Is this an acceptable character portrait?

>playing tabletop without imagination
Then again if you use portraits your almost certainly playing online too so you just skip over nearly everything that makes the hobby worthwhile

>you're lying to feel special
Honestly no. I always pictured that gangly cartoon on the cover over Daniel.

Hey, don't look at me, it's OP who asked stupid question. And I specifically used face argument, because in text-based games, it's usually one of the few rules that there are - avatar needs to show face or gets delated as superflous

Go back to /jp/ Reimu.

As long as you get the intent or spirit of the character then sure it's fine (although that image doesn't say much). Unless the DM/GM says otherwise, but it's a stupid thing to raise a fuss over.

My personal position is character portraits are overrated. I don't care so much what people look like as what they do. Basic imagination fills in any blanks and frankly anything you can imagine is typically more real to you anyway. That's why I'd rather have brief descriptions of characters than a portrait. Poor players too often use the portrait as a crutch, looking for something cool as if that is a proper replacement to being able to give that player a personality of their own.

Is your character an armpit?
Is this some kind of game where the PCs are aliens who have tried to hijack human bodies, but failed to take them over completely and instead must live as part of their host human, working together with their host to accomplish goals? Because if so, can I join?

No, I agree with you. Portraits and detailed character descriptions rarely serve any purpose at all. Everyone will just imagine your character the way they want to imagine him regardless of what your picture shows or what you've said your character looks like.

People will regardless.

>avatar needs to show face or gets delated as superflous
I wouldn't say that's always true. Plenty of masked fellows and gals in character art threads. As long as it's integral to the character then fine, someone can play the mysterious masked ponce or the horribly acid scarred nightmare, etc. Some people prefer hoods. Scifi can involve helmets.

As long as it is a significant part of the character that you don't see their face then it's fine.

>If you say anything other than the Daniel Radcliffe portrayal, you're lying to feel special.
Jokes on you, I can't visualize for shit.

Even having a mask still includes the head area. In OP's picture, you get no indication of face, and really no indication of form. You get half of an arm, a neck, and part of the side. I couldn't even begin to guess at the class.

Worst part is, it would have to be an intentional choice. Anyone can take five minutes in google and find a decent picture of a character that at least looks close enough. Using only part of a body as character art would mean intentional cropping for some strange purpose.

Imagination is such an endemic part of these games trying to eliminate any particular part of using ones imagination is horribly missing the point entirely.

Feels like 9 times out of 10 instead of finding an image that fits their character, which can be hard to do, they just find some piece of art and try to write the character around that. Sounds all good in theory until you GM a game and everyone turns in their art. Then you discover you're surrounded by weebs, furries, and edgelords. Or something even worse.

No, what the fuck is wrong with you? There are parts you want to eliminate imagination in.

Maps, for one thing. I don't want you 'imagining' a bigass gap in the floor where there is none.

And I don't want some fuckface like you imagining my character with buckteeth or something equally stupid.

>weebs, furries, and edgelords. Or something even worse.
what's worse?

it's like you've never played with real people

What are you talking about? OP is obviously playing a Coquettish Prostitute.

Seriously though you're putting too much into character art. Focus on finding people who can actually decently roleplay their character instead.

>And I don't want some fuckface like you imagining my character with buckteeth or something equally stupid.
user, you can't even stop me from imagining YOU with buckteeth.

Its like you don't have an actual counter-argument.

Us.

I wouldn't mind, but I would certainly prefer to associate a face to any character. Especially in online games.

my counter argument is that your fears are unrealistic, and that you're probably more used to playing videogames where everything that isnt explicitly visualised doesntexist

no player is spontaneously going to imagine a hole in the floor and then insist and argue with the DM that it's there. what the fuck are you even on about

Imagine all you want.

But it's objectively, actual factual wrong. So you're just being a contrarian jackass at that point.

It just feels like something really basic. Why would someone go out of their way to do something harder and more confusing, when easier and more understandable options are readily available?

I don't think I want to roleplay with a guy who's going out of his way to be intentionally confusing before the game even starts.

The hole is just one example, you dribbling 'tard. Arguments over what is or what isn't there, or just misunderstanding happen ALL the fucking time, due to bad descriptions.

I'm starting to think you're the one that's never actually played a tabletop RPG before.

Well, found this threads That Guy.

>ACTUAL FACTUAL

>My character has these features, here's a picture
>Nah, fuck you, I'll imagine what I want
I'm that guy. Sure.

As others have pointed out it doesn't matter what that player thinks of their character, including art, it's what you do. And moreover it's a silly thing to get hung up over. Actions speak louder than character portraits.

Imagine this thread as people sitting at the table waiting to play and you're all still bitching about a person's choice in image which ultimately won't matter over just getting down to playing the game. It'll turn into a wasted session and over something ultimately pointless.

MY TEETH ARE FINE THIS IS ACTUAL FACTUAL

here's some character art for your next self insert

Yep. Same reason you don't believe the pictures people post of themselves on dating sites. What they want you to think often isn't the truth. You'll find out exactly what kind of character that is when you play with them.

Jesus christ dude get out of your house and play some games with people, you'll see it's not that scawwy

Thank you for proving you still have no actual point.

The fuck does this even mean? All I want to know is what the character FUCKING LOOKS LIKE, and a picture is a super simple easy way to get that across.

F

A C T U A L

C

T

U

A

L

...But the character portrait isn't even a portrait. It's not hard to find a different image that would actually show a face (covered or not).

If I don't put my foot down over this poor choice in character art, what else am I not supposed to disagree with because it will waste time? A bad IC plan? That the rogue's been rounding up the gold he gets each session? When the paladin's been fudging his rolls? At what point do the arguments over our imaginary social game stop being pointless, user?

Yeah but does a picture of an armpit get anything across?

Also I explained my point here and you just said the same thing I did (that you doubt I've ever played a game) and made fun of disabled people.
That is the actual factual truth dude it's all right here

>The fuck does this even mean? All I want to know is what the character FUCKING LOOKS LIKE, and a picture is a super simple easy way to get that across.
That's fine and dandy if you want it, but it's hardly a gamebreaking matter if they don't provide you one. Well maybe it is for you, but most people are fully capable of filling in the gaps in their teeth, ahem, sorry, gaps in knowledge with their imagination.

That map you were complaining about is far more important to the actual game than a character portrait, especially when a simple character description will do the job just as well. Because these are descriptive games. If you can't handle following descriptions then the game ultimately is not for you. Stick with something like Skyrim.

Uh, actually factually, people can use whatever art they want and people will still imagine it as an 18 legged scaly giraffe no matter what you do, so

An armpit gets nothing across, are you literally fucking retarded? Are you? Because if you think I somehow argued that the armpit thing was ok you are legit retarded

That might explain things pretty well, really.

>gaps in their teeth
I'm fucking crying dude

does anyone have more actual factual?

>armpit fetishists
i want magical realming faggots to leave my board

So now you're backpedaling and calling me retarded again. And I'm the one with no argument.

Leave disabled people out of this, shitstain

>A bad IC plan?
Discussing strategy is a wise course of action in any game.

>That the rogue's been rounding up the gold he gets each session?

That would be an important factor to bring to the GMs attention, and is the reason many GMs keep track of this stuff separate. It's their totals that tend to stand, not your own. Same with experience points.

> When the paladin's been fudging his rolls?

Bad rolls happen but yeah if you're dragging it out it's just as stupid as arguing over a portrait. It's a waste of time.

And they are objectively wrong, and probably That Guy for ignoring what the other player says.

Really helps to root them out.

A character picture is something simple and nice, and it makes picturing the character easy. And as I just said, if some jackass feels like ignoring that, they're probably going to be a shitty, contrarian jackass.

You seriously, in actual fact, think people do that? And you're going to take the idea seriously?

Who do you fucking play with?

When has someone ever looked at character art and said "nope, that's not your character. Let me explain what they really look like".

Holy shit dude get your factuals actualed before you get so worked up. This doesn't happen

Is this an acceptable character portrait?

Sure! That's a fine paladin putting his foot down on the neck of injustice.

nuh uh it's a lanky yoda with a fake plastic goatee.

This is objective actual fact

Fight me

my characters a rogue, user
how about this?

It lacks...
Character

At least you didn't incorrectly use the word portrait

oops
here's my landscape instead

All this mad over what someone imagines your character as without art. Tell me, how do you read? Do you imagine the characters as they're described/written or do you just imagine words where a character should be?

Because honestly, you sound dreadfully boring to game with if this is how you deal with just even the slightest off-bit character coloration. 'naw, i totally imagine him with like a southern drawl.'

Are you playing a fucking elbow?

You must be playing Reign. I'm sorry

Not bad! But it's a bit abstract. Still, no problem, since we're playing FATAL. Lets get to rolling!

>The idea behind character portrait is that you DON'T need to imagine anything at all.
The idea behind a character portrait is that it should be evocative of what the character's about. No one's gonna look at it more than maybe once, and no one's gonna think that the picture is a perfect representation of what your character looks like other than in the broadest of strokes; 'oh, he's a chivalrous knight', 'ok, a savage barbarian', 'aight, slutty thief', etc.

For a prostitute it is.

Portrait means picture of their face

Not according to how people use it in this context. Tell people to bring a character portrait and you'll get full body shots, people in masks, people in veils, people in helmets, people hidden in shadows, etc, etc.

so what does an armpit represent, besides your magical realm?
seriously how hard is it to keep your fetish out of the game.

If that's the worst thinking with their dick has to offer then I'd say they're pretty harmless

>so what does an armpit represent
An armpit in general? OP is perhaps a fetishist. The picture that OP posted however, I'd ok that. It tells us, for example, that the character is a young woman, beautiful, and likely of noble birth. That is, it tells us more than enough, and does not bog itself down with unnecessary details that no one is gonna remember anyway.

Is it just jpeg artifacts or there is actually some weird shit on the bottom of her neck?

Not seeing weird shit, just lighting.

That's an armpit.

I'd say yes if you armpit faggots weren't so annoying.

not even remotely

Fine bug I'll be watching you. If you start making constant armpit references you're getting penalized for bringing in a fetish without clearing it with the group.

>without clearing it with the group
Jesus Christ I can't imagine a more awkward conversation. "I was thinking of working in some mind control to the game. Normally I wouldn't bring it up, but since I occasionally masturbate to it I thought you all should know"

This. The characters, always looked like the Mary Grandpre Scholatic edition illustrations in my mind.

How's that conversation gonna go? 'Hey so, I like masturbating to armpits. My character's portrait is just gonna be a girl's armpit. Is that okay?'

You mean this one?

>you're lying to feel special
Not really, considering there's actual pictures of how Harry looks in the artwork. That's how I visualize him. He's a gangly looking teen with glasses, a lightning shaped scar and probably no taller than five feet six.

No muscles on any of his bones, unlike Daniel. The movies are good at showcasing a Hollywood feel, but the books are far better at helping you see/visualize the guy as a small little pathetic-appearing kid than just saying 'here's the actor, this is what HP looks like!'

>not focusing on you assets
why beat around the bush?

...

My Barbarian

>What are you talking about? OP is obviously playing a Coquettish Prostitute.
And you are assuming that based on what exactly? Aside wild assumption, that is.

This is the main reason why character images should present the character, instead of being just a semi-random piece of their supposed body. If you want guessing game, just skip character art and be done with it.

>I never played any text-based RPG
Yeah, we've noticed

I see the point went over your head. Just sailed right on over, whoosh.

Not him, but he asked you a pretty straight-forward question. The fact you stall instead of providing equally simple and straight-forward answer tells more than it should

The issue is, all that could just as easily be conveyed with a portrait that isn't blatant fetish bait. Like, shit, it looks like OP's pic is cropped from a bigger one that actually shows her face; why not use the original instead of the armpit-focus crop?

Fabio?

You might have me confused, m8. I ain't the dude he was asking a question, just casually mentioning that the whole 'this is confusing i mean what is she supposed to be' angle is exactly why the picture is good and does the opposite of what he thinks it does.

That's just my opinion, though.

Is it actually fetish-bait, though, if you're cropping the picture to give a basic idea but not necessary the full picture, so that people can fill in the blanks?

All i know from that pic is that its probably a woman. What are you getting out of that pic that is so "evocative"?

If you're cropping it in a way that shifts the focus to something fetishy, yes.

It's evocative of their fetish, that's what.

is it really a fetish if it's an armpit, though? like..how many people actually find that fetishy? what if the person isn't into armpits and didn't intend for it to be fetishy?

Precisely because you don't want to show the face because it is one of those
>unnecessary details that no one is gonna remember anyway.
No matter people will imagine the character their own way, so why create unnecessary associations to some real world person or easily recognizable fictional character in the meantime?

It's a class A fetish just like feet but you're kind of right
You can't remove everything that's a fetish because then you pass out on everything. It's sad to not include dragons because a player could be a scaly.

>armpit fetishists attacking Veeky Forums