Ever feel like fantasy armor is too bogged down in attempted realism...

>anything is possible

Like being stabbed in the gut for not bothering to protect yourself?

>stuffy

Who knew, wanting a world to be logically consistent is 'stuffy' now. And its not 'hate' to want things to make sense within the rules of a world either.

Yeah my barbarian wearing a chainmail man-thong and nipple-rings should have equal defense to some lame old bore in full-plate!

Enchanted nipple rings.

I mean d&d even has a fucking enchantment for that which lets you make your armor look like clothes or mithril chain is sometimes described as more cloth-like. It's hardly like there aren't solutions and options it's just almost always people bitching because they want everything handed to them without having to make any sense.

He should if they're high quality nipple rings.

WTF bullshit railroading! It's fantasy, who's to say I can't deflect spears with my nipple rings!

Actually, you know what? If you want to have your fighteress going basically nude, what the fuck, Conan did it, you can do it.

The "nominal armor" thing is pretty stupid in this case as well, though. It's like you think without some greaves or whatever people can't get you're armed and dangerous.

>who's to say I can't deflect spears with my nipple rings!
The GM. Don't like it, go write some fanfiction instead of playing.

Absolutely OP. The thread at is a perfect example of that, people obsessing over realism rather than asking what would create interesting gameplay choices.

I say fuck it, go full fashion with fantasy armour, why not? Stats should be there to make them cool and interesting, not adhere to dumb reality.

You did not take the feat from erotic fantasy expanded.

And what if the GM says no, you can do that just fine?

This is fine if it fits the setting. More often than not,It does not.

That's a viable opinion on this subject.

But going the extreme opposite of Wow-like armor and weapon abominations is also plain bad.

If he's got 20 Str and Con, then he does - if the fighter had a shield, too!

Why do there need to be believable reasons for it?

There aren't believable reasons for why Dragons can fly in antimagic fields. For how an economy works when magic can obviate the laws of supply and demand with ease.

The problem is that it's not applied consistently, creating a ludicrous double standard where people absolutely refuse to consider some things while ignoring or handwaving away others.

I err on the side of fun. Boobplate for everyone!

That is, of course, his prerogative. It all depends on the kind of game he wants to run.

Nice slutplate, real warriors show off their bodies.

MORE PIERCINGS

So she wears that hair with those sticks under that helmet?

All you are doing is exposing further reasons why DnD is an inconsistent game.

This is why high magic in general is almost impossible to do well.

Is that a girl (boy)?

Seems to be open in the back

People can accept fantastical things so long they are consistent. This is call secondary believes. People are not dumb.

People are willing to accept Superman so long his powers and character remain consitent and they are adressed. By contrast, everyone being to dumb to realise that Superman = Clark is a violation of that rule. This creates tension with the audience that must be adressed sonehow. In superman case, this is done by turning it into a runnig gang.

It's easy to do well, you just stop trying to pick apart niitty gritty details and embrace the broad themes. It's fun.

It's a girl ()

But the gameplay choices should come from, you know, somewhere in the game world. Some part of the logic.

If you want a game about cheesecake, make all armor magical. The important part about the armor is not its protective qualities physically, but the magic barrier it gives. And different armors have different kinds of barriers. HELL, if you want maximum cheesecake, make the armor parts actually the weak spots.

This would actually go into - OH GOD.

Why did I create the most lewd armor system just now? Anyway.

Allright, this all goes into the question between personal protection and armor integrity. You want more protection, wear skimpier armor, but the less there is of the armor, the easier it is to break the armor itself.

... Meaning it also has an armor-breaking mechanic.

Goodness.

I wanted to use the "depends on the setting" picture, but you wanted some armor cheesecake so here you are.

For my campaigns, I let my players have at it when it comes to artistic license; honestly, as long as their silly looking armor isn't half of their personality, they can imagine their characters to look however they want. Players who are given more artistic freedom tend to have a better time, and therefore are more agreeable in the long run.
I made a Tiefling fighter that wore a rather stylized breastplate, had long hair and no armor on her tail. But I didn't make a huge deal about how "impractical" this was; it wasn't important, but I liked how the character looked, I didn't use it to hamfist any sexuality into it and that was that.

The justifications of both sides are kinda weak, imo. I just say exactly why I don't use it. I don't like it. It doesn't appeal to me. If I wanted scantily clad people, I'd just have them in bikinis or something. Magic can sort the rest out. Others are free to use it, but setting dictates. If others at the table don't want it at the table, then don't bring it. I want to play many stupid strange things, but the table dictates.

The setting also dictates a bit, since games that are more "realistic" than high fantasy will have reasons for most things, and boobplate won't fly.

I find an easier way of dealing with this to be getting a "downtime" image of a character in skimpy clothing. That way, you can just say that's not what they wear adventuring. That, or make an incredibly dexterous character that doesn't rely on armor.

Dafuck, that was meant to show a Venus Symbol

Look, who the fuck cares. Just make your setting consistent. If you skimpy armour, don't go giving anyone proper armour. Come up with the rule, then stick to that rule. The rule doesn't even have to make sense as long as it's applied consistently.

>the picture of buff Argonians wearing speedo.jpg

According to fantasy, leather is absolutely better than cloth aka a gambeson. Fantasy is silly enough without shit armor design.

I guess I just don't see why things need an explanation.

It's like mecha settings. I don't need technobabble to tell me how you manage to make something innately unrealistic viable in combat. If the premise of the setting is 'Mecha work', then the setting remains internally consistent as long as it builds things off that premise.

A silly fantasy setting with cheesecake armour and bizarre magic is similar. I don't need to know how everything manages to work. If the premise of the setting is that it does, then it's fine.

>If you skimpy armour, don't go giving anyone proper armour.
Why not?

Inconsistent aesthetics make things confusing. Stick to one and it works best.

>Inconsistent aesthetics make things confusing.
Do you also avoid games that present multiple unique cultures?

This. Consistency is key. People can accept or tolerate BS so long it has a consistent and has purpose. Rememeber that there's this hidden contract between any work and the audience/players. Read suspension of disbelief and secondary believes.

Confusing how? Not the other guy, but what's wrong with having some people who like fancy armor and some who value protection above aesthetics? You might be placing consistency above your players' enjoyment.

If fancy armour is a thing in your setting then clearly it is just as protective as 'realistic' armour. Making the two coexist stops making sense.

You dont decide what you wear. That depends on the setting.

Not if you don't think about it it doesn't.

In my games, players can dress like anything from a skimpy ass final fantasy chick to a dark souls character; it only matters if you care about that kind of thing. Those in my games tend not to, so it's a non-issue

>people obsessing over realism rather than asking what would create interesting gameplay choices.

Going "let's have them dress in metal underwear" is not an interesting gameplay choice.

>Complains about fantasy armour trying too hard to not be sexual
>Posts a picture following American sexuality standards
Look out, OP! The evil nipples are going to rape you in sleep!

You know what else doesn't make sense? Magic. giant fire breathing lizards with PhDs. Adventuring. Fantasy economics. PC's being able to punch a grizzly bear to death.

>no fun allowed.

The point here isn't that it makes sense, but that my players can freely create characters they have fun playing. A character with flashy armor may have an equally flashy personality, which is personified with coyly exposed thighs and a scarf, whereas Mathias the Paladins literally cloaks himself in the oppressive armor of his god.

Depends on the setting. Chances are that those who wear one kind of armor over the other seek a different tones and themes.

>why dragons can fly in antimagic fields

I'm no biologist, but I think it's to do with the wings.

>Depends on the player.
ftfy

Why do castles exist in a setting woth dragons?

>I'm no biologist
You're obviously not a physicist either.

How did humans even evolve in a setting with fantasy monsters and a world ending disaster every third Wednesday of the month?

The players have to adapt to the setting. Not the other way around.

Pretty sure all those things are supposed to be internally consistent within a setting. If your setting has dragons that breathe fire with scales of iron, people will be VERY confused once you show them a dragon that breathes bacon with scales of porridge. Things have to consistent, or at the very least thematically consistent.

Only if you have a shitty GM and an inconsistent setting.

Because castles are really good at keeping most creatures out. Plus, dragons are usually depicted as infrequent creatures of wonton destruction. Part of their inherent danger is how difficult they are to prepare for.

It's fine for stuff to not make real-world sense as long as you're internally consistent but when someone wants bikini armor they often want it both ways as armor and clothing. They don't want to have to wear full armor for the full armor benefit but when it come to the penalties of wearing full armor they'll argue that a bikini shouldn't weigh them down or restrict their movements or other stuff like

>The players have to
They don't have to do anything you grognard.

>Only if you have a fun GM

Seriously guys, this is as easy as going "to each their own"

Veeky Forums doesn't support most characters
stick to the classics (.)(.)

>all imaginary fictional worlds must fully comply with real-world physics or else it's magic and should be affected by anti-magic fields
Leaving aside that magic also varies in fictional fantasy settings why should dragons even have wings if they just fly via magic?

>Implying a Breakfast Dragon wouldn't be a memorable encounter

Your wizards sound like they don't spend their time as wisely as they could. This also opens up other campaign directions, like harvesting this mythical bacon producing gland, or hunting down food-themed arch-liches, who turn out to have great senses of humor, personified as a horde of porridge ghouls that then ravage the countryside between 6 and 11am.

They shouldn't have to comply with the laws of the real world. That's the point.

Well, of course it varies from person to person. Making a justifiable world is absolutely my first priority, and while I don't require everything to be bulletproof, I personally go to incoherent rage from egregious and glaring inconsistencies. To me it speaks that the creator did not care enough about the world to actually make it work, instead just using it as a meaningless backdrop.

the most sensible answer in the thread. and the right way to go about it.

Roleplaying is a collaborative effort. You can't go around doing whatever you want. People who really want to go with realistic armour because of realism won't want to play with you because it breaks the tone they are imagining.

>tfw your player characters wear what they want and you all have fun because you kicked out obsessive mouthbreathing retards long ago.

It's great to play with adults.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea but it should be explained, not handwaved. It should be consistent, and boob plate should not be the same as a a breastplate. And suddenly encountering puff the magic dragon in your DS homebrew is EXTREMELY jarring and confusing.

The party prepares to enter a dungeon full of food monsters. The wizard is wearing an apron and a chef's hat, his staff topped with an egg whisk. The barbarian is wielding a massive, unwieldy-looking meat tenderizer. The rogue has switched out their daggers for a steak knife and an enchanted fish fork.

Skimpy armour is boring. Just an example of creative bankruptcy.

>I don't like it so I'll declare it's innately bad!

The only mouthbrething here is you. If you want to play Slayers, the setting go with it. It's fun. However, I would never play with you if you insist doing the same in a setting like say Call of Chuttulu where the tone and inmersion is very important and the fun part.

Yeah but not having to comply perfectly with real world physics doesn't necessarily mean anything goes and there's no need to apply any sort of logic.

I can easily imagine a magic bra that can deflect attacks with magic but a metal bra that can deflect attacks as well as full armor with no penalties is both stupid and unbalanced.

>Not letting your players play sultry sexy vixens in CoC.

Sounds like you despise fun.

Always be prepared. Part of the fun of having silly encounters is not so much that your barbarian brought along a meat tenderizer, but that they step into the dungeon and notice something weird, and have to deal with it. If your campaign has magic in it, expect there to be people who ABUSE magic for their own amusement. The entire purpose of magic is to tell reality to fuck off.

As for boon plate or not, is there a reason for this player to be wearing it? Talk with them and see why they decided on that, and try and reach a middle ground. The point of these games is to have fun; don't lose sight of that.

Spell-fingers are in their own category, methinks. Who knows how high of a deflection bonus those robes are giving?

>CoC cheesecake campaign

Only if it's accompanied with an 80's action movie soundtrack.

Keep being upset for no reason then.

Exactly, which is why women shouldn't be serving in the town guard or riding into battle as knights. They should receive -4 str. A sense of realism and common sense should apply.

Even besides the issue of internal consistency and all that, see . That pic's armor is boring as fuck, historical "boring" armor looks 100 times better.

What if all armor in this particular universe is enchanted so that enemies HAVE to aim at it? In that case, you want armor that covers just enough to protect modesty/ensure a miss doesn't hit bare skin, but not so large that the enemy has lots of options to choose from.

Also sets up nicely for clothing destruction.

I was thinking more 1960's with super spies and coke.

...

Charlie's Angels vs. the evil from beyond the stars.

...

Then why not just get a breastplate, a helmet, and a shield? In fact, why not just a shield? The enemy will be forced to just keep going for the shield, and you can move the shield around easier than you can your nipples.

>attempted realism
>anything is possible
One of the things I rolled out for casters and druids in my campaign is wooden armor. dense enough to stop an arrow in its tracks, lightweight enough to not interfere with somatics and better protection than simple cloth.
I was looking at my little brother's shin guards, they were these thin padded plastic things and I got thinking that if a soccer player could run around with shin guards and the like without losing mobility, couldn't you do something similar with "thigh guards" arm guards, and the like? Obviously plastic's a no-go, but we can handwavium wooden plates, and it's worked out pretty well so far.

I mean, if the chain links were small enough, I suppose it isn't -impossible- to fool someone into thinking it was a regular dress. Just have her make a Bluff check vs. the guards' Perception.

exactly

People don't take skimpy armour seriously for the same reason as the whole Superman-Clark as a running joke.

It would also be functionally just a dress at that point.

Really settings that allow cheesecake and realistic or semi-realistic armor to coexist is because in these settings armor say more something about the character and his place in the setting than anything.

not an argument

In a setting like Game of Thrones, no. Like everything, it depends on the setting. Also, remember that PC are always the exception to the rule.