Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 08, 2022, 07:52:34 AM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 08, 2022, 07:37:14 AM
And yet, if you look at the size of the 'erotic romance' market for women on Amazon it's fooking huge! Are they all fapping to bald overweight middle aged men. I think not! Look at the covers, they are all 'roided' up bear chested men (or werewolves). Not to mention the 'explicit' content in the pages too.

No no no! It's different when it's powerful, bare-chested barbarians because somethingsomethingpowerfantasy! Ignore that the men on the covers of the romance novels look functionally identical! Questioning similarities like that is sexist! Also viking god Chris Hemsworth Thor appears shirtless in every movie ONLY for PURELY narrative reasons!

Brilliant! 

Quote from: Omega on January 08, 2022, 12:39:18 AM

Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 07, 2022, 09:14:28 AM
"Oh but much realism..."

"Okay so you're suddenly going to say a blind swordsman shouldn't be viable? And of course you're railing against the wheel-chair adventurer because 'muh realism'... Oh and all the stylized clothing HAS to go, right? And leather armor? LEATHER? That's not realistic. Jettison it. All that crazy hair color and improbable adventures these adventurers are having? THAT doesn't seem too realistic either... Oh speaking of armor why not speak of weaponry? Those oversized swords with accoutrements or fighting unarmed against armed & armored opponents? SO LONG TO ALL THAT! Right??"

And, naturally, no no no...that can all stay because "vague fantasy reasons that allow that to happen because I want it in but that thing you want that is straight-out because muh realism"

It's just such transparent bullshit.

Exactly all this for a time was infesting LARPs with the "Thoku" movement.
Handicapped players? Nope. Verboten as Glasses are unrealistic. Only the pretty people can play.
Clothing? Most colours are verboten as that is unrealistic. Except for those special people that can.
Armour? ditto.
and on down the line to the point that they got their realism and real blood and injuries. Which was really the goal. "Its not real till you bleed!!!"

All the while spitting on any other style or concerns of safety.

Don't confuse characters with the players.

Nobody has a problem with meeting a handicapped player halfway. But a handicapped character needs to bring something serious to the table or it breaks realism.

(There's a reason why oracle curses in PF are double-edged swords, and even then some curses are a fucking pain to deal with)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on January 08, 2022, 08:02:43 AM
Don't confuse characters with the players.

Nobody has a problem with meeting a handicapped player halfway. But a handicapped character needs to bring something serious to the table or it breaks realism.

(There's a reason why oracle curses in PF are double-edged swords, and even then some curses are a fucking pain to deal with)

Too blanket of a statement. It largely depends.

Zatoichi, for example, is quite blind which is a severe handicap...but the concept of a 'blind swordsman' doesn't necessarily 'break realism'. For some this MIGHT break realism...but in general fantasy adventure, it likely doesn't. A character could also be missing an entire limb and not necessarily be onerously mechanically penalized.

Similarly, depending on the setting, many other maladies or handicaps might be compensated for via other means

So it depends on quite a bit. 'Realism' is inherent on the internal consistency of the milieu

EDIT:

Also, funny it should be mentioned, because my wife's longest running character is a PF oracle dark elf

QuoteDo you believe in some mystical ability for bikini clad women to have full AC just because you like looking at cleavage in rpg art. Just admit that you like looking at sexy women in rpg art because it turns you on and just move on and be mature about things. Stop making it anymore than that.

Actually there is official setting to D&D where being sexy gives you better AC than plate armour. Ironically enough it's probably one of wokest settings.

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 08, 2022, 08:32:00 AM

QuoteDo you believe in some mystical ability for bikini clad women to have full AC just because you like looking at cleavage in rpg art. Just admit that you like looking at sexy women in rpg art because it turns you on and just move on and be mature about things. Stop making it anymore than that.

Actually there is official setting to D&D where being sexy gives you better AC than plate armour. Ironically enough it's probably one of wokest settings.

Which setting is that?

Blue Rose.

Quite a few classes have a Cha bonus added to AC ability...so that is something to consider too

Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 03:24:05 AM

Quote from: Slambo on January 07, 2022, 09:35:42 AM

Quote from: fixable on January 07, 2022, 03:23:34 AM

Quote from: Gog to Magog on January 06, 2022, 01:05:20 AM

Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:28:32 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on January 05, 2022, 03:24:42 AM

Quote from: fixable on January 05, 2022, 03:13:47 AM
I mostly play with women and they like playing attractive characters that are dressed less like sex objects and more like actual female adventurers.

That does not sound very realistic.

Yeah sure. It doesn't sound realistic for female gamers to visualize themselves as female adventurers. All women want to be chainmail bikini clad vixens. Right whatever you say. What do you know about the people I game with?

My wife that has been playing since she was a teen has explicitly only ever wanted to play 'sexy' characters even going as far as to prefer to play non-armor clad ones so the art she can find for them can be sexier.

She prefers art that is more overtly stylized, sexualized, idealized and unrealistic. She likes bare chested Conan and barely-clad girl. She likes cleavage & skirt-armor.

She's been playing this game longer than the tourists infesting the space now demanding it be changed to their mercurial, impossible-to-please tastes so that they can then immediately move on to whatever pop culture tells them is popular...

...I value her opinion more.

Ok fair enough. But that's a personal taste that is not necessarily shared by others.

Its cool that your wife prefers that style, but why would she or you be offended if the art style changes for those who don't prefer it? You value her opinion more and of course that should be without question. But there are other people who have different opinions.

I value my friends' opinions over yours; and none of my friends, male or female, are cool with oversexualiztion of women in the game. Why is your opinion more important than mine or my own friends?

Edit: again it is cool you and yours dig chain mail bikini's but why are there aspersions cast against those who don't?

Are you stupid? You came in here cssting aspersions at people who like chainmail bikinis.

And tbh i doubt you have friends.

You keep asking like your personal choice is right then when anyone contradicts you you go "well thats just your opinion"

Seriously im scared if you do have a daughter considering most of you male feminist tyoes end up being sexual predators.

wow. good one. you are pretty much irredeemable at this point. I mean you are calling me a sexual predator based on nothing more that you don't like what I have to say. Ok cool good one. I'd report you but I got the feeling that admins of this message board would champion you on for that. But I will take that as a win. I win the argument since you have to resort to ad hominem attacks against me.

So there you go. You lost and you also revealed how deplorable you are at the same time. Why can't you actually engage me with logic instead of these attacks? I mean it can't be that hard, right?

Thats actually called the fallacy fallacy, a fallcy that ifnyour opponent uses a fallacy that you win the argument. So yeah

Also you came in swinging with ad homeinems that people were stuck in the past and all that bullshit

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 08, 2022, 08:45:56 AM
Blue Rose.

Are you sure that is an official setting? It does not show up in any of the official settings lists that I found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings
https://www.enworld.org/wiki/dnd_settings/

It is listed as a third-party campaign setting in the EN World list.

That said, it could be that I am just not finding the correct information. Can you point me to the information you have seen that denotes Blue Rose as an official D&D setting.

Thanks.

True. My mistake.

Nymph's in 3.5 explicitly add their Charisma to their AC (and saves!). They're so sexy they get better defense from it.

I'll add that in 5E, the Swashbuckler NPC has "Suave Defense" where Charisma is added to AC...

So that's explicitly hotness to Armor Class in both 3.5 and the current edition

I am endlessly amused that after opening up this can of worms with a stupid strawman, things have gone exactly opposite to the desired result 

RAW sexiness added to AC. Hilarious

EDIT:

LMAO I actually just realized the Swashbuckler example even has the provision that they HAVE to be wearing LESS. Light or no armor otherwise they don't get the bonus. Amazing.

Quote from: fixable on January 08, 2022, 04:16:37 AM

Quote from: Hzilong on January 08, 2022, 04:11:09 AM
Got some real Kung Pow vibes here: "I'm bleeding, making me the victor."

Honestly engage instead of the usual claim someone is a sexual predator.

I actually do want to apologize for that particular comment.

I do think you're arguing in bad faith just assuming the majority of people agree with you. But i do think i went a little too far.

Quote from: dkabq on January 08, 2022, 08:54:49 AM

Quote from: Wrath of God on January 08, 2022, 08:45:56 AM
Blue Rose.

Are you sure that is an official setting? It does not show up in any of the official settings lists that I found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_campaign_settings
https://www.enworld.org/wiki/dnd_settings/

It is listed as a third-party campaign setting in the EN World list.

That said, it could be that I am just not finding the correct information. Can you point me to the information you have seen that denotes Blue Rose as an official D&D setting.

Thanks.

Nah. Blue Rose isn't, and has never been, an official WoTC or TSR setting. It's been third party since day one, back in the 3.x days where it started.

Confession: despite it's explicit SJWism, I still find Blue Rose strangely interesting. So far I've resisted the temptation to buy it. And I have enough on my "to buy" list that isn't SJW-infested that there's no danger of me giving in.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on January 07, 2022, 06:35:29 PMNo, it's only me that has absolutely no class.

I was going to write something to the effect that subsequent postings proved you wrong on that. But that would not be entirely correct since even the posting immediately preceding yours did.

In any case, suit yourself, but I don't think you're accomplishing much with the triple approach of being deliberately a.) uncivil , b.) obtuse and c.) irritable. That is beside the fact I personally find it rather off-putting.

Quote from: Wulfhelm on January 08, 2022, 12:43:44 PM
being deliberately a.) uncivil , b.) obtuse and c.) irritable. That is beside the fact I personally find it rather off-putting.

Uncivil - Agreed! Absolutely... There's no reason to pander or even communicate with woke scolds, book burners or highly religious zealots. They should be openly mocked, insulted and steamrolled out of the way (metaphorically speaking).

Anyone that is against free speech, pro-censorship and therefore 'anti-art' are pure scum, and should be treated as so. Although I'm perfectly civil to people I like.

Obtuse - Hm.. If you find what I say 'obtuse' then I think you lack either intelligence or critical thinking skills.

Irritable - It depends... Are you saying that I'm irritable, or you find me irritating? Actually, don't bother answering that, because I couldn't give a fuck.

First off, I'm deeelighted you find me off putting. The only goal I have here, in this particular conversation, is to piss on woke scold oxygen thieves, and trolls who engage in sea-lioning. Incidentally, it was TBH who first taught me about that phrase.

There's no need to have a constructive argument with you, or that other bed wetter. As you are both here under disingenuous circumstances.

I actually have no problem with people who are woke per se. And I have no problem with people playing games anyway they want. But I do highly object, to woke scold bullying while telling others what they should and shouldn't do in their games, or when they try to stymie other creators because their games, books or whatever are not 'woke' enough for the uber politically correct.

Simply put, treat others, as they treat you...

So quoting the immortal words of the late Peter Steel They can all "S.M.D."