D&DNext: Playtest Review

[Kaelik]

U mad bro?

Seriously, you are that angry that I disagree with you on an aesthetic point. Go the fuck outside, live your life.

In addition to the tremendous stupidity of telling someone to go outside and live their life and stop having opinions about PnP RPG gaming on a PnP RPG game forum, why are you a lying shithead?

No, he is not angry that you disagree on an aesthetic point, because you didn't make an aesthetic point.

You said that breasts on armor made it cheesecake because that's not realistic. You made the express point that the distinction between breast armor and breastless armor was a distinction that made something cheesecake. That's the opposite of an aesthetic point.

[Foxwarrior]

Fantasy women are so much better at dodging than fantasy men are, they wear impractical clothing into lethal situations in order to taunt their poor incompetent opponents.

Clearly, therefore, anyone in favor of reasonable female armor is a misogynist.

[PhoneLobster]

I don't give a crap about gender based fantasy dodging bullshit.

Partly because the pretense that it is gender based is ridiculous bullshit pulled out of the asses of the "moar realism noaw!" idiots.

Dodge based lower armour imagery is common to both genders in fantasy art.

Armour with impractical shapes that actually would be realistically bad like boobs, elaborate ornamentation and spikes is common to both genders in fantasy art.

Even impractically HEAVY armour is common in fantasy art and not specifically restricted to male characters either.

The DUMB FUCKERS who argue the whole boob thing are mostly parroting a stupid line one dumb fucker 15 years ago said somewhere about something without really understanding what they are arguing.

And what they are arguing for is removing ALL fantastically imagery from fantasy art. ALL the armour MUST be an actual practical real world design because... because NO FUCKING REASON they are just assholes trying to take away everything pretty and fanciful. So much so that even actual examples of impractical ornamented armour from actual history would not satisfy their demands because it was too fun looking.

They are actually demanding that even the small details of fun and fantasy be removed from everyone else's fantasy fun. And when they start quibbling beyond even just the chainmail bikini and start pointing at pictures like the one that dumb fuck just then pointed at and saying "aaah hint of boobs, I demand to quibble the point!" they are making themselves into a minority which however vocal is INCREDIBLY fucking tiny and demanding to ruin something EVERYONE else wants.

People who have an "issue" over the "small detail" of "vague hints of boobs in a heavy non-revealing armour design" should fuck off and write "Obsessive Compulsive Historically Boringly Practical Accurate Armour Simulator THE GAME" and stop sticking their dicks in D&D. Then all five of them could not play it because even they wouldn't enjoy it.

[Josh_Kablack]

"Obsessive Compulsive Historically Boringly Practical Accurate Armour Simulator THE GAME"

I have that game!

[tussock]

I like armour without the boob cups for the same reason I like armour without the open throat and armour without the unguarded femoral artery and armour without the fucking random spikes up around your head and neck. Fighters wearing helmets, or at least keeping them at hand.

/minmax getting his head impaled on his own armour .jpg

But also totally support the swashbuckler and monk and wizard being all cheesecake-awesome. In D&D you don't have to wear armour.

I also want my fantasy swords to look like swords, not arthouse bottle-openers, while fully supporting Monks punching an Iron Golem to pieces with Kung Fu, motherfucker.

Though I still don't understand how 3-piece staves work. Must hunt youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIq0JRbMmkE

Oh, right, you fuck shit up like a buzzsaw, and then fall down from being dizzy. I guess that's what the designers want us to imagine with a dire-flail then. Monks should totally be able to fight from the ground without penalty, and stand up for free as an attack. Or just everyone with BAB+1. /random.

[PhoneLobster]

But also totally support the swashbuckler and monk and wizard being all cheesecake-awesome. In D&D you don't have to wear armour.

What seriously? You are going to turn this now into a "fighters can't have nice stuff" thing?

I always thought the fighters cant have nice stuff business was a bit of a beat up and if designers just started ignoring the fighters cant have nice stuff lobby it would evaporate like the pretentious wank mist it is.

But if it's so bad now that not only super powers, game viability, out of combat options but ALSO looking cool or being allowed to be sexy are ALSO suddenly on the list of "fighters can't have this" then WTF maybe Lago/etc... is right with the endless panic merchantry over the lobby.

[Winnah]

Medieval armour never accentuated the sexual characteristics if it's wearer. Absolutely never.

[Josh_Kablack]

I'm with PL on this one, I want some Fantasy in my Fantasy, so

Female Armor can totally look like this:

or for players who don't want to encourage cheesecake, this

provided that male armor gets to look like this

and this

we can leave the historically accurate armor for the SCA and animal companions

[Maxus]

Yeah, I'm all for some fantasy in my gear.

So, you know, I can play as a tank who dresses like this guy one game, and play a Paladin who wears this but aspires to being worthy of this.

Actually, this argument had made me go all over the place to check some of my old imagery sources.

Groovy.

[Korgan0]

Is everyone going to ignore the fact that the fantasy armour worn by women tends to accentuate sexual characteristics to an absolutely obscene degree while the fantasy armor worn by men tends to do no such thing? I'd be shocked if you could find me one example of fantasy armor crafted to expose rippling six-packs and bulging biceps, and even if you could, pretty much every time you see a woman in impractical armour it's showing off her tits, her ass, her legs, her stomach, and so on.

I have no problem with unrealistic armour, but I do have a problem when the unrealistic armour worn by one gender in particular is ludicrously objectifying, and the one worn by the other gender isn't.

[Username17]

That wasn't even hard.

-Username17

[PhoneLobster]

Is everyone going to ignore the fact that..

Apparently yes. This is for several reasons.

1) The anti boob armour crowd are pulling a "realism" bullshit argument that attacks all fantasy in art, not just specifically female objectifying fantasy. This actually IS a slippery slope thing where "First they came for the boob armour and we said nothing...blah blah... then they came for the armour spikes and solar chest crests and... blah blah".

2) The accentuation of female sexuality more so than male in garments is a standard part of modern western culture in general. Our modern fantasy art is not especially different to our modern ANY art. Up to and including what women actually wear. In fact a lot of the whole "OMG suddenly bare midrift is a thing in 4E!" bullshit pulled by Armour realism/gender objectification trolls tends to overlook the fact that a lot of those particular inclusions are actually (very lame) attempts to appeal to female gamers by D&D art designers by trying to ape narrow and specific modern fashion trends.

3) Most importantly of all the "anti gender objectification" lobby while correct in their assessment of bias are usually arguing dishonestly with a hidden agenda of basically attacking any and all things they regard as getting up their stuffy stuck up highly repressed asses. In an attempt to censor EVERYTHING in a prudish and oppressive manner. Case in point. Sexualization bias remains in our fantasy art. All we lost thanks to prudish censorship concern trolling over D&D art was actual naked nipples and the entire subset of oiled nearly naked muscular barbarian macho men. Largely only worsening the bias situation.

The sad fact is no one ACTUALLY cares all that much about the bias. The anti-censorship crowd sure as hell doesn't care, and the pro prudish crowd has proven time and again it isn't the gender bias they are after, its basically the bare nipples, female OR male.

[Winnah]

They're not just opposed to sex, they're opposed to protected sex.

When did this board get invaded by Catholics?

[Korgan0]

(image omitted)

That wasn't even hard.

-Username17

Firstly, that's not fantasy armour. Those are Greek muscle curiasses, or at least a convincing reproduction thereof, and in any case Greeks probably weren't that ripped. I think the curiasses really function more as the equivalent of boob implants than chainmail bikinis. As for counter-examples, just go flip through any comic book illustrated by Rob Liefeld, watch Queen's Blade, play Devil May Cry, and so on.

[Juton]

I don't give a crap about gender based fantasy dodging bullshit.

Partly because the pretense that it is gender based is ridiculous bullshit pulled out of the asses of the "moar realism noaw!" idiots.

Dodge based lower armour imagery is common to both genders in fantasy art.

Armour with impractical shapes that actually would be realistically bad like boobs, elaborate ornamentation and spikes is common to both genders in fantasy art.

Even impractically HEAVY armour is common in fantasy art and not specifically restricted to male characters either.

The DUMB FUCKERS who argue the whole boob thing are mostly parroting a stupid line one dumb fucker 15 years ago said somewhere about something without really understanding what they are arguing.

And what they are arguing for is removing ALL fantastically imagery from fantasy art. ALL the armour MUST be an actual practical real world design because... because NO FUCKING REASON they are just assholes trying to take away everything pretty and fanciful. So much so that even actual examples of impractical ornamented armour from actual history would not satisfy their demands because it was too fun looking.

They are actually demanding that even the small details of fun and fantasy be removed from everyone else's fantasy fun. And when they start quibbling beyond even just the chainmail bikini and start pointing at pictures like the one that dumb fuck just then pointed at and saying "aaah hint of boobs, I demand to quibble the point!" they are making themselves into a minority which however vocal is INCREDIBLY fucking tiny and demanding to ruin something EVERYONE else wants.

People who have an "issue" over the "small detail" of "vague hints of boobs in a heavy non-revealing armour design" should fuck off and write "Obsessive Compulsive Historically Boringly Practical Accurate Armour Simulator THE GAME" and stop sticking their dicks in D&D. Then all five of them could not play it because even they wouldn't enjoy it.

This internet over reaction shit is getting tiring. For the record my stance is, wait for it:

I don't like it.

Wow, that is a huge condemnation of the genre, isn't it? If a product has an excessive amount of bullshit art I will be disinclined to purchase it. That's about the extent of it. Boobplate is one of the things I don't like, I don't like anime hair of buster swords either, that's just my artistic sensibilities.

I don't know why you are so spastic about defending this type of art, did Frank Franzetta save you from a house fire when you where 5? For the record I actually like Franzetta's stuff, I'd have no problem with some of it being in a D&D book, just so long as it's not the majority of it.

EDIT:For clarity,

I never once brought up objectification. Or any other feminist watch words. I like practical things in my fantasy so that it has some grounding for me. A piece of art can have a knight can ride a griffin while fighting a dragon. Whether I like that particular piece will be influenced by whether the knight's is sword and armour is practical looking. It is not my only criterion but it is one of them.

[RttnSl]

Firstly, that's not fantasy armour. Those are Greek muscle curiasses, or at least a convincing reproduction thereof, and in any case Greeks probably weren't that ripped. I think the curiasses really function more as the equivalent of boob implants than chainmail bikinis. As for counter-examples, just go flip through any comic book illustrated by Rob Liefeld, watch Queen's Blade, play Devil May Cry, and so on.

So it doesn't count just because you can dismiss his example and go on a tangent mentioning other places where you can show what you are complaining about? So a greek cuirass doesn't count as fantasy armour, but a cheesecake anime, a modern urban/demonic videogame and comic art from Rob "I only know how to draw pouches" Liefeld do count as fantasy armor? Ok, that makes sense.

If you want examples of fantasy armor for males that oversexualizes them you just need to go and check Conan, He man or any famous barbarian ever made. The loincloth is as normal as the chainmail bikini in fantasy art. While it is true that you see more thong armor on females than males you cannot deny that slutty male characters exist, because they do.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, but I think there is a point where further discussion on the objectification of women in fantasy art becomes retarded, even more when people are using the "realism" argument. In pretty much any edition of DnD, with the way buffs and magic items work a mage could seriously fight people naked without losing any defensive power.

[OgreBattle]

Tsukasa Jun renders the best boob plate.

http://aponya.ru/images/5e05446bd17b634 ... 13ba0.jpeg

image is gigantic so I didnt put an /img tag on


I do wonder if female armor is really a significant part of D&D sales htough.

[Mistborn]

And what they are arguing for is removing ALL fantastically imagery from fantasy art. ALL the armour MUST be an actual practical real world design because... because NO FUCKING REASON they are just assholes trying to take away everything pretty and fanciful. So much so that even actual examples of impractical ornamented armour from actual history would not satisfy their demands because it was too fun looking

Wow. Your persecution complex is showing.

No one is out to steal your fantasy. Skimpy impractical armour is both sexually objectifying (and yes women are bothered by that) and kind of dumb. I'm no model train enthusist but put me down for armor that atleast gives the appearance of being practical.

As for the pathfinder image it irratates me for so unfathomable reason it looks too "busy". If that's even a thing it's like the artist cramed in a little two much ordamentation and random cloth bits,

[MfA]

I never noticed the Druid was a female before, so that point is yours. Regarding the Paladin, my problem is with her armour. It may be a minor point to most but armour with breasts, for lack of a better term, is a really bad idea.

That doesn't make it intentionally cheesecake though ... swords are too wide, plate is too form fitting and barbarians only use pieces of armour as fashion statements ... those conventions have far more history in the art of armoured figures now than anything realistic.

[RadiantPhoenix]

My problem with plate armor with boob socks (i.e., individual bulges for each breast) is that it generally looks neither cool nor sexy to me. IME, chainmail bikinis and teeny tiny chest plates are less likely to have that problem. It might be something about the corners as opposed to smooth curves.

Actually, taking some more looks, I think part of the problem is with non-scifi plate armor in general. (as in, stuff that tries to cover most of the body in plates; not just a few places)


EDIT: Also, found an entirely different kind of boob plate: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3481/5715 ... 00d6_z.jpg

[Previn]

No one is out to steal your fantasy. Skimpy impractical armour is both sexually objectifying (and yes women are bothered by that) and kind of dumb. I'm no model train enthusist but put me down for armor that atleast gives the appearance of being practical.

SOME women are bothered by it. Not all women are . I think women are much more offended by women being portrayed as helpless sex toys for the men to rescue than as bad asses showing some T&A.

[ishy]

In my experience, men are bothered because they are all assholes. And women are bothered by the fact that men think all women are exactly the same.

[tussock]

But also totally support the swashbuckler and monk and wizard being all cheesecake-awesome. In D&D you don't have to wear armour.

What seriously? You are going to turn this now into a "fighters can't have nice stuff" thing?

Not that I noticed. I'm the "stuff taken from the real world should look like the stuff in the real world" guy. In this little discussion on art direction.

To me, the "fantasy" armour doesn't look cool, it looks deeply retarded. I can totally picture all the interesting ways it just got easier to kill you when you put it on. Which makes me a little bit sad, given how hideously expensive it appears to be.

Now, I'm also in favour of fireballs being explosive, and setting things on fire, and that fire making smoke problems, and full plate armour giving huge resistance to elements and electricity immunity, and big giants who die when you trip them over, and all sorts.

But when the fighter wants to run up a 200' vertical wall and jump 100' across to the flying dragon in his full plate and wrestle it into being his pet he can just do that. Gravity can be brutally real but the demi-god of war you're playing doesn't have to care: as fire can be brutally real and your Wizard can still pull it out of his ass at a moment's notice. M/kay?

Like, the rule for armour being heavy when you climb should be how you can do extra damage by body-slamming bad-guys from on high in it. Because it's heavy, and you climbed in it. 1st level free armour proficiency, just do it. If you want to be a dick it would have to be magic armour and you would have to be strong enough, but I don't really care: Fighter class is proficient.

It should just look like armour, rather than a fucking stage costume. You don't hit people with ceremonial maces, you don't dungeon-delve in that crap. Just my personal quirks.

[erik]

For what it's worth, when my wife played a wood-elf barbarian in Living Greyhawk her character picture that she chose was this:



Hers was supposed to have pointy ears and a tattoo of Kelanen's holy symbol of a star-shaped array of 9 swords, centered around her exposed belly button. I was gonna shop that stuff on, but LG quit when 4e came out, so it never got done.

So long as whoever is playing it thinks it looks cool or good, then yay.

And for ridiculous fantasy male cheesecake armor, Hennet is one of my faves. He was the BBEG for my first 3e D&D adventure that I MC'd and without that picture he totally would not have earned that honor.

[Libertad]

If you want examples of fantasy armor for males that oversexualizes them you just need to go and check Conan, He man or any famous barbarian ever made. The loincloth is as normal as the chainmail bikini in fantasy art. While it is true that you see more thong armor on females than males you cannot deny that slutty male characters exist, because they do.

Conan is a male power fantasy. He's not portrayed as nude or in a loincloth because the author thought that it was sexy, it was to portray his POWER. As in, he can endure extreme elements which would kill lesser men; and can kill people even without the protection of armor in combat. He still wore armor, but it wasn't a necessity like it was for most soldiers. Conan at the time was written to appeal primarily to straight male power fantasies.