Please include women with shirts on.

[dan107]

I think we really should end this:

 

 

Do we think that wearing a bikini armor is absurd in a fantasy game? No

Do we want Bikini Armor in this game? No

Do we think that in the real world men have advantages when they fight against women: Yes

Do we think men would always win in real life? No

Do we think that men should have these advantages in a fantasy game? No

 

Cant we all live with this?^^

 

HELL NO! I want my damn chainmail bikinis!

[Tamerlane]

Because, the average female and the average male adventurer are physically similar.

 

That's where you lose me. The average man is tougher than the average woman. With training the difference only increases. Therefore, the toughest men are A LOT tougher than then toughest women.

Adventurer.

 

Not human.

 

Adventurer, tovarishch. Person who wakes up in the morning, looks at a picture of a dragon, and says, "Yeah. I think I want to hit that with a stick."

 

Anyone in the "adventuring profession" would as a matter of necessity be an above-average human being (or elf or snorlax or whatever). Imagine at least one woman existing at the far end of the bell curve, perhaps?

Edited September 16, 2012 by Tamerlane

[Darji]

Because, the average female and the average male adventurer are physically similar.

 

That's where you lose me. The average man is tougher than the average woman. With training the difference only increases. Therefore, the toughest men are A LOT tougher than then toughest women.

Adventurer.

 

Not human.

 

Adventurer, tovarishch. Person who wakes up in the morning, looks at a picture of a dragon, and says, "Yeah. I think I want to hit that with a stick."

 

Anyone in the "adventuring profession" would as a matter of necessity be an above-average human being (or elf or snorlax or whatever).

 

If both are adventurer you still would have that disadvantage between men and woman.

[The Sharmat]

And for the poster above: It would give a woman a disadvantage since the burden is heavier for her than for a fighter.

Less utility is not the same as no utility. Women tiring more quickly in heavy armor does not make heavy armor useless for women.

 

She's big that's all. I bet that in real life any trained man could kick her ass from here to sunday though. Practically no women out there that combine size, strength, and quickness the way that the best men do.

But that's the point. She's exceptionally large and could beat many average men due to being a very above average woman. A man her size would have her once again at a physical disadvantage, but most men aren't her size.

 

And any trained man? Really? A 5'3 man that weighs 110 pounds should, nine times out of ten, beat a 6'5 woman that weighs 220 pounds?

[dan107]

Because, the average female and the average male adventurer are physically similar.

 

That's where you lose me.

 

No, that's where you lost yourself. The setting you estabilished on the last page made a point of equalizing men and women warriors, which most likely includes physical aptitude (after all, that's your argument for why women and men aren't equal in real life).

 

For some reason, you choose to interprete that as armor having no inherent value anymore.

 

Instead, as you should, its best to assume that, as physically men and women are similar, they should be able to wear similar armor. Therefore, there's no reason for the chainmail bikini.

 

I see what you're saying, but my arguement is consistent though. Once you've established that a women are equal to combat to men, the whole idea of combat becomes unrealist (as if it was terribly realistic in RPGs to begin with). So it's a purely stylistic decision. A woman beating a man to death in full plate is not a whole lot more likely than a woman beating a man to death in underwear.

[The Sharmat]

A woman beating a man to death in full plate is not a whole lot more likely than a woman beating a man to death in underwear.

Why? If a woman is magically as strong as a man in your setting 'just because', then armor has the same utility for all parties as if all the combatants were male.

[Darji]

And for the poster above: It would give a woman a disadvantage since the burden is heavier for her than for a fighter.

Less utility is not the same as no utility. Women tiring more quickly in heavy armor does not make heavy armor useless for women.

 

She's big that's all. I bet that in real life any trained man could kick her ass from here to sunday though. Practically no women out there that combine size, strength, and quickness the way that the best men do.

But that's the point. She's exceptionally large and could beat many average men due to being a very above average woman. A man her size would have her once again at a physical disadvantage, but most men aren't her size.

 

And any trained man? Really? A 5'3 man that weighs 110 pounds should, nine times out of ten, beat a 6'5 woman that weighs 220 pounds?

 

In real life heavy armor is useless anyway. It does not protect you against 20 sword hits. Maybe one but maybe not even one. If someone aims very well you are dead anyway and it does not even matter if you were plate or leather armor. I rather want to wear leather armor because i could actually move much faster than my enemy

[dan107]

Because, the average female and the average male adventurer are physically similar.

 

That's where you lose me. The average man is tougher than the average woman. With training the difference only increases. Therefore, the toughest men are A LOT tougher than then toughest women.

Adventurer.

 

Not human.

 

Adventurer, tovarishch. Person who wakes up in the morning, looks at a picture of a dragon, and says, "Yeah. I think I want to hit that with a stick."

 

Anyone in the "adventuring profession" would as a matter of necessity be an above-average human being (or elf or snorlax or whatever). Imagine at least one woman existing at the far end of the bell curve, perhaps?

 

Sure. But the male adventurers aren't ordinary men either. They would be at the far end of the bell curve as well, and that far end is a lot further for men than women.

[Emitan]

And also one of the most historically valid things. There is a reason after all while, aside from a few HIGHLY unrepresentative examples, the vast majority of all armies were and are made up of men.

 

CAN a woman POSSIBLY defeat a trained man in armored combat? Sure. But it's pretty damn unlikely.

See, here's my thing.

 

Our party is gonna be... what? Four people? Six people?

 

Something like that.

 

We're going to be playing with a tiny subset of the entire population of a world. We are not gathering every single man and woman together and having them square off in a gladiator arena until only one sex remains. We are talking specific people.

 

Maybe one of those people happens to be a woman who, through a combination of genetics and upbringing, is strong and talented in a fight? More so than most, albeit not necessarily all, men?

 

Spoiler alert: that's vaguely... realistic?

I was reading through all the posts since I've been gone and have been watiing for someone to say this.

 

Yes the average woman is weaker than the average man. But this doesn't mean the strongest woman is weaker than the weakest man. I very highly doubt my character will be locked out of melee combat roles. Who was the unarmed combat specialist in Fallout: New Vegas? A woman? But this thread said that's impossible!

[Delterius]

Because, the average female and the average male adventurer are physically similar.

 

That's where you lose me.

 

No, that's where you lost yourself. The setting you estabilished on the last page made a point of equalizing men and women warriors, which most likely includes physical aptitude (after all, that's your argument for why women and men aren't equal in real life).

 

For some reason, you choose to interprete that as armor having no inherent value anymore.

 

Instead, as you should, its best to assume that, as physically men and women are similar, they should be able to wear similar armor. Therefore, there's no reason for the chainmail bikini.

 

I see what you're saying, but my arguement is consistent though. Once you've established that a women are equal to combat to men, the whole idea of combat becomes unrealist (as if it was terribly realistic in RPGs to begin with). So it's a purely stylistic decision. A woman beating a man to death in full plate is not a whole lot more likely than a woman beating a man to death in underwear.

 

That's a possible setting, yes, one where armor has no inherent value and both sexes have similar physical competence. It has a logic of its own that differs from reality, thus its fantasy.

 

But most likely Eternity's setting, as with IE games' before it, do have sexes of similar physical competence and armor does have value.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Delterius

[dan107]

And for the poster above: It would give a woman a disadvantage since the burden is heavier for her than for a fighter.

Less utility is not the same as no utility. Women tiring more quickly in heavy armor does not make heavy armor useless for women.

 

She's big that's all. I bet that in real life any trained man could kick her ass from here to sunday though. Practically no women out there that combine size, strength, and quickness the way that the best men do.

But that's the point. She's exceptionally large and could beat many average men due to being a very above average woman. A man her size would have her once again at a physical disadvantage, but most men aren't her size.

 

And any trained man? Really? A 5'3 man that weighs 110 pounds should, nine times out of ten, beat a 6'5 woman that weighs 220 pounds?

 

Lol, fine I suppose a big woman can probably beat a midget more often than not, but not a well trained man of average size. And in the case of adventurers, where we're dealing with the best of the best, that's even more pronounced.

[dan107]

And also one of the most historically valid things. There is a reason after all while, aside from a few HIGHLY unrepresentative examples, the vast majority of all armies were and are made up of men.

 

CAN a woman POSSIBLY defeat a trained man in armored combat? Sure. But it's pretty damn unlikely.

See, here's my thing.

 

Our party is gonna be... what? Four people? Six people?

 

Something like that.

 

We're going to be playing with a tiny subset of the entire population of a world. We are not gathering every single man and woman together and having them square off in a gladiator arena until only one sex remains. We are talking specific people.

 

Maybe one of those people happens to be a woman who, through a combination of genetics and upbringing, is strong and talented in a fight? More so than most, albeit not necessarily all, men?

 

Spoiler alert: that's vaguely... realistic?

I was reading through all the posts since I've been gone and have been watiing for someone to say this.

 

Yes the average woman is weaker than the average man. But this doesn't mean the strongest woman is weaker than the weakest man. I very highly doubt my character will be locked out of melee combat roles. Who was the unarmed combat specialist in Fallout: New Vegas? A woman? But this thread said that's impossible!

 

Yes, because using a GAME as a reference is a great way to settle the realism of a hypothetical situtation.

[The Sharmat]

In real life heavy armor is useless anyway. It does not protect you against 20 sword hits. Maybe one but maybe not even one.

Man, think of how much time and money the Greeks and Romans would have saved if only someone had told them this.

[Darji]

And also one of the most historically valid things. There is a reason after all while, aside from a few HIGHLY unrepresentative examples, the vast majority of all armies were and are made up of men.

 

CAN a woman POSSIBLY defeat a trained man in armored combat? Sure. But it's pretty damn unlikely.

See, here's my thing.

 

Our party is gonna be... what? Four people? Six people?

 

Something like that.

 

We're going to be playing with a tiny subset of the entire population of a world. We are not gathering every single man and woman together and having them square off in a gladiator arena until only one sex remains. We are talking specific people.

 

Maybe one of those people happens to be a woman who, through a combination of genetics and upbringing, is strong and talented in a fight? More so than most, albeit not necessarily all, men?

 

Spoiler alert: that's vaguely... realistic?

I was reading through all the posts since I've been gone and have been watiing for someone to say this.

 

Yes the average woman is weaker than the average man. But this doesn't mean the strongest woman is weaker than the weakest man. I very highly doubt my character will be locked out of melee combat roles. Who was the unarmed combat specialist in Fallout: New Vegas? A woman? But this thread said that's impossible!

That is f course the case.

 

I think the problem here is that we are talking about absolute examples. The strongest woman will never be equal to the strongest man but that does not even mean that he will win against her.

[Delterius]

 

Yes, because using a GAME as a reference is a great way to settle the realism of a hypothetical situtation.

 

It settles a setting's internal logic, which is entirely realistic.

[The Sharmat]

And in the case of adventurers, where we're dealing with the best of the best, that's even more pronounced.

 

We are? Do you feel the 100,000 orcs we've all killed in various RPGs were the best of the best?

[Badmojo]

I am just going to post what I posted on the tropes thread:

 

Weeks? Try months. I have seen this show up again and again on many forums. It always start innocent enough.."I think women...", then in a short while you ALWAYS have anybody who doesn't agree with this view accused of sexism,mysogonist, supporter of rape culter..etc. driving people away who does not agree, then the ones who stay end up arguing with each other over minor details, then the game forums ends up drying up because this one topic overrides everything and then people leave the forums alltogether and it just becomes a cesspool of angry people. I hope it does not turn into that, I really want to talk about great ideas and excitement for the game, but I have seen this happen many of times already. My advice, *IF* this topic looks like its headed that way, create a whole seperate forum page for politics and move it there before it turns into a yelling match.

 

It's starting here and its going to get worse. *sigh*

Edited September 16, 2012 by Badmojo

[Emitan]

And also one of the most historically valid things. There is a reason after all while, aside from a few HIGHLY unrepresentative examples, the vast majority of all armies were and are made up of men.

 

CAN a woman POSSIBLY defeat a trained man in armored combat? Sure. But it's pretty damn unlikely.

See, here's my thing.

 

Our party is gonna be... what? Four people? Six people?

 

Something like that.

 

We're going to be playing with a tiny subset of the entire population of a world. We are not gathering every single man and woman together and having them square off in a gladiator arena until only one sex remains. We are talking specific people.

 

Maybe one of those people happens to be a woman who, through a combination of genetics and upbringing, is strong and talented in a fight? More so than most, albeit not necessarily all, men?

 

Spoiler alert: that's vaguely... realistic?

I was reading through all the posts since I've been gone and have been watiing for someone to say this.

 

Yes the average woman is weaker than the average man. But this doesn't mean the strongest woman is weaker than the weakest man. I very highly doubt my character will be locked out of melee combat roles. Who was the unarmed combat specialist in Fallout: New Vegas? A woman? But this thread said that's impossible!

 

Yes, because using a GAME as a reference is a great way to settle the realism of a hypothetical situtation.

Project Eternity isn't a video game? I better withdraw my $100 pledge because I have been misled.

[Darji]

In real life heavy armor is useless anyway. It does not protect you against 20 sword hits. Maybe one but maybe not even one.

Man, think of how much time and money the Greeks and Romans would have saved if only someone had told them this.

 

Yes because greeks and romans had plate armors like we know them from fantasy games or how leader wore them, in all these pictures.....

 

I had seminars at my university about the roman empire or the antic I know what they were wearing back than. The thing that made romans so strong were mostly their shields and their tactics. not some very heavy armor. One hit and they were mostly done for

Edited September 16, 2012 by Darji

[dan107]

Yes, because using a GAME as a reference is a great way to settle the realism of a hypothetical situtation.

 

It settles a setting's internal logic, which is entirely realistic.

 

Only if that setting explicitly redefines men and women and their abilities. Just like you assume that the sun rises in the east, you assume that men are stronger than women, unless told otherwise.

[dan107]

And in the case of adventurers, where we're dealing with the best of the best, that's even more pronounced.

 

We are? Do you feel the 100,000 orcs we've all killed in various RPGs were the best of the best?

 

No, but I feel that the 6 people in our party that cut down those 100,000 orcs were indeed the best of the best. REALISTICALLY, no place for women in that party at all. From a fantasy perspective, by all means go nuts. Just don't bring realism into this.

Edited September 16, 2012 by dan107

[The Sharmat]

It's starting here and its going to get worse. *sigh*

It is? I haven't seen a lot of those accusations thrown around. Accusing people of throwing them because they disagree with you is as bad as doing the things you've described.

[Emitan]

Yes, because using a GAME as a reference is a great way to settle the realism of a hypothetical situtation.

 

It settles a setting's internal logic, which is entirely realistic.

 

Only if that setting explicitly redefines men and women and their abilities. Just like you assume that the sun rises in the east, you assume that men are stronger than women, unless told otherwise.

Fallout: New Vegas was a video game designed by... wait for it... Obsidian Entertainment. In this game there are no stat penalties for playing as a women nor as a man. While not realistic this was most likely done to not limit a player's options and allow to play whatever role as whatever gender.

 

Project Eternity is an upcoming video game designed by.... the exact same people. Why would they suddenly decide to limit the player's options in such a way when it is so rarely done? The only game I can think of with stat penalities is Arcanum which gives a +1 to strength for male characters and a +1 to Endurance for female characters.

[dan107]

Yes, because using a GAME as a reference is a great way to settle the realism of a hypothetical situtation.

 

It settles a setting's internal logic, which is entirely realistic.

 

Only if that setting explicitly redefines men and women and their abilities. Just like you assume that the sun rises in the east, you assume that men are stronger than women, unless told otherwise.

Fallout: New Vegas was a video game designed by... wait for it... Obsidian Entertainment. In this game there are no stat penalties for playing as a women nor as a man. While not realistic this was most likely done to not limit a player's options and allow to play whatever role as whatever gender.

 

Project Eternity is an upcoming video game designed by.... the exact same people. Why would they suddenly decide to limit the player's options in such a way when it is so rarely done? The only game I can think of with stat penalities is Arcanum which gives a +1 to strength for male characters and a +1 to Endurance for female characters.

 

Oh I absolutely agree. It doesn't make any sense to include any stat bonuses or penalties in a game. Let people play however they want. But don't say that you shouldn't have skimpily clad women in the game because it's UNREALISTIC. Sexist, childish, "I DON'T LIKE IT", etc, are all perfectly valid reasons. Once you mention REALISM however, the only logical conclusion is that women shouldn't be there to begin with. How they're dressed doesn't really matter.

[ComradeGoby]

And in the case of adventurers, where we're dealing with the best of the best, that's even more pronounced.

 

We are? Do you feel the 100,000 orcs we've all killed in various RPGs were the best of the best?

 

You're missing the point though.

 

Imagine warriors as top atheletes today.

 

Now pick any woman sport. Say WNBA

 

WNBA plays against male HIGH SCHOOL teams and lose most of the time.

 

That's how big the difference is.

 

Fanstasy changes that with magic, but you're arguing melee combat. And making them equal in that is just laughable.