Is this an acceptable character portrait?

File: Full Party.jpg (66KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 620x413px

>>49108175

>>49108175
No face - no point

It's that fucking simple

>>49108263
Boy, can't you see that mimic is staring right at you?

>>49108263
but you can imagine her face.

idk i think its decent honestly. It conveys a feel and a sense of imagery and character tone rather than simply an explicit "PICTURE THIS WHEN U THINK ME," because I don't know about you guys, but I never picture characters the way art shows them. The art is to set the mood of the character, and evoke imagery and stuff. Idk if that makes sense or not.

TLDR; I think it's good. Everyone else will think its shit.

>>49108441
The idea behind character portrait is that you DON'T need to imagine anything at all.

Otherwise you can skip it completely and just stick with character description anyway

>>49108175
Acceptable? No.

Awesomely evocative of what the character's about, exceeding the value of seeing exactly what her face looks like? Yes. Bravo.

All my characters wear helmets or hoods so yeah whatever man

>>49108441
I can get what you're trying to say, but a piece of artwork can do what you're describing without having to leave out the face.

If this is an online game, it's even better to have a face, since people tend to associate profile pictures strongly with what they think a person will look like, which can probably be twisted to work for imagining a character.

File: 1471927182437.jpg (106KB, 629x467px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 629x467px

>>49108175
I see what you're saying about trying to give a feeling and tone to your character, but it isn't the greatest idea.

When the Harry Potter movies came out, and then you read the books again, how did you imagine Harry?

If you say anything other than the Daniel Radcliffe portrayal, you're lying to feel special.

Once you give your group an image of your character, that is what they associate with them.

When I used a token for my character on Roll20, the players and DM used details from the token instead of what I explicitly wrote about him, for example.

If you have concepts during character generation that you want to convey to the GM, use images like these. A few of them. That's fine.

But the best character art is art you draw yourself. I mean it. Even if you "can't draw". Do it anyway.

The little details, the personal style, all of this will help give a much stronger image of your character to whoever is playing with you.

Supplement this with your own words. However you describe her, that is how people will see her in your art. Be as descriptive as you like. But the mental image of your character will entirely be one of your own creation, and that's much more powerful.

>>49108546
>playing tabletop without imagination
Then again if you use portraits your almost certainly playing online too so you just skip over nearly everything that makes the hobby worthwhile

>>49108652
>you're lying to feel special
Honestly no. I always pictured that gangly cartoon on the cover over Daniel.

>>49108666
Hey, don't look at me, it's OP who asked stupid question. And I specifically used face argument, because in text-based games, it's usually one of the few rules that there are - avatar needs to show face or gets delated as superflous

Go back to /jp/ Reimu.

>>49108175
As long as you get the intent or spirit of the character then sure it's fine (although that image doesn't say much). Unless the DM/GM says otherwise, but it's a stupid thing to raise a fuss over.

My personal position is character portraits are overrated. I don't care so much what people look like as what they do. Basic imagination fills in any blanks and frankly anything you can imagine is typically more real to you anyway. That's why I'd rather have brief descriptions of characters than a portrait. Poor players too often use the portrait as a crutch, looking for something cool as if that is a proper replacement to being able to give that player a personality of their own.

File: MigiSaysHi.png (207KB, 600x339px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 600x339px

>>49108175
Is your character an armpit?
Is this some kind of game where the PCs are aliens who have tried to hijack human bodies, but failed to take them over completely and instead must live as part of their host human, working together with their host to accomplish goals? Because if so, can I join?

>>49108441
No, I agree with you. Portraits and detailed character descriptions rarely serve any purpose at all. Everyone will just imagine your character the way they want to imagine him regardless of what your picture shows or what you've said your character looks like.

>>49108546
People will regardless.

>>49108809
>avatar needs to show face or gets delated as superflous
I wouldn't say that's always true. Plenty of masked fellows and gals in character art threads. As long as it's integral to the character then fine, someone can play the mysterious masked ponce or the horribly acid scarred nightmare, etc. Some people prefer hoods. Scifi can involve helmets.

As long as it is a significant part of the character that you don't see their face then it's fine.

>>49108652
>If you say anything other than the Daniel Radcliffe portrayal, you're lying to feel special.
Jokes on you, I can't visualize for shit.

>>49109525
Even having a mask still includes the head area. In OP's picture, you get no indication of face, and really no indication of form. You get half of an arm, a neck, and part of the side. I couldn't even begin to guess at the class.

Worst part is, it would have to be an intentional choice. Anyone can take five minutes in google and find a decent picture of a character that at least looks close enough. Using only part of a body as character art would mean intentional cropping for some strange purpose.

>>49108546
Imagination is such an endemic part of these games trying to eliminate any particular part of using ones imagination is horribly missing the point entirely.

Feels like 9 times out of 10 instead of finding an image that fits their character, which can be hard to do, they just find some piece of art and try to write the character around that. Sounds all good in theory until you GM a game and everyone turns in their art. Then you discover you're surrounded by weebs, furries, and edgelords. Or something even worse.

>>49109567
No, what the fuck is wrong with you? There are parts you want to eliminate imagination in.

Maps, for one thing. I don't want you 'imagining' a bigass gap in the floor where there is none.

And I don't want some fuckface like you imagining my character with buckteeth or something equally stupid.

>>49109567
>weebs, furries, and edgelords. Or something even worse.
what's worse?

>>49109587
it's like you've never played with real people

>>49109542
What are you talking about? OP is obviously playing a Coquettish Prostitute.

Seriously though you're putting too much into character art. Focus on finding people who can actually decently roleplay their character instead.

>>49109587
>And I don't want some fuckface like you imagining my character with buckteeth or something equally stupid.
Anon, you can't even stop me from imagining YOU with buckteeth.

>>49109598
Its like you don't have an actual counter-argument.

File: 1423435308103.png (14KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 450x450px

>>49109591
Us.

>>49108175
I wouldn't mind, but I would certainly prefer to associate a face to any character. Especially in online games.

>>49109612
my counter argument is that your fears are unrealistic, and that you're probably more used to playing videogames where everything that isnt explicitly visualised doesntexist

no player is spontaneously going to imagine a hole in the floor and then insist and argue with the DM that it's there. what the fuck are you even on about

>>49109607
Imagine all you want.

But it's objectively, actual factual wrong. So you're just being a contrarian jackass at that point.

>>49109600
It just feels like something really basic. Why would someone go out of their way to do something harder and more confusing, when easier and more understandable options are readily available?

I don't think I want to roleplay with a guy who's going out of his way to be intentionally confusing before the game even starts.

>>49109627
The hole is just one example, you dribbling 'tard. Arguments over what is or what isn't there, or just misunderstanding happen ALL the fucking time, due to bad descriptions.

I'm starting to think you're the one that's never actually played a tabletop RPG before.

>>49109628
Well, found this threads That Guy.

>>49109640
>My character has these features, here's a picture
>Nah, fuck you, I'll imagine what I want
I'm that guy. Sure.

>>49109631
As others have pointed out it doesn't matter what that player thinks of their character, including art, it's what you do. And moreover it's a silly thing to get hung up over. Actions speak louder than character portraits.

Imagine this thread as people sitting at the table waiting to play and you're all still bitching about a person's choice in image which ultimately won't matter over just getting down to playing the game. It'll turn into a wasted session and over something ultimately pointless.

>>49109656
Yep. Same reason you don't believe the pictures people post of themselves on dating sites. What they want you to think often isn't the truth. You'll find out exactly what kind of character that is when you play with them.

>>49109664
>>49109656
Jesus christ dude get out of your house and play some games with people, you'll see it's not that scawwy

>>49109673
Thank you for proving you still have no actual point.

>>49109672
The fuck does this even mean? All I want to know is what the character FUCKING LOOKS LIKE, and a picture is a super simple easy way to get that across.

>>49109664
...But the character portrait isn't even a portrait. It's not hard to find a different image that would actually show a face (covered or not).

If I don't put my foot down over this poor choice in character art, what else am I not supposed to disagree with because it will waste time? A bad IC plan? That the rogue's been rounding up the gold he gets each session? When the paladin's been fudging his rolls? At what point do the arguments over our imaginary social game stop being pointless, anon?

>>49109685
Yeah but does a picture of an armpit get anything across?

Also I explained my point here and you just said the same thing I did (that you doubt I've ever played a game) and made fun of disabled people.
>>49109627

That is the actual factual truth dude it's all right here

>>49109685
>The fuck does this even mean? All I want to know is what the character FUCKING LOOKS LIKE, and a picture is a super simple easy way to get that across.
That's fine and dandy if you want it, but it's hardly a gamebreaking matter if they don't provide you one. Well maybe it is for you, but most people are fully capable of filling in the gaps in their teeth, ahem, sorry, gaps in knowledge with their imagination.

That map you were complaining about is far more important to the actual game than a character portrait, especially when a simple character description will do the job just as well. Because these are descriptive games. If you can't handle following descriptions then the game ultimately is not for you. Stick with something like Skyrim.

>>49109708
An armpit gets nothing across, are you literally fucking retarded? Are you? Because if you think I somehow argued that the armpit thing was ok you are legit retarded

That might explain things pretty well, really.

>>49109717
>gaps in their teeth
I'm fucking crying dude

does anyone have more actual factual?

>>49108175
>armpit fetishists
i want magical realming faggots to leave my board

>>49109702
>A bad IC plan?
Discussing strategy is a wise course of action in any game.

>That the rogue's been rounding up the gold he gets each session?

That would be an important factor to bring to the GMs attention, and is the reason many GMs keep track of this stuff separate. It's their totals that tend to stand, not your own. Same with experience points.

> When the paladin's been fudging his rolls?

Bad rolls happen but yeah if you're dragging it out it's just as stupid as arguing over a portrait. It's a waste of time.

>>49109724
And they are objectively wrong, and probably That Guy for ignoring what the other player says.

Really helps to root them out.

>>49109717
A character picture is something simple and nice, and it makes picturing the character easy. And as I just said, if some jackass feels like ignoring that, they're probably going to be a shitty, contrarian jackass.

>>49109753
You seriously, in actual fact, think people do that? And you're going to take the idea seriously?

Who do you fucking play with?

When has someone ever looked at character art and said "nope, that's not your character. Let me explain what they really look like".

Holy shit dude get your factuals actualed before you get so worked up. This doesn't happen

File: portrait.png (174KB, 337x651px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 337x651px

Is this an acceptable character portrait?

>>49109770
Sure! That's a fine paladin putting his foot down on the neck of injustice.

>>49109776
nuh uh it's a lanky yoda with a fake plastic goatee.

This is objective actual fact

Fight me

File: Untitled.png (29KB, 287x279px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 287x279px

>>49109776
my characters a rogue, anon
how about this?

It lacks...
Character

>>49109804
At least you didn't incorrectly use the word portrait

File: landscape.png (37KB, 158x319px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 158x319px

>>49109813
oops
here's my landscape instead

>>49109685

All this mad over what someone imagines your character as without art. Tell me, how do you read? Do you imagine the characters as they're described/written or do you just imagine words where a character should be?

Because honestly, you sound dreadfully boring to game with if this is how you deal with just even the slightest off-bit character coloration. 'naw, i totally imagine him with like a southern drawl.'

>>49108175
Are you playing a fucking elbow?

>>49109827
You must be playing Reign. I'm sorry

>>49109785

Not bad! But it's a bit abstract. Still, no problem, since we're playing FATAL. Lets get to rolling!

>>49108546
>The idea behind character portrait is that you DON'T need to imagine anything at all.
The idea behind a character portrait is that it should be evocative of what the character's about. No one's gonna look at it more than maybe once, and no one's gonna think that the picture is a perfect representation of what your character looks like other than in the broadest of strokes; 'oh, he's a chivalrous knight', 'ok, a savage barbarian', 'aight, slutty thief', etc.

>>49108175
For a prostitute it is.

>>49109965
Portrait means picture of their face

>>49110016
Not according to how people use it in this context. Tell people to bring a character portrait and you'll get full body shots, people in masks, people in veils, people in helmets, people hidden in shadows, etc, etc.

>>49109965
so what does an armpit represent, besides your magical realm?
seriously how hard is it to keep your fetish out of the game.

>>49110030
If that's the worst thinking with their dick has to offer then I'd say they're pretty harmless

>>49110030
>so what does an armpit represent
An armpit in general? OP is perhaps a fetishist. The picture that OP posted however, I'd ok that. It tells us, for example, that the character is a young woman, beautiful, and likely of noble birth. That is, it tells us more than enough, and does not bog itself down with unnecessary details that no one is gonna remember anyway.

>>49108175
Is it just jpeg artifacts or there is actually some weird shit on the bottom of her neck?

>>49110087
Not seeing weird shit, just lighting.

>>49108175
That's an armpit.

>>49108175
I'd say yes if you armpit faggots weren't so annoying.

>>49108175
not even remotely

>>49108175
Fine bug I'll be watching you. If you start making constant armpit references you're getting penalized for bringing in a fetish without clearing it with the group.

>>49110337
>without clearing it with the group
Jesus Christ I can't imagine a more awkward conversation. "I was thinking of working in some mind control to the game. Normally I wouldn't bring it up, but since I occasionally masturbate to it I thought you all should know"

>>49108782
This. The characters, always looked like the Mary Grandpre Scholatic edition illustrations in my mind.

>>49110337

How's that conversation gonna go? 'Hey so, I like masturbating to armpits. My character's portrait is just gonna be a girl's armpit. Is that okay?'

File: Potter.jpg (45KB, 351x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 351x500px

>>49108782
You mean this one?

>>49108652

>you're lying to feel special
Not really, considering there's actual pictures of how Harry looks in the artwork. That's how I visualize him. He's a gangly looking teen with glasses, a lightning shaped scar and probably no taller than five feet six.

No muscles on any of his bones, unlike Daniel. The movies are good at showcasing a Hollywood feel, but the books are far better at helping you see/visualize the guy as a small little pathetic-appearing kid than just saying 'here's the actor, this is what HP looks like!'

File: PORTRAIT.png (64KB, 170x172px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 170x172px

>>49109827
>>49109785
>>49109770

>not focusing on you assets
why beat around the bush?

File: 18STR 18CHA.jpg (18KB, 223x186px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 223x186px

My Barbarian

>>49109600
>What are you talking about? OP is obviously playing a Coquettish Prostitute.
And you are assuming that based on what exactly? Aside wild assumption, that is.

This is the main reason why character images should present the character, instead of being just a semi-random piece of their supposed body. If you want guessing game, just skip character art and be done with it.

>>49109664
>I never played any text-based RPG
Yeah, we've noticed

>>49110798

I see the point went over your head. Just sailed right on over, whoosh.

>>49110827
Not him, but he asked you a pretty straight-forward question. The fact you stall instead of providing equally simple and straight-forward answer tells more than it should

>>49110071
The issue is, all that could just as easily be conveyed with a portrait that isn't blatant fetish bait. Like, shit, it looks like OP's pic is cropped from a bigger one that actually shows her face; why not use the original instead of the armpit-focus crop?

>>49110625
Fabio?

>>49110942

You might have me confused, m8. I ain't the dude he was asking a question, just casually mentioning that the whole 'this is confusing i mean what is she supposed to be' angle is exactly why the picture is good and does the opposite of what he thinks it does.

That's just my opinion, though.

>>49110948

Is it actually fetish-bait, though, if you're cropping the picture to give a basic idea but not necessary the full picture, so that people can fill in the blanks?

>>49108441
>>49108564
All i know from that pic is that its probably a woman. What are you getting out of that pic that is so "evocative"?

>>49111011
If you're cropping it in a way that shifts the focus to something fetishy, yes.

>>49111051
It's evocative of their fetish, that's what.

>>49111218

is it really a fetish if it's an armpit, though? like..how many people actually find that fetishy? what if the person isn't into armpits and didn't intend for it to be fetishy?

>>49110948
Precisely because you don't want to show the face because it is one of those
>unnecessary details that no one is gonna remember anyway.
No matter people will imagine the character their own way, so why create unnecessary associations to some real world person or easily recognizable fictional character in the meantime?

>>49111257
It's a class A fetish just like feet but you're kind of right
You can't remove everything that's a fetish because then you pass out on everything. It's sad to not include dragons because a player could be a scaly.

>>49108175
>armpit fetishists attacking /tg/

File: 101223.gif (2MB, 1920x1076px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1076px

>>49108175
>>49108261
>t-those are just fine

File: 1453314640438.jpg (32KB, 297x289px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 297x289px

>>49111257
why would they focus inordinately on the armpit and argue so much that their character picture can be an armpit if they aren't some disgusting fetish-inserting faggot?
>w-wouldn't it be cool if my character picture was an armpit haha i mean just for laughs haha

File: cop denise milani 509091734.jpg (779KB, 2678x4000px) Image search: [Google]

779KB, 2678x4000px

>>49108175
Character portraits have no official standing. So while it might be a bit silly, it's not unacceptable. It's one of the reasons I don't care if you have a cheesecakey picture for your character. It might give a general impression of your character, but it doesn't strictly define her. And if she's wearing bikini armor or something similarly unrealistic, that's not literally what her armor looks like. In the case of an actual chainmail bikini, that's might be the equivalent of what a Playboy or Maxim shoot of the character might look like (or just a creative artist's rendition) and bears as much resemblance to reality as the pic here does to the uniform of actual law enforcement.

>>49111392
So, the face is an unnecessary detail that nobody is going to remember anyway, so it's fine to be cut out.

But the armpit, that deserves front and center focus.

Yeah, not really convincing me on the "not a fetish" angle here.

File: 1470897691217.jpg (34KB, 421x255px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 421x255px

My duelist (male).

File: il_570xN.1004641237_r6m2.jpg (88KB, 570x522px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 570x522px

>>49108652
This is one of the reasons I like to use SNES-style pixel sprites for my character tokens.

I understand that not everyone likes the style, but they allow you to visually convey some basic information about how your character looks, without having enough detail to really dictate how the other players think about your character.

They're also much easier to make for someone who can't draw.

>>49113253
If the character is a shapeshifter or master of disguise, yeah the face is unnecessary.

Op's picture could be used for a changling spy who prefers to go about as a beautiful high class woman to get men to spill their secrets.

Since they can change their face at will, why not pick a portrait that doesn't show face?

>>49113253
>So, the face is an unnecessary detail that nobody is going to remember anyway
Yes. Or rather, character portraits are completely unnecessary to begin with as people ignore them regardless and just imagine what they want. If you're gonna use one it might as well be one that sets a tone rather than shows a face.

>But the armpit, that deserves front and center focus.
No. It could be any other part of the body. That the armpit shows in OP's pic seems more incidental than anything.

>Yeah, not really convincing me on the "not a fetish" angle here.
OP might very well have an armpit fetish. I don't know anything about that. But regardless of wether he does or not I'd ok that as his character portrait if he brought it to a game (not that I'd have asked him to bring one to begin with).

>>49108175
No, you don't get to play as some woman's sentient armpit.

>>49114935
Just because he cropped the image around it doesn't mean the armpit has super-powers

>>49108175
No. People haven't started removing body hair at this point in history. Get some hair on that pit, you're breaking verisimilitude.

>>49115333
There have been cultures that removed body hair at pretty much every point in history.

>>49115333
>disgusting fetish countered by even more disgusting fetish
It's sort of effective.

>>49108175
houserule #3 - no fetishes at the table - pic denied

>>49116497
Body hair is a lack of a fetish, though.

>>49110808
>text based
>b-but I demand images!
So what you're saying is you never graduated from pop-up books? You refuse to read any novel unless the cover art includes a full detailed view of every major character?
You're missing the point. When you've learned your history with a little Zork then you can come talk to us.

>>49110942
>>49110798
I know 4chan likes to abuse the poor word autism all along its spectrum, but I worry about some of you people.

Nevermind that the initial reply was in response to character class and "Coquettish Prostitute" isn't exactly an official class in most recognized games (least the ones I'm aware of) but - and I'm just throwing this out here, not trying to confuse you - the next bit being, "Seriously though," probably should have clued you in that the first part of the response wasn't entirely, you know, serious.

But hey, it's for this exact reason that words can confuse people that we rely on specific character images, right? Otherwise the whole gaming industry would sink into anarchy.

>>49116684
>i fetishize a lack of a fetish :^)

File: Gazebo.jpg~original.jpg (26KB, 300x423px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x423px

This whole thread reminds me of the classic gazebo story.

If only the DM had provided a detailed NPC portrait of the gazebo, it is entirely possible hostility could have been avoided. Alas, such is life and RPGs.

>>49109591
>what's worse?
Offhand? That Guy who demands to play a Kinder even in games that don't have Kinder, and if you were worried he might be a closet pedophile then his choice of character art and playstyle remove all doubt along with the notion that he' s in the closet about it.