# How is that babe in the barely there armor getting any AC bonus?



## GeeksDreamGirl (Jan 13, 2009)

StupidRanger and Geek’s Dream Girl) are joining forces to write the ultimate guidebook to female roleplaying gamers around the world.

We need YOUR input! Girls, you are the heart of this book; share your experiences with us!

Guys, you have an especially important role in the success of our book.  Not only do we need your input, we also need you to get out there on Facebook, Myspace, IMs, forums, chat rooms and Friendly Local Game Stores to spread the word to every girl gamer you know!

Topics to be covered include:

    * Token Girl at the Game Table
    * Friendly Local Gaming Store & Gaming Conventions
    * Gaming With Those You Love (Significant Others & Children)
    * Sexism and Stereotypes
    * Your Gaming Style, Your Games, and Your Characters
    * Explaining D&D to Non-Gamers & Attracting Other Girls to Gaming
    * The RPG Industry
    * Calling the Shots: The Girl GM

This book will celebrate all the ways girls contribute to the gaming culture and we’d love to have you be a part of it.

Want to see your name in print as part of our book?  Please take our surveys:

GIRLS:
Girl Gamer Book Survey - For Girls Only!

GUYS:
Girl Gamer Book Survey - For Guys Only!

Become a fan of “Female Roleplaying Gamers” on Facebook!

Thank you for sharing your experiences and helping build our bestseller!
- E. and SR


----------



## Rechan (Jan 13, 2009)

In my experience, the Gamer Girl is never single. If she's at the table, either she's there with her boyfriend/husband, or she's all ready called for.

Too much competition.

BTW, if this is your incentive, you really ought to get Shelly (Confessions of a Part Time Sorceress/Full Time Wizard) to either endorse it, write a forward, or sign the jacket.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> BTW, if this is your incentive, you really ought to get Shelly (Confessions of a Part Time Sorceress/Full Time Wizard) to either endorse it, write a forward, or sign the jacket.




I can only speak from my own experiences, but I've yet to meet a single female gamer who liked that book, and quite a few I know felt openly insulted by it.  I've got a hunch that it scared away more girls then it brought in.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 13, 2009)

*How is that babe in the barely there armor getting any AC bonus?*

Distraction bonus?


----------



## Halivar (Jan 13, 2009)

The answer to the question in your title is simple: it's a distraction bonus _(EDIT: Owned by El Mahdi!!!)_.

BTW, I've only played with single girls, never with married. The trick is to play up the collaborative storytelling aspect of it. Girls are almost _never_ into killing monsters and taking their stuff... *until* you describe their first fireball going off and incinerating everything in the room. That moment usually (IMXP) unlocks a latent bloodthirst in gentle ladies who would otherwise cringe at the very thought of _talking_ about killing something.

It is a fun thing to watch.

PS: I feel totally misled. I came into the thread based on the title expecting demonstrative illustrations!


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 13, 2009)

If you want, I could send you a pdf copy of E.N. Arsenal - Chainmail Bikinis.


----------



## GeeksDreamGirl (Jan 13, 2009)

Halivar said:


> That moment usually (IMXP) unlocks a latent bloodthirst in gentle ladies who would otherwise cringe at the very thought of _talking_ about killing something.




That quote is gold, Halivar.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 13, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I can only speak from my own experiences, but I've yet to meet a single female gamer who liked that book, and quite a few I know felt openly insulted by it.  I've got a hunch that it scared away more girls then it brought in.



I've never met someone who's read the book, but I would hazard a guess (based on how Shelly talks), that the type of person who would like the book are the "Girl's girl" types. Those who read Cosmo and such. That is the Tone that I get from Shelly.

Certainly not for those who are a tomboy, or at least don't like Chanel and Goochie.

Also, while Shelly may have driven off some, Astrid's Parlor over on WotC is still active, and you got customers right there.


----------



## Halivar (Jan 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Certainly not for those who are a tomboy, or at least don't like Chanel and Goochie.



I don't know much about those creatures (girls), but I know this: you can't write for all of them. There are many various species, all completely distinct. If you were to write a wandering monster table for types of women, you'd need a third digit for your percentile dice; and that's if you're prepared to make broad categorizations (not a pun! I swear!).


----------



## Rechan (Jan 13, 2009)

Halivar said:


> If you were to write a wandering monster table for types of women, you'd need a third digit for your percentile dice; and that's if you're prepared to make broad categorizations (not a pun! I swear!).



I hear that the 1e DMG had a Female wandering monster table.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> In my experience, the Gamer Girl is never single. If she's at the table, either she's there with her boyfriend/husband, or she's all ready called for.




I knew a girl player; friend of a friend interested in the game, who managed to avoid dating any of us (or anyone else) for years.

Someone finally whittled her down, but it wasn't from our game group.


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> In my experience, the Gamer Girl is never single. If she's at the table, either she's there with her boyfriend/husband, or she's all ready called for.




I've known several single gamer girls.  Heck, there's one that we're gaming with now.

And the girls I game with would be insulted by the suggestion that they're only there because their man games.  They all enjoy it in their own right. 



Halivar said:


> BTW, I've only played with single girls, never with married. The trick is to play up the collaborative storytelling aspect of it. Girls are almost _never_ into killing monsters and taking their stuff... *until* you describe their first fireball going off and incinerating everything in the room. That moment usually (IMXP) unlocks a latent bloodthirst in gentle ladies who would otherwise cringe at the very thought of _talking_ about killing something.
> 
> It is a fun thing to watch.




Ha, yes.  I was pitching an old school D&D style game - Keep on the Borderlands - to my SO.  Her response was "So there's these monsters in a cave, and they have stuff.  And we go kill them, and then we get their stuff.  We have to play this."



Rechan said:


> I hear that the 1e DMG had a Female wandering monster table.




You're a man of style and taste.


----------



## Rechan (Jan 13, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> I've known several single gamer girls.  Heck, there's one that we're gaming with now.



So what you're saying is, our experiences are different, and that we have met different people in different categories. I'm glad that I prefaced my earlier post with "In my experience". 



> And the girls I game with would be insulted by the suggestion that they're only there because their man games.  They all enjoy it in their own right.



I'm not suggesting that's the _only_ reason. I said "She's there _with_", not "She's there _because_". I.e. her husband/SO is also in the game.

I only recall one female gamer I've met who was married to a non-gamer.


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 13, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I'm not suggesting that's the _only_ reason. I said "She's there _with_", not "She's there _because_". I.e. her husband/SO is also in the game.
> 
> I.e. She's dating/married a gamer. In many cases, he introduced her to it.
> 
> I only recall one female gamer I've met who was married to a non-gamer.




Ah gotcha.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 13, 2009)

El Mahdi said:


> *How is that babe in the barely there armor getting any AC bonus?*
> 
> Distraction bonus?






			
				RangerWickett said:
			
		

> E.N. Arsenal - Chainmail Bikinis




Man it's a drag when all the responses I wanted to make have already been made.


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 13, 2009)

Halivar said:


> I don't know much about those creatures (girls), but I know this: you can't write for all of them. There are many various species, all completely distinct. If you were to write a wandering monster table for types of women, you'd need a third digit for your percentile dice; and that's if you're prepared to make broad categorizations (not a pun! I swear!).




QFT.  I've known female gamers who were all about story and character development and such.  I've known others who just wanted to kick in the door and slaughter everything that moved.  Kinda like male gamers, really... there's plenty of variety on both sides of the gender aisle.



maddman75 said:


> I've known several single gamer girls.  Heck, there's one that we're gaming with now.
> 
> And the girls I game with would be insulted by the suggestion that they're only there because their man games. They all enjoy it in their own right.




I think Rechan's point was that female gamers are such a hot commodity among male gamers that the odds of one being single are infinitesimal. 

(This is a bit of an exaggeration; I've known a few single gamer chicks.  But not nearly as many as those who were married or with long-term boyfriends, and nowhere _near_ as many as single gamer guys.)


----------



## Rechan (Jan 13, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> I think Rechan's point was that female gamers are such a hot commodity among male gamers that the odds of one being single are infinitesimal.




Bingo. I do confess I made that comment because my first read of the OP, it was a guide to gamer girls _for gamer guys_; a "How to talk to them" book. Ahem.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 13, 2009)

I forgot about this before, but in Sisters of Rapture, by Fantastic Gallery, that babe is getting a divine bonus.  

Check it out (the epic web enhancement on that page is written by me! ) but be careful - the preview, art gallery, and epic web enhancement are all Not Safe For Work!


----------



## The Green Adam (Jan 13, 2009)

Halivar said:


> Girls are almost _never_ into killing monsters and taking their stuff... *until* you describe their first fireball going off and incinerating everything in the room. That moment usually (IMXP) unlocks a latent bloodthirst in gentle ladies who would otherwise cringe at the very thought of _talking_ about killing something.
> 
> It is a fun thing to watch.
> 
> PS: I feel totally misled. I came into the thread based on the title expecting demonstrative illustrations!




Having had female players in my gaming groups since I was 14 or 15, I can tell you that they can be as bloodthirsty, honorable, brutal, kind, straightforward and creatively unorthodox as any male player. Married, single or otherwise, they bring a wholely distinct and classic attitude to the table that is as wonderful as it is difficult to define. The ladies in my group will certainly be interested in this and hopefully my ex-wife will contribute as a better gamer I have yet to encounter.

AD


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 13, 2009)

...So am I the only one who HATES the scantily clad pictures of women and much, much perfers someone in some actual armor?


----------



## Mark (Jan 13, 2009)

GeeksDreamGirl said:


> How is that babe in the barely there armor getting any AC bonus?





Action Points?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 13, 2009)

I don't mind scantily clad pictures of women. Even unrealistically armored ones.

I mean, even laying aside the dragons and elves and wizards and junk, the armor is hardly the _most_ unrealistic thing about those gals...

But there is a fine line between women who happen to be scantily clad, and women who are only there to be scantily clad. If the scanti-ness is meaningful, communicating something, it can be good. If it's just there because they want to attract lonely 13 year olds...well, I can still see it's place, since I don't exactly write the laws of the universe that dictate that any man ages 12-62 (and sometimes older?) will be hypnotized into staring at even the artistic depiction of a semi-nude form of something they're attracted to (statistically speaking, probably the chicas). 

I don't mind the "barbarian loincloth" pictures, either, for what that's worth.

Still, variety is the spice of life. I'd rather see the segsy in forms other than those which inspired _Heavy Metal_. But that's me.


----------



## Vargo (Jan 13, 2009)

I've always thought that Phil and Dixie covered it best.

What's New with Phil & Dixie Online Comics


----------



## Greg K (Jan 13, 2009)

El Mahdi said:


> *How is that babe in the barely there armor getting any AC bonus?*
> 
> Distraction bonus?




That was my guess.  I picture the opponent staring and drooling like some stereotypical gamer repeating the words, "Boobs!" (if he can even get the words out).


----------



## Ahglock (Jan 13, 2009)

Halivar said:


> and that's if you're prepared to make broad categorizations (not a pun! I swear!).




I'm not making a broad generalization, I'm making a generalization about broads.  Insert bad joke sound here.
I really wish I could remember where that joke is from.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jan 13, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...So am I the only one who HATES the scantily clad pictures of women and much, much perfers someone in some actual armor?



I don't know if you're the *only* one, but I'm definitely not with you on this point.


----------



## haakon1 (Jan 13, 2009)

*How is that babe in the barely there armor getting any AC bonus?*

Cause she's hot, and hot girls get whatever they want?


----------



## Runestar (Jan 13, 2009)

She is an abjurant champion utilizing greater luminous armour and shield?


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 13, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...So am I the only one who HATES the scantily clad pictures of women and much, much perfers someone in some actual armor?




You actually "HATE" those pictures? You might be the only one. Well, you and Gloria Steinem.

Either a given artistic piece actually works or it doesn't. Oftentimes there's a scantily-clad women there just to excite prurient interest and it doesn't really work or do anything. That's quite dumb, especially when the girl doesn't look like she "belongs" in that (lack of) outfit. But I can imagine a piece showing a Red Sonja-esque character whose scantily-cladness emphasizes the character's raw physicality, contempt of personal danger and recklessly self-legislating lifestyle. Not an admirable character, but an interesting one to be sure.

In that latter case it's just like Conan in a loincloth: either he's dressed like that because he's escaping the evil snake temple, or it emphasizes that this guy is really strong, brave and does things his own way, or both. A battle babe in a loincloth could say the same thing. Or it could be mere wankery. It depends on the overall composition, context and presence of the piece.

I suppose there's an element of it that constitutes a judgment call on the part of the viewer. If I were to lay out a principle, it would be ask yourself this: does the bare broad in question look like she could slay a giant snake or cut a bloody swath through wicked minions in that state? If she really just looks like a modern bimbo that wandered into a fantasy realm then no it's probably not appropriate. If she looks like Conan minus the Y chromosome then yes it probably is.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 13, 2009)

The obvious Real World answer lies in the nature of males.  (Need I explain further?)

  In the fantasy settings of D&D ...
  It was every fighter's dream to have magical armor in 1E, because it was weightless (literally:  weightless.)  It is nice not to have to carry around 70 pounds of plate armor and shield ... just wearing the stuff is difficult enough (use some Real World comparisons.)

  Nobody in 1E ever really figured out (not in any supplement I ever saw) how to produce Force Field Clothing, which is what a chainmail bikini would be a variant of (for men, simply, shorts.)  The equivalent, roughly, of the Dune personal body shield.  It never happened.
  Theoretically, Wall of Force, cast multiple times and with Permanency (5% chance per application of a permanent loss of 1 point of Constitution) could have been used to create an almost invincible set of shields around the user, using tiny pieces of clothing as their focus, moving with the wielder (an exception to the normally stationary nature of Wall of Force.)  This would have granted AC -10 in 1E or 2E, AC 30 (or higher) in 3E, and gave at least +4 to saves against spells like fireball and the like.  (Maybe, +8, if really done right ... or count it as 90% cover.)

  Considering just how BADLY any sort of clothing was vulnerable to fire, it was a worthwhile endeavor.  Fire was an incredibly popular weapon back then ('I carry 50 oil flasks, and the wizard is ready with Firefinger!') and Item Saving Throws were required if you failed yours.  If they failed, you were alight and took 2d6 damage per round until it was extinguished.
  In a Worst Case Scenario, Armor - made of metal - could fail it's save, and aside from being ruined, it could superheat and glow from that heat.  Or, even partially melt.  Anyone caught inside a full suit of Armor, even Mail, when that happened was fried (2d6 damage to 5d6 damage per round from the incredible heat, plus 2d6 regular fire damage from burning clothing, save for all other items again) unless they could jump into the nearest (hopefully) large lake.
  LOL.  The Dragon thus got it's meal Well Done, before the wrapping was even removed.
  Protecting clothing and armor from this effect was extremely difficult.  It was far easier to protect the person.  So the less clothing or armor you wore, the better.  Rings of Protection were thus quite popular.  Spells like Phantom Armor and Spirit Armor were equally popular.

  The Chainmail Bikini actually, thus, made sense ... within the reality of 1E, and especially in 2E, where armor did weigh (although it still carried no encumbrance penalty.)
  You would have thought that the Chainmail Bikini of Force, of the Chainmail Bikini +5, would have been devised.  But it never happened.


----------



## DeusExMachina (Jan 13, 2009)

*How is that babe in the barely there armor getting any AC bonus?*

Cause the DM is a guy, I guess...


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 13, 2009)

El Mahdi said:


> *How is that babe in the barely there armor getting any AC bonus?*
> 
> Distraction bonus?






Mark said:


> Action Points?






haakon1 said:


> Cause she's hot, and hot girls get whatever they want?






DeusExMachina said:


> Cause the DM is a guy, I guess...




No, no, no guys. It's obviously because she adds her charisma bonus to AC.. Duh! 



ProfessorCirno said:


> ...So am I the only one who HATES the scantily clad pictures of women and much, much perfers someone in some actual armor?






Vegepygmy said:


> I don't know if you're the *only* one, but I'm definitely not with you on this point.



Word


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 13, 2009)

Pity the poor wizard of that time.
  She could not wear armor, period (chainmail bikinis included.)  And her robes easily burned.

  The 1E wizard was better off in a bikini.

  The best you could hope for from Dexterity was AC 6.  AC 5, if you could somehow obtain 19 dexterity (an elf.)

  But then again ...

  A +3 Ring of Protection and 18 Dexterity granted AC 3 (AC 17), the equivalent of plate mail.  Not bad.
  An elven girl with a +5 Ring of Protection and 19 dexterity, would have had an AC of 0 (AC 20 in 3E) or the equivalent of plate armor and shield.

  In 3E, it became easy to make weak Rings of Protection (up to +3) and you could supplement that with other kinds of protection, and Dexterity could go way beyond 19 quite easily (armbands of dexterity +3 that you made.)

  They had given up painting women in chainmail bikinis by then.  Ironic.  3E made it into a much more practical and likely thing, that you'd see such an phonomenon.

  If *I* was a pretty girl, in a fantasy setting, I would want to show off my beauty (I'm a guy, not a pretty girl, so I can only conjecture here.)
  If I was a warrior/wizard, and I wanted to wear armor (had feats to mitigate Medium to Light Armor, and lessen spell failure chances) then ...

  Well heck, I'd cast Invisibility on the Armor, and some form of Weighlessness, and some form of Free Action (armor is *uncomfortable*) and make them Permanent.
  Then add an Invisible Cloak of Protection, my Dexterity, and anything else I could think up, and STILL show off my beauty.

  Just conjecture.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jan 13, 2009)

Any one that wonders why some female gamers find it unpleasant to be involved in gaming can be found in this thread. The casual sexism is pretty nasty to read, actually. It makes me pretty sad to see this level of juvenile, puerile excuses for jokes from a lot of posters, most of which I very much like.

For me, the answer is simple:

She's not getting any AC bonus. She is, however, making some manager somewhere happy as he believes he's hitting the right demographic to sell the books. I think it's extremely likely that the presence of a half-naked women actually increased the amount of books sold in any significant way, yet it continues.

I'm also fascinated as to why, in a survey regarding female gamers and how to attract them to RPGing, they are referred to as 'girls' instead of, say, 'female gamers' or indeed 'women'.


----------



## MortalPlague (Jan 13, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> In that latter case it's just like Conan in a loincloth...




This.

The female in the chainmail bikini is a fantasy art stereotype.  Just like the loincloth-clad barbarian, just like the dwarf with a hammer, just like the elf with a bow, the decrepit old wizard, the halfling thief, etc.  The list goes on and on.  I find stereotypes to be entertaining in art.  It's fun to see the scantily clad woman facing down a dragon, or dodging a fireball, or fighting through a horde of orcs.  It's not realistic, but it's an entertaining piece of art to look at.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jan 13, 2009)

I refuse to discuss the obvious.
  I think it is reasonable enough to acknowledge it, acknowledge that there is nothing I can do about it (other than not posting sexist posts), and try to discuss the matter within the context of the game.

  Note that I always refer to wizards (including all subclasses, but not the separate sorcerer, nor the warlock (the male witch)) as female.  It is meant as a way of complimenting women.

  -

  Except for social status, nobody historically wore armor because they liked it.  They wore it because they had to.
  Mail, the most common type of armor in medieval times, was protection against knife thrusts, minor jabs from larger weapons, and it could offer some protection against heavier hits and arrow hits.
  It required an undercoat, to prevent it from abrading the skin right off the wearer.  This undercoat was hot, dirty (in our terms, horrifically so), and attracted vermin.  However, it offered additional protection.  
  The helm worn was hot, heavy, and obscured vision.  The camail, the chain links coming down from it and protecting the neck, preventing easy turning of the head, and made the whole thing more awkward yet.
  The shield was just that.  It was heavy and cumbersome.  But it protected you from incoming arrows, or the swings of heavy weapons.

  In the confusion of melee, with people stabbing and hacking at you from every side, people screaming in pain, people yelling, people rushing and falling and tumbling in all directions, the Standard barely visible above the ruckus, it was nice to have the best armor possible.

  Plate armor came late to the scene.
  Plate armor offered better protection by far than mail, and it was not much more restrictive or awkward than mail.  It was heavier.  The helm badly obscured vision.
  The advent of the English Longbow at the Battle of Agincourt showed the futility of even plate armor.  When firearms were developed, armor was largely abandoned.

  -

  In D&D, a warrior - be that warrior male or female - is sorta stuck with armor, just as medieval warriors were stuck with armor.
  Would a D&D character of low level (and low hit points) care to be in the midst of a large melee with no armor?  Would that be wise?  And just *who* is it, that is *expected* to wade into that large melee, carry the brunt of the hand-to-hand fighting?  The fighter, obviously (and fighter subgroups, such as barbarian, ranger, paladin, and the monk - and the monk's lack of armor was always problematic, but that is another thread.)

  The wizard can wear armor.  But in 1E and 2E, if she did, she could not cast spells, could barely walk, simply because it was given in the rules that she had spent all her time training to learn magic, and no time training to move in armor.
  Smart wizards I knew, back in 1E and 2E, put armor on after they had cast all their spells for the day, and rode on the horse or pony (aided on if needed, tied there if they had to be - falling off a horse in heavy armor tends to be disastrous.)  They put the armor on, despite the discomfort, because it was better than being dead.  (A similar problem for us all when resting at night, but no wizard could sleep in armor - if she did, she couldn't rememorize spells the next day, her primary power, while the rest of us were merely exhausted and sore from a bad night's sleep.)

  Magical armor was a godsend, for it was weightless and it was also comfortable (almost as if Free Action had been cast on it), it did not overheat the wearer under normal conditions, and you could even sleep in it without penalty (even the wizard could ... and considering how fast monsters could attack in the night, and how few hit points the wizard had, this made a HUGE difference for her.)
  Elven chain mail (or, simply, Elven Mail) was an even bigger godsend, for a wizard could WEAR it and cast magical spells.  It was inconvenient as mail was, but only to about one tenth the degree.  MAGICAL Elven Mail was the biggest gift of all:  a wizard could cast spells, sleep, and otherwise act in it normally, without any discomfort or impediment at all (and magical elven mail was a treasure beyond price.)

  Magical armor, unless it was magical elven chain, tended to go to the fighters first, as they had to wade into melee.  Right or wrong, this was what happened.  Magical elven chain and non-magical elven chain went to the wizard first and the rogue second.

  But we did not always have magical armor, and elven chain mail was a scarce enough luxury!
  We had to do without.

  The first result of that is the idea of protecting the wizard, with a wall of fighters.  A tactic that worked, and it was used so much it became a cliché.
  But the wizard had her own ways of protecting herself.

  The first was a high dexterity.  It wasn't uncommon to see the wizard with a dexterity of 17 or higher.  This helped, just a bit, with AC.
  Rings of Protection and Cloaks of Protection (cloaks being more immune to fire than normal cloaks) were given to the wizard first.
  Anything augmenting dexterity was a good bet for the wizard, although some of the other classes also wanted those items.
  Ioun Stones, if we could find them, and if they augmented AC, also were a good bet for the wizard.

  The common first level spell Armor, which stacked with Dexterity as I remember, was a mainstay of the wizard, but because it used up a crucial spell slot, it was problematic.
  Phantom Armor was a great spell, but again it used up a spell slot.
  Shield would have been popular, if the spell slot had been free to use ... heck, Shield was popular anyways.

  But spell slots were limited, a good offense was the best defense, and the fighters could completely block incoming opponents from reaching the wizard.
  The primary problem began with the arrows, then the spells, launched by the enemy.  It went on to become the energy weapons, the breath weapons, the powerful area effect attacks stronger monsters used.  And the fighters could not stop huge or powerful monsters from breaking through.

  Against attacks of these greater magnitudes, it was discovered soon enough that armor was useless.  The answer to the assault was HIT POINTS (you had enough to survive the attack) and the wizard did not have hit points.
  What to do?
  There was nothing the fighters could do, for defense.  The only hope was to kill the monster before it killed everyone, and everyone had to fight it, in order to make that happen.

  The wizard, now much stronger, had to take a very proactive approach in protecting herself.  With the fighters not only unable to defend her, but unable to keep themselves alive without her help, she had to actively engage the powerful foe.

  There were, of course, a variety of ways in which this was done.  The common ones included fireball, lightning bolt, spectral force, stinking cloud, rope trick (for saving the party, for hiding), and so on.

  The clothing that we wore was quickly destroyed in these battles.  Normal clothing was not a match for the claws, teeth, and bites of powerful monsters, or against energy attacks or breath weapons or powerful spells!
  Normal clothing was destroyed, and was discarded.  Armor was battered, hastily repaired in patchwork way, damaged more, finally so damaged it was lost also.
  Magical items tended to withstand the assault.  Items specially protected survived.  But otherwise, the party became gaunt figures in shredded clothing and wrecked armor, or reduced to wearing scraps of cloth around the loins.  And, of course, the monsters just kept coming. 

  What the wizard wore, at the start, was relevant, only at the start.
  By halfway through the scenario, the wizard's clothing was destroyed, only shreds remaining, clinging to her battered, slashed, stabbed, and burned body (think of the Book of Mazarbul in the Chamber of Records from Fellowship of the Ring ... it had been stabbed, slashed, and partly burned, and was so covered in dark stains like bloodstains that little could be made out.)
  And this, was *with* the cleric to heal people.  (Without him, we were all dead.)

  So, although the pics being discussed make for a discussion of some sort (I suppose) to me they are irrelevant.
  They would be equally irrelevant to the wizard.  She knows what she is heading into, heading into an adventure.  Looking good is all fine and well (especially if we must negotiate with some potential foes) but there will be combat, and we'll all end up looking like something out of Apocalypse Now, long before we achieve victory.

  (Yes, cantrips did wonders for clothing, when introduced.  But cantrips were not enough, and Firefinger was badly needed as a useful way of lighting torches, lighting greek fire, and even as a direct fire weapon (a burning opponent was out of the battle for at least one round.))


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 13, 2009)

Allow me to stand alone once again, then:

Lots of fantasy stereotypes are *stupid* and adhering to them is equally *stupid*.

It's not about realism.  I just don't see the aesthetic appeal of  hanging out for the sole purpose of having  hanging out.  Yes, she has anatomy (though often badly drawn), *I get it*, but once your hand leaves the hole in your pocket and you see women _in real life_ then the titillation factor in "artwork" that exists for the sole purpose of going "HEY LOOK JUGS" tends to lose its appeal.

Sorry, but I prefer my women smart and smartly dressed.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 13, 2009)

I'm sorry, but the General forum is not for publishers to market their products.  Moving this to the Publishers and Press Releases forum.

In addition - we expect discussion here to be family-friendly.  Please moderate your language to suit.  Thank you.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 13, 2009)

Man, this thread got disturbing.

I wrote the Chainmail Bikinis book totally tongue-in-cheek, with the intent to make fun of the concept. It looks like a lot of people don't realize that taking that sort of crap seriously and actually cheering its inclusion is actually off-putting to a fair number of people.


----------



## Amy Kou'ai (Jan 13, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I can only speak from my own experiences, but I've yet to meet a single female gamer who liked that book, and quite a few I know felt openly insulted by it.  I've got a hunch that it scared away more girls then it brought in.




I hated that book, but I don't think it scared away anyone who, frankly, wasn't already a geek.  If you're already a female gamer (gamefem?), you're not really the target audience, in my opinion.


----------



## afstanton (Jan 13, 2009)

FWIW, I met my ex-wife via D&D.  One of the best gamers I've had the pleasure of being a player next to, and of DMing.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 13, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> If you want, I could send you a pdf copy of E.N. Arsenal - Chainmail Bikinis.




Even better - she could buy it!


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 13, 2009)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> I'm also fascinated as to why, in a survey regarding female gamers and how to attract them to RPGing, they are referred to as 'girls' instead of, say, 'female gamers' or indeed 'women'.




And when you speak of the individuals you game with, do you call them 'male gamers' or 'men',  or do you just call them 'the guys' like most of the rest of us do?


----------



## Obryn (Jan 13, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...So am I the only one who HATES the scantily clad pictures of women and much, much perfers someone in some actual armor?



Nope.  In fact, it's one of my favorite things about the cover of WFRP2.  Yes, there's a woman on the cover.  In full, non-sexy, functional armor, killing a beastman.  Right there behind the ugly trollslayer and the horribly scarred (and also ugly) Priest of Sigmar. 

-O


----------



## Obryn (Jan 13, 2009)

Having read more of the thread by now...



Mathew_Freeman said:


> The casual sexism is pretty nasty to read, actually. It makes me pretty sad to see this level of juvenile, puerile excuses for jokes from a lot of posters, most of which I very much like.



Word.

-O


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 13, 2009)

From part of my response to the questionere:


> "SHOULD the RPG industry change how women are portrayed or should women stop whining about it?"
> 
> 
> A little from  column A, a little from column B...
> I appreciate art of fantastical female warriors in skimpy armor. I also like art of Conan type barbarians bare chested and muscles buldging. For different reasons, of course but both have their place in fantasy art and RPGs. However, we could also use more 'realistic' female fighter type art.




Really all of those being 'offended' need to toughen up IMO. There are far more offensive instances of the objectification of women that could be reviled. To waste it on fantasy art is an injustice.


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Jan 13, 2009)

Darkwolf71 said:


> Really all of those being 'offended' need to toughen up IMO. There are far more offensive instances of the objectification of women that could be reviled. To waste it on fantasy art is an injustice.




HYpothetical:  If you saw a picture of fantasy artwork where the guy was wearing nothing but an athletic supporter and you saw a bulge and you saw your wife/gf/etc oggling it, would you really want to open that book again?


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Jan 13, 2009)

dmccoy1693 said:


> HYpothetical:  If you saw a picture of fantasy artwork where the guy was wearing nothing but an athletic supporter and you saw a bulge and you saw your wife/gf/etc oggling it, would you really want to open that book again?




Oh, I imagine she'd ask why I didn't look like that any more and I would reply with something about her fitting into her size 3 jeans again and we'd have a laugh before going back to real life.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Jan 13, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...So am I the only one who HATES the scantily clad pictures of women and much, much perfers someone in some actual armor?




No you aren't.

Not at all.


----------



## jeffh (Jan 13, 2009)

Had four female players out of a total of seven in my Shackled City game until one of them left. All are married, two to other members of the group, but they didn't necessarily all start that way (in fact, all four weddings took place since the group first formed). The only one who could reasonably be said to have been dragged into it by her now-husband very quickly ended up being one of the most enthusiastic members of the group, definitely one of the ones I have in mind when I joke about them chaining me to a table and forcing me to run games whenever I'm in town (second only to her husband).

As for the artwork question, overtly erotic artwork has its place and so does artwork of realistic women in realistic armour, but art that would be expected to provide examples of typical D&D characters in action really should lean toward the latter much more than it does. There's nothing inherently wrong with women in skimpy outfits, in contexts where that makes sense; going into battle is _not_ such a context.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 14, 2009)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> The 1E wizard was better off in a bikini.
> 
> The best you could hope for from Dexterity was AC 6.  AC 5, if you could somehow obtain 19 dexterity (an elf.)




Defensive Adjustment for 18, 19, and 20 Dexterity in 1E was -4.  To get -5, you needed 21 Dexterity.

-Hyp.


----------



## drothgery (Jan 14, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...So am I the only one who HATES the scantily clad pictures of women and much, much perfers someone in some actual armor?




Quite possibly. At least, inasmuch as I suspect few gamers (at least, those in the large majority of gamers that are attracted to women) dislike, in the abstract, pictures of attractive women wearing not much. 

Whether such artwork really belongs in gaming books is another question entirely. Obviously non-functional armor or otherwise impractical clothes on people involved in lethal combat is kind of silly; in a non-combat setting, that's not really a concern.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jan 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> I hear that the 1e DMG had a Female wandering monster table.




I think you are thinking of the *Random Harlot* encounter table.

1-10 Slovenly Trull
11-25 Brazen Strumpet
26-35 Cheap Trollop
36-50 Typical Streetwalker
51-65 Saucy Tart
66-75 Wanton Wench
76-85 Expensive Doxy
86-90 Haughty Courtesan
91-92 Aged Madam
93-94 Wealthy Procuress
95-98 Sly Pimp
99-00 Rich Panderer

In 1st Edition it was important to know exactly where the money you spend on Ale and Whores was going. Scan of original table is available here.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 14, 2009)

ttiwwp. j/k.


----------



## PowerWordDumb (Jan 14, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...So am I the only one who HATES the scantily clad pictures of women and much, much perfers someone in some actual armor?




Careful, your sensitive ponytail is showing.


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 14, 2009)

Cheesecake art is part of the fantasy genre.  I game with more women than men, and none of them are overly offended by the art and style of fantasy and pulp.  For instance, I ran a Hollow Earth Expedition game and everyone thought it was great fun when I described an attack as 'slashing across her stomach, convienently exposing her midriff', or when the bombshell spy got snatched and carried off by a giant ape, Fae Ray style.

I think it all has to do with the style that you're in.  In a pulp game like HEX, or a fantasy world with the sensibilities of Conan, some exposed flesh for the sake of exposed flesh is to be expected.  Now if its something grittier, like Obryn was talking about with Warhammer Fantasy or something like Song of Ice and Fire then it would be more out of place.

To be perfectly honest, I don't really care about getting 'more women' into gaming.  I want to get more people into gaming, and get those people to be better at it.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jan 14, 2009)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> For me, the answer is simple:
> 
> She's not getting any AC bonus. She is, however, making some manager somewhere happy as he believes he's hitting the right demographic to sell the books. I think it's extremely *likely *that the presence of a half-naked women actually increased the amount of books sold in any significant way, yet it continues.




Did you mean unlikely, because if it is likely then it's obvious why it continues, so the "yet" seems out of place. However if you don't think sex sells products to men then you are very naive. Of course sex sells, if it didn't do you really think the advertising industry would use it to sell everything from soft drinks to cars?


----------



## Dorn_the_warrior (Jan 14, 2009)

As a female co-worker of mine from my bookstore days put it: "Why is there always a dearth of clothing for women in fantasy worlds?" To be honest, I don't *hate* it, as the previous poster said, but it just never did anything for me.

To change the topic slightly, there is I think a good example of a fully-armored female loking good and kicking butt: Hilde from Soul calibur IV. Her
1P costume is her in full plate armor, and I think she was drawn well. (Is "drawn" the right word? Well, you folks know what I mean.)


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 14, 2009)

I dunno what's funnier, that the thread about bringing in more female gamers turned into one big "LOL WOMEN, AMIRITE?" joke (And that's not funny in the way you wanted it to be) or that the people who aren't into stupid cheesecake pictures are now being _insulted_ because of it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 14, 2009)

PowerWordDumb said:


> Careful, your sensitive ponytail is showing.




Don't poke fun at other people please


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 15, 2009)

Korgoth said:


> You actually "HATE" those pictures? You might be the only one. Well, you and Gloria Steinem...




Well, Gloria Steinem might not be too much against them as long as it meant the depicted women were also liberated from having to wear brassieres under their armor.  But of course, that'd be like wearing a chainmail coif without an arming cap or padded coif under it - Ouch!


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 17, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...So am I the only one who HATES the scantily clad pictures of women and much, much perfers someone in some actual armor?




Nope. I hate fan service like that. I don't especially like the fact that author thinks of me as someone who needs that kind of thing. I find it kind of insulting, actually.


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 17, 2009)

Darkwolf71 said:


> Really all of those being 'offended' need to toughen up IMO. There are far more offensive instances of the objectification of women that could be reviled. To waste it on fantasy art is an injustice.




That's a false dichotomy. One can be annoyed by both soft core and hard core instances of sexism. 

And isn't it preferable to wasting it on edition wars, which many on this forum seem to prefer getting offended over?


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 17, 2009)

In a campaign I ran that ended less than a year ago, my girlfriend asked that the chainmail shirt her female character found actually be a chainmail bikini top.

She has started wearing pink clothes too. Should I be worried?


----------



## genshou (Jan 18, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...So am I the only one who HATES the scantily clad pictures of women and much, much perfers someone in some actual armor?




...You totally lost me on everything before the comma.  What is after the comma I agree with conditionally - I would *generally* rather see an attractive woman showing off her features than an attractive woman in armour that covers most or all of her body, especially to the point where you can't tell if you're looking at a picture of a man or woman anymore.  However, in situations where it would be appropriate for a woman to be wearing armour, I think it's silly to have a chainmail bikini or similar syle.

Here are some examples of female heroes from the Fire Emblem games (mostly Path of Radiance) who have varying amounts of armour depending on needs, without any cheesecake:
Titania
Titania again
Petrine
Nephenee
Jill
Mia
Lethe
Ilyana
Group
Lyndis
Eirika
My main Mabinogi character and his wife right after the wedding.  Her armour is about the closest to "cheesecake" I normally go for.  Here is a sketch a friend kindly drew of her 
My other Mabi character when she was younger, and with the first set of armour I bought for her.  Here as a young adult and in her newer armour, which I find more visually appealing (also, it's much cheaper to repair).
As with some of the Fire Emblem armours and the ones on my Mabinogi characters, it's clear you can accentuate the female form without exposing almost all of it.  But just because sex sells and is oft exploited to this end doesn't mean you should automatically *hate* every picture of scantily clad women OR men.  If it's tasteful and appropriate (Red Sonja and Conan have been given as examples), there really isn't anything wrong with it.  Even nudity can be used tastefully in art.


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 18, 2009)

Clearly, the people complaining about sexy armor are forgetting about the most inspirational of source material in favor of it.

Observe the new rationale for cheesecake armor!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 18, 2009)

Alzrius said:


> Clearly, the people complaining about sexy armor are forgetting about the most inspirational of source material in favor of it.
> 
> Observe the new rationale for cheesecake armor!




Were it not *very very* NSFW, I'd post the follow up picture of the three women being taken into slavery with the caption "Yeah, those 300 guys *lost* in case you've forgotten"


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 18, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Were it not *very very* NSFW, I'd post the follow up picture of the three women being taken into slavery with the caption "Yeah, those 300 guys *lost* in case you've forgotten"




Yeah, I have the follow-up pic, but there's no way to post it, or even a link to it, here.


----------

