/twgg/ TowerGirls CYOA General

Not in the usual sense of tomboys, no. We have warrior women but that's about all. We also don't have any reverse traps, boyish girls.

We should get on that then

Give me some ideas!

Huh i did quite a few new ones.

Reverse Trap Princess anyone? Though logic would indicate that they would be called a prince, not a princess.

Ya we do, there's Border General. Not a princess but they're still reverse trap.

I mean, yes you did but they dont have names or any details on what they would do or be about, Its a start, but without details im not sure its enough to list

reverse trap and tomboy arent really the same thing, a tomboy is an anti-girly girl, a rough and tumble no nonsense and usually rude and aggressive (and often tsundere), they Act like a boy, they dont need to look like one.

Non-princessed don't count.

>Nobody remembers Thief Princess
She's a Tomboy.

I mean, more than half of those are just names with no other info. I imagine the art has at least equal value. I can name them all if you'd like?

Teef princess

People forget the new stuff most easily.

Those with art count for more honestly.

Go ahead, that way he has to list them.

Clearly it means that they need more fanart.

...

10/10

Also, IMO if Reverse Trap Princess happens, I propose that she wear something like this, or at least something that would fit a stereotypical fantasy prince charming-esque person.

>Dapper Prince
+A true gentleman
+Will held you in any way they can
+Their charm is quite alluring
- Who is she really?
- Knight, I've come for you!

>held
help.

I like to think that she became a prince specifically to avoid being kidnapped. Which, of course, didn't help.

this is my fetish

Honestly i should probobly clear out the troops that just have names, but in any case, i listed evil minion because it got art and info, I wouldent have listed any just names that people came up with in the thread

There's not really any princesses from fake gen that I like, and only a couple from Gen V. But the prncesses being posted throughout the last few threads have been top notch

Utena Princess?

Situational. Everyone has varying likes and dislikes. I'm not a big fan of Gen three personally, sans Sword Princess.

>Someone else watched that show
I am a-ok with this.

Chi is a great princess

Woo!

Ok ok, I wanted to do more art for all the other princess army. But I can make these cards.

These take a while to do but we need something I suppose!

How are these guys? Spelling is probably gonna be bad, but its a rough idea.

Very good start.

I feel like chromatic or spectrum princess might be a better interpenetration based on the description and abilities

huh?

They're an army bro, not a princess.

Her being made of glass doesn't seem to actually matter, also meant army not princess

I want to update Dogs of War a little. Do this thread want them to be corgis? Because I like the idea when I saw it.

corgis are overplayed, but if that's what you want.

I started drawing my top princesses, but stopped halfway

I vote Australian shepherds

I am just asking because I saw a sketch of them as corgis.

I always thought it was just...Dog Princess again.

Aw you should continue! These are very cute. I like it!

Three different answers about the Dogs. I guess I have no choice but to make a strawpoll to figure out what most of us wants. It will make it easier.

strawpoll.me/10345356

found her again

>Someone likes the viking chick
That's new.

Glad someone else likes frog princess at least.

>Get in the bag

...

Viking chick actually grew on me semi-recently. Specifically cause of the almost death scene I wrote a bit ago for her in the Peasant Knight Quest.

She always just seemed bland to me. Like Knight Princess without a personality.

I'll be honest, I wanted her dog

lewd

Always funny when your last post kills the thread.

Not your fault lewdposter.
Slow day.

Tiny update to the Dogs card.
>color added
>unlock requirement changed from "dog princess" to "any canine princess"
Was thinking about changing the kingdom text to something different like "Warhound Kennel" but I am leaving it alone in case the soldier art ends up looking suspiciously like Dog Princess.

I would change the start of the description to

>Loyal, friendly, and a little too affectionate,

I'd remove that line alltogether. It's too fetishy, the non-princesses/companions/courtiers are usually pretty wholesome.

Except dog princess tends to walk that line.

Oh also to the guy making the template. Capitalize all of "dogs of war" then the text will be correct.

>Any of the four bara sexbait (Or reverse trap) generals we already have, wholesome
>Squire who gives great blowjobs, wholesome

Admittedly there are more examples of non-lewd companions than lewd companions, but the door is open

The generals aren't sexbait in their personalities. Read their entries.

And squire is a courtier.

The generals are pretty clearly there for gay lewds, only paladin general seems otherwise

Based on the design, not the entry.

>Charming, warm manly chest
>Built like a comfortable rock
>All of Incubus general
>It says lewd edition at the top of nearly every page.

Tell me again how the generals and the rest of the companions are wholesome.

You're reaching.

Not really? they all feature sexual bonuses in their +s and list sexual kinks unlike beasts and masters who just have likes and dislikes

I'm reaching? Each of the cards have fetishes listed, man. The only one that isn't probably fuckable on that page is the Wizard Master, and I sure somebody here has a plan to counteract that.

I'm not reaching, man. You're trolling.

Bit late to the party but thief princesses tomboyness basically begins and ends in her outfit, nothing in the text suggests that kind of personality.

Wanted: Plan to make Wizard Master 10/10 fuckable

The more complicated the better

Reward: One Internet

None of them have FETISHES in their fetish list. They have stupid mundane shit.

>Missionary
>Drunk Sex
>Gangbangs, Domming
>Neck Licking, Anal

>Tentacles, Tentacles
>Blowjobs
>Mudwrestling, Dirty Talk
>Breastplay

>Roleplay
>Public Orgasms
>Loud Sex, Drunken Sex
>Being Dommed

And that's just the stuff that can be read as kinks with only a little imagination.

The beasts and masters? I'll give it to ya, that's mostly stupid mundane shit to all but the most creative.

On the whole, I gotta ask: Are you even reading the cards, mate?

Let's focus on the generals since those are the analogues to these.

Why the fuck do you want your bestiality unit so goddamn much?

Is that what this is all about? I'm not the guy who came up with the dogs of war or made the card or anything like it. I was just arguing against the inherent wholesomeness of the companions page.

For somebody who could look at the companions page and overlook everything there, I'm surprised that you can look at the line saying the dogmen are too affectionate and immediately derive bestality from it.

Hell, that line can be interpreted to say that they're always looking for your attention like a real dog would. Making them more wholesome then you say the entire Companions page is.

No, judging by you and your 'everything is perverted' view that is paramount here, you cannot take any way but that.

We're not talking about my views, we're talking about your view that

1) The Companions are wholsome
2) The "too affectionate" line in the dogmen's description means bestality

Neither of which are inherently true.

I'm pretty sure that all you want to do here is argue for some reason, though, so I'll just leave you with pic related. Have a wonderful evening.

Its kind of irrelevant in either case though, the dogs of war are a large group of troops, not a companion, and all indications seem to say that troop units are not for sexual, and function more like an item

I agree. That's why I'm against this 'too affectionate' line.

You want to drop a funny line that outlines the troops' personalities because you are that easily triggered by the merest hint of bestality?

I want the line dropped because it's a direct mention of bestiality when the troops aren't meant to be lewd.

I didn't even think the line could be read to implicate bestiality until you brought it up. I honestly think you're overreacting.

"Too affectionate"?
dogs are fucking affectionate man. its one of the key features of a good dog. I honestly cant see how your reading it that way.

Wait, you want to drop something that mentions lewdness in towergirls: lewd edition?

See In this place ,with people like that, this line is obviously lewd.

not.... reallly? i mean most lewdness in tower girls is pretty damn blatant. I dont think something you need to squint at sideways to get that impression is a problem. and hell if people have that impression than they are wrong. so its not a problem

see

In this place, with people like this, the line is quite obviously not lewd. It's only lewd to you because you seem to want it to be.

Oh, i'm and I posted that because your argument of "2lewd" dosen't really make much sense given the game, not because I feel that the dogs of war need to be a bestality option.

I'm all for leaving the line as it is, though, because I don't give a god damn what other people do in their imaginations, but I am against striking something because you can't make yours not do the things you don't want it to.

You have one person corroborating your story. A single dense person.

And the troops aren't meant to be lewd.

The dense person you're referring to being
Et. al? He did nothing but give evidence after evidence that you're wrong.

The way I see it, you have at least three people arguing against you, and you stand alone that the line means bestality, and even can be argued with because of the proposed Foocubi Seduction corps being a very lewd option.

Why are you so adamant that the troops cannot be lewd in any way at all?

Only one post said they couldn't see this 'interpretation'.

And them being succubi wouldn't mean they're lewd to you.

Because they are not supposed to be, just like generals are not innately lewd. they are an army, not your waifu.

Dude, I don't see how you don't see the generals are lewd. If a player wants to make their entire army their harem I say we shouldn't deny them the opportunity.

This game is a fun, goofy, lews twist on the knight-saves princess genre and the fact you want to make it srs bzns just dosen't jive with the game.

I agree withall you want to do is argue about the game should be tailored to not trigger your personal hang-ups, so I'm going to bed too.

The generals are pretty damn un-lewd except in design, and not everything in towergirls is sex sex sex.

All of them have a + about how sexy they are, as wells as their fetishes, besides squire they are the lewdist thing on the companions sheet your fucking dilusional

Chi is a good girl

None of their 'fetishes' are sexual.

>Missionary
>Drunk Sex
>Gangbanging and Domming
>Necklicking and Anal

Are we looking at the same cards, or are you simply hallucinating?

Mix up with the masters, I guess. Whatever.

Point is, fuck off and keep your zoo shit out. Period.

>Zoo Shit

A little late for that friend. We've already got monstergirls, anthros, and outright furries in every gen. What do you care anyway?

It dosen't have to be zoo shit at all, because you're goddam allergic to anything that upsets your hugbox that you'll shitpost for hours with a witchhunt about how too affectionate has to mean zoophilia.

Are you the same guy that shits up the /cyoag/ everytime somebody makes a build involving a fetish you don't like? What it your problem man, that you have to shit on everybody that has fun the wrong way?

>witchhunt zoophilia.

Teehee

This is Photo user. Now, I don't give a damn about whatever fetishes you may or may not have. We've had enough arguing about such. I do have one question, though. You keep repeating "the troops aren't meant to be lewd". Where was that stated? I didn't say that. Eversor didn't state that. Frankly, the only person I know who has stated that is you, friend.