> Criticizing an artist for reflecting this is misguided.  Women love being "sex objects", it's a lie to say they don't.




What


----------



## hamstertamer (Mar 31, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Putting aside the slightly disturbing generalization of that post, I know what you're talking about, and I agree. I have read a few feminist essays that argue that a woman who embraces "to-be-looked-at-ness" is a victim of the scopophilia of male-dominated patriarchal society, but I think that's bull----. I know that I (heterosexual male) like to look as sexy as possible when I appear in public, and I think everyone likes to look good, especially to the opposite sex.
> 
> It's a given that, in circumstances when one has the *luxury *of worrying about one's looks, one normally attempts to look good. What we're saying is, most D&D characters *don't have that luxury*_. _A chainmail bikini might look good, but looking good is not as important as *not dying*.
> 
> *Even in non-adventuring contexts, looking good is usually not as important as being comfortable, warm, etc*.




Oh really?

http://youtu.be/pQ6Ljge0-14


Moscow girls run glamorous race - YouTube!

This may sound illogical to some men, but comfort and practicality is not always the priority of women.  Why do you think women go to outside events without appropriate clothing then end up taking their boyfriends/husbands shirt from them later.


----------



## Kynn (Mar 31, 2012)

hamstertamer said:


> Oh really?
> 
> http://youtu.be/pQ6Ljge0-14
> 
> ...




Might want to stop digging now.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Mar 31, 2012)

hamstertamer said:


> Oh really?
> 
> http://youtu.be/pQ6Ljge0-14
> 
> ...



Those people have chosen (as many do) to forgo comfort and practicality in favor of glamour. Which is a cultural conceit and, again, a privilege that most people in the kind of places and times that tend to be D&D settings do not have.







hamstertamer said:


> This may sound illogical to some men, but  comfort and practicality is not always the priority of women.  Why do  you think women go to outside events without appropriate clothing then  end up taking their boyfriends/husbands shirt from them later.



Now I get the sense you've been trolling all along. If so, 9/10 - well done. If not... well, I'm going to bow out of this anyway. Shall we leave it?


----------



## Savage Wombat (Mar 31, 2012)

You know, we haven't considered photo art.

I don't remember any D&D products with actual photography in it - just line art, paintings and the like.

Wouldn't a lovely photo of a ruined scottish castle be good for giving you that D&D adventure feeling?  What about a huge cave full of crystals?  Is there a reason we exclude the real world from our books?


----------



## hamstertamer (Mar 31, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Those people have chosen (as many do) to forgo comfort and practicality in favor of glamour. Which is a cultural conceit and, again, a privilege that most people in the kind of places and times that tend to be D&D settings do not have.Now I get the sense you've been trolling all along. If so, 9/10 - well done. If not... well, I'm going to bow out of this anyway. Shall we leave it?





Let's leave it since I'm not trolling.  I'm just defending Reynold's art which is in fact very modest for fantasy women.

But the idea that women don't want to look like women in fantasy art is a unsustainable position considering the reality of world we live in.


----------



## Derren (Mar 31, 2012)

hamstertamer said:


> This may sound illogical to some men, but comfort and practicality is not always the priority of women.  Why do you think women go to outside events without appropriate clothing then end up taking their boyfriends/husbands shirt from them later.




Send those woman into combat and they will favor practicality over glamor.
Those who don't end up dead.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

hamstertamer said:


> Yeah, unfortunately T&A is apart of the way a woman expresses her identity as a woman.  A super-woman of course would express themselves in a manner that was super-sexy, well, because they are a super-woman.  Women are far more concerned with their body, in the way they reveal themselves provocatively, and have the desire to influence society and men around them.  They themselves are quite willing to expose themselves and love the attention.  If you are unable to get out of the basement and see the world just look at pics of women and how they dress at comic-cons.  It's apart of their biology.
> 
> Criticizing an artist for reflecting this is misguided.  Women love being "sex objects", it's a lie to say they don't.




I don't even know where to start with this.

I am a woman and I can tell you right now that for us there is a big difference between looking good and sometimes sexy and expressing ourselves with T&A.

There is a time and place for everything. Sure there are times we want to look sexy especially if we are going out and hoping to attract a guy or we are dressing to please the man in our life. 

But when we are working or hanging out with our friends we want comfortable clothes. Take the show castle they put Beckett in those stupid high heels well I have known several female detectives and they wear flats or low stacked heels because you can't run safely in heels. Even on Castle if you look closely when Beckett runs she is in flats.

I was in the medical field and on my feet all day we wore scrubs and flat comfortable shoes. When I go to the Ren Faire I wear sneakers though I have watched dumb bimbos trying to walk without killing themselves in high heels. 

Yeah there are woman who dress like bimbos all the time and for the most part if you get to know these woman you find that most lack self esteem and are drama whores dying for attention. 

Woman serious about their careers dress appropriately for their jobs.

Adventuring is a job and  those stupid chain mail bikinis or the armor that covers boobs and butt but leaves the midsection open for a nasty gut wound are just stupid looking. Or one of my favorites the fur bikini that leaves your midriff and legs exposed to sub zero temperatures. The cleric must get so sick of wasting spells on healing because of frost bite.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 31, 2012)

Derren said:


> Send those woman into combat and they will favor practicality over glamor.
> Those who don't end up dead.




He needs to look up how the woman in our military dress. He might want to look at pictures of woman serving in Afghanistan and how they dress. 

I guarantee in a zombie apocalypse all those high heel wearing woman will be the first taken down and ripped apart. 

I used to wear high heels when I went out and I know that you can't run in them easily or even walk over bad pavement unless you concentrate so you don't fall. 

They sell these little slippers that a lot of woman carry in their purses because your feet kill you after a few hours.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 31, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> You know, we haven't considered photo art.
> 
> I don't remember any D&D products with actual photography in it - just line art, paintings and the like.
> 
> Wouldn't a lovely photo of a ruined scottish castle be good for giving you that D&D adventure feeling?  What about a huge cave full of crystals?  Is there a reason we exclude the real world from our books?



It was unofficial, but the Book of Erotic Fantasy used photographs for illustrations.


----------



## Sunseeker (Mar 31, 2012)

Klaus said:


> I'll have to defend Wayne. He's done a LOT of work that don't include T&A (just look at the War Weaver I posted above). That his art *has* T&A doesn't mean it's *only* T&A. His Pathfinder Sorcerer may have T&A, but his Cleric and Paladin don't (well, the *do* have T&A, but they're hidden away).




To cut him some slack, I don't believe Wayne Reynolds actually designed those characters.  Unfortunately, if this is true, cutting him slack for Seoni means he can't get credit for Seela.  If he did create them, then he's gonna have to do a _whole_ lot of backfilling to get out of the T&A hole that Seoni alone digs for him.  

To hit up some of the other points along the road.
Obviously impractical things like stilettos are probably best left out.  Some people(man and women) will value sexuality over practicality at all times.  This is probably best left up to the magical types who for them the difference between "armor" and "no armor" is a silk robe.  Wearing or not wearing that +1 isn't going to make or break their level of protection.

On that note: I remember playing an Avenger, and the feats related to armor bonuses kept mentioning "cloth or no armor" to the point like I felt like it was advocating I should have my character wear nothing at all!  I settled for somewhere in the realm of scantly clad.  She died to a black dragon all the same.

As always: a player's character's specific look should be as fantastic, unrealistic, functional or mundane as they want it to be.  

Photographs would be neat, but the style may just be too drastically different to put them into a book with a lot of stylized art.  The contrast would just be too big I think.  Plus there's often licensing issues for imagery of famous castles, churches, caverns, ect...  Maybe a particular book like a guide to setting building could take from real world imagery.  IMO: the best settings are the ones that use the real-world as a guideline for how nature, civilizations/people, and creatures would behave.


----------



## Quickleaf (Mar 31, 2012)

I prefer something in between photorealism and fantastic realism. The near perfect example would be Mark Smylie's Artesia - that man can *draw* armor!


----------



## trancejeremy (Apr 1, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> It was unofficial, but the Book of Erotic Fantasy used photographs for illustrations.




Not D&D, but the London Sourcebook for Shadowrun also used photographs...

Having seen both, I really don't think it's a good idea.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 1, 2012)

trancejeremy said:


> Not D&D, but the London Sourcebook for Shadowrun also used photographs...
> 
> Having seen both, I really don't think it's a good idea.



Must spread XP around, but yes, this is true.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 1, 2012)

Klaus said:


> It's more "gritten teeth" than "pout", but it fits here.



If she were just gritting her teeth she would be pulling her lips back, not letting her cheeks go slack and jutting her lips out. They're basically bimbo lips.

I don't like this sort of subtle titillation. It's the same thing with the "Manga" image in the latest article--that image is clearly sexy, but it flies under the erotic radar by being excessively "cute". (*tee hee*)

I think if you're going for sexy, then go for it all the way in a more overtly erotic style, like oldschool Larry Elmore or Clyde Caldwell cheesecake. Otherwise just don't go for sexy at all.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 1, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> If she were just gritting her teeth she would be pulling her lips back, not letting her cheeks go slack and jutting her lips out. They're basically bimbo lips.
> 
> I don't like this sort of subtle titillation. It's the same thing with the "Manga" image in the latest article--that image is clearly sexy, but it flies under the erotic radar by being excessively "cute". (*tee hee*)
> 
> I think if you're going for sexy, then go for it all the way in a more overtly erotic style, like oldschool Larry Elmore or Clyde Caldwell cheesecake. Otherwise just don't go for sexy at all.




I don't think such absolutism is possible in fantasy art.  Art having to portray people 100% tough or 100% sexy is just going to set up an unrealistic dichotomy that will make art either excessively gritty or stupidly erotic.  If we're going to argue that every little bit of skin is sexual, well, we could argue that in the "photorealistic" image, it's highly unlikely that a warrior woman would have long hair.  She'd likely have a short, masculine cut; there's plenty of room to argue that long hair=sexual(on men and women).


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 1, 2012)

shidaku said:


> there's plenty of room to argue that long hair=sexual(on men and women).



I did not know this. Is 30 inches of hair on a dude considered "sexual" to most people? I might need to cut it...


----------



## Savage Wombat (Apr 1, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> I did not know this. Is 30 inches of hair on a dude considered "sexual" to most people? I might need to cut it...




Well, that depends.  How big is your head?


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 1, 2012)

JamesonCourage said:


> I did not know this. Is 30 inches of hair on a dude considered "sexual" to most people? I might need to cut it...




Considering that almost every male pinup in romance novels has it, probably.  My fiance considered mine to be pretty hot.  I mean it really depends, but consider stories like Samson and Delilah.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 1, 2012)

Savage Wombat said:


> Well, that depends.  How big is your head?



I have absolutely no idea how to answer this. Normal-sized?



shidaku said:


> Considering that almost every male pinup in romance novels has it, probably.  My fiance considered mine to be pretty hot.  I mean it really depends, but consider stories like Samson and Delilah.



Now you made me want to keep it. Samson, eh? It might be the source of my astoundingly good luck. Or my charm! Or my intelligence... or even my unmatched humility! The list goes on and on.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 1, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Considering that almost every male pinup in romance novels has it, probably.  My fiance considered mine to be pretty hot.  I mean it really depends, but consider stories like Samson and Delilah.




That depends on the genre of the romance novel. The historical ones have long hair. The modern ones it depends on the character. Since law enforcement, military men, private investigators are hot right now in both modern romance and romantic suspense short hair is usually how they are drawn on the cover.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 1, 2012)

I realized that I never answered what I like in art for gaming. I like photrealism mixed with a little fantasy thrown.

I dislike overly big weapons that realistically you would not be able to swing, carry or draw.  

I really hate the cheesecake for female adventurers. So I don't want to see heels, bare midriffs, armor that leaves skin bare and the stupid T&A poses. 

I want to see clothing and armor the depicts the setting. No bare skin in an arctic setting, no plate armor in the desert or on a pirate ship. 

I would like to see a variety of body types for both sexes.


----------



## Yora (Apr 1, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> If she were just gritting her teeth she would be pulling her lips back, not letting her cheeks go slack and jutting her lips out. They're basically bimbo lips.
> 
> I don't like this sort of subtle titillation. It's the same thing with the "Manga" image in the latest article--that image is clearly sexy, but it flies under the erotic radar by being excessively "cute". (*tee hee*)
> 
> I think if you're going for sexy, then go for it all the way in a more overtly erotic style, like oldschool Larry Elmore or Clyde Caldwell cheesecake. Otherwise just don't go for sexy at all.



Why not just go all the way and get real porn? Why the pretense of making strong and confident female characters for a fantasy game? If artists want to make porn, and people want to see porn, then do it right and honestly! No need to skirt the edge of modesty and by that runing both the picture and the book it is in.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 6, 2012)

Yora said:


> Why not just go all the way and get real porn? Why the pretense of making strong and confident female characters for a fantasy game? If artists want to make porn, and people want to see porn, then do it right and honestly! No need to skirt the edge of modesty and by that runing both the picture and the book it is in.



I think you're trying to mock me or construct a reductio, but I kinda agree?


----------



## Someone (Apr 6, 2012)

IMHO, fantasy is battling dragons while riding a griffin.

Battling dragons while riding a griffing and wearing high heels is, instead, stupid.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 6, 2012)

Someone said:


> IMHO, fantasy is battling dragons while riding a griffin.
> 
> Battling dragons while riding a griffing and wearing high heels is, instead, stupid.




Considering that while riding a gryphon you would likely be strapped in, you could wear chickens on your feet for all it mattered.


----------



## Ettin (Apr 6, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> a more overtly erotic style, like oldschool Larry Elmore





Libramarian said:


> I think you're trying to mock me or construct a reductio, but I kinda agree?




Thanks for the insight into your psyche, Libramarian.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 6, 2012)

In all honesty, in a world full of magic, I could see "Heels of Comfort and Stability" being a very common enchantment. I promise it would be incredibly popular just in the real world.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 6, 2012)

Yora said:


> Why not just go all the way and get real porn? Why the pretense of making strong and confident female characters for a fantasy game? If artists want to make porn, and people want to see porn, then do it right and honestly! No need to skirt the edge of modesty and by that runing both the picture and the book it is in.




Plausible deniability allows access to larger markets.


----------



## triqui (Apr 7, 2012)

some interesting female armored characters:


----------



## Hussar (Apr 7, 2012)

Someone said:


> IMHO, fantasy is battling dragons while riding a griffin.
> 
> Battling dragons while riding a griffing and wearing high heels is, instead, stupid.




I think this, right here, hits the point for me.

Sure, we can do cheesecake fantasy art.  There's a great series of threads over at the Giant in the Playground forums called http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234311 .  Great stuff and all safe for work.

But, that being said, I'd prefer my gaming art to come with a minimum of cake.  There are tons of examples out there of strong, competent characters (both male, female and other) that don't require the obvious titilation factor.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 9, 2012)

Ettin said:


> Thanks for the insight into your psyche, Libramarian.



Can I ask you some questions? I'd like to know more about your psyche too, Ettin.

How old are you?
How long have you been a My Little Pony fan?
Do you watch the show alone?
What do you do while you watch the show alone?
Do you invite children over to watch the show with you?
What do you give them for juice and snacks?
Do you ever roleplay scenes from My Little Pony?
Do you have My Little Pony costumes?


----------



## Kynn (Apr 9, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> Can I ask you some questions? I'd like to know more about your psyche too, Ettin.
> 
> How old are you?
> How long have you been a My Little Pony fan?
> ...




Dude ... what are you trying to say here?


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 9, 2012)

Do you guys think for some reason that veiled insults are somehow better? Stop it, both of you. If there's a problem, report the post, but no passive-aggressive rudeness.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 10, 2012)

1. In my vision of D&D, all characters exist in their own little bubble that has its own laws of physics.  So if the party contains Lao the Badass Kung Fu Monk, Gritty McGritster the Merc, and Sir Toby the Bold, each can have their own style.  Lao can balance on people's swords and kick them in the face, McGritster can be covered in mud and other people's blood, and Sir Toby can spend half the fight talking in terrible pseudo medieval pidgin ("Have at thee, foul rogue!  Huzzah!").  Everybody gets to do their own thing.  And if McGritster's player can't stand the fact that other people are doing a thing that he doesn't like, he can go game somewhere else.

I think the same is true for a game's art.

2. Artwork depicting female characters should be (mostly) designed to appeal to female players.  Each individual female player should be able to find at least some character art that appeals to her.  That doesn't mean that none of it should be sexy.  Some female players like the idea of highly sexualized characters.  But not all of them do!  The few who do should not be an excuse for male gamers to fill the books with female "character art" that is really just pinup art for their own enjoyment.

3. If artwork is included for purely pinup purposes, it should cover both genders.  Male gamers uninterested in pinup art of male models can look past it just like women do.  Being a grownup is all about sharing.  If you get yours, other people get theirs.

4.  If the RPG community can't accept these reasonable standards, then... I don't know.  That fact will say something about us.  I'm not sure what.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 10, 2012)

Kynn said:


> Dude ... what are you trying to say here?



I am satirizing the idea that he or she has insights into my psyche because of a couple posts I made on the internet about what I like in fantasy art/media.

I don't actually think that an adult who likes a show about a children's toy is necessarily a weirdo.

Unfortunately I think Ettin was actually serious in thinking less of me as a human being because I implied I like boobies or something.


----------



## Ettin (Apr 11, 2012)

Kynn said:


> Dude ... what are you trying to say here?




It's cool! I'm mostly just ribbing, and the pony avatar is paying off already. I do find it a little weird that this image could be "subtle titillation" or "clearly sexy" or could stand to be sexed up though.

EDIT: Did once use a humanised pony as a quick NPC in a game though.


----------

