Why to hate the shape of breasts in plate armor


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Because of reasons.

Artists take note!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Here let me tell you why (besides historical inaccuracy) I don't like breast armor."

*Proceeds to give reasons based solely on historical accuracy*

Just because you say "But here's how it would work IRL!" doesn't mean it's not the same objection.

Just sayin'.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

"Here let me tell you why (besides historical inaccuracy) I don't like breast armor."

*Proceeds to give reasons based solely on historical accuracy*

Only if you think that history and physics are the same subject.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Please try not to get History in my Fantasy. I like beautiful, full figured women in armor. I like it, and there are very few things left that I can hold onto that keep me from putting a gun in my mouth.


Terquem wrote:
Please try not to get History in my Fantasy. I like beautiful, full figured women in armor. I like it, and there are very few things left that I can hold onto that keep me from putting a gun in my mouth.

Well, in your fantasy, you can include magical padding for the sternum area.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I like beautiful, full figured women in armor, but I do not need them to have boob-shaped armor for me to enjoy them. First of all, boob shaped armor still doesn't look like boobs (IMO it in fact looks ugly and dumb), and second of all if I want to look at boobs (other than my own) I'll just look at porn and not fantasy art (I mean, really, that is what the Internet is for), and third of all, while I love boobies, women turn out to have beautiful features all over their body, and having the very occasional art piece that draws the eye to somewhere other than the chest... let's be daring and nonconventional and suggest a body part like, oh, the face... that would be nice once in awhile.

And although she's more slender than full figured, I could look at Leelee Sobieski as Joan of Arc (one of the examples posted in the link) all day... hells yeah.

And the last picture, the fantasy drawing, that woman is damn sexy. That's the kind of fantasy artwork I'd love to see more often.


Eh. No good reason to hate. It's not as silly as high heels for fighting. It's still a layer of steel. And the 'which way weapons slide' argument only holds if the person in the armor is also wearing a gorget, etc. Boob-bump armor is as ridiculous as an overlarge codpiece, and that's how I tend to see it. Artists and writers take note, I don't see 'stacked armored babe', I see 'needs to advertise'. Which is about as flattering on a female as on a male. (However true it may be for either).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love boobplate. But i understand not everyone does.


I will admit, it's nowhere near as WTF as the preg-armor Barbie dolls I once saw on the net. The dolls' armor was amazing, they were just also all pregnant, and apparently so was their armor. I mean, there was a whole fleet of them. o_O When do you need a whole army of extremely late-term women? And they say drinking is bad for the baby? How about getting rung like a bell?

But yeah, boob-plate is annoying. I agree with DeathQuaker.


Also realistic full plate looks nice to some people too.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

The author fails to take into account the one benefit of the design: distracting the opponent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe there should be a male version, then, with a strategically placed gap to allow one's glory to shine forth, or (alternatively) some sort of eye-popping steel 'aesthetic enhancement' to the same area. If anything would prove distracting, that certainly would, and it would also make sure your opponent was at least nine inches away from you at all times.

EDIT: Oh, what a surprise. History is filthy (NSFW?)


Limeylongears wrote:

Maybe there should be a male version, then, with a strategically placed gap to allow one's glory to shine forth, or (alternatively) some sort of eye-popping steel 'aesthetic enhancement' to the same area. If anything would prove distracting, that certainly would, and it would also make sure your opponent was at least nine inches away from you at all times.

Wasnt this called the cod piece? I am pretty sure it existed and in abundance. Though it isnt common in fantasy art. Certainly not as common proportionally impractical female armor.

Shadow Lodge

All you heavily armored types are historically inaccurate with your small codpieces.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

See the linked photo. Yes, it did, but there's a difference between your common and garden codpiece and something that could have your eye out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This reminds me of the recent Penny Arcade comic about Dragon's Crown.

Well, that and my occasional usage of 'that's as useful as nipples on a breastplate' during gaming sessions.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

"Here let me tell you why (besides historical inaccuracy) I don't like breast armor."

*Proceeds to give reasons based solely on historical accuracy*

Only if you think that history and physics are the same subject.

They're quite closely related in this case.

What he's saying, in a roundabout way is "Boob armor didn't exist in history because it was impractical and dangerous".

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thornborn wrote:
Eh. No good reason to hate. It's not as silly as high heels for fighting. It's still a layer of steel. And the 'which way weapons slide' argument only holds if the person in the armor is also wearing a gorget, etc. Boob-bump armor is as ridiculous as an overlarge codpiece, and that's how I tend to see it. Artists and writers take note, I don't see 'stacked armored babe', I see 'needs to advertise'. Which is about as flattering on a female as on a male. (However true it may be for either).

Read the article. A codpiece won't kill you if you fall face forward, even a quite large one; boob armor will, by shattering your sternum.

Vic Wertz wrote:
The author fails to take into account the one benefit of the design: distracting the opponent.

A woman doesn't need boob shaped armor to attract the kind of guy who thinks with his codpiece. Really, the options are fairly endless. :)

In fact, "look, boobs!" often works even when there aren't any. I know, I've tried. On the same person. Innumerable times. Hasn't failed yet.

Now, if you want historical boobage, I'm pretty sure I read in a book of historical costumes that some female blacksmiths (yes, they existed) worked topless, for the same reason male blacksmiths did--they got hot, and risked taking off aprons and shirts to not sweat to death. SO: there, you can have history, practicality, and partial nudity all in one. You just gotta look in the right places.


Lamontius wrote:

This reminds me of the recent Penny Arcade comic about Dragon's Crown.

Well, that and my occasional usage of 'that's as useful as nipples on a breastplate' during gaming sessions.

wuv that game.


My witch does not need metal boobs to distract. He simply goes into lurid and graphic detail about his latest daliance with a Calistrian courtesan.

You'll hardly even notice the spiders and knives, I promise.

Well, until they're in you, I suppose.


Better tell the ancient Greeks and Romans stop to putting 6 packs and pecs on their breastplates.

Not practical - but it showed off your status if you could afford custom armor.

Or if you see the acid etched intricate design work on some of the suits still surviving in the Landeszeughaus in Graz, Austria.

People bling out their gear... Its natural human nature, I am sure there is a reality show called Pimp my platemail.


DeathQuaker wrote:


Now, if you want historical boobage, I'm pretty sure I read in a book of historical costumes that some female blacksmiths (yes, they existed) worked topless, for the same reason male blacksmiths did--they got hot, and risked taking off aprons and shirts to not sweat to death. SO: there, you can have history, practicality, and partial nudity all in one. You just gotta look in the right places.

*golf claps while nodding appreciatively*

Thank you DQ, thank you.

Assistant Software Developer

I removed a post. That kind of tone is really not helpful in a thread like this.


Here's an article from kotaku on the subject:

http://kotaku.com/5868925/the-problem-with-womens-armor-according-to-a-man- who-makes-armor

I think boob plate and the cleavage window are dumb, but products featuring them sell (there are a fair number of teenage guys and juvenile-ish older guys who play rpgs and mmos). Some friends had a small, independent rpg company for about two years. These were experienced rpg developers who formed their own company. Distributors wouldn't carry their books, and a distributor said they "didn't have enough big guns and girls with big boobs to make their products appealing to the teenage boys who drive the market." This was about ten years ago and hopefully things have gotten a little better. But there are fewer fans of realistic armor than fans of boob plate and the cleavage window, I suspect.

Scarab Sages

Limeylongears wrote:

Maybe there should be a male version, then, with a strategically placed gap to allow one's glory to shine forth, or (alternatively) some sort of eye-popping steel 'aesthetic enhancement' to the same area. If anything would prove distracting, that certainly would, and it would also make sure your opponent was at least nine inches away from you at all times.

EDIT: Oh, what a surprise. History is filthy (NSFW?)

Wow that was hilarious, i knda wished they have a sideview photo. That was ridiculous


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There are articles that explain why something is unrealistic.

There are articles that explain why something is dumb, and you're having badwrongfun if you like it.

Which one does the article linked to in the first post fall under?


Alzrius wrote:

There are articles that explain why something is unrealistic.

There are articles that explain why something is dumb, and you're having badwrongfun if you like it.

Which one does the article linked to in the first post fall under?

Actually, there are articles that explain why something is unrealistic.

There are articles that explain why something is dumb.
There are articles that explain that you're having badwrongfun.

The linked article is the second kind. Boobplate would kill the wearer in a world with real physics. That doesn't mean it's unrealistic, as there's all sorts of dumb ceremonial armor out there. That doesn't mean it's wrong, as you can always claim A Wizard Did It.

But it does mean that, absent a friendly wizard, it's dumb.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Actually, there are articles that explain why something is unrealistic.

There are articles that explain why something is dumb.
There are articles that explain that you're having badwrongfun.

I feel the need to clarify my original post.

I equated "dumb" with "badwrongfun" because both are value judgments, in that you're indicting that which someone else enjoys, something I find does little except encourage attitudes of defensiveness and vitriol.

When I mentioned things that were "unrealistic" however, I was attempting to invoke instances of discussing the problems or issues with something in an objective manner - that is, without any discussion of the qualitative merit of a given thing.

In that regard "unrealistic" was meant to be shorthand for "has significant problems/drawbacks if you attempt to create/use this in the real world, to the point where they defeat the intended merit of said thing."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a good thing this is a fantasy game, then.

I always remember House Rule #2: Realism Is Bad.


Alzrius wrote:


I equated "dumb" with "badwrongfun" because both are value judgments, in that you're indicting that which someone else enjoys, something I find does little except encourage attitudes of defensiveness and vitriol.

When I mentioned things that were "unrealistic" however, I was attempting to invoke instances of discussing the problems or issues with something in an objective manner - that is, without any discussion of the qualitative merit of a given thing.

Fair enough. In my experience, questions of realism are usually shorthand for historical accuracy; e.g. no, the Vikings didn't wear lorica segmenta, 'cause,... well, they just didn't, that's why. There aren't any women priests in the Catholic Church, 'cause,... well, there just aren't. There's nothing that kept Roman matrons from enjoying popcorn at the circus except that popcorn was a New World plant.

On the other hand, there's a fairly good reason why Roman matrons didn't enjoy death cap mushrooms that transcends mere historical accident. I think "kills you when you use it" is a pretty robust explanation for the widespread absence across time and space of both death cap fritters and boobplate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Captain Abandon ship! Women and children first!
First Officer (disguised as an Indian): And Indians!
Captain: Yes, here is a revised list. Women, children, Red Indians and … what's that meant to be?
Third Officer (in costume): Well it's sort of what a Renaissance courtier artist might have looked like at the court of one of the great families like the Medicis or the Borgias...
Fourth Officer: No it's not, it's more Flemish than Italian.
Fifth Officer: Yes - that's a Flemish merchant of the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries...
Third Officer: What! With these tassles?
Fourth Officer: Yes, yes. They had those fined doublets going tapering down into the full hose, you know - exactly like that.
Captain: One moment, please, don't panic. I've got to tell them something... is it a Flemish merchant?
Third Officer: No, it is not a Flemish merchant. It's more a sort of idealized version of the complete Renaissance Man...
CAPTION: 'A FEW DAYS LATER'
Cut to a police chief's office in an anonymous South American police state. The chief of police at his desk. From outside we hear footsteps approaching the office and voices.
Third Officer's Voice: Flemish merchants did not wear hand-embroidered chevrons. They did NOT!

--Monty Python, "World War I Sketch"--


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Fair enough. In my experience, questions of realism are usually shorthand for historical accuracy; e.g. no, the Vikings didn't wear lorica segmenta, 'cause,... well, they just didn't, that's why. There aren't any women priests in the Catholic Church, 'cause,... well, there just aren't. There's nothing that kept Roman matrons from enjoying popcorn at the circus except that popcorn was a New World plant.

I don't disagree with you here; while most fantasy role-playing games take some (if not many) of their trappings from medieval Europe, that's still only a cosmetic relationship, and so not (in-and-of itself) a cause for the "effect" of why things are the way they are in the game world.

Quote:
On the other hand, there's a fairly good reason why Roman matrons didn't enjoy death cap mushrooms that transcends mere historical accident. I think "kills you when you use it" is a pretty robust explanation for the widespread absence across time and space of both death cap fritters and boobplate.

The issue I have here is that the game world often, if not usually, has a very casual relationship with real-world physics (this is primarily, but not completely, due to magic), and so articles such as the one that the original poster linked to seem "selective," by which I mean that they've found a very minor area of the game to critique for its cognitive dissonance.

The underlying understanding (insofar as I recognize it) is that the game rules are the "physics" of how the game world works, rather than demanding strict fealty to real-world physics. Now, obviously that can cause some problems at a micro level, but if you don't look too hard (that is, don't intentionally attempt to find a disconnect between the game rules and how things would work according to real-world physics) then things work just fine for the most part.

Now, this can certainly be twisted. One can state that plate armor is plate armor - in that it provides certain mechanical benefits and penalties - and any alterations to it are purely cosmetic, with no game-related functions. This is what I've previously called the representative view of the issue.

On the other hand, you can twist it in the other direction, such as by stating that a character is taking a movement penalty because they've developed terrible blisters from walking, since they've never purchased new boots over ten levels of game-play. This is an (admittedly somewhat exaggerated) example of the "verisimilitude view" from the article linked to above.

Insofar as Pathfinder is concerned, I prefer (and I'm of the opinion that most other players feel similarly) to give more leeway to the game rules, rather than demanding strict adherence to real-world physics (e.g. representative, not verisimilitude). I say this because the game rules unto themselves are full of (non-magical) examples of things that fly in the face of how things work in the real world.

For example, barbarians who get so angry that it makes them see in the dark (the night vision rage power, which is extraordinary) or monks that can speak to any living creature, regardless of the language involved (tongue of the sun and moon, which is extraordinary). If characters can do things like this without any kind of supernatural assistance, why is unrealistic armor a point of contention?

This is without even getting into the idea that enchanting boob-plate armor erases the issues with wearing it, simply because "it's magic."

Ultimately, I suspect that many, if not most, of the people who dislike boob-plate are being somewhat disingenuous if they say that their only reason for this dislike is its unrealistic nature - I believe that their dislike is political; that is, that they have ideological issues with women depicted as sex objects in a manner that (by the real-world physics of that armor) compromises the utility of the gear that they're using.

That's nothing unreasonable or otherwise objectionable about that opinion (at least to me); I just wish that they'd state that that was the reason instead of making a polemical about the "unrealism" of the armor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:


The issue I have here is that the game world often, if not usually, has a very casual relationship with real-world physics (this is primarily, but not completely, due to magic), and so articles such as the one that the original poster linked to seem "selective," by which I mean that they've found a very minor area of the game to critique for its cognitive dissonance.

The underlying understanding (insofar as I recognize it) is that the game rules are the "physics" of how the game world works, rather than demanding strict fealty to real-world physics.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning, for several reasons. Meta-gaming, the ruleset is far too small to be the physics of how the game works. As a simple example, there are only a few bestiaries, but more than 62,000 identified vertebrate species (and more than 1.3 million invertebrate ones). It's obvious, to me at least, that the Bestiary lists only some of the more interesting creatures out there, but if my PC wants to be a birdwatcher as a hobby, she can find all sorts of mundane things that never made it into the bestiaries as well as more exotic birds like Rocs. Similarly, I don't think there are any game stats for morel mushrooms -- but that's exactly the type of thing that my halfling with Profession (cook) would be looking for ALL THE TIME on long walks through the forest.

Boiling water is still hot enough to burn even though it's never mentioned in the books, sounds get quieter the further away you are from the source, diamonds will scratch glass instead of the other way around, and, yes, a heavy object and a light object will fall from a tower at about the same rate, just like Galileo is famously supposed to have shown. I don't think RAW addresses any of those.

So the baseline that I use is that Pathfinder (or D&D) physics is roughly like real-world physics unless magic specifically intervenes, and in the case of human-crafted artefacts, magic is relatively rare and uncommon. More people have chickens in their yard than Roc chicks; a peasant's draft horse is shod with iron, not adamantium; and if you make a wall of brick, you don't need to enchant it to make it fireproof, but if you make a wall of wood, you do.

Quote:


Ultimately, I suspect that many, if not most, of the people who dislike boob-plate are being somewhat disingenuous if they say that their only reason for this dislike is its unrealistic nature - I believe that their dislike is political; that is, that they have ideological issues with women depicted as sex objects in a manner that (by the real-world physics of that armor) compromises the utility of the gear that they're using.

I think you're at least partly wrong. I've known a lot of armor gearheads, and one characteristic they share -- or they wouldn't be armor gearheads -- is a deep appreciation both of the technical skill that goes into making armor, and the incredible subtlety of design that also went into making armor that was usable. These are often the same people who point out that, no, the katana wasn't a lightsaber capable of cutting through the hull of a battleship, and that there was actually a reason that claymores and similar greatswords were typically only six pounds or so in weight. People have always been able to make stupidly large swords if they wanted to, but if you ever tried to use an anime-style sword in a fight, you'd die.

But that's not a sexism or political issue; that's a "don't the artists know enough about how this stuff works?" issue.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Rynjin wrote:

"Here let me tell you why (besides historical inaccuracy) I don't like breast armor."

*Proceeds to give reasons based solely on historical accuracy*

Just because you say "But here's how it would work IRL!" doesn't mean it's not the same objection.

Just sayin'.

We've had this discussion already - many times.

FACT: The realism/fantasy disagreement on this subject is rooted.
FACT: It is based on personal preferences; so no amount of argument will change anyone's base positions.

The above to facts are not going to change.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:

I don't agree with this line of reasoning, for several reasons. Meta-gaming, the ruleset is far too small to be the physics of how the game works. As a simple example, there are only a few bestiaries, but more than 62,000 identified vertebrate species (and more than 1.3 million invertebrate ones). It's obvious, to me at least, that the Bestiary lists only some of the more interesting creatures out there, but if my PC wants to be a birdwatcher as a hobby, she can find all sorts of mundane things that never made it into the bestiaries as well as more exotic birds like Rocs. Similarly, I don't think there are any game stats for morel mushrooms -- but that's exactly the type of thing that my halfling with Profession (cook) would be looking for ALL THE TIME on long walks through the forest.

Boiling water is still hot enough to burn even though it's never mentioned in the books, sounds get quieter the further away you are from the source, diamonds will scratch glass instead of the other way around, and, yes, a heavy object and a light object will fall from a tower at about the same rate, just like Galileo is famously supposed to have shown. I don't think RAW addresses any of those.

I wanted to call attention to the last sentence in the above quote, because it underlines what I think is the flaw in your counterargument.

The game rules don't address any of the things you mention - that places it outside of the issue of "the rules are the physics of the game world." The Bestiary doesn't state, either implicitly or explicitly, that what it (and future volumes) contains are the sum total of life-forms in the game world. The rules don't deal at all with questions of cooking (save for the occasional skill check), and so it's not a question of "rules versus realism."

To put it another way, the relevant issue is areas where the game rules (create results that) conflict with real-world physics, not where the game rules are silent on an issue of said physics.

That said, I will admit that perhaps I should have amended my previous statement to "the game rules are the physics of the game world for the things they detail; otherwise, default to the real world."

Quote:
So the baseline that I use is that Pathfinder (or D&D) physics is roughly like real-world physics unless magic specifically intervenes, and in the case of human-crafted artefacts, magic is relatively rare and uncommon. More people have chickens in their yard than Roc chicks; a peasant's draft horse is shod with iron, not adamantium; and if you make a wall of brick, you don't need to enchant it to make it fireproof, but if you make a wall of wood, you do.

That doesn't speak to the examples I raised before about barbarian night vision or a monk using tongue of the sun and moon.

Quote:

I think you're at least partly wrong. I've known a lot of armor gearheads, and one characteristic they share -- or they wouldn't be armor gearheads -- is a deep appreciation both of the technical skill that goes into making armor, and the incredible subtlety of design that also went into making armor that was usable. These are often the same people who point out that, no, the katana wasn't a lightsaber capable of cutting through the hull of a battleship, and that there was actually a reason that claymores and similar greatswords were typically only six pounds or so in weight. People have always been able to make stupidly large swords if they wanted to, but if you ever tried to use an anime-style sword in a fight, you'd die.

But that's not a sexism or political issue; that's a "don't the artists know enough about how this stuff works?" issue.

Hence why I said "I suspect" (to denote that this was my belief), and "many, if not most" (to denote that there were some for whom that wasn't true). That said, I don't think that the majority of the people are upset about this as a purely technical issue; I believe that the majority are arguing as a political issue, framed in the discussion of physical realism in armor.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

what the-
where did all the fun go


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lamontius wrote:

what the-

where did all the fun go

I killed it; I needed the XP.


Alzrius wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:


Boiling water is still hot enough to burn even though it's never mentioned in the books, sounds get quieter the further away you are from the source, diamonds will scratch glass instead of the other way around, and, yes, a heavy object and a light object will fall from a tower at about the same rate, just like Galileo is famously supposed to have shown. I don't think RAW addresses any of those.

I wanted to call attention to the last sentence in the above quote, because I think it underlines what I think is the flaw in your counterargument.

The game rules don't address any of the things you mention - that places it outside of the issue of "the rules are the physics of the game world." The Bestiary doesn't state, either implicitly or explicitly, that what it (and future volumes) contains are the sum total of life-forms in the game world. The rules don't deal at all with questions of cooking (save for the occasional skill check), and so it's not a question of "rules versus realism."

To put it another way, the relevant issue is areas where the game rules (create results that) conflict with real-world physics, not where the game rules are silent on an issue of said physics.

I don't think we're in disagreement. But carry it out a little further -- just as the rules are silent on whether or not boiling water will burn you, the rules are also silent on what factors influence the design of armor. In the real world, boobplate could kill you; this is something that you might want to thing about if you are trying to run a relatively realistic world with hard (plausible) physics.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I don't think we're in disagreement.

I'm not sure I agree.

Quote:
But carry it out a little further -- just as the rules are silent on whether or not boiling water will burn you, the rules are also silent on what factors influence the design of armor.

The rules aren't silent on what factors influence the design of armor, though. The Craft skill check is detailed (to say nothing of the nature of the armor itself, as per its game rules).

Quote:
In the real world, boobplate could kill you; this is something that you might want to thing about if you are trying to run a relatively realistic world with hard (plausible) physics.

Insofar as running a game world with hard (that is, real-world) physics, certainly. But Pathfinder (which is what I've been using as the example in the discussion thus far), and D&D by extension, is not that game.


Lamontius wrote:

what the-

where did all the fun go

Some people consider it fun to know how things work. Knowing something about the actual physics behind scimitars and broadswords can provide a justification for game mechanics like damage types, damage dice, and critical ranges.

Ever wonder why a scimitar crits on an 18 but a longsword doesn't?


Large codpieces were supposed to give stability to a rider by being fastened in a saddle, IIRC. But nipples, well, you only get to have nipples on your full plate if you are Batman.


I wonder how that worked - fitted into a socket in a saddle, or something? Wouldn't that be a bit risky if you were hit hard, or would the armour, etc., be constructed so as to absorb or disperse the shock? Interesting....


As I understood it, it was fitted into a saddle socket. If hit hard enough, either the codpiece or the saddle would likely break... and seriously, in either case, I think the risk of a... ummm... sausage break... would be pretty minimal.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

DeathQuaker wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
The author fails to take into account the one benefit of the design: distracting the opponent.

A woman doesn't need boob shaped armor to attract the kind of guy who thinks with his codpiece. Really, the options are fairly endless. :)

In fact, "look, boobs!" often works even when there aren't any. I know, I've tried. On the same person. Innumerable times. Hasn't failed yet.

Hey, jumping to conclusions! Perhaps the distraction I was thinking of is the moment where the opponent stops to note that your poorly conceived armor will fracture your sternum.

Spoiler:
Yeah, ok, it wasn't really the distraction I was thinking of.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That could work. They might be so horrified at your flouting of sensible Health & Safety regulations that they'd run off to fill in a risk assessment form, at which point you can sneak up behind them and STAB THEM IN THE BACK!


That will teach them! And the lesson is... You don't get a second chance!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Part of me likes vikings in horned helmets and roman emperor going to battle with their nipple-and-belly-button breastplates.

Another part of me enjoys the more realistically-accurate/practical depictions or armour in fantasy, based on a specific era and geography.

Both parts of me think that a woman can be very beautiful and sexy in a boob-less/cleavage-lees armour and for that matter, that not all fantasy women need to be beautiful nor sexy in order to become strong and memorable characters.

In short, we can argue all we want but in the end is a matter of taste, as it has been said before. I don't think horned helmets and boob-plates are bad taste, I don't think medieval accuracy is snobbish. Fantasy can afford to be fantastic when it wants too, or impose realities similar to our own. I prefer when the campaign proposes strong guideline toward one or the other and tries to stay coherent, but that's just me.

'findel


Laurefindel wrote:

Part of me likes vikings in horned helmets and roman emperor going to battle with their nipple-and-belly-button breastplates.

But roman leaders did go into battle with nipple-and-belly-button breastplates. They also had 6-pack abs.


Caineach wrote:
Laurefindel wrote:

Part of me likes vikings in horned helmets and roman emperor going to battle with their nipple-and-belly-button breastplates.

But roman leaders did go into battle with nipple-and-belly-button breastplates. They also had 6-pack abs.

I was under the impression that the nipple-and-belly-button breastplates were reserved for their glorious procession on the way back into Rome and for other ceremonial uses (such as posing for the sculptor), but I may be wrong.

but regardless, examples of style-over-substance are plentiful even in history...

1 to 50 of 119 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Why to hate the shape of breasts in plate armor All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.