Well lets get people's opinion on this image: this is our newest iconic that we created for NeoExodus named Amne Isa Zara. She is a Gevet (Tiefling) Cleric.
Nice! I like it. The pose itself lacks a little "flow" but that's a personal aesthetic thing. She's attractive and strong... clothes I assume are appropriate for the region and it looks like something she can move in but also have nice shape and are attractive.
And on a general gamer perspective, I admit I don't expect to see that quality of color art from a 3PP book so that in itself has caused me to want to pay more attention to your products. :)
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything in this thread where anyone bashed males for liking risque female forms.
I have yet to have had a discussion on a forum like this where someone at some point didn't say 'This is demeaning to women and only mysogonists would think this smut is art' or something to that effect. So call it a judo reaction to get my rant out first. :)
And while I'm posting about things that bother *me*... all you dudes saying "my wife this and my wife that" ... could you please ask your wives to take a minute to post themselves? I'd love to hear their perspectives from their own mouths (or keyboards, as the case may be).
Nope. Sorry, I have asked my wife to read the forums plenty of times, but she has no interest in it. She likes to play with people she knows, although she's not a regular gamer, but talking rules or theory bores her to tears (I did mention that she prefers combat right?).
having been a Marine, Elizabeth Moon is pretty good at depicting realistic military women.No wonder the beginning had me flashing back to Fort Knox!
I've got most of her books, and I do recommend them!
If you're trying to produce adventures that will appeal to female gamers, I'd design scenarios that feature role playing and non-combat encounters as significant to the gameplay rather than as something annoying to get out of the way before combat starts.
Not always the best idea to assume female players prefer the RP. I have female (and male) players who love the roleplay aspect of course, but I also have female (and male) players who sort of see the game in the opposite light. They want to "get that annoying RP out of the way" so they can focus on tactical combat, which they relish.
As a (female) player, I honestly enjoy combat far more than RP, but I know everyone is different. That's why when I run games (which is most of the time) I try to put equal importance on roleplay and combat/other dice rolling.
Basically just don't think "okay we'll appease the women with good roleplay scenarios and the men with good combat."
Instead, think "okay we'll appease the players who like roleplay with good roleplay scenarios and the players who like combat with good combat".
Well lets get people's opinion on this image: this is our newest iconic that we created for NeoExodus named Amne Isa Zara. She is a Gevet (Tiefling) Cleric.Can't speak from a 'what would a woman want' but, from a critical perspective, she doesn't look like a cleric. What I mean by that is, a cleric is not an adept, and is expected to be armored. She looks more like a Zen Archer monk, to be completely honest. From a stylistic perspective, the artwork looks good, just not what it's advertised as. If you got rid of the bow, she'd be fine as a cleric/priestess. But with the bow out and strung and an arrow knocked, she's in a combat situation, which really should bring armor on as well. And no, I didn't say cheesecake armor. :)
This one's not really about women in RPGs so much as it is about clerics but: Just because clerics have armor proficiency doesn't mean they all use it. Clerics in heavy armor, clerics in light armor, clerics who wear robes/other clothing and no armor at all, they're all still clerics. I think rather than saying that clerics are expected to be armored, it might make more sense to say clerics are expected to be proficient in armor. (Also, cleric archers do exist, as I'm sure any number of elven clerics or clerics of a deity who favours a bow could show.)
@Gluttony
My point was, if she's got her weapons out, then she should be armored. If she didn't have the bow out and ready to shoot, I wouldn't care about armor. Again, just my gut feeling, any cleric with weapons out (bow or club or mace or sword) is, to me, ready to attack something in combat, so they should be wearing armor (I'd say this if it was a male cleric with a weapon readied and no armor). Doesn't have to be a lot of armor, a chain shirt, leather, something other than formal clothing.
And the GM should let her define what her outfits look like, and even give some rewards (rp or xp) for all the work she's putting into it. But I don't think an AP should enforce you to figure out how many pairs of shoes you have or what color or style they are. That's for individual creativeness.
Blerg. I'm speaking sloppily, and so you're misunderstanding what I meant to say.
It is not what her PC's clothes look like. She seldom cares.
Nor is it what certain clothing means socially in the setting. What to wear to a noble's fancy dinner party to display wealth without gaudiness or haughtiness, or to subtly show disapproval of the noble in some way? Who cares. It is enough to have to keep track of subtle social cues in real life.
Rather, it is whether such things exist at all in the game world. In most published RPG adventures, it does not matter what her PC wears to that fancy dinner party.
(There are exceptions where the PC might receive a situational bonus to certain Diplomacy checks for taking care about clothing. But usually this is merely a binary issue of whether the PC's clothing says "I'm as wealthy and high-status as the noble.")
The lack of any subtlety in social situations is the problem. Feiya's odd clothing of universal use is simply one specific example of that huge, general trend.
And while I'm posting about things that bother *me*... all you dudes saying "my wife this and my wife that" ... could you please ask your wives to take a minute to post themselves? I'd love to hear their perspectives from their own mouths (or keyboards, as the case may be).
I've tried, Deathquaker. I've shown her this thread. But she won't type for us. I have to settle for checking things with her aloud (generalities) and with Skype (specific wording issues).
@Gluttony
My point was, if she's got her weapons out, then she should be armored. If she didn't have the bow out and ready to shoot, I wouldn't care about armor. Again, just my gut feeling, any cleric with weapons out (bow or club or mace or sword) is, to me, ready to attack something in combat, so they should be wearing armor (I'd say this if it was a male cleric with a weapon readied and no armor). Doesn't have to be a lot of armor, a chain shirt, leather, something other than formal clothing.
I know. I'm just saying that not all clerics wear armor in combat. So not wearing armor doesn't mean she's not a cleric, it just means she's an armorless cleric.
I know. I'm just saying that not all clerics wear armor in combat. So not wearing armor doesn't mean she's not a cleric, it just means she's an armorless cleric.@Gluttony
My point was, if she's got her weapons out, then she should be armored. If she didn't have the bow out and ready to shoot, I wouldn't care about armor. Again, just my gut feeling, any cleric with weapons out (bow or club or mace or sword) is, to me, ready to attack something in combat, so they should be wearing armor (I'd say this if it was a male cleric with a weapon readied and no armor). Doesn't have to be a lot of armor, a chain shirt, leather, something other than formal clothing.
I'd grant you that not all, but iconic pictures should not be the exception to the rule. There are sorcerers that wear armor, but the iconic sorcerer shouldn't be the one wearing full plate. :)
EDIT : In this case, by iconic, I mean for this AP she's a major cleric in the AP, so she's iconic for the AP. Unless it's part of her personality that she doesn't wear armor (and it's part of the plot) then if she's in combat, she should be wearing armor.
I know. I'm just saying that not all clerics wear armor in combat. So not wearing armor doesn't mean she's not a cleric, it just means she's an armorless cleric.@Gluttony
My point was, if she's got her weapons out, then she should be armored. If she didn't have the bow out and ready to shoot, I wouldn't care about armor. Again, just my gut feeling, any cleric with weapons out (bow or club or mace or sword) is, to me, ready to attack something in combat, so they should be wearing armor (I'd say this if it was a male cleric with a weapon readied and no armor). Doesn't have to be a lot of armor, a chain shirt, leather, something other than formal clothing.
I'd grant you that not all, but iconic pictures should not be the exception to the rule. There are sorcerers that wear armor, but the iconic sorcerer shouldn't be the one wearing full plate. :)
EDIT : In this case, by iconic, I mean for this AP she's a major cleric in the AP, so she's iconic for the AP. Unless it's part of her personality that she doesn't wear armor (and it's part of the plot) then if she's in combat, she should be wearing armor.
Ah, but that's a different scenario. The sorcerer in your example is taking unusual (for a sorcerer) feats to gain something sorcerers don't usually have, namely the ability to wear armor. The cleric who doesn't wear armor has taken no additional steps to access something that all clerics have, namely the ability to not wear armor. The sorcerer is an exception to the rule, which is basically that sorcerers can't cast properly in armor. The cleric isn't an exception to any rule. She only would be an exception to the rule if there was a rule that said clerics have to wear armor to make their abilities work.
The argument that clerics should be depicted in armor isn't really one that they shouldn't be using something not normal for their class, it's an argument that they should be depicted with the major things that their class has available to them (and that argument is already messed up to no end by Pathfinder's own iconic cavalier, who is more often than not depicted without the main feature of his class, his horse).
Unless it's part of her personality that she doesn't wear armor (and it's part of the plot) then if she's in combat, she should be wearing armor.
So... unless she doesn't wear armor, she should be wearing armor? I guess that's technically true in all cases (unless you count certain magic items as "wearing armor while not wearing armor"), but it doesn't really add much to the argument. The "unless it's part of her personality" bit is important though. It's basically the point I'm making, that everyone, characters included, is unique. One member of a class can be vastly different from another member of the same class, and it really doesn't make sense to only ever depict a class in the exact same light (it's like saying "we have to draw a cleric. Clerics without armor exist, but since we have to draw this one, we can only draw them in armor, never without it.")
(We're getting way off topic though)
The first thing I noticed about the art piece is how well drawn it is. Then I began to wonder about her impractical top... wouldn't that baggy sleeve on her one arm constantly be getting caught on the arrow tips sticking out of her quiver? Wait... arrow tips sticking out of her quiver?! Those arrows are loaded in the quiver backwards. I have used a bow, the fletching end should be the part sticking out. While I would never adventure in such an outfit it certainly looks appropriate for a palace guard. An unarmored palace guard (which might not be all that uncommon in a fantasy setting).
Fine, I will just have to continue to assume y'all have invented imaginary wives to hide your own opinions behind. :)
(Or that your wives are just cowards. )
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting this topic back on its original purpose and following the original theme...
I can announce for the upcoming organized play campaign that we are building called NeoExodus Legacies we have just added two new people; D'Anne Nelson and Linda Weygant (NeoExodus editor); to work on this it. I think the "voices" that D'Anne Linda bring will be a great compliment to what we have already done and to also give a different perspective on fantasy. For myself I look to what White Wolf did in the 1990s in getting females interested in gaming at much high numbers then previously seen. I think doing something like that is very possible with the Pathfinder rules set and NeoExodus Legacies is a right first step into that direction.
Fine, I will just have to continue to assume y'all have invented imaginary wives to hide your own opinions behind. :)
(Or that your wives are just cowards. )
Nah. It's just that Pathfinder is, to a certain extent, The Enemy. On game nights I'm with my friends, not her. (Yes, I've invited her. And yes, she gets nights out with her friends too.)
And on evenings when we're both too tired to play the two-person fantasy RPG I've invented, we'll often both sit around with our laptops. I'll spend some time on these forums while she reads blogs or looks for close-out sales on nice office-wear clothing. Again, when I'm thinking Pathfinder I'm not with her.
She acknowledges it is a silly prejudice, but in the non-rational part of a mind that is mostly a very, very rational mind (she's a geneticist) you are somewhat of an accessory to a crime, DeathQuaker. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fine, I will just have to continue to assume y'all have invented imaginary wives to hide your own opinions behind. :)
(Or that your wives are just cowards. )
She's not imaginary!! She's a Real Doll! She's REAL!!!
;_;
Getting this topic back on its original purpose and following the original theme...
I apologize for contributing to the derailment. I am glad you're working on this.
I can announce for the upcoming organized play campaign that we are building called NeoExodus Legacies we have just added two new people; D'Anne Nelson and Linda Weygant (NeoExodus editor); to work on this it. I think the "voices" that D'Anne Linda bring will be a great compliment to what we have already done and to also give a different perspective on fantasy. For myself I look to what White Wolf did in the 1990s in getting females interested in gaming at much high numbers then previously seen. I think doing something like that is very possible with the Pathfinder rules set and NeoExodus Legacies is a right first step into that direction.
Congratulations on your new hires/positions (since Weygant was your editor already, if I'm reading you right)! Looks like D'Anne Nelson is an organized play vet to boot.
As a tangent, but one hopefully relevant to your interests, it is interesting that you bring up White Wolf as bringing more women into RPGing. I'd also note that White Wolf in general brought a lot of non-gamers onto the scene in general and I think its focus on storytelling and individual character background and less than traditional fantasy themes (although how we define this blurry term I don't know) accomplished a lot of that. It would be interesting to examine more of why that happened and also why more women began gaming with systems like that. Part of it might just be getting away from the stigma of the stereotypical basement dweller fantasy nerd, but there are likely other things as well. (And outside shallow observations of stuff like "chicks dig emo vampires").
It would be interesting to examine more of why that happened and also why more women began gaming with systems like that. Part of it might just be getting away from the stigma of the stereotypical basement dweller fantasy nerd, but there are likely other...
The way I see it, "Having Been There" myself and owning a ton of WW books (although my roots are firmly in D&D and Rolemaster), it is a combination of things:
1) Right time (the spirit of 1990s was an interesting mishmash of things, best reflected in Lords of Acid song "Real Thing" (for Strange Days movie))
2) Right mood and flavor (see: X-Files, Supernatural, etc, all of them tapping to the spirit of 1990s)
3) Right subculture (tapping into goth subculture gave "not giving a **** about what others outside of Our Tribe thought about it, they're gonna label us anyway and we just won't care" attitude -- remember that prior to this, there had been that Satanic Panic phenomenon, which made lots of publishers skittish (as they hoped to hook on to kid gamers and be all family-friendly), whereas WW went with "free controversy == free advertising") (their target audience was late teens and adults, as reflected by "mature content" tag of the books)
I agree there was this huge paranormal theme in the 90s.
But I have only a sampling of WW books. It was during a time when I was trying to find my voice in RPGs. So I was trying all manner of games and WW had some amazing settings. Not just paranormal ones either. I own Trinity, Aberrant, and Street Fighter if you can believe it as well. Not that I ever played the last two but I wanted to. I guess I was also looking for a 'culture' to belong to as well. I was never part of the Goth scene. But was caught in between straight A preppy, cheer leading, tennis star, computer geek, cyclist, and avid sci/fi, fantasy reader. I wanted to try everything and in many cases I did. According to others I was also a talented author, poet, and artist (winning awards in minor contests in each)... But I never developed those gifts and it's one of my regrets now as I am older. Somewhere along the line I switched from overachieving kid to popular girl and I fell through the holes in life and never recovered. Being popular was a curse, everything else stopped mattering. It even still flavors my play style (song bird) and outlook on life (trying to please those around me).
Oh my look at me go on and on... In short WW was the right set of games for the right time in my life.
Nah. It's just that Pathfinder is, to a certain extent, The Enemy. On game nights I'm with my friends, not her. (Yes, I've invited her. And yes, she gets nights out with her friends too.)
While driving her to work this morning I asked her again why she does not want to join the Pathfinder group (which often meets at our home! all she would have to do is go downstairs!).
Her reply was "Too many rules." Then she elaborated...
As a preface, I'll add myself that I know this forum is a hang-out for women who do not mind lots of rules. Some are even happy playing with (or themselves being) "rules lawyers".
Not my wife. For what it's worth, neither she nor any of her female RPG friends in college or beyond liked games with lots of rules. Simple rules were best to keep the story flowing and discourage rules lawyering--and yes this means fewer Player options and choices about PC classes, abilities, and spells. (Second Edition D&D was okay for her and her female RPG friends. Not Third Edition. Not Pathfinder. She never looked at Fourth Edition.)
My wife explained that at the gaming table three things happen: the adventure story, out-of-character socializing, and out-of-character discussion of rules. She really wants a certain and large amount of the first. That's a given. Therefore the second and third compete. To her, having to discuss the rules *always* means less time to make jokes, reminisce about past silly moments, etc. A game system gets bad marks if it encourages needing to look up rules often or taking a while to do so--these mean its typical gaming group probably contains a rules-lawyer.
Similarly, neither she nor any of her female RPG friends played games involving miniatures and map combat. Those tend to have slow combat, which also competes for time at the gaming table. The Second Edition D&D combat she enjoyed went quickly. That my gaming group's combats pretty much require miniatures and maps is a turn-off for her.
She guesses her opinions may be "women gamer stereotypes". Again, I know certain forum members may disagree and am now very curious about their comments and responses.
UPDATE: I should emphasize how much this comment differs from her earlier contributions. This is a game system critique. Her previous bits about lack of caring relationships, adventuring outfits lacking sufficient pockets or backpack to hold a water bottle, and binary diplomacy were all critiques of adventures/modules.
|
Nah. It's just that Pathfinder is, to a certain extent, The Enemy. On game nights I'm with my friends, not her. (Yes, I've invited her. And yes, she gets nights out with her friends too.)While driving her to work this morning I asked her again why she does not want to join the Pathfinder group (which often meets at our home! all she would have to do is go downstairs!).
Her reply was "Too many rules." Then she elaborated...
As a preface, I'll add myself that I know this forum is a hang-out for women who do not mind lots of rules. Some are even happy playing with (or themselves being) "rules lawyers".
Not my wife. For what it's worth, neither she nor any of her female RPG friends in college or beyond liked games with lots of rules. Simple rules were best to keep the story flowing and discourage rules lawyering--and yes this means fewer Player options and choices about PC classes, abilities, and spells. (Second Edition D&D was okay for her and her female RPG friends. Not Third Edition. Not Pathfinder. She never looked at Fourth Edition.)
My wife explained that at the gaming table three things happen: the adventure story, out-of-character socializing, and out-of-character discussion of rules. She really wants a certain and large amount of the first. That's a given. Therefore the second and third compete. To her, having to discuss the rules *always* means less time to make jokes, reminisce about past silly moments, etc. A game system gets bad marks if it encourages needing to look up rules often or taking a while to do so--these mean its typical gaming group probably contains a rules-lawyer.
Similarly, neither she nor any of her female RPG friends played games involving miniatures and map combat. Those tend to have slow combat, which also competes for time at the gaming table. The Second Edition D&D combat she enjoyed went quickly. That my gaming group's combats pretty much require miniatures and maps is a turn-off for her.
She guesses her opinions may be "women gamer stereotypes". Again, I know certain forum members may disagree and am now very curious about their comments and responses.
Yes she does fit the woman gamer stereotype. But then again that stereotype exist for a reason. I know a number of woman gamers that feel similar, I know male gamers that fit that too but less of them than women gamers.
Watch out D_M, last time I said something like that, someone with your very avatar quoted my post, whittled it down to the least nuanced sentence, and lectured me on not assuming all female gamers like RP. :P
Serious question, though: Does everyone think a social interaction system as complex as PF combat (for anything from courtroom drama to ruining the BBEG's reputation at a dinner party) would be enjoyed by the "in it for the adventure story" crowd, or just pushed to the side as yet another rules heavy system, albeit one about another subject?
|
|
Well all stereotypes exist for a reason, their is a grain of truth behind them but they are hardly the only example of what ever they are a stereotype for.
If what you are asking is, would players who like heavy social interaction give a game as complex as PF a try. I say it depends on the player and how open minded they are. I think most of them IF they gave PF a try would enjoy it, with the right GM. I say this last part cause a GM's style has a huge influence on how a game feels and plays, every bit as much as the game system does. Now with that said, yes there are some who just wouldn't enjoy it no matter how well it was done. I tend to be the opposite, if the game rules are to simple eventually i tend to get bored with the game. No matter how good the social interaction and RPing is. When I say to simple i am talking fudge level of simple or simpler.
That's actually not what I was asking, no insult.
My point was that, my homebrew not included, I can think of three D20 social interaction systems that fall on the rules heavy side of things, one of which was published in Dragon magazine. In various ways, they all use the melee combat model, replacing Str with Int for damage bonus, Wis with Dex for AC bonus, and Con with Cha for HP bonus. these are all rules heavy systems for social interaction, and I've never seen an adventure written using any of them.
From everything I've seen on this thread, LPJ is doing the right thing by hiring more women. As long as you got enough women looking over your products to say, "That's the queen's outfit? Cause that's really slutty," the rest will follow.
I also think that asking about appeal to female gamers is the easiest way to phrase questions about niche marketing. I guess I was raising the issue of niche market identification, but at this point in RPGs I'm not sure female gamers are a niche market to begin with.
I was trying to clarify my point and just babbled for three paragraphs; I fail.
|
|
Ah you was asking about a "social combat" system. I think LPJ did one of those already, i forget the name. I think debatible actions? I think they are ok, but I prefer a more simple approach personally. RP the encounter out and give small bonus or penalties for how the RP went. Like if the PC says that dress makes the queen look fat that is a minus. It doesn't matter how well the player talks just if they make good points or says something really stupid.
Yeah, Debatable Actions was one of the three that sprang to mind.
So you don't like to mix RP and Dice rolling? I love it!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She guesses her opinions may be "women gamer stereotypes". Again, I know certain forum members may disagree and am now very curious about their comments and responses.
I get sick of rules bickering getting in the way of the game even with my Y chromosome. I've played with women who were perfectly happy to pick the pin-bones out of the rules. Different people are different.
What I will say is that 3ed is perfectly amenable to a fast-paced, roleplay-heavy style of play - you just have to play it that way. If you can't remember the appropriate rule, make one up.
A word on cheesecake art and selling to males, if I may.
Disclaimer: I am an extremely hetero male.
When I see a woman in realistic battle armor, with muscle tone, and who looks like she can run several miles without her boobs getting in the way? That races my motor.
When I see a boobalicious woman in a stripper costume like Seoni? I generally look for other products. Equally bad is when I see anorexic "little-girl" women like Lidda and Merisiel. (That's not to say the women should be obese; all that extra weight would inhibit their adventuring, n'est-ce pas?)
I don't want Playboy bunnies in my fantasy art. I don't want Twiggy. I want Joan of Arc and Brienne and so on.
And I'm a guy.
To each his own. I like Feiya. Impractical? Yeah. But she's a WITCH. The only reason the townsfolk didn't lynch her was her magical prowess and her intimidating demeanor. (At least that's my take...)
Social combat CAN rock, though all systems I've encountered so far needed massive tweaking. My players love it, though, since my campaign is rather politics-heavy, so we're currently fine-tuning V.4.0 of our take on debatable actions - a good place to start, but DMs will need to do some work.
Now, as a bit of info: The women in my games don't like the non-violent parts that much - they want to see blood and prefer martial classes. One plays a barbarian/fighter/alchemist who wields an OVERSIZED greatsword.
Cheers and good discussion!
Watch out D_M, last time I said something like that, someone with your very avatar quoted my post, whittled it down to the least nuanced sentence, and lectured me on not assuming all female gamers like RP. :P
Well now I almost feel guilty. :P
But to be serious, her point is pretty much spot-on. Stereotypes do exist, and there are a fair number of those who fit them. The point I made in response to your post was basically just that there are also those who don't fit the stereotypes, and in an attempt to appease a group, you don't want to just try and appease those who fit the stereotypes, as that'll exclude those who don't.
Another thing. There's no need to cut out the sexy. Just cut out the sleazy, or most of it, anyway. Plenty of women like sexy characters, and sexy doesn't have to mean wearing a chainmail bikini.
For example, here's a sorceress character of mine: Xenarchy Malzash
She's completely covered from the neck down. I think she's plenty attractive without showing skin. And maybe a little impractical regardless, but the character does happen to prefer vanity over practicality.
Another thing. There's no need to cut out the sexy. Just cut out the sleazy, or most of it, anyway. Plenty of women like sexy characters, and sexy doesn't have to mean wearing a chainmail bikini.
For example, here's a sorceress character of mine: Xenarchy Malzash
She's completely covered from the neck down. I think she's plenty attractive without showing skin. And maybe a little impractical regardless, but the character does happen to prefer vanity over practicality.
Neat, I like the look of her.
Umbral Reaver definitely makes a good point about what sexy can be. Also, in the event that you, as a publisher do make a character in a chainmail bikini for whatever reason, for goodness sake don't stat it as full-plate (or anything remotely close to plate armor) unless it's explicitly glamered or otherwise-enchanted armor!
I personally admit to making an inquisitor who wore what appeared to be a corset, lingerie and little else into battle when in fact she was wearing glamered full-plate. It was an matter of vanity and potential distraction from the character's point of view (also she wasn't too bright, had a huge crush on one of the important NPCs, and figured all it would take to get the other woman to like her was showing some skin).
Most important though was that she wasn't wearing heavy armor inexplicably drawn as skimpy; rather she was wearing heavy armor magically enchanted to appear skimpy, while still actually being heavy armor.
Actually, that's a good point. A lot of the impractical outfits and cheesecake armor could simply be glamoured clothing and armor, so that witch outfit that looks so cumbersome could be silk ceremonial armor over a traveling outfit, glamoured to look like it does. :)
Now fair is fair, here is our Human Inquisitor Oleg Ilyanovik. What do you think about his appearance?
Well,
He's realistic in that he has scars everywhere he's not wearing armor. You'd think he'd figure that out eventually. :) The armor isn't all that bad, other than the fact it looks more steam punkish in the shoulder. It kind of looks like someone took plate mail and tossed most of it away.
The weapon is a bit absurd. Looks like a bird beak on a pole. :)
From a sexual icon standpoint, I'd say he could fill the 'big strong male' role for females in the audience, he'd look right at home a trashy romance novel cover (one of those bodice ripper types).
Well lets get people's opinion on this image: this is our newest iconic that we created for NeoExodus named Amne Isa Zara. She is a Gevet (Tiefling) Cleric.
I like this. I've seen way to many Tiefling Strippers...not to mention I have drawn way to many Tiefling strippers myself... X(
Fine, I will just have to continue to assume y'all have invented imaginary wives to hide your own opinions behind. :)
I can understand imaginary girlfriends.. But imaginary wives (assuming we are not speaking about NPC spouses of the PCs)? Some folks take things too far...
(Or that your wives are just cowards. )
Clear attempt to provoke them into responding. But won't work if they are imaginary cowards... :P
Well,
He's realistic in that he has scars everywhere he's not wearing armor. You'd think he'd figure that out eventually. :) The armor isn't all that bad, other than the fact it looks more steam punkish in the shoulder. It kind of looks like someone took plate mail and tossed most of it away.The weapon is a bit absurd. Looks like a bird beak on a pole. :)
Actually, if it would be less curved at the end, a bit more massive and thiner it would be closer to some of the most dangerous melee weapons known to man.
Now fair is fair, here is our Human Inquisitor Oleg Ilyanovik. What do you think about his appearance?
That he hides whenever someone from WADA shows up...
Edit: Okay, so that's way too flippant. What I meant was that, to my taste, this goes a bit too far from realistic. I might have been able to accept it in a dwarf, but for a human he's just too broad.
Kinda reminds me of this.
As to whether it's sexualising the character... meh, men don't get sexualised often enough for it to be a problem, and I'd say this one does very little to change that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The weapon is a bit absurd. Looks like a bird beak on a pole. :)
Since the weapon in a crow's beak morningstar / mace I guess it makes sense to look like a bird beak then. :-)
Not much to add really, which is pretty amazing consider I am the most opinionated person in 100 miles, but =P its early yet. I'll post more when I'm awake.
1.) Not all women look like they work for Hooters. Smaller chested women are attractive too =} Everyone,in every game company is guilty of this.
2.) Women need to look like/be written like they should be taken seriously. (Poorly written sentence, but meh)
3.) Female warriors need REAL armour that protects and benefits them, not cheesecake armour that is shaped to show how big their boobs are.
4.) Women are real people, with real motives. We are not all society coquettes, bitter aging crones and simpering women looking for male approval =}
I know that I can come across as being harsh and it isn't intentional, just trying to get my opinions across =}
Annika, demi-deity of dark chocolate
For example, here's a sorceress character of mine: Xenarchy Malzash
How do find good portraits that match your characters? Just google image search?
For example, here's a sorceress character of mine: Xenarchy Malzash
Off Topic: I love the artwork. Who did it? You might have them contact me directly for some potential future work.
How do find good portraits that match your characters? Just google image search?
For example, here's a sorceress character of mine: Xenarchy Malzash
It's a commissioned piece.
That's awesome.
Personally, I think there should not only be more representation of practically/conservatively-clad females, but there should be some female representation of the more bestial/non-human races. I mean, what does a female Enuka or Sasori in NeoExodus look like?
That is something you will see in the upcoming Player's Guide coming "soon" and the Ultimate version coming out August 2013.