Why do people get so upset over unrealistic female armor? Isn't

Autism is about the only answer I have

File: tmp_24305-1482950039154409186241.png (269KB, 715x1024px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 715x1024px

>>51364508
It makes them feel better.

well, because it's armor, worn by a woman

>>51364508
>Why do people get so upset over unrealistic female armor?
Because people get upset over anything.

Find me something on /tg/ that doesn't get people upset.

>>51364508
Often it makes female players feel subtly uncomfortable or unwelcome. Not always, but often. Depending on individuals and on how, exactly, it is unrealistic.

>>51364508
For me it really gets under my skin that things look super different but are mechanically the same where they drastically are not. Like say a girl with really skimpy plate armor that barely covers the torso shouldn't get as much of a move penalty or as much protection as a dwarf who is covered head to toe in steel plates. With light armor or clothing its fine, but heavy armor seems just silly.

File: 1466816723546.jpg (78KB, 625x464px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 625x464px

>>51364508
I'm okay with female armor as long as it can still be construed as armor. It's only once you get to chain bikini that some red flags get raised and the alarms start sounding.

There's those guys, though. Those Guys who get mad at boobplate. The ones who rage when a cuirass doesn't completely hinder a woman's movement. Just be happy that people chose non-fetish art you autistic cunts.

I don't mind boobplate, chain mail bikinis, and other unrealistic armor as long as it's internally consistent.

File: angelic armor.jpg (567KB, 723x1023px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 723x1023px

>>51364976
same.

If it's just one woman in slut armor vs the whole world in regular armor, it just stands out.

If all the armor is slut armor, it's all good with me.

File: 1470167584840.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>51364923
To add to this, I think most people by now have grown accustomed to the "unrealistic female armor" stuff. Seeing someone that's covered head to toe in metal is pretty rare.

>>51365034
>"Realistic female armor!"
> Hits arrows out of the air with sword.

>>51365203
technically that's a bolt
and she's not covered head to toe in metal
there are many things unrelated to the discussion to point out here

File: AmanoKuja.jpg (242KB, 556x1000px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 556x1000px

>>51365002
>If it's just one woman in slut armor vs the whole world in regular armor, it just stands out.
I'm OK with this if the character is personally powerful enough to justify it. Like if a Final Fantasy villain walked into King's Landing; there'd be stares, then evil looks, then someone throws a rock, then the survivors run away screaming and the outfit is the last thing on anyone's mind.

Also, pointlessArmorNowAvailableInDude.jpg

Because historical armour looks better and is far more interesting than something that some Russian art school dropout who watched too much Naruto in their teens can poop out.

>>51365034
>Breastplate has actual separate domes for each breast instead of a single uniform horizontal bump
Enjoy having those weapon strikes slide to your cleavage.

>>51365322

....That's not breastplate, is it? It looks like a fucking latex bodysuit.

That being said, I am all for gladiator/gladiatrix or duellist armour that is absurdly unarmoured.

A warrior, wizard or rogue gains nothing from fighting in shitty armour. They just will die like a retard.

A gladiatrix in a plate bikini however will generate more and more fame with each fight, and in death she will become a heroine venerated in many minstrel songs.

It is allllll about context.

File: --scathach-fate-grand-order-and-fate-series-drawn-by-omochi-no-kimochi--09788f66f65e558bac8985c4ea911446.jpg (800KB, 850x1200px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 850x1200px

>>51365289
I'll concede to that as well I suppose. If it's a demigod ala Hercules/A solar exalted/etc walking around, they can probably pass with wearing skimpy armor, if any at all.

But still, if it's Jane the 2nd level fighter armored like pic related when full plate is the standard, it's a bit too much. If it's Jane the invincible spear princess then sure go with it.

File: barbarian_armor_concept_by_wanderer_arts-d4bhrqt.jpg (90KB, 900x453px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 900x453px

Some people want more realism some don't. It's not rocket science. Just make sure you keep consistent.

>>51364508
I just think that realistic armor on Women looks better

If I want porn, I can get it

If I want an image of a woman in armor, that is much harder to get

>>51365337
I bet the armorer who made it has insane armor stretching service costs. Eventually those "warriors" will gain mass, ether muscle or more likely fat. It's the perfect scheme.

>>51365400

This, or at least: Quit with the illusion of armor. Go plainclothes, or wear something more reasonable than useless pieces of metal that can maybe be flashy or sexy in its own way.

>>51364508
Unrealistic armor is only good for gaming if it comes in dude-form as well.

>>51365425
Seconded. I want more metallic loincloths.

>>51364508
But I have funw hen it's a historically realistic peasant simulator.

I got into fantasy, then got into history, and it made my fantasy infinitely better.

Now it's all about advertisement. If a game is advertised as classical western european fantasy, I want you to fucking pay respect to the source material. Same as feudal japan, age of sails or second world war.

If it's Weebfantasy, well I'm not gonna play because I hate playing with self-absorbed faggots wanting to act out their naruto inspired power fantasies, but if I did but I'd subscribe to women in skimpy plate bikinis wielding swords twice as wide and thrice as tall as them.

File: 1468881206001.jpg (95KB, 564x1220px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 564x1220px

>>51364508
cause they gay.

granted the only reason i like it is for faps, so...

Sometimes you just want to immerse yourself in a world, and extremely unrealistic armor kills it.

I guess a better way to explain it might be, "If I go into a game expecting standard fantasy stuff, I don't want to see anime girls in bikinis."

Also to answer your second question, immersion is fun.

>>51365445
Suppose, then, someone else plays games for reasons other than sexual gratification.

File: 1479141893753.jpg (171KB, 965x710px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 965x710px

>>51365337
>latex bodysuit
Now that's stretching it don't you think

File: sust01252012.png (282KB, 740x1415px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 740x1415px

>>51365370
Good lord that pose. I don't even care about the armor, that fucking stance. A FIRST level Fighter would already have the training to be physically incapable of standing that poorly.

File: 1477269229356.png (166KB, 960x800px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 960x800px

>>51365479
What's funny is her higher-rarity version does have the "battlefuck" armor style instead.

>>51364508

It's only the SJWs. Most people like sexy fantasy armor for women. Just check out any Eastern art, all the women have unrealistic armor.

It's fantasy, man. Girls wear stockings and high-heels into battle all the time.

>>51364698
Skub. Who could possibly hate Skub?

>>51365489
>isn't that Liefeld Syndrome
sensible chuckle

File: ed2d7b60e37c3f1b162960dbc0ec5d92.jpg (35KB, 427x585px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 427x585px

It's a threat to feminists that traditional beauty ideals are upheld in the RPG community and serves as an easy point of entryist attack (first shaming this one thing, then using the newfound voice of power to shame more and more things and other people aren't politicized until the industry is entirely conformed into their image). There's a reason the complaints are mostly levied by outsiders from the community, discounting realism/history grognards. People forget the roots of RPGs are in swords & sorcery pulp fiction.

>>51365510
>Replace the breastblate with a double vest.
Rarer indeed.

File: Not_Sure_Fry.jpg (55KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 604x453px

>>51365546
>>51365600

File: AnimatedArmor.png (423KB, 427x427px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 427x427px

Complaining about female armor is just inane carping.

Battle bikinis are literally just as nonsensical as your average fantasy knight armor which tends to be either 3 inches thick and weigh approximately 950 lbs and have huge fantasy spikes/flanges/ornaments which would get wrapped on the first low-hanging tree branch and wrench the knight's head clear off.

>>51365489
How do you know that's her stance for fighting? Also would a mythological being capable of destroying entire cities really care about stances?

>>51365618
oh look, another newfag with a political agenda to protect. fuck off

>>51365625
You're too trusting. It's not inane, it's insincere. Realism or immersion was never the question

File: 1416361877708.jpg (25KB, 510x383px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 510x383px

>>51365715

File: 76c.jpg (21KB, 672x434px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 672x434px

>>51364599
Damn, I'm feeling better already

>>51365559
>skubfags
Go ahead and fuck on out of here.

File: d11932f84a471037bcb78d4d372182da55a5eddd19cfade2c57c1523b1121f73.png (264KB, 654x583px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 654x583px

>>51365767
You're not fitting in faggot

File: 1392974118910.jpg (69KB, 499x365px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 499x365px

>>51365836
Then get out sir fagalot

>>51364508
>Why do people get so upset over unrealistic female armor?
because people try to insert it in contexts it doesn't belong to or try to apply an alien standard to a context where boobplates fit.

it boils down to people not making clear the premises or not understanding that there's a time and a place for everything.

File: 8f51e12293fe27242797d9deda08ffee0407fd58889713464430f4cbcb4a1735.png (368KB, 689x1024px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 689x1024px

>>51365855

>>51365820
>he's anti-skub
You need to leave

File: 1472285723170.jpg (188KB, 570x450px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 570x450px

>>51365871

Is there a happy medium to be found? Fantasy armour that while not realistic, not triggering for purists?

>>51365913
Too bad you have the SBC

>>51365681
Look, I'm prepared to accept >>51365289 Kuja flouncing around in a leather posing pouch because he's just too damn pretty to not share it with the rest of the world, but >>51365370 she looks off-balance and uncomfortable, with or without the spray-on purple jumpsuit. No one poses like that for themselves.

Seriously, that Kuja art is fantastic. I may have to use it for a Sorcerer PC in the future.

>>51365767
>>51365836
>>51365855
>>51365871
>>51365884
reddit is the other way

File: 1467531655582.jpg (458KB, 760x596px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 760x596px

>>51365469
lies, lies and autism.

the boner does the look out for me, so the rest of my brain can focus on having fun.

also doesn't ruin my day if I see a shirtless dude in the walmart.

>>51365944
Did you just assume my gender?

>>51365988
Then why are you here?
>>51366000
Yeah, I did. What are you going to do about it?

>>51366024
CRY.

File: 97c84e2d579c19c06c5fcda239981603c06d3b99255aa027dc0be75bdb33c608.png (60KB, 255x326px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 255x326px

>>51365884

File: 1394798061678.jpg (9KB, 187x200px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 187x200px

>>51366035

File: __lancer_and_scathach_fate_grand_order_fate_stay_night_and_fate_series_drawn_by_shijiu_adamhutt__846153c2110004ad45abefbd7ceecfa3.jpg (550KB, 772x1000px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 772x1000px

>>51365972
She could be posing for Cu.

>>51365625
what's really nonsensical is women being on the battlefield in the first place.

unless they're dnd elves, who toss their children to the grandparents to raise, (which is what modern women do now in order to go to college and work.)

i'm not bringing this up to be misogynist, it's just good god people, if you don't like tits just say so. plenty of naked barbarian men out there.

>>51364508

There are two types of people who get upset over skimpy female armor:

>1: Feminists who get butthurt over the objectification of womyn.

Who are faggots

>2: HEMAfags who cry about historical inaccuracy even in non-historical settings.

Who are also faggots

File: 1445886353672.jpg (131KB, 1024x432px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1024x432px

>>51365322
>Enjoy having those weapon strikes slide to your cleavage.
How come this kind of mindbogglingly retarded argument has become some widespread? As a metalworker it makes loose faith in humanity every time someone regurgitates it.

Like, go educate yourself about the production process of gothic plate you mongoloid.

>>51366144
There are two types of people who post about two types of people.

1. Me, doing it to make fun of you
2. Retards, like you

>>51364508
>Why do people get so upset over unrealistic female armor?
Autism, faggotry, SJWism ect.

>>51364508
>peasant simulator
that actually sounds fun

File: Untitled.png (266KB, 1000x749px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1000x749px

>>51365836
>>51365988
I maked this.

>>51364976
>>51365002
>If all the armor is slut armor, it's all good with me.
I'm fine with inconsistently stylized armor, as long as all armor is stylized.
Phrasing that slightly differently, I'm fine with sensual female armor and non-sensual male armor as long as neither are realistic.
Otherwise,
>If it's just one woman in slut armor vs the whole world in regular armor, it just stands out.

>>51364508
I guess I don't get upset at it

Like, I don't hate to see it or anything, I just prefer accurately armored women

>>51364508
I don't think I generally get upset about it, but for my characters, well, personally in their situation I'd certainly like to have a sturdy layer of something consistently between my vital organs and things that want to destroy me. I guess I don't really know why my characters wouldn't, unless I'm making a point of them being reckless or good at dodging.

File: I'm the faggot now.jpg (70KB, 403x359px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 403x359px

>>51366171
There are two types of people who post about two types of people posting about two types of people.

1. People who can't into humor and make cringe worthy jokes
2. Faggots like me

>>51366113
Women were on the battlefield in the past time to time.
>>51366144
And then there are retarded faggots like you that get butthurt that someone does not like something you do.
>>51366200
So someone like you?

I just like things to make sense.

Armor is for protecting your body from attacks. If 80% of your body is just bare skin and you've got a plate over your crotch then you're not really protecting anything other than your modesty.
I get that it can look appealing and if it's enchanted or some shit then whatever, but otherwise don't tell me it's armor because it isn't. It's just an outfit.

I'm that same guy that doesn't like the armor you see in stuff like World of Warcraft or all those JRPGs with spikes and spirals and pauldrons six times larger than character's heads. It just doesn't make sense in my mind.

File: No u.jpg (46KB, 640x454px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x454px

>>51366318
>no u
no u

File: about to no u man.jpg (24KB, 640x604px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 640x604px

>>51366343

I just don't get why you can't just say they're a badass that doesn't wear real armor. It's basically the same result as calling a bikini armor and it doesn't really ask you to pretend some gauntlets and a metal swimsuit is going to deflect anything.

File: frazetta-in-pharaos-tomb-2.jpg (81KB, 446x600px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 446x600px

>>51366248
>If it's just one woman in slut armor vs the whole world in regular armor, it just stands out.
this is retarded. No one complains at all if some villain or NPC art has some completely unique weird or magical armor (not that you'd ever even see it in play). unless it's bikini armor, just because it "stands out". Yeah, sure. It stands out because you've been told to think it's my soggy knees.

Rather than just, you know, pulp. men are ripped and women are sexy. it's not complicated and it caters to both men and women.

File: Calm your tits.gif (93KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 320x240px

>>51366318
>And then there are retarded faggots like you that get butthurt that someone does not like something you do.
What? I don't think you understand the discussion we're having. Look at the OP's post:

>Why do people get so UPSET over unrealistic female armor?
Nobodies saying you're a faggot for not liking it. They're saying you're a faggot if you screech "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE" when you see it.

>>51366382
I played a paladin once who's god honoured bravery of earring as little as possible in battle.

>>51366318
>it probably happened once so you can't say it's absurd!
I'm sure there's examples of women on the battlefield wearing bikini armor too, just like people were able to dredge up examples of like three total african squads to fight in WW1 to suggest BF1 featuring tons niggers is historically realistic. it's hardly justification.

>>51366339
>I just like things to make sense.
Then take women out of combat roles? The argument is nonsensical.

File: 1450918212619.jpg (15KB, 244x255px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 244x255px

>>51366434
Tell us what you think about -4 str.

>>51366434
You don't belong here, anon. Not with that anti-logic.

>You wanna play a GIRL fighter? Noooo, sorry, women can't play combat roles. Actually you can't play a girl in this campaign at all, because historically women just stayed in the kitchen and in the farms.

Asking someone to find some non-fetish art of a combatant woman is easier than forbidding an entire gender from participating in the setting. Mongoloid.

>>51365777
Horny trips.

File: ret pally squad.jpg (583KB, 1000x665px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 1000x665px

>>51366318
true from time to time, not to the extent they are in fantasy.

which makes sense for the same reason as making your female characters look good, but it's kinda odd to be complaining about how unrealistic her armor is when there's a bigger elephant sitting in the room.

now a female wizard, or a thief, yea they're just making due, surviving in that strong independent woman kinda way. got it.

but a courtly trained knight in shining armor? wearing the medieval equivalent of power armor? with a functioning uterus? there's gotta be some backstory there.

>>51366419
That doesn't seem particularly more brave if the skimpy armor is just as good

>>51366385
>men are ripped and women are sexy.
Notice how the man is stylized, rather than in "regular armor".

File: 1482841216573.jpg (45KB, 564x882px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 564x882px

>>51364508
It's not peasant simulating, it's knight simulating.

Girls wearing skimpy metal bikinis while guys wear massive implausible car plate is a stupid trend, anyways.

>>51366475
>>51366477
Relax anons, I'm just playing double's adjudicate. it's retarded and a copout to try and pick and choose unrealistic fantasy tropes with the excuse it's unrealistic. The logical conclusion of muh realism is taking women off the battlefield.

>>51366564
It's not about REALISM it's about INTERNAL CONSISTENCY.

>>51366522
The armour was no good, but the god gave blessings for being as such. Usually healing and strength.

>>51366530
that is "regular" armor though, the clanking tin man plate armor you see knights wearing was the medieval equivalent of fucking space marine armor.

only landowners or their children could really afford that shit.

everyone else made due with what they could afford.

>>51366588 Conan-types could afford better armor (or in-fact, armor at all). They opt not to. It's stylized.

>>51366564
>The logical conclusion of muh realism is taking women off the battlefield.
But women did fight in the ancient times. Not as much as men, men were expected to fight, women were not. But the truth is, occasionally, you'd get a bull dyke on the field with the men. We know this from archeology.

>>51366595
Women vs Tropes is looking good.

>>51366595
I'm gonna need some sauce on that.

>>51366396
No, I understand the the thread just fine. Unlike you I can see this thread is a just a morons whining that not everyone like the same things as they do and that the thread is going to go nowhere.
>>51366434
Good job showing that you are one stupid fuck. see http://www.lothene.org/others/women.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_post-classical_warfare. And none of them use bikini armor.
>>51366518
Never said they were common. Anyone wearing heavy armor needs some backstory or had earn it as that shit is not cheap.

>>51366157
I remember seeing a counter-post to that image which explained how the "mechanical advantage" of reinforcing the center point of titplate was a phenomenally stupid idea and how the mechanical engineer in that post was either lying or retarded.

To make a long autistic rant short, it boiled down to "deflection is superior to absorption". Armors designed for deflection require less to do more, while still achieving the same end result of keeping the wearer safe. Armors designed for absorption require more to do less, and achieve the same end result.

It's not rocket science, it's basic optimization of resources.

>>51366518
>>51366113
>>51366434
"Fantasy" is not "reality". Basically by definition.

Women in combat were not actually all that rare. They were certainly the exception more than the rule, but there were female gladiators, female knights, female samurai, female hoplites, female pirates, female rebels...

>>51366224
I AM HIRGLEDORF, RULER OF THE PARK BENCHES AND ALL THOSE WHO SLEEP ON THEM

>>51366642
>Unlike you I can see this thread is a just a morons whining that not everyone like the same things as they do and that the thread is going to go nowhere.
What you don't see is that you're that moron you just described.

>>51366584
It's not internally consistent for women to magically be exact equals to men in PC roles only but otherwise entirely equivalent to irl women. There are very valid reasons women weren't present on the battlefield and unless the setting entertains some abomination of humans that dodges those (perhaps the women just takes one hour to lay an egg and then continues on her way), it is illogical to see them on the battlefield. But it doesn't matter because it's retarded to nitpick at that detail when obviously it's just a design choice to make the game more fun, if that triggers you, you might as well just go -2int -2str +2cha +2wis while you're at it.

but it's not nearly as retarded as complaining that the fucking box art, which has nothing to do with the game, using pulp tropes in its design is "unrealistic." at least be sincere with your complaints faggot

File: 1401891465083.jpg (834KB, 1214x1239px) Image search: [Google]

834KB, 1214x1239px

>>51366595

>>51366677
But I am describing you

depends entirely on the type of game you're running
typical fantasy setting its not particularly bad
but if you go for a more grim, down to earth setting where peasants actually starve after a bad harvest its going to look badly out of place ruining the mood

same goes for all male variants of unrealistic arms and armor though

>>51366564

You'd question a setting if every chair in it only ever had either two or seven straight legs because that shit doesn't make sense, a chair with two legs would get unbalanced and a chair with seven has more than it needs to be stable.

A chestplate is for stopping you getting stabbed in the chest or the ribs. When it only covers the tits then the design goes against its own purpose and that's what rankles me.

>>51364508
It's a double standard

>>51366564
"Devil's advocate", not "double's advocate".

File: Projecting.jpg (15KB, 272x185px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 272x185px

>>51366706

>>51366619
actually no, steel was non existent in the historical periods conan is loosely based on and iron was worked by hand. you couldn't just hammer together a full suit of armor out of wrought iron and hope it to stand up to a magic (read patern welded) sword.

>>51366740
Pretty sure it's a meme friend.
You'd best be careful, it's a doggy dog world out there

>>51366680
So "women in battle" automatically equals "laying eggs" to you.

Jesus, man.

>>51366779
good advice are diamond dozen around these parts

>>51366627
>>51366642
>implying finding examples of X despite being relatively very rare somehow justifies it being present widely across the setting as realistic or historically accurate
keep grasping at straws

Deeply rooted puritanical ideas about sexuality.

I think a more important question is why the alternative isn't more common? I'm fine with people having the impossibly idealized bodies of gods and showing them; I know for a fact that if I had that kind of body I'd be doing the same.

What I don't like is that it doesn't cut both ways for the most part. Yeah, you have the odd Conan in a fur loin cloth, and that's cool as fuck, but it's much less common, and it's pretty common to see settings where the characters are armored perfectly reasonably except for the women.

>>51365034
It's really not. I'd say at this point there are more settings "bucking the trend" than the alternative.

>>51366745
Nice pic of yourself you posted there.
>>51366740
He was playing Devil's advocate while rolling for dubs.
>>51366803
Keep being a retard. You faggot

>>51366784
Nice strawman. Women widely in battle at about the same rate as men in an early medieval low fantasy world does seem to assume some kind of radical departure from real world biological reproduction, yes.

>>51366660
yea but like i said, some autist wants to complain about cheesecake armor and how it hurts his (always a fucking dude too, can't women speak for themselves.) soul?

yea no. shut the fuck up, and have your character make me a sammach.

>>51366819
pretty simple: fantasy historically appealed more to the male than the female demographic

if you want to see more plain looking females with halfnaked men look for the genres females tend to be interested in

>>51366803
>>implying finding examples of X despite being relatively very rare somehow justifies it being present widely across the setting as realistic or historically accurate
Now you're just moving the goal post. You said it should be banned because it's realistic. Realistic means that it can happen, not that it happens often. So I said it does happen, ergo it's realistic. Doesn't matter how rare it is, it's realistic.

>>51366822
>no u
no u
Serious, come up with a better argument than a childish "nu-uh that's you".

>>51366854
Okay, but I'm not the one who initially said "the only reason you'd see women on the battlefield is if they laid eggs or something." It's not a strawman if it is what someone actually said, in the same context in which they said it, without adding anything to it.

>>51366867
>always a fucking dude too, can't women speak for themselves.
No, you just always assume it's a dude, because you're all too content to make an ass of you and me. And when a woman DOES say something, people like you scream REE REE SJW SJW YOU ARE PROBABLY UGLY AND THEREFORE YOUR OPINIONS ARE LESS VALID AND WE DO NOT SEE THE IRONY IN THIS

>>51366784
why's it gotta be laying eggs? why not jsut leave the kids at grandma's house since you're not old enough to be trusted with anything untill you're a hundred years old anyway?

you know, like elves, and modern women?

>>51366870
Actually, I just kind of want to see it both ways. I figure the ideal here is the Conan/Red Sonja situation (the comics version, I know what literary Conan was like).

File: prince_of_lankhmar.jpg (130KB, 525x793px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 525x793px

>>51366819
>Deeply rooted puritanical ideas about sexuality.
They already had that phase when they were attacking D&D for being satanic and hyper violent. Now it's just feminists virtue signalling and trying to force yet another hobby to conform to their politics. Suddenly after 50 years, maintaining roots in pulp fantasy tropes is misogynistic? And you blame that on puritanism?

I'm all for cheesecake armor. It usually looks pretty good and when someone in the setting points it out as being terrible defensively but eyecatching/distracting then it's cool by me.
So long as a metal bikini doesn't give you the same defensive bonuses as a full suit of chainmail does then I'm dandy.

>>51366803
>implying this should matter at all in a made up setting that is not 1 to 1 with real life
Troll harder, kid, this is an old hat statement that gets btfo'd regularly.

File: 1484555151001.jpg (46KB, 340x565px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 340x565px

>>51366909
>moving the goalposts
I repeated my exact same point
>I'm sure there's examples of women on the battlefield wearing bikini armor too, just like people were able to dredge up examples of like three total african squads to fight in WW1 to suggest BF1 featuring tons niggers is historically realistic. it's hardly justification.
what's with tumblrtards not being able to follow a conversation?

File: 1394415015726.gif (1MB, 633x475px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 633x475px

>>51366909
Fine, here you go you big baby

>>51364508
>Isn't the point to have fun and not be historically realistic peasant simulator?

But historically realistic peasants are fun and fictional metal bikinis are not. Bikinis are everywhere irl, and I don't see how making them armor would make them funnier.

>>51364508
Because I like to describe what happens whenever my players get in fights, and the less armor a tank has, the less variety I have to work with when a hit is blocked by AC.
>the sword hits but bounces off your nipple-concealing shirtbelt
>the arrow directly hits on your codpiece, shattering ino pieces
That's it.

>>51367007
Is this you?:
>>51366113
>what's really nonsensical is women being on the battlefield in the first place.

>>51366931
no no, they're dudes, I play irl.

granted it's a small sample. but it honestly seems more an assburger thing that a ugly girl thing.

>>51366953
>Suddenly after 50 years
The thing is it's been misogynistic to some degree from the beginning. You just weren't really listening.

>>51367100
What proportion of your players are guys?

>>51364508
There's a trade-off. It's the same way for males too.

>>51367083
no, hive mind.

and it's more like putting a different goal post in front of the first goal post, cause that goal post is wore the fuck out and need something to keep the retarded kicker occupied while we repair the net.

>>51366953
>Now it's just feminists virtue signalling and trying to force yet another hobby to conform to their politics. Suddenly after 50 years, maintaining roots in pulp fantasy tropes is misogynistic?

The basic motive is still rooted in a fundamental distaste for sexuality in general.

>And you blame that on puritanism?

Well yeah, it's just resentiment. They've taken something that's basically just a deeply ingrained knee-jerk reaction and attempted to dress it up in ideology.

File: 1446431498087.jpg (327KB, 666x1033px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 666x1033px

>>51364508
My non-sexual magical realm is women in accurate full combat equipment.

>>51367140
>You just weren't really listening.

And I see no reason to start now.

File: knight young woman flashy armor.png (213KB, 336x703px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 336x703px

>>51367152
Yeah. Like, I don't mind armor not being perfectly historically accurate (it's rare for characters wearing armor to be wearing a helmet, for example), and that doesn't bother me, because compromises are being made for the sake of the fantasy and the narrative.

It doesn't bother me when realism is compromised for the sake of the badass fantasy. It bothers me when realism is compromised for the sake of tickling willies.

File: samefag.jpg (56KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x600px

>>51367165
What ever you say.

>>51367202
Some people might say "a desire to empathize, so that I might better myself and the world".

>>51364508
Because it reminded that nobody and and no women like them.
Also that very few company want to pander to their cheap ass seeing how those that do pander to them get jack shit nothing..

>>51367231
Not him, but "better" is a very subjective term.

>>51366953
I know it sounds crazy, but puritan values have kept coming in and out for Americans pretty much across the country's existence. It's most common in literature, but it doesn't surprise me that it keeps coming back in other parts of culture too, especially when as a whole America is pretty deeply religious.

>>51367140
only one female, she's the wife of my best friend, and interesting enough, often has to run off and take care of the kids.

she's a very good player though. especially with a barbarian. wish she'd play more often, but i don't have a screaming kid to take care of so i can't judge.

we've had other females, one of our players is half jokingly banned from bringing girlfriends over since they break up with him after playing for some reason. one of them showed up for two seconds dressed to kill, saw there weren't any single females and left. the other went apeshit giggly and started throwing dice.

we had one guy bring his wife her sister and all his kids. that had to stop. the women went with the kids, the guy went with the women, they don't play anymore. sucks but not really a daycare.

also my wife won't play cause she doesn't want to be tied to a weekly schedule. calls it her guilt free sleep day. also she doesn't like having to play auntie the whole time, little kid is a damn extrovert, love him to death.

File: 1484372104838.jpg (345KB, 1060x1300px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1060x1300px

>>51366932
The reason why is early medieval society, and most early societies, were structured in the way it was is because death early in a child's life was common, and in general large families were needed to maintain their economic standard, so wives were having children ~2 years from 20 - 40. The reason women aren't on the battlefield isn't because they're "frail," it's because they're too essential to continued civilization to risk in war unless desperate. It's the 9 month pregnancy period more than anything else results in the distinct gendering of roles and tropes in society and what would lead any large contingent of (non PC, since PC's are assumed to be exceptional) female drifter/vagrant style adventurers to fairly absurd. Unless you write in some kind of alternative that disregards it entirely like fucking laying eggs or wizard clones or something.

File: 1484892967782.gif (62KB, 468x240px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 468x240px

>>51367100
It's a strawman to misrepresent it. It was clearly a joke in the context of needing to find some rationalization around a 9 month pregnancy. Taking that to mean 'women on the battlefield = laying eggs' is entirely disingenuous.

>>51367178
That's just the puritan roots of modern agnostic social justice. You're looking too deep when the specific iteration at the root of the complaints is staring you in the face.

>>51367140
'Misogynistic' is a subjective criticism. If you mean it's been CALLED misogynistic from the beginning more like the 90s, mid 80s at most, do you even know what you're talking about?, maybe, but S&S is entirely what D&D, that original RPG, was inspired by, in gameplay and aesthetic, so if you don't like it, go make your own sanitized RPGs or fuck off. Stop trying to destroy what you can't appreciate. I've heard wargames as inherently patriarchal and right wing or reactionary, etc. too, it's just entryist bullshit that has no interest in the games themselves. Coming into another group, taking its works and forcing them to follow your own views and beliefs until their original culture is completely grounded out, it's textbook imperialism.

>>51367335
So the only female players you've had--which is a small number--have not been particularly involved in the game, and based on that, you're assuming the only people who complain about skimpy female armor are men.

>>51367438
>That's just the puritan roots of modern agnostic social justice. You're looking too deep when the specific iteration at the root of the complaints is staring you in the face.

Hey. The OP asked why. I gave my two cents.

>>51367231
What about my feelings then? I get upset when people change unharmful things in hobbies and communities, especially when nothing forces them to participate in them.

I like admiring beauty. And the human form is very beautiful.

>>51367438
>If you mean it's been CALLED misogynistic from the beginning
That is what I mean. But you haven't listened much--which sounds harsh, but essentially what I mean is "you most likely did not actively seek out feminist discussions before the era of the internet".

Also the rationalization is "women who are actively in the midst of bearing or nursing children are not the ones who would go to battle". If you think that's as improbable as laying eggs, then it's kind of an untenable stance, yeah?

ALSO also
>not knowing about sex-positive and sex-neutral feminism
>not knowing about the vast majority of feminist theories
>pretending to be an expert
Verily I Pray Thou Gentiles Shalt Not Do This.

I wish I was pretty

>>51367476
Because they are subtly harmful. You're getting upset that
>A) people are pointing out that it is indeed harmful, in that it says "no matter what this woman accomplishes as a warrior, a diplomat, what have you, she should be presented as a sex doll"
and
>B) people making the decision to change the art to avoid this

File: 1405639975278.jpg (371KB, 1400x1042px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1400x1042px

>>51366434
Come on anon, if you actually look at the numbers, nations like Britain and France dragged as many bodies that could hold guns from their colonies as possible - or instead of dragging them into the European war, they armed them to attack the colonies of their enemies.

>>51367529
I don't think scanty clothing that emphasizes the beauty of the human form implies a woman is "sex doll". That would be too judgemental. And like I said, if you want to make a setting that doesn't have that, I won't stop you. Just stop trying to take the things I like.

File: 1484626000064.jpg (40KB, 505x604px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 505x604px

>>51367446
I'm the laying eggs guy, my group is pretty fluid but it's generally more girls than guys.

I don't even know when anyone will have a chance to complain about bikini armor, none of my players own rulebooks and have no reason to look at any, so I don't see where they'd even see any to get triggered by not that they would, I'd get away with including gendered stats [-1 str, +1 wis etc] if I wanted them in my game except on my GM screen or something. It's an RPG, it's all in words, they can imagine how "plate mail" looks like on their characters however they like. People complain on political principle.

>>51367453
>>51367496
>not knowing about sex-positive feminism
>implying it's related to pulp fiction, coded misogyny etc, not pornography & sexual practices
you're looking for post-structuralism

>But you haven't listened much
I've listened and rejected the theory. stop trying to force it on unrelated communities. at least I finally got you to admit it's purely a political agenda

>>51367605
In theory, I'd agree with you. But the majority of S&S-inspired art is designed with tittilation in mind. And when that scanty clothing happens to be armor, it devalues the character's abilities as a warrior.

>>51367628
I was pointing out sex-positive feminism to contrast your claim that social justice was inherently puritanical.

>at least I finally got you to admit it's purely a political agenda
lol wut? By that "logic", literally everything anyone says about anything is a political agenda.
>I wish Hollywood movies weren't so predictable.
>STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR ANTI-PREDICTABILITY AGENDA ON US

>>51365820

Fucking anti-skubs, man.

File: 1455599437494.jpg (52KB, 621x800px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 621x800px

This always seems to come up with sexualized armor, but what about sexualized clothing?

Is it unrealistic? A bit, but it's not like clothing's never been made to be sexy before, or that clothing in a fantasy game is never unrealistic for tramping through the wilderness. You can't argue that it's not protective, since a wizard's robes aren't exactly protective in the first place.

File: free-indian-legion.jpg (37KB, 512x330px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 512x330px

>>51367534
Uh huh. Then why doesn't every WW2 shooter feature Indians, Japanese, Africans,etc. as playable Nazi Germany characters? Considering it was arguably the war's most ethnically diverse army? Beyond any doubt much more diverse than any of the armies of WW1. I'm sure it's just coincidence and not political agenda, right?

>>51367628
>not knowing about sex-positive feminism

I've heard about it, and as far as I know, they're not the types that complain about titty plate.

>>51367705
It those cases it generally only really bothers me if it's blatantly uncomfortable or impractical.
>cleavage
Quite all right.
>underboob
Unmanageable nonsense.

Though I'm gonna reiterate what I said earlier >>51367217: if the idea behind its creation is "that looks cool", I'm on board. If the idea behind its creation is "that makes me hard", I don't like it.

>>51367738
That is literally what I am doing at this moment.

>>51366653

The thing about sloped armor on a human is, unlike a main battle tank, humans typically have lots of round surfaces and shot-traps. You can get around some of the torso ones sure, but deflection there will transfer into the undersides of the arms which requires absorption there, and whatnot.

That and every angled plate has a point at which it's not angled. At least until we invent non-euclidean geometry armor.

>>51367756
>That is literally what I am doing at this moment.

Then you're not particularly sex-positive if you're complaining about the expression of sexuality on the basis of the sexuality itself.

Considering displays of sexuality to be inherently degrading shows a fundamental distaste with sexuality itself.

>>51367705
Clothing has mostly been seen as beautifying beyond the need to clothe oneself. Armour, in battle, a functional tool, so it's streesed the need to keep that function .

File: 1405641179045.jpg (611KB, 1247x911px) Image search: [Google]

611KB, 1247x911px

>>51367719
I honestly don't know. It might be because a lot of the Indian and African forces, as far as I understand, operated in India and Africa and they didn't want to build entire Indian and African levels, since it's usually focused on Europe anyway. Maybe it is that people legitimately are not comfortable with portraying the 'bad guys' as anything other than racists who wanted to dominate the world.

But that anon earlier was trying to argue that there were barely any Africans that fought in WW1, which is just trying to ignore the truth of things just because it's associated with a liberal agenda. I get why, I can even sympathize - there's nothing stupider than shoehorning to try and attract attention - but he was just being ignorant. History is history, and no modern political squabbling will change that.

>>51365034
>Crossbowmen in plate
>Crossbowmen with weird fully grated helmets for as little visibility as possible
>Ambush attack with like three guys using staggered fire instead of volley
>Nobody has a goddamn shield
>Randomly walking through the woods
>Unprepared combatants just strolling around in plate
>Cutting crossbow bolts out of the air with a fucking rapier
>Stupid anime fuck protag looking guy for some reason in an iajutsu pose with an arming sword even though he has no idea whats happening
>Also random one-arm loarca segmentata with a modern hoodie
>Rapierist woman wearing ab-tight plate that flexes around as she turns
>CUTTING CROSSBOW BOLTS OUT OF THE AIR WITH A FUCKING RAPIER

If you're going to nitpick, this has way worse problems.

File: 1484496080305.jpg (319KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 800x800px

>>51367677
>it devalues the character's abilities as a warrior.
No, it raises the value of both male and female characters, only in accordance with separate, gendered archetypal ideals and standards of beauty. You know this, you're only upset with the fact that it's gendered and not uniform. Too bad for you!

>>51367797
There's no contradiction here. Sexualizing women is not the same as objectifying women. A woman hanging off the leg of the great warrior, sitting among his many prizes, just one more thing he's "won" is objectification.

When a (usually male) artist creates a female character for essentially the sole purpose of arousing the straight men in the audience, that's typically objectification.

And if a female character is wearing armor that is designed to look sexy for the male audience, that's an extension of that. It's treating her as eye candy more than a character.

It's not as simple as breaking it down to a "yes or no" question in determining when something is or is not objectification, but that is generally what's going on in bikiniplate pictures.

>>51367978
Wow it's almost like they aren't real people

>>51368031
Correct. That's why I pointed out they were being treated as objects rather than as characters.

Obviously any work of fiction is going to have characters treated as objects. We're not going to dive into the backstory of the clerk who sold them a bag of chips. But when there's a recurring them of female characters not only being completely undeveloped, but of all of them being used as one particular type of object, that criticism of "but they're fictitious" rings hollow. It doesn't actually address what I said.

>>51367940
>only in accordance with separate, gendered archetypal ideals and standards of beauty
Male characters are overwhelmingly sculpted to satisfy male power fantasies. Female characters--at least, the ones being discussed here--are sculpted to satisfy male power fantasies.

Sorry I didn't respond more promptly, it took me a while to figure out what the fuck you were even trying to say.

>>51366680
>There are very valid reasons women weren't present on the battlefield and unless the setting entertains some abomination of humans that dodges those (perhaps the women just takes one hour to lay an egg and then continues on her way), it is illogical to see them on the battlefield.
You know, if somebody brings it up in one of my games, and cares, I think I'm just going to go with The Stork. Adds a bit of whimsy.

>>51367978
>When a (usually male) artist creates a female character for essentially the sole purpose of arousing the straight men in the audience, that's typically objectification.

This is what I'm talking about, you're complaining about the display of sexuality itself. The display of sexuality has a primary purpose in titillating people that are attracted to that particular gender; its not typically something done to express the aesthetes sense of artistic primacy.

>It's not as simple as breaking it down to a "yes or no" question in determining when something is or is not objectification, but that is generally what's going on in bikiniplate pictures.

But that seems to be what you're treating it as. A man creating a female character to titillate is inherently bad, because females titillating men is inherently a degradation of that woman.

>>51364834
>Often it makes female players feel subtly uncomfortable or unwelcome.
Bullshit.

File: f93bd3edf40d13b931329e9d3c19f1654c101ed0bead4a42f7254a4de3e37075.jpg (461KB, 1143x1600px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 1143x1600px

>>51367677
>I was pointing out sex-positive feminism to contrast your claim that social justice was inherently puritanical.
Sorry, I thought you were referring to the spoiler text saying pulp fiction was first criticized in the 80s/90s, and not from the beginning. Coded misogyny is, FYI, a post-structural theory, not a sex-positive one.

Modern social justice has its roots in puritanism, specifically beginning as an agnostic variant of Christian protestantism (progressivism), this doesn't mean that every next iteration must follow all the same beliefs as its early roots. Feminism itself does not necessarily need to come from the protestant belief in god-given equality.

>literally everything anyone says about anything is a political agenda
Don't be disingenous, this, for example, is very clearly a political agenda:
>>51367529
A is justified by feminist political theory, B is an attempt to have the industry conform to those political views. It's entering an un-politicized field with a specific political goal - this is not anything as innocent as having a sincere, independent opinion with no expectations to force a change in line with it. The complaints are not due to any issue of game design, tradition, etc., It's not even something that comes up at all in play, no one sees it but the DM, it's literally just art in the rulebooks and modules. It wouldn't be any different if I came in and said, "This is degenerate and marxist. It's clearly harmful."

>>51364508
because it's retarded, that's why.

>>51366157
>Like, go educate yourself
Hi Rabbi.

If you have boobplate and get hit in the boob the blade will be directed towards the midpoint of your breasts. This is not up for dispute. Yet you call people who say it "mindbogglingly retarded." Quit projecting, anytime.

File: 1480132888146.jpg (108KB, 707x1000px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 707x1000px

>>51364508
I like it

>>51366171
He's correct though. You're just mad because he's telling the truth.

>>51368155
It might. I personally wouldn't mind seeing some studies on the matter (hopefully ones that do something more than ask <100 upper middle class college kids what they think on the matter).

>>51366144
That's not true. There's also butthurt puritanical sorts.

File: 190094.jpg (76KB, 590x479px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 590x479px

>>51368137
>>51367978
>Male characters are overwhelmingly sculpted to satisfy male power fantasies. Female characters--at least, the ones being discussed here--are sculpted to satisfy male power fantasies.
ORLY? so why do all the google image results for "female romance novel" look eerily the same to all the conan art posted ITT? why do they keep doing that 'objectifying' "prize" thing? why would the whole market of female-directed erotic fiction be designed around these obvious male power fantasies?? Must be that the evil conspiracy of pay tree rocky is so big that it even tricked women into buying up reams of ero they don't even like, right? right??

>>51368256
Standard feminist response here would be internalized misogyny (I liked it better when Marxists were calling it false consciousness).

>unironically defending feminism

File: 1431793752167.jpg (270KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 1200x675px

>>51367927
>complaining about a character knocking away bolt fire with their melee weapon
>'why aren't martials cooler in fantasy'

Sometimes the focus on realism goes too far and starts to eat at everything else, I think. Stuff like in pic related isn't realistic, but everything's covered and it's fantasy so it looks fine. Let stupid but cool things happen too.

File: Harry Benson - Berlin Kiss, 1996.jpg (59KB, 972x758px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 972x758px

>>51368281
the convenient thing about a baseless conspiracy theory is you can keep stretching its depths to include anything you'd like.

File: 1484971735447.jpg (13KB, 376x410px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 376x410px

>>51368297
>baiting

>>51368297
I think feminist struggle is important. Women being taken less seriously on account of their gender is bullshit.

However Maddox put it really well by describing SJWs (which would include most people that self-identify as feminists) as bloviating, Pharisaical dipshits.

>>51368148
>females titillating men is inherently a degradation of that woman
Not at all. Female characters repeatedly being created for no purpose but to titillate degrade women in general by suggesting that their only purpose is to titillate.

If, hypothetically, Musculo the Warrior were to have sex with Championa the Warrior (or even Civiliana the Innkeeper), there are a couple ways that could happen:
>Championa has her own personal struggles and inner life, even if the book does not explore them as deeply as Musculo. She changes over the course of the story and makes relevant decisions. She and Musculo wind up forming a bond and they have sex.
or
>Championa is an amazing warrior who instantly wants to have sex with Musculo and her character arc consists of her having sex with Musculo. Then she gets kidnapped or something. Then he rescues her. Then they have more sex.

With which do you think I'd have a problem? And which do you think would be more likely to have bikiniplate?

>>51368256
Essentially you're asking me to explain the nuances of sexual attraction to you. The shortest, simplest answer I can give is: notice how he's looking deeply into her eyes, how his muscles are defined but not bulbous.

I'd get more into it--obviously, I can't speak for an entire gender--but I've been neglecting work on my short story.

File: 1444289322026.jpg (68KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x450px

>>51368297
I admit I'm left-leaning, but both sides have turned me off. I don't even care anymore, I just want to enjoy my fantasy worlds without someone injecting real world politics in.

Was this a problem in the 80s and 90s? Would people try to play early TTRPGs, and someone would come in complaining about how the wizard is just like how evil Reagan is?

>>51368380

None of this became a problem until the Forge.

And Normies.

Blame early 2000's forums like The Forge and Something Awful for bringing the concept of cringe.

>>51368351
>Not at all. Female characters repeatedly being created for no purpose but to titillate degrade women in general by suggesting that their only purpose is to titillate.

It's only you (and others that agree with your ideals, I'd wager) that's making that inference. It doesn't create this idea any more than idealized Greek statuary does. People are capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality.

>With which do you think I'd have a problem? And which do you think would be more likely to have bikiniplate?

Either would be equally as likely if we're going with a basis of the kind of pulp fantasy you're talking about, and your complaints thus far haven't been about shitty writing, but the fundamental display of sexuality itself.

>how his muscles are defined but not bulbous.

Well now you're just refusing to accept the forest because you can see the trees are a bit different.

>>51368411
If that were the case, the real thing to blame would be cellphones and social networks.

File: aa722a8d64686c657376f5194b78b0954584e3ebf80314f96e0b501d1e1562a1.jpg (63KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1152x864px

>>51368351
>Essentially you're asking me to explain the nuances of sexual attraction to you. The shortest, simplest answer I can give is: notice how he's looking deeply into her eyes, how his muscles are defined but not bulbous.
Fuck off, it's the same as any other pulp. It's exactly what you were described being problematic with women literally hanging off the men. Both men and women like it, and if there was any evil patriarchy conspiracy it would've been cut off decades ago because this shit's made to sell copies, not control people's minds. All your kvetching about it being harmful and objectifying is bullshit.

You. Dumb. Bitch.

File: 1472196993205.gif (715KB, 363x501px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 363x501px

>>51365972
Fate characters operate on bullshit logic to such an extent that practical armor designs would be antithetical to setting. Servants aren't human, they're the legends left behind. Thomas Edison is a character in Grand Order, and he appears as a space lion dressed in red, white, and blue spandex, superhero costume.

>>51364508
>Isn't the point to have fun and not be historically realistic peasant simulator?
STOP FORCING YOUR DEFINITION OF FUN ON OTHERS!

>>51368411
>>51368380
It was the 90s. That was the decade when D&D and RPGs in general were flooded with intense story cancer and rules autism and general pozzing and libtard catering. A very clear shift from old school RPGs to the recognizable new school style happened in the 90s and all the associated cancerous community that came with it

File: 1296062298792.jpg (255KB, 721x1155px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 721x1155px

>>51368221

Who do you think is playing games though? White notpoors, usually.

Anyway I'm a woman and I wouldn't say it's 'offensive' or whatever and sometimes if the designs of female outfits are slutty but actually interesting/pretty/good looking in some way I'll like it, but it's a little annoying when it's like... 100% of the art in a book depicting women is slutty and then not one guy is slutty. In 3.5 it was fine that the wizard elf was mostly naked because Hennet was grossslutty in an amazing way.

Tbh being at a game store and seeing posters all over with practically naked women is a little... I don't know, unwelcoming is probably the best word. Then you crush some guy at a card game and they ask "so who built your deck?" in order to neg you and save their ego... I hate the term 'microaggressions' but it all adds up and the slutty armour can contribute to that shit?

Anyway I don't like to whine just saying how I feel since it seems to be on topic. And really it's not like... idk, 'a deal breaker' in any way. Just sort of yeast to put up with when that kind of thing happens. But chainmail bikinis aren't as bad as like... naked anime playmats or disgusting neckbeards saying weird shit to you. I mean, in terms of off-putting /tg/ shit for women.

But I like seeing art with women in less retarded outfits, it doesn't have to be perfectly historically accurate just not retarded. Really the sluttiness isn't even the issue overall, I'd rather see some mostly-naked casters than that Leona From League of Legends shit with boob-plate and heels. yech

pic related, she's got weird shorts on but it's kind of a cute getup

>>51368414
The trees are important, man. If you can understand how a good mustache is attractive but a bad mustache is not, you can understand how muscle definition is attractive but needlessly massive muscles are not.

>>51368451
I don't get why people always talk about patriarchy like it's a conspiracy.

I mean, I do get it--they think by making it sound silly it's easier to avoid dealing with it--but you know what I mean.

>>51368380
That's exactly how I feel man. I'm happy that gay marriage is more acceptable (hell that live-and-let-live attitudes are becoming more common), that people think it's wrong to let crony capitalism dominate society unchecked, and maybe we should try to leave a better planet behind for the next generation. But it all just seem to fall apart over petty socio-political revanchism. I actually feel like I'm becoming increasingly bitter about it all. Everything is going to shit for reasons beyond our control, and now I can't even enjoy myself without people trying to take it away.

I don't know if it's because I'm in post-college doldrums, so I'm just feeling incredibly melancholy and maudlin because I feel directionless. But society just seems so bleak that escapism feels like the only joy left.

>>51368327
Yeah, nobody could possibly dislike a movement that has, among other things, had irl shitposters as it's founders who unironically spread "kill all men"-tier rhethoric to this day, has successfully campaigned against banning male circumcision because they think it would distract from the harms of female circumcision, widely promotes censorship, approves of policing thought crime, approves hammering their deranged propaganda into children from birth, will let any retard yelling in the town square to get them benefits and denounces them when called out on it in an amazing display of two-faced cuntbaggery, and blames the "patriarchy" for everything when the said "patriachy" are the rich capitalists who've benefitted the most from doubling the available work force.

>>51368256
[ ] Not Told
[ ] Told
[X] TOLDASAURUS REX

>>51368492
So if liberal catering happened in the 90s, why are people still complaining about things now?

>>51365314
Give 12 examples

>>51368493
>White notpoors, usually.

I'm white, but I'm poor as fuck and took up D&D as a poorfuck teenager because we couldn't waste money on video games and D&D provided a constant source of entertainment (even just getting the books required a bit of saving and good luck).

>>51368516
>The trees are important, man. If you can understand how a good mustache is attractive but a bad mustache is not, you can understand how muscle definition is attractive but needlessly massive muscles are not.

Well in this case you're overlooking the fact that the basic form remains the same. Sure the Conan with a broad hanging off his leg is cast from a male perspective, but in the end it's still just a muscly guy displaying power over a woman, which is a very common focus on romance cover novels.

The way you go on here, it sounds damn near like you think things just shouldn't be oriented towards men at all. Which I doubt is your position.

File: 1481061958686.jpg (52KB, 540x536px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 540x536px

>>51368516
>I don't get why people always talk about patriarchy like it's a conspiracy.
Maybe it's because it fits basically every sign of a conspiracy? It's a hidden plot that by its nature covers its own tracks and can only be understood and identified by tracking the results its presumably effected, though it can never be proven at any substantial level because it's a conspiracy to cover its tracks. It's huge and convoluted but conveniently explains a large swathe of things - though each one of those things already having much more obvious and simple explanations - while also conveniently feeding into common emotional vulnerabilities and personal shortcomings.

Am I describing a conspiracy of a jewish cabal running the world or a conspiracy of men to use art and culture and everything else to keep the poor women down?

>>51368540
It began in the 90s, it's continued on and steadily gained power until today. But it's current year + 2, things are finally crashing down on them and they're oh so very scared

>>51368629
I'm not that guy, but patriarchy as feminist theory understands it isn't really a "plot" so much as a self-reinforcing pattern of behaviour and attitudes.

>>51368516
Well, I think one of the big hallmarks of the 'patriarchy is evil' sort of ideology is that for a long time it was just assumed to be normal, sort of like how privilege is something you're supposed to be unaware of.

So it becomes a conspiracy because it's being supported by everyone in power, because they think it's absolutely normal? I doubt that the kings of Europe were all gathering together to discuss how to keep women down, but it's not too far a leap to imagine a few officials shaking their heads at the idea of a woman's school, because that's not how things were done.

>>51368623
>The way you go on here, it sounds damn near like you think things just shouldn't be oriented towards men at all.
>Which I doubt is your position.
You're talking to an actual feminazi, what do you think is her position?

>>51368629
Here, lemme make an analogy.

Are you familiar with time dilation, the principle of special relativity?

File: 1481504885275.jpg (508KB, 1920x2818px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 1920x2818px

>>51368663
You realize /pol/ will tell you exactly the same about the jews, right? It's not a cabal per se but a consistent pattern of behavior and generally shared attitudes within a certain ethnic tribe.

>>51368676
Yes, don't be sophistic.

>>51368712
Yeah, probably. But patriarchy can at least be demonstrated to have some basis in reality. It's not as though we didn't just go from a society where women were kept down through force of law to one where that isn't the case; it's not inconceivable that the old attitudes that resulted in the first situation didn't just up and vanish.

>>51368623
I guess I can see how I'd give you that impression. I was mostly trying to address the claim that 'THIS IS WHAT WOMEN WANT TOO, OBVIOUSLY, SEE?"

There is another distinction to be made: the male character in romance novels is invariably developed as a character. My sister used to love finding so-bad-it's-good romance novels, and even erotic shapeshifters had personalities.

>>51368729
Time dilation seems bizarre, but it's the logical conclusion of only two proven facts.
1. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers.
2. The laws of physics behave the same for any two observers that are either not moving, or moving with a constant velocity.

Everything else comes from that.

Patriarchy only demands three basic premises.
1. Women have historically been relegated to certain roles within society, and deemed unfit for roles outside of that sphere. Even without pointing out modern-day sexism, you need only look to the 40s and 50s, when the Baby Boomers were growing up.
2. People tend to develop biases, and have trouble getting rid of, recognizing, or acknowledging their own biases.
3. People tend to pass their beliefs (and by extension, their biases) onto their children, protoges, students, parishoners, etc.

>>51368750
>But patriarchy can at least be demonstrated to have some basis in reality
And the jews angered literally every country they ever stayed in throughout the course of history for no reason, and are demographicly overrepresented in the wealthiest and most influential elite by thousands of percents for no reason, right?

File: 1376853047243.png (130KB, 534x400px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 534x400px

>>51368537

>>51368464
It kind of makes sense because most people aren't very accurate with legends and try to fantasize them.

>Nero
Triggered. I stopped caring about anything Type Moon after that piece of shit.

>>51368750
Kind of a self defeating argument. If old laws had to be caused by old attitudes, new laws had to be caused by a change in attitudes. Either you grand this, or you have to accept a system where attitudes and laws operate independently from one another.

File: 1477709816475.jpg (170KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 800x1200px

>>51364508
I don't think there's been enough focus on the rational aspect of this. Really, the practical aspects come before the sexual or misogynistic or whatever aspects. Just looking at that crap kills my brain cells. There is the "dude it's fantasy who cares" argument, but that's complete bullshit when the setting operates on real-world mechanics for martial combat.

Even then stuff like >>51365445 just looks plain uncomfortable. Who the hell wants a thin and stiff piece of metal stuck to their skin while they are trying to fight? It looks like it's about to break her back or something. At that point magic handwaves hardly even matter. The same goes for giant 6-inch thick muscle plate. It all just rots the brain. That aside, I think a good way to frame the stupidity of some aspect of a setting is to take it and compare it's stupid aspects to modern parallels. >>51367198 is a pretty nice example. It's not titilating at all (partially just because the art is shit). It just looks impractical, crude, and lazy.

>>51365940
It depends on the situation. Just look at this picture. It may seem to be more equal-opportunity, but the inefficient implementation of the feminine aspects, long hair flowing in the wind, engraving on the armor, etc., makes it more closely resemble some ceremonial suit worn by a hipster noble or something. At the same time, it lacks a frame of reference like most sexualized armors do, so it really hardly matters. I think in individual pieces art style is all that really exists to do so, so in the more anime-esque piece here >>51368493, despite being arguably even more unrealistic, it still meshes more smoothly. I'm sure in an adequately high-fantasy setting it would be fine. Silly stuff like boob plate rarely bothers me in Exalted, for example.


Honestly, when you get down to it, all that matters is if it's well-designed (i.e. practical/fashionable/thoughtful/whatever fits the situation) and consistent with the setting.

>>51368800
>1. Women have historically been relegated to certain roles within society, and deemed unfit for roles outside of that sphere. Even without pointing out modern-day sexism, you need only look to the 40s and 50s, when the Baby Boomers were growing up.
Maybe upperclass women. Plebs had to share their burdens much more equally.

>>51368848
In the US, once you control for corporate influences, lobbying, and the desires of the very rich, there is almost zero correlation between the popularity of a measure and its chance of being enacted. Plus, old attitudes don't just die out. They stick around.

>>51368859
And who holds the power that disproportioantey shapes society, hmmm? Oh, right, it's the upper and middle class.

File: 999b0ed598b1ed2e863e0ab8f3dee70b0ba3f7f3b31a60032136b6256dacfb98.gif (4MB, 427x240px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 427x240px

>>51368750
As always, there are much more obvious, simpler and more evidenced reasons than the existence of a conspiracy. Like the massive changes in technology that occurred over the last two centuries, raising human economic levels to an unrpecedented degree.

Most of the "evidence" for patriarchy exist just as strongly for the jew conspiracy, probably even more strongly. e.g. >>51368812

>>51368800
>Patriarchy only demands three basic premises.
Up until they're quickly and immediately contradicted with the obvious:
Both men and women have both been delegated to certain roles in society, not just women. This is by and large a direct result of human biological preconditions, natural self-organization across civilization, not "delegation" by men. Society continued to be organized as such for centuries. Big whoop.

File: 60900280.png (614KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

614KB, 800x1000px

Can we just post cheesecake now?

>>51364508
Practical armor is fun for me.

File: 1483525046563.jpg (86KB, 610x660px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 610x660px

>>51368822

>>51368812
There are sound explanations for those that don't hinge on a Jewish conspiracy, however.

File: 03864b065083576a7786efd71b49aeeb.jpg (36KB, 370x465px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 370x465px

>>51368851
>It just looks impractical, crude, and lazy.
But people did go to war like that.

>>51368878
So are you admitting that Feminism is for spoiled rich white women?

>>51368848
Not really. Just because a law changes doesn't mean the initial attitudes that created it have just up and vanish overnight. Consider the repeal of Jim Crow laws, which didn't just up and cause racism to vanish. The Jim Crow laws did come into being due to existing attitudes, and their removal didn't take away those attitudes (worth noting that them being removed wasn't necessarily a popular one in America at the time).

File: knight young woman meditating.jpg (2MB, 2149x3035px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2149x3035px

>>51368493
Mah African-American associate of similar opinion

I've even saved that same image.

>>51368891
>human biological preconditions
Men are biologically predisposed to trade stocks better?

>Both men and women have both been delegated to certain roles in society, not just women
And that, too, is patriarchy at work. It wasn't women who invented the draft, remember.

>Society continued to be organized as such for centuries
Which is weird, because societies often have widely varying definitions of what "masculine" and "feminine" include.

File: 1481456395833.jpg (13KB, 285x279px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 285x279px

>>51368912
yea, like there being a conspiracy by all the world across history to pick on the jews!

File: KifAndZapp.jpg (70KB, 997x759px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 997x759px

>>51368913
Daddy likes.

>>51364918

This reason, most likely. It gives females an insitrict AC bonus whenever they equip something versus their male counterparts; for instance, a piece of wire giving the same AC to a female character as a thimble would to a male one.

>>51368958
Gee, it's not like these societies were dominated by Judaism's primary fucking competitors, which both banned usury (an economic necessity that Jews often used to carve out a niche for themselves in societies that forcibly marginalized them).

File: miss moot.gif (3MB, 300x148px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x148px

>>51368901

File: 1469484388873.jpg (84KB, 500x547px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 500x547px

>>51368920
You should really stretch before you twist yourself up like that, man. You're gonna get a cramp.

Seriously, though, I'm gonna get back to writing. It's been really disheartening chatting with y'all!

>>51368958
>>51368987
On this note, the Persians, who weren't Christian or Muslim at the time, were pretty OK with Jews.

>>51365034

This is unrealistic for a whole different reason. Those helmets would inhibit those crossbowmens' ability to aim.

File: 14th group.jpg (77KB, 600x382px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x382px

>>51368913
People also went to war in pickelhelms. That doesn't make them useful equipment. I'm unaware with where that picture is from, but even if those guys didn't get their pants wet they were probably attacked by all sorts of parasites attracted to the exposed skin.

>>51368993
Ah come on man, I actually tried, and I don't even particularly dislike feminism.

File: 1386909153453.jpg (256KB, 658x1000px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 658x1000px

>>51368851
>It depends on the situation. Just look at this picture. It may seem to be more equal-opportunity, but the inefficient implementation of the feminine aspects, long hair flowing in the wind, engraving on the armor, etc., makes it more closely resemble some ceremonial suit worn by a hipster noble or something. At the same time, it lacks a frame of reference like most sexualized armors do, so it really hardly matters. I think in individual pieces art style is all that really exists to do so, so in the more anime-esque piece here >>51368493 (You), despite being arguably even more unrealistic, it still meshes more smoothly. I'm sure in an adequately high-fantasy setting it would be fine. Silly stuff like boob plate rarely bothers me in Exalted, for example.

I agree with this. I think it just depends on the art style.

Like... I'm not at all bothered by Princess Leia's gold bikini. It's totally appropriate for that situation and she's a badass despite being put in it, idk if that makes sense. Like I don't feel uncomfortable at all, that outfit looked great and she rocked it and was still awesome despite uh.. whatever. I don't know, obviously it's not something that's easy to express. It seems like a case by case thing I guess. There's definitely certain things that make me either roll my eyes or make me uncomfortable, though it's usually the former. I wouldn't say any of it "triggers" me but it's more like a sigh of 'really?'

I guess for me the main thing is an eye for design. Pic related. It may not be the most practical but there's an eye for colour and style that compensates for that somewhat. It's feminine and appears to be somewhat functional within this 'world' even if it's not drawn from life. I think you're right that it's ... impractical/inauthentic to have such intricate designs and long flowing hair etc, but I think unless that woman is supposed to be some sort of guttertrash hedge knight it doesn't matter too much.

>>51368893

Please.

>>51368956
>Which is weird, because societies often have widely varying definitions of what "masculine" and "feminine" include.
Yes, but most every society has organized themselves on gendered professional roles.

>Men are biologically predisposed to trade stocks better?
Some studies suggest that, yes, but that's besides the point, I'm talking society's origins as you described. Patriarchy as a concept implicitly suggests that we can shed our origins because they're wrong and we're modern now or something, as you're now implying, though now that's moving far from your disingenuous "basic" premises.

>>51369012
Either Rhodesia or South Africa. Those shorts were actually preferable to soldiers dropping due to heat stroke in BDUs.

>>51367781
But generally those slopes won't direct the blow to literally the middle of your chest.

If boobplate was actually a viable thing that made armor more effective then some armor smith somewhere would have probably incorporated bumps into armor that redirects the force to a reinforced spot. But I think it's always better to redirect the blow away from yourself.

If you have to put in extra space for the wearer's breasts then why not make it bulge out in the middle so the blow doesn't literally go straight for the heart?

File: operation dingo.png (32KB, 323x863px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 323x863px

>>51369012
But the people who went to war like that were fantastically effective to the tune of 1000:1 casualty ratios.

File: 1373407167584.gif (3MB, 297x222px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 297x222px

>>51364508
I don't hate it, I just can't take it seriously.

>>51368848
>>51368878
>hurr durr no people's democracy somehow means laws and attitudes don't evolve together
your own pet marxist inanity and its infection of the justice system is case study enough.

The more I see women posting the more I want the """"problematic"""" art and the autistic neckbeards to scare them away from my hobbies.

You people aren't people, not even animals, you are a disease that strongarms itself into things you don't even like and then starts dictating rules on how to change everything to please you.

File: 1481477834666.png (492KB, 540x663px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 540x663px

>>51364834
>>51368493
White notpoors invented wargaming and TTRPG's. If you don't like it or you feel unwelcome, you can happily fuck off. You don't go into an indian restaurant complaining the food is too spicy, you don't go into a nigger club complaining the bass is to heavy, why do you think it's okay to come into RPGs and demand it cater to you?

I understand second poster is actually very reasonable just making a point.

File: 1481470486416.jpg (78KB, 637x476px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 637x476px

>>51368987
>actually believing there was a conspiracy to marginalize jews across the world and across history

>>51369108

Link the post in this thread that makes you feel that way?

OP just wants to discuss it, people are fighting over third wave feminism, and I'm about the only woman who's said so and I

>>51369116

Well, then I get replies like this and it honestly does make me wonder why I bother trying to explain my pov or help you fucking autists understand the way an entire half of the population might feel on a subject. But hey, I'm a married woman with a large collection of gaming friends of all sorts. I gain nothing from bringing more women into the hobby. But the next time any of you are looking at a happy couple playing games together and think some shit like 'tfw no qt to talk about /tg/ with' you can know this is exactly why.

>>51369036
Based on the filename, I'm betting Rhodesia.

>>51369036
That's interesting to know. I would imagine that some thin attire that breathes would be more attractive, but they probably lacked the materials and the clothes would lack adequate durability.

>>51369054
>4 x Canberra light bombers
>10 x Hunter fighter-bombers
>6 x Vampire fighter-bombers
>10 x Alouette III helicopters
>11 x Alouette III G-Car
>vs trainees
Shitposting?

File: 1436443490555.jpg (447KB, 2448x2448px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 2448x2448px

>>51369108
But who made you our lord and heavenly representative? Do you really think a few memes will scare people away from things you like? Why do you even care, when TTRPGs as a hobby focus mostly on the people that you play with. You can find the niche you like, someone else can find theirs, everyone's happy. Why do we have to change things just to please you?

>>51369116
>second poster is actually very reasonable
She types like a retard, uses excessive ellipses and words like "gross" (in the context women use it) and "yech" in a 4chan post. How does that person look anywhere near reasonable to you?

>>51369198
>That's interesting to know. I would imagine that some thin attire that breathes would be more attractive, but they probably lacked the materials and the clothes would lack adequate durability.

Well, the fact they're wielding battle rifles should put in perspective what time period they were fighting in.

File: Cha01c_3BE.tex_0000001c.png (797KB, 952x1377px) Image search: [Google]

797KB, 952x1377px

>>51369019
Well then

File: 1481492665400.gif (20KB, 160x363px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 160x363px

>>51369166
>understand the way an entire half of the population might feel on a subject
Yet a tiny minority in the industry. Your opinion isn't important just because you have a vagina, especially when it almost always consists of "you white straight men who built this entire industry are problematic" with the only reason I can see why is because we're still here and didn't politely see ourselves out the door after setting the table for you and every other 'minority.'

And I run my games with majority girls because they're cute and I can, I just don't go anywhere anyone who thinks they're part of the community.

>>51369221
I meant her self-subjugated stance.

File: gunslinger young woman sci fi infiltrator.jpg (126KB, 312x673px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 312x673px

>>51368993
>>51368623
Wait, I lied, I just thought of a better way to answer your criticism.

>The way you go on here, it sounds damn near like you think things just shouldn't be oriented towards men at all.
There's a subtle but important distinction to be made.

Let's suppose that men inherently like action movies much more than women. This might be true; we don't know for sure, but only because humans aren't grown in laboratory conditions. But it would be entirely all right for action movies to feature sexy girls doing sexy things, in and of itself.

But no matter what, there are going to be quite a few women who enjoy action movies as well. And if the only depiction of women within those movies is "tee hee! My bikini is so tight that I got kidnapped now!", that's gonna be pretty annoying. If the female character is herself a badass, or is at least a well-developed character, then she can be as sexy as the director likes. "Tee hee! My bikini is so tight, and also I've discovered the bad guy's plot!"

It's not that there can't be things oriented towards men. It would just be preferable if they weren't thoroughly hostile toward the very idea of women happening to enjoy that thing, too.

I'mma point to the Avengers here. The only thing that hugged Black Widow's ass more than that jumpsuit was the camera. But she also had self-doubts, moments of triumph, and time in the spotlight. Most of the negative reception I saw to the movie from feminists wasn't about Black Widow's portrayal itself, it was about how movie reviews kept talking about the character like she was just there to be eye candy.

And I've seen plenty of criticism leveled against YA novels with the standard "I'm so perfect and sexy" love interest for similar reasons. Male readers may want to read about a creepy dystopia but a character like that is instantly off-putting.

I hope that makes sense.

NOW I'm going back to writing.

>>51369221
The fact he's not a jaded spooge-sock of a human being that can handle how a relatively normal human being talks.

>>51369243
Nobody is stopping more feministically minded people from making their own media.

>NOW I'm going back to writing.

Oh just stick out the discussion. You've already given up on leaving, what, three times now? You've shot your credibility in that regard in the foot; you're clearly quite invested in it and are just trying to get the last word in.

File: fdc5c83ef8aadaaada15bc5b6fbe5a1a672dbfd268e747da20628ec0ae55ac58.jpg (12KB, 200x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 200x225px

>>51369243
or you could just stop fucking watching things made for men, and if you still decide to, stop demanding they cater to you. why is that such a hard pill to swallow? I don't read shojo and get pissed off it's intended for girls, I appreciate the unique tropes and styles that results in - I don't fucking care that I can't identify with the male characters that are there only for eye candy, I couldn't imagine being so hubristic and delusional to be upset for a second when it's obvious I'm not the intended audience. why is that so fucking hard for you vain entryist cunts?

what the fuck are you even doing on 4chan. TITS or GTFO, slut

File: fire-force.jpg (138KB, 999x520px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 999x520px

>>51369198
Picked out that example just for the big numbers, but they basically wrote the book on counterinsurgency in the 70s.

>>51369221

I normally don't, it's hard to say "I'm a woman" and then post an opinion on /tg/. You immediately get treated like shit regardless of what you say, so I guess I try to be self deprecating in some way. If I'm too bold and sure of myself it makes it worse. Speaking that way reduces the backlash. I've got more experience with it than you, I assure you the way I wrote that was fairly deliberate and necessary. Another symptom of this problem everyone seems to think doesn't matter, I guess. But that's "feminism" and now I've crossed a line (though saying "sometimes I feel uncomfortable for [perfectly valid reasons] was already too much for most people, so who the fuck cares.)

>>51369237

And why is it a tiny minority? Because women don't like make-believe, games, fantasy? They don't like social experiences? Or maybe it's because every girl who was interested in games in high school made an awkward attempt to join an irl gaming community and some faggot said the wrong thing or some book had a bunch of softcore porn that made the girl uncomfortable or just some random thing made it clear 'you are not welcome' so she decided to route her nerdy tendencies towards online gaming or anime or just played games with her own small circle rather than enduring a flgs. I'm a bit more outgoing and tough I guess so I'm able to go to game stores and use voice chat in video games and play in public games at gencon, but even I get sick and tired of the bullshit I have to put up with that men don't. It's not 'feminist' to be annoyed by that. And it's not an unreasonable request or entitlement to tell guys what's going on and what they might be able to do about it to fix the problem. Especially since it literally doesn't affect me how you all go act.

If you think being shitty to women and doing things that puts them off as a rule is an important tenant of gaming then you've got a pretty narrow view of things. Games can be fun and not have chainmail bikinis.

>>51369243
>Black Widow

Scarlet Witch is more powerful, more attractive, and played by a better actress

>>51369319
>made for men, and if you still decide to, stop demanding they cater to you.

But would it ruin the thing for men to have whatever little thing might make it more accessible for women? How does it hurt gaming or action movies to have better female characters?

File: Cha02c_8BS.tex_0000001c.png (1MB, 1256x1537px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1256x1537px

Wizards can be half naked and nobody complains right?

>>51369364
>I assure you the way I wrote that was fairly deliberate and necessary
>merely pretending

File: 1422136611092.jpg (34KB, 490x333px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 490x333px

>>51369364
>I assure you the way I wrote that was fairly deliberate and necessary.

File: 1445901638413.jpg (53KB, 400x358px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 400x358px

>>51369403
Wizards can be all naked and nobody complains.

And I do mean all naked.

File: Cha07c_5WT.tex_0000001c.png (1MB, 1040x1597px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1040x1597px

>>51369442
You gotta have at least the robe and hat

>>51369383
>But would it ruin the thing for men to have whatever little thing might make it more accessible for women?
>would it ruin the thing for the original fans to have some faggots come in and force everything to be okayed by them and to cater to them?

File: 1cdf18a27f7a25ea793c8f5110caceaab4c76f01226e4372aeb21cdc8ebf3830.png (302KB, 530x349px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 530x349px

>>51369364
>And why is it a tiny minority? Because women don't like make-believe, games, fantasy? They don't like social experiences?
or maybe it's because white men have spent 2 centuries devoted to collaboratively building up the wargame into the modern RPG with no motive less ignoble than creative interest? and when it reaches a point of polish and prominence that outsiders being to take interest and it explodes into the hip new thing, they're surprised that the entire long-standing community is entirely made up of white males? they're surprised that the community's motivations and the game's designs are entirely catered with their interests in mind?

and instead of recognizing you're intruding on other people's territories, respecting that you're in their house and borrowing the results of their hard work for your own fun, you instead immediately start accusing them of being an ebil my soggy knees boy's club, and pointing out all their "problems" that should be fixed, and why can't you just consider MY feelings? It doesn't make a difference who or what you are. you're an entitled piece of shit that won't be missed.

>>51369383
It wouldn't, but it shouldn't be forced. RPGs are first and foremost a product of a designer, and the whims of the designer should come first and foremost. As was said earlier, there is nothing stopping you from creating more egalitarian-themed RPGs, and in fact several companies have done just that.

It's worth noting I'm also not against you complaining like this, as that's just part of the dialectic, but I also consider it part of it for me to voice my own thoughts on the matter.

File: snek tits.png (496KB, 768x1200px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 768x1200px

I love fantasy armor on reptomammals.

>>51369116
>You don't go into an indian restaurant complaining the food is too spicy

That's an awful analogy. That spicy food won't discriminate based on race. It would be more akin to going into an Indian restaurant and then complaining about the portrayals of non-Indian people in the art on the wall. These ultra-sexualized portrayals of women specifically make women uncomfortable because they are specifically about women.

Now, sometimes feminists will complain about "sexualized" portrayals of women that aren't really any more sexualized than the way that men are portrayed. That's fucking stupid. Recently I made a joke about how the Pathfinder barbarian's crotch and torso is ridiculously unarmored which is to be expected because she's female. But then someone else (a female; I'm male) pointed out that there was a male iconic walking around with a bare stomach. If it's equal it's fine, but when females are specifically put in slutty, impractical armor then it's not.

>>51369404

Not entirely, it's easy to be self deprecating when you know you're about to be called a cunt for saying totally reasonable shit

>>51369414

oh shit do you have nearly 20 years of experience posting online as an anonymously gendered person and occasionally a woman so you can compare the two? See, when you say "well I'm a girl and" you instantly get about four replies telling you off for even saying it, even when the discussion is about 'what do women think about thing.' Then you get told you're wrong and should stay out of a man's world (because y'all apparently get credit for inventing games, just because you're a white straight man?)

The funny thing is while women do complain about aspects of gaming it's almost entirely the social problems, not content within games. To a small degree maybe, but it's really not a huge issue. And they're more than happy to play games that appeal to them more or make their own games. I find it's much more common to hear the typical male/straight/white/cis/nerd gamers complaining about things like that tap-the-card-if-you're-offended mechanic or games focused on romance and plot. They complain about 'tumblr' taking over their hobby when nobody is fucking with D&D and nothing is changing for you. Just more options and more people playing different games. I hear more complaints about the sons of ether being changed to the society of ether than I've ever heard complaints about the garou being sexist, or slutty pathfinder iconic characters etc.

>>51368310
I think you missed the point. I'm saying if you nitpick you miss out on fun silly shit like that

>>51369364

They can also have chainmail bikinis and not disturb either gender participating in the venue.

That you think the outfit itself is the target problem is conceited. Tone, body language and consistency MATTER. If everyone is half naked and chaintits is in a proper fighting stance or Power Pose, if the atmosphere is lending itself to this, then it isnt an issue worth discussing.

And when was the last time we got Frazetta or Vallejo stule pin ups and arm candy in modern fantasy art? Even Kingdom Death depicts male and female survivors in gruesome, nonsexual scenes of death or dismemberment and even offers male pin-ups now in equally fumb poses and oufits.

Where is this happening in traditional games? Because i cant fot the life of me find any officially endorsed products in recent memory that have this. The only place I can think of would be shitty Korean/Chinese/Japanese MMOs and games, and individual artists who owe you nothing when they choose to do slutty pin ups for fun or profit.

File: furries in my thread.gif (2MB, 440x330px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 440x330px

>>51369500

>>51369364
>And why is it a tiny minority? Because women don't like make-believe, games, fantasy? They don't like social experiences? Or maybe it's because every girl who was interested in games in high school made an awkward attempt to join an irl gaming community and some faggot said the wrong thing or some book had a bunch of softcore porn that made the girl uncomfortable or just some random thing made it clear 'you are not welcome' so she decided to route her nerdy tendencies towards online gaming or anime or just played games with her own small circle rather than enduring a flgs. I'm a bit more outgoing and tough I guess so I'm able to go to game stores and use voice chat in video games and play in public games at gencon, but even I get sick and tired of the bullshit I have to put up with that men don't. It's not 'feminist' to be annoyed by that. And it's not an unreasonable request or entitlement to tell guys what's going on and what they might be able to do about it to fix the problem. Especially since it literally doesn't affect me how you all go act.

Because women tend to lack the prerequisite autism. Same reason that men tend to get more into socialism than women despite it offering much more to women. Or why there are so many more men in STEM. Or, conversely, why there are so many women into theater. I agree that skimpy female armor is bullshit, but women and men naturally congregate to different activities.

Some people think that men and women are the same. In reality, there is a vas deferens.

File: my mistake.png (63KB, 174x229px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 174x229px

>>51369507
Oh, I thought you were just saying that it had a lot of problems and disparaging them, not making a point about nitpicking and now narrow it may be in of itself.

>>51369546
I feel like your last two sentences are true, but somehow the way you're going about making that argument is all wrong.

>>51369536
I don't like actual mammals, for some reason. Guess I'm a scaly.

>>51366642
>Early 11th century: Freydís Eiríksdóttir, a Viking woman, sails to Vinland with Þorfinnr "Karlsefni" Þórðarson. When she faced hostile natives while pregnant, she exposed her breasts and beat her chest with a sword. This caused the natives to run away.[43]

Anyway, almost all of those mention leadership or figurehead roles. Women in combat were less than 0.1% of armies across history.

>>51369504
>These ultra-sexualized portrayals of women specifically make women uncomfortable because they are specifically about women.
Maybe they should try not being hamplanets that get offended by fictional women looking prettier than them.

>>51369506

Sons of Ether has a better sound to it. Flows off the tongue better, too.

File: 1482916626007.jpg (270KB, 600x836px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 600x836px

>>51369504
>That spicy food won't discriminate based on race
Yes it does, different races have different general tolerances to spicy food. A lot of east europeans, for example, are not very tolerant at all.

But that's besides the point, what's happening is there exists a place serving a long developing cultural art coming from a specific group of people with shared interests, culture, taste and you're walking in there with your own foreign background and little understanding of their culture or context. Instead of respecting you're in a foreign restaurant catering to a foreign people, and perhaps appreciating the unique flavors and foods they've developed, you instead arrogantly chastise them for their food not fitting your own taste and experience. And not only that, you don't just whine, cry, and then leave them in peace. You instead do everything you can to force THEM to make it more how YOU like it.

And not even that, you don't do it just for your own table, but you try to demand EVERYONE conform to your taste, because they're all wrong and problematic and whatever other bullshit you can pull out of your ass.

And then you get kicked the fuck out because only white people are cucked enough to put up with that ignorant racist shit.

>>51369484

That's absolutely retarded. If guys were into knitting women wouldn't be offended and try to keep them out.

Why are you gatekeeping? Why do you think it's your right to do so? You really think you've inherited gaming from your forefathers? You're a steward for something holy that must be protected from... people who are different from you and are doing nothing to change your life? You see other people nearby saying "what if this thing also appealed to other people and we had more people who did the thing?" and you get pissed?

>>51369498

Well this is a place for discussing games, right? I see a few comments that are saying things like "this thing, I'd prefer it to be this way [more accessible to others]" and a bunch of guys saying "GET OUT." But no man has yet to explain exactly what bothers them about it other than this weird possessive idea that they 'own' gaming? I honestly don't get it. Does not having slutty art in the book bother guys? Do they flip open the rulebook for D&D 5 and think "FUCKING SJWS" as they see a woman in normal clothing? Like, I'm serious here- I don't understand the issue.

>>51369535

I basically said that in my earlier posts. I don't have a huge problem with slutty outfits as long as there are some slutty guys too and the girls look stylish and are cool. And other than /tg/ art, it's not like real games have weird fetish shit in them (usually.) I don't see that as a huge issue. I know there are some mtg characters who are scantily clad and some game stores have *way* too many posters of them up, that can be a little weird. But on the other hand they're a marker for a 'type' of game store. Some stores don't make my uncomfortable, and you can see a good ratio of men and women. The ones with way too many weird posters up I'll usually look around to find I'm the only woman, and I'll have to put up with some weird dudes saying weird/mean shit, or having gross anime card sleeves.

File: Cha05c_3AS.tex_0000001c.png (891KB, 1136x1481px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 1136x1481px

Well it's bump limit soon so please post your favorite cheesecake

>>51369498
Making your own game with blackjacks and hookers is the fucking lifeblood of creativity. Complaining about shit is fine, but only for the spirit of debate rather than trying to force change on something which, let's be honest here, does not need to fucking change just because being an uptight commie piece of shit is now trendy.

>>51369506
You're a textbook example why the only response for you is

TITS or GTFO

File: yuan_ti_2_by_lichgodlike.jpg (127KB, 600x707px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 600x707px

>>51369642

>>51369506

>garou are sexist

The one with the violent hypermilitant all women tribe? The race that is built on earning your keep in the eternal war, the war that they are losing and have no time to mince over gender roles? The one that regularly features the majority of female leaders and warriors in the owod?

I get that you are frustrated but please stop making blanket statements like that.

File: 1430967553910.png (708KB, 896x1472px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 896x1472px

>>51369642
Don't judge me I'm crazy

>>51369634
>Why do you think it's your right to do so?
Why do you think you have the right to come in and shit in everyone's spaghetti despite being a tiny outlier minority? Why do feminists think having a vagina is a free pass to do literally anything?

I don't mind either one. It's all about context and consistency within it.

>>51369634
>But no man has yet to explain exactly what bothers them about it other than this weird possessive idea that they 'own' gaming?

I think the pervasive fear is that the thing they enjoy will stop being that, and that they'll be no longer welcome in a hobby that previously welcomed them, so they see this kind of criticism as a threat to their hobbies.

Personally, I think feminist struggle is important (I wouldn't call myself a feminist, but I think women should be considered and treated roughly equal to men) and I'd like to see more variety in games. I'm personally of the mindset that I'd like to see more people across both genders as bizarre, idealized gods and think displays of sexuality are a fine (but not necessarily necessary) component to this. Because the primary alternative to cheesy women seems to pseudo-realism and that's fucking tedious.

>Do they flip open the rulebook for D&D 5 and think "FUCKING SJWS" as they see a woman in normal clothing?

They were too busy freaking out about that line about transfolk and such.

>>51369546

I agree, but the truth is that the awkward autistic women are just as nerdy and would like games but they're going to end up being anime weaboos and mmo auction housers. Because they went to friday night magic once when they were young and some guy was fucking awful to her and she couldn't handle it. Or she joined a pickup group for D&D and a guy tried to rape her character.

>>51369614

Yea but it's not that bad and most people say Etherites anyway

>>51369649

No, I'm just a woman. I'm not even arguing for specific changes, just saying that women have a right to be off-put by certain aspects (mostly social, not content) of our hobby and that if guys want to meet women (??) they should be aware of these issues.

>>51369673

Garou are sexist, that's why the black furies formed. It's not a big deal just my point is you don't see women complaining about that sort of thing nearly as often as you see guys whining about monsterhearts 'existing' even though nobody is forcing them to play it.

>>51369686

When did I do that? I just said my opinion online. Instead of saying "I can see why you think that, but personally I like having those things in my game. I think a fair compromise would be.." every reply is "NONONO! YOURE A GIRL! NO!"

File: Big ones only.png (144KB, 499x525px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 499x525px

>>51369234

>>51369680

Shit gorget, pointless dress elements, >white fabric

Oh and it would get in the way or insulate more, and armor frankly doesnt need help making you overheat

>>51369648
Nobody is really forcing change, however. Criticizing these attitudes and complaining isn't like they're trying to legislate this into being.

>>51369721

I just think Sons of Ether sounds better, but my upbringing and literature is kind of weird so ive always associated use of the word like that as being unspecific or gender neutral.

File: Cha06c_1FT.tex_0000001c.png (996KB, 1272x1493px) Image search: [Google]

996KB, 1272x1493px

>>51369741
How about now?

File: Castanic armor.jpg (688KB, 1300x1812px) Image search: [Google]

688KB, 1300x1812px

>>51368901
>>51369680
This looks even more unrealistic than slut armor 2bh with you family

File: more armor.jpg (109KB, 596x811px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 596x811px

>>51369787
Whoops no idea why that first post is quoted