Is "it's magic" an acceptable explanation for impractical armor and outfits and adventurers being attractive rather than homely assholes?
>>47075841
That depends on thetype of game you're running. If everyone agrees they want a less-serious beef/cheesecake for-fun game, the sure. If you're playing something grittier then be prepared to be asked to leave.
>>47075841
No. Polymorph is prohibitively expensive, and skimpy armor would only have merit in social combat, or the bedchamber.
>>47075841
No, but expecting adventures to be "homely" is kind of stupid. Sure, some of them might be ugly, but for the most part, they'll be rugged, toned, buff, and very few scars thanks to healing magic.
You got the asshole part right though.
>>47075841
yes.
Or just different logic. If the adventurer is already badass enough to take a tarrasque punch to the face and live, they can wear whatever the fuck they want, so armor becomes more of aesthetic choice.
>>47075910
>and very few scars thanks to healing magic.
Honestly, i always preferred healing magic that is not "wish the wounds away" type. I like healing magic that still require medical skill and careful application, just pouring positive energy on a wound would result in horrific, poorly healed keloid tumor, tentacles/extra eyes on it optional.
>>47075841
>Is "it's magic" an acceptable explanation for impractical armor and outfits and adventurers being attractive rather than homely assholes?
Physically powerful people are usually pretty attractive because they're inshape.
Magical people are usually pretty attractive because they can make themselves attractive/magic has a way of idolizing someone's appearence based on their use of it, etc..
>Skimpy armor
I justify skimpy armor on the basis that armor can only be made so powerful while the flesh, the person themselves will continue to gain more and more levels and more power.
You reach a point where a person is physically more durable than the clothing they're wearing, so at that point armor becomes more symbolic and ornamental than actually functional.
People starting out wear equipment to protect themselves.
People who've lived and breathed battle wear equipment to warn others of their might and majesty.
>>47075944
That's what alchemy, demonic, and normal magic healing do. But most parties have, or know, a divine healer, who skips past that by literally just dumping a gods jizz on your wounds...
Usually metaphorically speaking.
>>47075947
So you're saying that if someone charges into battle with nothing but nipple caps and a thong, there's a even chance they're either a loony, or Demi-god? Or the just as likely option, both.
>>47075841
Depends on the tone of the game. In a serious game, no. In a game that splits its time equally between serious and lighthearted, maybe, depending on the level of impractical.
If it's a full-on parody, then definitely.
Then, of course, even in a serious game you can get away with impractical armour and outfits for decent enough lore reasons.
Nobody complains about the Wyches in 40k basically wearing cut-up leather bodysuits, because they're essentially gladiatrices who show off for a crowd. If female Imperial Guardsmen turned up in bikinis made of Flak armour, people would complain.
I tend to run with the rule that unless being a sexual exhibitionist is part of a person/group identity, then no, "it's magic" (or variations on that theme) is not sufficient reason for impractical outfits. If those characteristics are part of their identity, then it will depend on the level of impracticality.
A Drow wizard who can cast epic mage armour on herself will probably get away with showing up in her underwear. The Average Lady knight would most definitely not turn up in steel-plated high-heels and a thong made out of Mithril.
>>47075995
>So you're saying that if someone charges into battle with nothing but nipple caps and a thong, there's a even chance they're either a loony, or Demi-god? Or the just as likely option, both.
Pretty much.
They either don't "think" they need it or they don't actually need it- either way you should exercise caution.
>>47075995
Again, personal preference, but i prefer godjizz magic to be more of a miracle/empowering followers kind, not "God's hotline".
In general, the stronger magic is, the more work it should require.Except for martials. martials can clench wounds shut (although it's only a short-term solution) because they're more attuned with magic inside their bodies.Fuck martials not having nice things.
>>47075841
Force fields get more power the more skin is exposed
>>47075841
>Is "it's magic" an acceptable explanation for impractical armor and outfits and adventurers being attractive rather than homely assholes?+ 0 post omitted.
>not making a full world based around the idea
No. Weak.
>>47076112
"It woks because fuck you." can get really old if you apply it to too many things. It's more fun if it's only applied to a few things, but those things have wide ranging possibilities, imo. A floating islands area because fuck you, magic floaty crystals, but people mine the crystals for other floaty things like airships, etc.
Adventurers aren't attractive because lolmagic, they're attractive because they're young and fit.
Elves are eternally young, fit and fertile, of course they're going to look like perfect breeding partners, because they are.
Magic isn't an explanation for impractical outfits, mages not being able to use ARMOR is an explanation for impractical outfits.
>>47076098
>>47075841
Depends on the setting, years ago, after staying awake for way to long, I ended up writing up a bunch of materials, and did end up writing up a couple that would make more sense to only wear a small amount of but still get some decent protection out of. Lost the list with hard drive failures, and have recreated it in part, but there were three that would make sense to only wear a small amount of, with two of them granting good protection. My Oricalcum that depending upon how you worked it would produce a natural force field, while also being good for being enchanted, but too much of it that wasn't made carefully enough would have it's magic start interacting poorly so that the more someone wore the more dangerous it would be for them. Then there was a way of working scales and bones of creatures that you would gain the full toughness of the beast they came from when you wore it, and it didn't matter if you wore more because the effect didn't need that much and adding more wouldn't grant more. Last material wouldn't grant any real protection, it just amplified certain magics such that you had an aura of death about you that wouldn't affect the wearer as badly as those around them. Though I never did use any of these as bikini armor, they were always worn with leather or some other clothing. Well there were some barbarians I made that used basically monster hunter armor from the bones and such, but I never ended up actually using those barbarians.
However your average adventurer would likely be a little more attractive than the average person. They might be right along the average for their race in other ways, but would likely have a toned body which should at least put them above average, on average. I mean homely adventures could totally happen, but I would expect the average for adventurers to be above the average for ordinary people.
>>47076150
>"It woks because fuck you." can get really old if you apply it to too many things. It's more fun if it's only applied to a few things, but those things have wide ranging possibilities, imo. A floating islands area because fuck you, magic floaty crystals, but people mine the crystals for other floaty things like airships, etc.
Exactly my point.
>>47075841
>Is "it's magic" an acceptable explanation for impractical armor and outfits
Not for me. I pride myself on good world building and settings that make sense, and my players seem to enjoy that too, so that kind of shit does not fly. I don't particularly mind if others like that kind of shit, but I fail to see the appeal.
>and adventurers being attractive rather than homely assholes?
Physical appearance of my players is a different thing, and I largely leave that up to them. If they want to play a very attractive character, I don't object to it. Though we never justified it with "it's magic". It's not magic, it's part of the character and his history. That said, beauty is fragile thing and maintaining it might cost one dearly.
My players are fairly sensible so we don't have a group of supermodels walking around though.
Again, I don't have a fundamental problem with fantasy wish-fulfillment and "fuck you it's magic" attitude, but I personally just find it unengaging and dull. I never understood the appeal of blatant fanservice and cheap sexualization in fantasy either. Shit like OP's pic just does not do anything for me: it's just boring and stupid design.
>>47076299
>I never understood the appeal of blatant fanservice and cheap sexualization in fantasy either.
Wonder Woman to Forgotten Realms' Drow, it's just the authors expressing their fetishes.
>>47075910
>No, but expecting adventures to be "homely" is kind of stupid.
Attractive people can generally achieve what they want in society without going out and risking life and limb in dangerous situations. Same reason why most soldiers in the real world are ugly people outside of Hollywood movies and the oddball exception.
If there's an equivalent to D&D's Mage Armor (invisible protective magic field over the skin), sure.
>>47075841
Yes, Glamered armor is a thing.
>>47076326
You see, I don't really buy that. I mean sure that is part of it, but it's far more about simply selling things. I really think it simply sells, that it appeals to quite a lot of people. I doubt that the entirety of all female warrior character designs for virtually all Japanese fantasy fiction are just authors expressing their fetishes.
I suppose my perception of sexuality is skewed somewhat.
>>47076330
What you're thinking of is just makeup. Fitness + makeup + youth = hawtness, in general.
Not to mention I doubt most adventurers are motivated by desperation. Any magic oriented class, any chivalry oriented class, or any religion oriented class is unlikely to have desperation as a motive.
>>47076357
The guy you're responding to has had his brain corrupted by 4chan and thinks "fetish" means "all sexual function ever."
>area man has naked lady fetish
>>47076373
This, pretty much. As stereotyped as it sounds, /tg/ is infested with socially inept virgins who can't deal with their own sexuality in any constructive way.
>>47076373
I actually understood what he meant by that, my point was that I think it's the assumption that people will buy it that drives this kind of sexualization more than a mere preference of the author.
>>47076357
There's that, sure, but sales figures don't justify the presence in homebrew settings.
>>>47076394
>criticizes others for not being constructive
>v-virgin!!
Oh, fuck off.
>>47076417
>but sales figures don't justify the presence in homebrew settings.
Which further supports the theory that people do it because it appeals to them in general. It's what they seem to want from the game. They demand it from both commerical products and homebrews. And that is really the aspect of it that confuses me.
And the problem that I have is not with sexuality as such. I don't shy away from that in my own campaigns. I just don't get what makes people think pics like >>47075841 is actually in any way sexual and appealing, to a point where they would insist that is how characters should look in their games.
And it gets twice as bizzare when you consider we deal with a medium that isn't even visually based. What is the fucking point here?
>>47076403
You're wrong about Drow, then, because FR started life as Ed Greenwood's home setting before he ever tried sending it to TSR to get published.
If you could make anything offer as much protection as armor I guess I just would have two questions. The first would be why not just wear normal clothing then enchant it instead of putting random bits of metal in places that would chafe? Second would be if applying the same techniques to actual armor would still be better?
Either way this has always seemed more like a vidya problem than a tabletop problem since the armor basically just looks as realistic as you want it to be for this shit
>>47076403
I like to mentally substitute all whining about stuff being too sexualized or about rape culture (not trying to start a shitstorm just using them as an example) or so forth with stuff being too mortualized (?) or about stuff having to do with murder culture, and it becomes ridiculous.
Casually killing sapient beings is at least as unnatural or odd as, well, females dressing extremely sexually even at the cost of effectiveness (and considering 99% of armed conflict featured people dressing impractically, and considering females dress impractically as early as grade school I don't find it too odd).
Killing, and sex, have a lot of things in common. They are fairly universal. One could wax nonsensical about eros and thanatos and yada yada, but the real reason I think sexuality and violence is very common in games is... they refer to acts with relatively obvious goals, beginnings, and endings. Even largely asexual or immortal beings could still understand it on that basis alone.
This serves as a VERY valuable anchor point considering the rest of an RPG setting is going to be something probably very, very alien to the viewer.
You could throw riches, acquirement of resources, etc. in there as a third axis if you like too. These are a bit more cultural but trade items obviously can get you whatever else you want.
Thus, the "healthy, sexy girl with or covered in valuables with a sword" neatly encompasses basically the gamut of the human sphere of interest, so its something with eternal appeal that will largely remain similar.
>>47076488
>implying Ed Greenwood had anything to do with the creation of the drow
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
>>47076541
Gary's homebrew Drow were just as fetishy, but the original post here >>47076326 specifically mentions
>Forgotten Realms' Drow
Gary and Ed just had similar tastes.
>>47076553
Whoops my bad
>>47076299
>I never understood the appeal of blatant fanservice and cheap sexualization in fantasy either
Wish fulfillment.
>>47076574
I gotta say, it might be interesting to see more RPG or vidya or something based off wish fulfillment, as in the protagonist doing stuff the player would presumably like to do, as in virtually all cases its more about "you get a particularly grungy job xD"
>>47076619
>video games based off wish fulfillment
Plenty of those around. They're called eroge.
Also, I don't think tabletop RPGs based around wish fulfillment to work well, because every session would be a potentially awkward circlejerk of Mary Sues.
>>47076619
Could you elaborate on what you mean? Unless I'm missing what you're getting at you just seemed to have entirely missed the entire open world genre of games
>>47076532
There is a whole bunch of things wrong with that logic. For starters, I really did not complain about sexualization as a moral issue (and hence the reference to "rape culture" does not seem fitting here) but as an aesthetical one.
Second of all, likening violence to displays of sexuality is not nearly as logical as it seems.
Violence is part dominance hierarchy strategy. Sexuality is not. Especially not for women. You don't gain a higher dominance rank by flaunting your sexuality (in reality, it actually goes the other way most of the time).
Restriction mechanisms for sexuality and violence are very different. Impracticality in clothing also works very differently. In fact it works the opposite way: impractical clothes are worn as a display of a status security: violence generally displays social rank mobility. If you combine the two, you have a contradiction: women wear high heels to display that they don't have to run or even walk that much - men wear armor and weapons to display they have ability to fight (which involves running and walking a lot). Also, sexual availability is not necessarily a logical goal to begin with. Certainly not a goal very consistent with the goal of status acquisition through order disruption, such as the use of violence.
So, it's not logical to display your sexual readiness at the same time as displaying your battle prowess.
>>47076574
>Wish fulfillment.
What wish though?
>>47076672
Maybe he means in a more realistic setting. Like in a workplace or school environment, at the home, wish fulfillment in everyday settings we all live.
>>47076619
>virtually all cases its more about "you get a particularly grungy job xD"
Dirty, maybe, but also exciting. They get to do and see things they'd never be able to in real life. Think James Cameron's Avatar. The world is scary and alien and dirty with big monsters that want to eat you or poison you with neurotoxins or even just atmospheric exposure, but it's also vibrantly colored and full of excitement. You probably wouldn't want to go there yourself, but the ability to interact with that world from the safety of your home/theatre/FLGS appeals to almost everyone.
>>47076686
Depending on what you mean there's sim games, animal crossing, and the various farming things
Not to mention a huge portion of VNs and just flat out porn
The only explanation that you need for boobplate and handsome warriors is that it looks cool.
I mean action films have people dual-wielding guns, doing unnecesarry combat-rolls and pulling grenade-pins with their teeth, and we all know they're impractical but unless the film touts itself as being realistic we're willing to accept it into our willing suspension of disbelief because it makes for a good show.
Same with sexy/revealing armour, and adventurers being attractive: Unless the setting is meant to be simulationist, who cares?
Honestly, spergs who can't shut up about the 'impracticality' of armour with sculpted breasts are just as obnoxious as /k/ommandos who feel smug for pointing out lack of trigger discipline in action films. It's fiction, who cares?
>>47076619
>I gotta say, it might be interesting to see more RPG or vidya or something based off wish fulfillment, as in the protagonist doing stuff the player would presumably like to do
>>47075841
The question you always have to ask is: if magic/science fails, can this gambeson/mail/cuirass help at least a little bit? If the answer is yes, then only super arrogant and stupid people should go for boobplate and the like.
>>47076680
Well, sex with beautiful scantly clad women obviously.
>>47076728
I don't think drowning because you can't get out of a pool without a ladder or starving in an inexplicably appearing windowless, doorless room is not something most people like to do.
>>47076742
Speak for yourself.
>>47076742
I don't tell you how to live your life
>>47076742
But you're looking at it from the wrong point of view as the sim, and not the God torturing the sim.
Also, when people are not torturing their sims, they're usually building mansions for their self-inserts to live in and romance sim avatars of hot chicks/guys in high school they wish they had a chance with.
>>47076574
Yeah, who likes looking at hot girls in skimpy outfits anyways?
fucking retard.
>>47076739
>Well, sex with beautiful scantly clad women obviously.
Well, how does that translate into characters wearing iron underwear exactly? I get that the story you are playing might be a wish-fulfillment fantasy, after all what is defeating the dragon and stealing the treasure else, but how does that actually translate to this particular kind of costume design? And I know I'm (intentionally) being obtuse and asking seeming stupid question, but I really don't think it makes as much sense as people intuitively assume it does?
Why not telling (or crafting up) a story where you end up having sex with a beautiful lady instead?
>>47076775
The questions are: who finds this shit hot, and why do you involve it in a participatory narrative that does not feature much visual material to begin with?
>>47076790
Sir, have you been diagnosed with the autism?
>>47076775
>>47076826
>>>/b/
If you can't be arsed to have an intelligent discussion.
>>47076834
It really does seem like you have actual proper autism.
>>47076790
>Well, how does that translate into characters wearing iron underwear exactly? I get that the story you are playing might be a wish-fulfillment fantasy, after all what is defeating the dragon and stealing the treasure else, but how does that actually translate to this particular kind of costume design?
I always just assumed it was just a lack of sexual fulfillment in their personal lives, so it's just inserted into their roleplay campaigns, videogame mods, etc. Was all I was merely getting at.
>>47076340
Most relevant post in the thread receives no attention.
>>47076852
First of all, you are talking to two different people. Second of all, what exactly do you think you are going to achieve by throwing around generic insults that have little meaning around here? Is the notion of people not thinking the same way as you do so intimidating?
>>47076857
I would not necessarily assume that only people who are sexually frustrated buy into that sort of thing, but sure. I'm seriously trying to prod the problem some more though.
What you provided is certainly true in general terms, but I think it's only an intuitive notion, which does not offer much insight into the question of why exactly, and why in this particular form.
>>47076859
It's not most relevant because we are not talking about a specific system. Glamered armor is not a thing in every settings and every system.
>>47076852
>It really does seem like you have actual proper autism.
Do you even know what autism is? I mean, have you ever read the diagnostic criteria for autism? Have you ever spent time working with autists? Have you ever spent any time working in a professional environment where a trained psychologist works with a patient and comes to this particular diagnosis? Do you actually know anything about autism?
If we are playing something flashy and all about the rule of cool. Sure, go ahead.
If it is a more realistic setting probably not and if then only for very vain characters who like to show off.
I personally love chainmail thongs and plate-bikinis, but I'd never force these things inside a setting where it doesn't fit. Why are so many people so triggered by it?
>>47076917
But then why not just have:
>You're in a bar
>You see a barmaid
>She's hot, tits are out, round and shapely. All seems ok.
>She leans down and unzips your pants
>etc
Right from the get-go?
>>47075841
Trying to explain it, is unacceptable.
Don't try, because there is no suitable reason. Just enjoy the fun of it.
>>47076928
Are you implying that doesn't happen in campaigns? Because it totally does.
>>47076917
>It's that simple.
So... it's not really about them reliving the fantasy of living sexual life, but rather them having the option to imagine that there is a woman with metal bars covering her nipples next to them: something that they could actually imagine at any point of their life at any time (hell, they could imagine them without the fucking metal bars - those are actually really counterproductive) without having to sacrifice internal consistency of the actual narrative they volunteered to participate in.
I still have fucking trouble understanding the logic here. It's clearly not about re-living a wish-like narrative, as you just demonstrated. So it's about the mental image? Which really does not have to do anything with the play session what so ever, and in fact undermines it...
And why the fucking metal armor underwear? Why not just... underwear? Or nothing? And why sharing it in public? You can just think of naked or half naked ladies in the privacy of your own mind.
Again: I know, intentionally being obtuse here, for the sake of the argument. But it really does not make sense when you look at it carefully.
>>47076928
>>47076939
I don't know about you guys, but as a heterosexual male, I would feel rather creepy roleplaying sexual encounters like that with a male GM that. It's almost like rp cybersexing with dice.
>>47076977
You know there's a middle ground between "my character has no sex organs or sex drive" and rubbing each other off under the table, right?
>>47076977
I went to the same high school as my DM and I've seen him naked plenty of time in the change room. It's only about as homoerotic as that.
>>47076680
I already said rape culture was just an example, to point out how the logical flipside of that, murder culture, puts it into perspective. Obviously, killing is in no way automatically murder, just as sex is in no way automatically rape, so I think its a valid comparison.
>Violence is part dominance hierarchy strategy. Sexuality is not. Especially not for women
Male sexuality definitely features a strong element of dominance (even when its about toying with that heavy burden), as does female sexuality. A woman's sexual desirability indisputably figures into her role in the female pecking order, perhaps the most, as well as how she wields it (like every other tool used for dominance). Both sexes use sexuality as a vehicle for dominance, period. Better to say its way, WAY high up there for both sexes and be done with it.
> impractical clothes are worn as a display of a status security: violence generally displays social rank mobility.
Probably 99% of the time, warriors wear clothes on the basis of comfort, availability, or more often, that which is on the basis of looking good. Often what is considered to look good has a very VERY modest connection to functionality somewhere down the line (ie. how warriors of the Nacimera tribe wear highly stylized patterns that very vaguely resemble camouflage). Sometimes armor is involved, a high estimate is to speculate that about 1% of warriors throughout history wore armor, usually limited armor.
Violence is also a big part of social security and sexuality is a big part of social mobility.
>So, it's not logical to display your sexual readiness at the same time as displaying your battle prowess.
Maybe not to you, but they're heavily linked most of the time. Idealized warrior women are as old as civilization, and warrior culture having a ton to do with perceptions of virility and suchlike is probably older.
Sorry. Quoted wrong person and deleted my original post. Reposting:
>>47076992
>Of course, but that's not the scenario this poster described:
>>>47076928
>Sexual encounters in any game I've been in have all pretty much been "okay, you've successfully seduced the barmaid for information and the two of you go into a room and have sex. next scene." I'd rather not roleplay the actually sexual activity.
>>47077026
I read that as "she unzips your pants" being the last thing before the fade to black.
>>47077040
Ah, okay, I see. That, I wouldn't have a problem with.
>>47075841
>Is "it's magic" an acceptable explanation
Yes
>>47075841
In the current game my character is tattooed all over in magic spells and iconography important to her culture.
Background wise her primary job is a living library of culture and magic, crunch wise it's a spell book and magical armour.
She does wear some clothing for modesties sake and tries to avoid combat as any actual wounds run the risk of damaging the text but on the most part she counts as better armoured then even the fighter.
Mind you the fighter will stride into combat naked if he needs to. He's not to fussed on the subject of scars.
>>47076672
RPGs and vidyas and such are frequently derided as being wish fulfillment, but its very rarely "stuff you wish you could do IRL xD" and more often a set of chores and tasks you perform in a cyclical fashion to enable you to do greater chores and tasks and so forth and so on.
If wish fulfillment was an important part of the genre, then you'd see a tendency for your character to, you know, wind up with a sexy girlfriend, a nice mansion, and a load of other luxuries.
They more have to do with cyclical acquirement and puzzles. Respect, luxury, or sexual desirability aren't even remotely universal features in any of these genres, though they tend to somewhat feature. Or I don't know, "kill your annoying boss." Or something.
Wherein you do rescue the princess, its more of a placeholder task. I mean, SOMETIMES you do actually get the qt3.14, but its far from the majority; Link never or virtually never gets with Zelda, Metroid never gets with Samus, and I'm not sure if Mario ever gets with Peach.
There was a slight tendency towards this in OSR (at level 8-10 you could probably build a stronghold and get followers), but that's not common nowadays and I have never heard an implication of a player ever feeling satisfaction from having followers, as opposed to them being a useful expansion of his PC's capabilities.
>>47077013
>Obviously, killing is in no way automatically murder, just as sex is in no way automatically rape, so I think its a valid comparison.
Actually it's not at all. This might be a semantic issue, but "rape culture" (within the context of the western society at least, as there is a completely different problem of "rape culture" in some parts of Africa) is a very specific term deeply linked to modern feminism and Marxism philosophy, in which difference between male and female dominance strategies are interpreted as act of intentional disempowerement, which in what has to be one of the most cynical displays of all human history is then likened to the act of actual rape.
So using the term in this context does not seem very fitting.
>Both sexes use sexuality as a vehicle for dominance, period.
But in extremely different ways and extremely different context. Female might flaunt her sexual attractivity in relative privacy in an attempt to attract an exogamic mate, for an example. But not on a fucking battlefield.
>that which is on the basis of looking good
Are you fucking kidding me? NOBODY wears an armor into a battle in order to look more sexy you idiot. This is not an argument.
>Violence is also a big part of social security and sexuality is a big part of social mobility.
No to the first part, and yes in case of exogamy for women only for the second. But that has fuck all to do with combat attire.
>idealized warrior women are as old as civilization
No, that is very false. Complex iconic images that combine different semantic spaces, such as feminity and combat attire, yes, but those are not actually images of female warriors, but rather, images of divine plurality. Very different concepts. Also, they never actually advertise the female sexual availability.
>>47076762
Does the player even have an "avatar" or is he just an unseen meta entity? Doesn't really seem much like a protagonist.
At this point we might as well argue that DMing is about wish fulfillment; I guess it could be, but its hardly considered the norm.
>>47076857
>I always just assumed it was just a lack of sexual fulfillment in their personal lives
Thanks Freud. Sex doesn't, GENERALLY, diminish your attraction to the female form at all. That's just a virgin shaming meme.
>>47075841
No.
>>47077091
>If wish fulfillment was an important part of the genre, then you'd see a tendency for your character to, you know, wind up with a sexy girlfriend, a nice mansion, and a load of other luxuries.
Did you miss that the Sims was posted earlier? Going cool places and seeing cool things is also just as much a desire of most people as having a hot spouse is.
>>47075841
If for some reason the magic were taken away and it granted the same protection as non-magical armor than a big NO. If you wear something like that into an anti-magic field you shouldn't retain any protection from that armor.
>>47077114
>Does the player even have an "avatar" or is he just an unseen meta entity? Doesn't really seem much like a protagonist.
In the case of torturing sims, no. I think when people torture their sims, they're are playing either the god role, or an unseen torturer.
However, in the wish fulfillment scenario (your sim has a mansion, romancing high school crushes/celebrities), the sim is usually played as a self insert.
>>47075841
It's pretty obvious how such armor is working and it's completely functional.
>How does it work
Magic creates a force field between the different armor parts. This field covers the seemingly unprotected body parts (tits, stomach, tights, neck, etc.). The magic is fueled by the wearers hotness or sex-appeal. That's why it only works on hot elves/half elves/dark elves/hot human chicks and not on lardasses.
>What is the benefit of such armor
First, it provides nolifes with fap material IRL. Second, it gives the characters a bonus to seduction and fast-talk in game.
>>47077160
And the best thing of all this, is that it could be explained by science, too.
>>47077104
>but "rape culture"
And murder culture is a satire of the idea, its not a phrase that is actually used seriously.
>But not on a fucking battlefield.
In a warzone though? Sure. And lets not pretend RPG and vidya battlefields are closely psychologically linked to the theatre of battle, they are almost always (or at least hopefully) far removed from the boring practicalities involved.
>Are you fucking kidding me? NOBODY wears an armor into a battle in order to look more sexy you idiot. This is not an argument.
I truly apologies for triggering you, but throughout human history, looking good > practicality > protection. And yes, the people closest to the majority of RPG characters (landsknechts etc) did in fact make their equipment as flashy, sexualized, and visually obnoxious as possible.
>No to the first part, and yes in case of exogamy for women only for the second
Yes to the first part. Your ability to inflict violence, or have others inflict violence on your behalf, is a huge part of social security. I mean, its the basis of human civilization, and in areas that aren't civilized being able to defend yourself is serious business.
>actually images of female warriors,
Do you know what idealized means? Inanna exists to no greater degree than Samus.
Anyway judging from the fact you were triggered you probably aren't going to remain lucid for much longer, so run along now before I get bored.
>>47077129
>Going cool places and seeing cool things is also just as much a desire
If you want to devalue what is a perfectly functional phrase to just mean "literally all entertainment ever," then we have a more economic way to describe it, its called entertainment.
>>47077129
>>47077140
>the sim is usually played as a self insert.
Yeah, I believe that. I'm just not going to buy all forms of excitement and spectacle as wish fulfillment, which is clearly bunko.
>>47077160
>First, it provides nolifes with fap material IRL.
I don't think any amount of sex will ever diminish my fondness for fapping.
>>47077057
Go away Erebus
>>47077185
>And murder culture is a satire of the idea, its not a phrase that is actually used seriously.
If it's a satire of something we both know is illogical in the first place, then it does not provide any actual argument.
>In a warzone though?
Not there either. Some males in some cultures may display their sexuality (usually by acts - rape, generally speaking), but nobody is going to sacrifice their actual fitness to that. For women, it makes absolutely no fucking sense at all.
>far removed from the boring practicalities involved.
We are talking about the underlying psychological sensibilities which make certain imagery more appealing, right? Then assuming the psychological sensibilities are rooted in real world is not a fault.
>but throughout human history, looking good > practicality > protection.
Not in battle. Especially not in lethal conflict. And there is a difference between demonstrating your sexual readiness and looking good. Looking good on a battle field = either psychological impact on your enemy, or display of status. Sexual readiness is not a a status display, especially not for women. We are going in circles here.
>(landsknechts etc) did in fact make their equipment as flashy, sexualized,
Are you seriously implying that landsknechts wore chainmail speedos?
>Yes to the first part.
Do you even know what social rank stability means? Because it means that you don't have to do anything to maintain your status. Inflicting violence means doing something: if you rely on violence to maintain social rank, then it's not very stable to begin with.
>Do you know what idealized means?
Better than you do, that is the problem.
>so run along now before I get bored.
Big words for someone who literally has no clue what is he talking about.
I've never played with anyone actually wearing bikini armor, not that I'd mind it. Roleplaying is an exercise in suspension of disbelief anyways.
That said, I have no problem looking at stuff like >>47075841 since it's hot. I don't really get why so many armor-fags get riled up about it, everyone knows it's actually a dumb idea to wear IRL.
>>47077211
>I'm just not going to buy all forms of excitement and spectacle as wish fulfillment
Not every form of excitement or spectacle is wish fulfillment, but any form of excitement or spectacle could be wish fulfillment for the appropriate person. I imagine that someone who has never had the opportunity to leave their home town very much wishes they could visit Paris or New York, but that might seem very mundane to someone who travels often.
>>47077293
That's reasonable then.
>>47077244
I think I'm missing something but how does the Greek god of Darkness, if I'm remembering correctly, relate to magic tattoos?
>>47077446
Not that guy, maybe it's the artist or something?
Erebus is any number of things, according to wikipedia. I'm partial to the region myself, but that's largely related to Age of Mythology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erebus
>>47077446
I think he is talking about the 40k Erebus who had a bunch of text tattooed on him.
>>47077160
Pretty much nailed it
>>47076417
On one hand I feel sorry for the guy on the left, but on the other I feel happy for the animator on the right since he gets to make a living off something he enjoys, even though the hours and pay are awful.
>>47075841
>Is "it's magic" an acceptable explanation for impractical armor and outfits
Yes
>and adventurers being attractive rather than homely assholes?
I always assume that this is because adventurers are the exceptional people and that adventurer are normally pretty fit
Mind you in a gritty, realistic, or "realistic" game neither of those may apply
>>47076447
>I just don't get what makes people think pics like >>47075841 (OP) is actually in any way sexual and appealing, to a point where they would insist that is how characters should look in their games.
Different strokes for different folks
>And it gets twice as bizzare when you consider we deal with a medium that isn't even visually based. What is the fucking point here?
The power of imagination anon
>>47075841
I wrote a setting booklet for a world in which everyone naturally projects a magical protective barrier around themselves from their skin. It can pass through clothing and armor, but not without being disrupted. The more mass it passes through, the more it's weakened.
Armor exists, but it doesn't do much at all.
Some people choose to wear a small amount of armor, but it's barely worth the added weight.
Not worth it at all if you want to be stealthy or comfortable.
Something I didn't consider at the time is that if you wore bikini armor, the parts covered by it would be "indentations" in the (hard) force field, which would guide strikes "into it."
I guess you could exploit that to more easily parry, if you were ready? The enemy weapon would become more predictable.
Its absolutely never acceptable, anime faggots who are all horny lonely virgins starting spamming this bullshit, doubt anyone who is actually sociable and actually does this hobby can do this kind of cringy shit with a straight face.
Filthy weebs pls.
I run a very realistic game, but you're free to wear cheesecake armor of you like.
However, we use hit locations so don't come crying when you catch an arrow in the gut and die of bleeding or infection.
>>47075841
This is how I usually explain it.In my setting, the goddess of women is also the goddess of protection and war.
>>47077160
So in a scifi setting perhaps the real protection is offered by invisible energy shields, which need projectors that are mounted on the body in order to protect said body. You COULD just cover your whole body in armor with countless tiny projectors to keep the shield constant across the surface of your body. BUT, if you are sufficiently shapely, you could also just wear a projector on each tit, your shoulders, down your arms a bit, your groin, and down your legs a bit, and the shielding would still project over your whole body. Rotund fatties obviously cant get away with this, despite its cost effectiveness, so a real warrior will spend a lot of time honing their figure.
>>47076066
If I had the skill to do it, in HunterXHunter Netero is fighting Meruem who rips his right leg off and to stop the bleeding he bulks up the muscles in his legs and forces the wound closed.
Or another example in Bleach where what's his face with the staff sets his shoulder back in place by just the power of is muscles alone.
>>47075841
>Is "it's magic" an acceptable explanation for impractical armor and outfits and adventurers being attractive rather than homely assholes?
No, you do it for the same reason you would play a muscle guy dressed in only a loincloth and boots. It's just fun to do because it would never work as well in real life,
If your GM and fellow players hate fun, you should drop them like a bad habit.
Yep.
A lot of things can be waved off with "A wizard did it".
>>47075864
best answer was first post
>>47080838
Look, I'd really recommend asking your party what they want out of the game beforehand. Otherwise, everyone's going to be too afraid to make any sort of character that seems abnormal in any way.
>>47079996
>wwwoombb
>>47075841
Sure, assuming your setting has magic.
In real life the answer is "shit's heavy."
It's why I usually just wore a plate carrier and not the whole kit.
If I was as good as swording as I am at shooting I'd probably go with breastplate / vambraces / greaves.
>>47079996
So your setting is full of warrior women?
Bikini armor will never be practical, it doesn't mean I don't like looking at it.
As for adventurers being attractive, it depends, but in most entertainment, heroes will be depicted as attractive. Let's be honest, though we are hard-wired to find certain traits attractive and gravitate towards those traits. Tests have been done with infants which show them pictures of people, some attractive others ugly. The babies spent almost twice as long looking at the attractive people.
I know I keep bringing this up, but the Witcher has an awesome deconstruction of this idea. Most Sorceresses are extremely beautiful women, but this is not natural. They will undergo extensive magical transmutation as part of their training. Female magic users in particular know the value of being good looking. Their looks are as much a weapon as anything else. However, because magic make women barren in the Witcherverse, noble families will offer up only their ugliest daughters to mage academies. The books actually describe "incredibly beautiful women with the cold, bitter eyes of ugly girls."
>>47084666
So do sorcerers NOT make themselves look like fit, handsome Adonises? If so, weird.
>>47080024
In a scifi setting you would go around naked because you would have a swarm of nanomachine flying around, protecting you from harm.
>>47077446
In the Warhammer Universe there was a dude named Erebus who was part of the Word Bearers and the cause of the Horus Heresy. The more depraved his Legion went he had runes tattooed over every inch of his body as a sign of worship to the Chaos Gods.
>>47085086
Agreed. If you're magical as fuck, why not indulge your vanity?
>>47075841
post the GMs face when you tell him that your character has a terrible disease that stops the growth of every body part at that of a small child except for the head, and that any "skin" they're seeing is actually just a part of a power armor.
>>47085086
>>47085979
It varies, some like Vilgefortz do make themselves into Adonises. Others consciously try to look as much like the Gandalf stereotype as they possibly can.
magic weapons negate magic armor, muh force field fags rekt, its all magic so I aint got to explain shit, we are back to square one
A vast majority of threats in the games people play would render all armor equally meaningless, so you may as well focus on what looks good.
>>47075841
Yes it is
Choose your character!
>>47075841
In a world of make believe with arbitrary rules, it doesn't have to be explained period. Seriously, all it takes is the author/group deciding that they enjoy impractical armor and that's the end of it. I feel like the constant need to explain it stems from people wanting to like it but needing something to hide behind if they get called out on it, just own up to it and admit you like seeing titties.
I had an idea for a setting once that people who controlled spirits to cast magical spells dressed provocatively to woo the eternally lustful spirits before bending them to their will and using their powers for spells.
I found that to be poor backstory compared to my story for illusionists, who would dress incredibly flashy in a show of their "true self"
>>47088616
Give me bare skin!
>>47075841
>Is "it's magic" an acceptable explanation for impractical armor and outfits and adventurers being attractive rather than homely assholes?
Yes. In fact, you don't even have to use magic as an excuse. You can just say "because it's cool."
>>47075841
The question of boobplate vs normal plate is rendered moot in any high magic setting where every Tom, Dick, and Harry Hedgewizard can electrocute, heat metal, or teleport/compel your fat metal ass to the bottom of lake/well.
With the other issue, I'd like to think most good DMs add a Physical Beauty stat that's separate from Charisma and let the player decide. In all likelihood though, Brave Sir Gallant the party face probably has a gorgeous face, perfect teeth, well kept luxurious hair, and a chin you could break granite with, even in the middle of combat.
>>47075841
If magic exists in the setting to the extent that it can imbue fabric with armor-like qualities or generate personal shields, or in some other manner protect the user from harm than yes. I personally don't ever have characters wear exceptionally revealing "armor" because I find it unappealing although I'm not the kind of person to bitch at others if they wanted their character to wear it in a game. If I want a character to have tough armor, I'll get proper normal armor for them.
>>47075841
It can be, but it frequently isn't.
That is, the reasons that a monk, wizard, or bard is wearing little armor frequently ends up being "it's magic" (or sometimes "it's training" for monk) because those classes are inherently magical, and so possessing magic warding on their clothes and the lesser armor they can wear makes sense. Plus, monks prefer freedom of movement while bards prefer freedom of their... charisma.
On the other hand, most of the drow and boobplate examples aren't done because of magic wards and stuff. They're just sexplate with some flimsy justification made for the design.
As for how practical it is, >>47075864 had it right. If your campaign and players are fine with it, then it works perfectly fine. If they aren't, then it's going to come across as silly and fetishy.
>>47076330
Most adventurers aren't soldiers. IRL the early modern period had a whole small class of transient, usually impoverished lesser nobles or clever overly educated commoners who figured out that the best way to forge ahead was doing crazy shit.
So sure, you get ugly people, you also get people like Casanova or Julie Maupin.
>>47075841
females that dress like this in fantasy settings can't be trusted. shes obviously trying to lure in men so she can steal your souls.
>>47077446
First Chaplain Eerebus of the Word Bearers covered his skin in tattoos of text from the Book of Lorgar (MEGA-heretical text). He was a bit of a dick, and really the one who got the Horus Heresy rolling.
>>47076890
That's pointless, though, because if magic exists in some capacity - which is a requisite for the topic to make any sense at all - it most likely exists in a form which can make glamered armor exist. If it doesn't then OP's post is literally just "Which settings allow glamered armor?"
Fucking autist.
>>47075841
Yes, but magic ON TOP of a solid layer of metal is even better.
>>47093284
Then I guess the nature of the battlefield decides whether it's worth the cost and/or the burden.
>>47082546
A properly-fitted suit of full plate armour is not that heavy. It weighed less than a US Army infantryman's kit and didn't interfere with your movement very much. I've seen guys in full armour do combat rolls and jumping jacks.
>>47076447
>we deal with a medium that isn't even visually based. What is the fucking point here?
>>47075841
I much prefer "It's magic"
than female oppression and sexism.
>>47095417
Societies with roleplaying games don't oppress women and aren't sexist. Go look for boogeymen somewhere else.
>>47095627
Tell that to rpgnet.
>>47084666
>The books actually describe "incredibly beautiful women with the cold, bitter eyes of ugly girls."
I really need to get into the Witcher series
>>47075841
There's few things in life that make me happier than big ol, barely restrained titties bouncing around like puppies playing under a rug.
>>47076739
Let's be honest, I'd rather have the naked women sitting on the big phat dragon hoard waiting to be liberated than something like the OP.
>>47095682
I respect your opinion and applaud your gif choice. May good things come your way in days to come.
It's a difficult issue for me. On one hand, yes, you could probably explain it through magic, and that would keep it from becoming way too common unless you were in a high fantasy setting. And it allows me to include other, less realistic sorts of armor - wood elves could wear wooden breastplates, you could have overly stylized armor made out of gold, etc.
On the other hand, simply including it makes me look like someone trying to shove their magical realm into the game, and honestly, instead of using flimsy armor, why not just do away with it and have some barbarian women go topless? Or just have enchanted clothes? Shouldn't such protective magic have a more obvious physical effect that would cover them anyway, even if opaquely?
If I can't fully justify it, even if I can explain it, and I feel worse for including it, I should probably leave it out.
>>47075841
Adventures aren't just a dime a dozen, if you've ever seen championship athletes for example you'll know they're all relatively attractive.
Now realize that the average hero is above even them, even if they were butt ugly before saving the world they would be considered beautiful out of sheer fame.
>>47075841
Yes. Any kind of explanation is acceptable for anything that's sexy.
>>47076912
You're literally autistic.
>>47088616
The bitch to the right looks so goddamn ugly in that armor.
>>47075841
>obligitory
>Obvious cheesecake thread
>only a handful of pics
>>47075841
Personally I'd accept a simple "I like sexy characters" and move on, just don't be a creeper about it in game
>>47101459
now shhh
>>47076299
>I never understood the appeal of blatant fanservice and cheap sexualization in fantasy either
>Using coded marxist speech
Oh boy here we go
>>47075864
beef/cheesecake? explain?
>>47097170
You make much sense acolyte...
THEREFOR IT MUST BE HERESY!!
>>47102920
Both of them basically mean softcore porn, except beef is in reference to men and cheesecake is in reference to women.
>>47075841
>>47104718
>>47104781
>>47092836
Literally The First Chaos Marine in history.
>>47102920
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefcake
Do skin-tight spacesuits count as skimpy?
>>47106288
No, they're practical, somehow.
>>47106309
Dang.
>>47106309
They also cover the entire body, so I think they cannot be skimpy by definition already.
>>47106349
Pardon me, Ma'am. Your zipper's undone.
>>47075841
Yes, if it's a rare occurrence in the setting. If it's not, it's part of the visual style and doesn't need any justification to begin with.
>>47101459
I know that feel
Nano-forcefields, son.
>>47106534
She's had her arms removed to better integrate her organic body with the machine, and possibly her legs, too. Top-tier waifu-material here, gentlemen.
>>47075841
um yea. alter self, friends, prestid-howeveryoufuckingspellit.
besides, a wizard can get ac off of 18 gauge wire "bracers," and barbars get free ac for being nekkid just cause.
>>47080024
Well in your pic for example.
You went practically naked because the environment didn't support it, or materials were lacking. Such a waste of cloth to just cut it into unsightly shapes and hang it off your body all day.
>>47104718
I find it funny that a company that became famous for their giant breast and penis monster goes out of their way to avoid any nudity complete with ridiculous bondage strap outfits and low-rider panties.
>>47077104
>But in extremely different ways and extremely different context. Female might flaunt her sexual attractivity in relative privacy in an attempt to attract an exogamic mate, for an example. But not on a fucking battlefield.
Plenty of things happen on a fantasy RPG battlefield that never happens or happened on a real battlefield. In fact RPG battles tend to be nothing like real battles at all.
>>47111648
So magnets?
