Bradyfjord wrote: »I got the minotaur chest motif. The light version has a couple of bandoleer type straps, and otherwise it's bare chested. Looks very manly on my manly dk.
Bradyfjord wrote: »I got the minotaur chest motif. The light version has a couple of bandoleer type straps, and otherwise it's bare chested. Looks very manly on my manly dk.
There are a few bare chested styles on Male characters, that are not bare chested on Females. Obvious unfortunate reason is obvious.
ImmortalCX wrote: »Sometimes its sexier to leave a little to the imagination.

ImmortalCX wrote: »Sometimes its sexier to leave a little to the imagination.
Yes, they are doing almost exactly that, almost to the letter (minus one tiny "a"), leaving little to the imagination.
Let me add the Argonian style to the skimpy outfits:
ImmortalCX wrote: »Sometimes its sexier to leave a little to the imagination.
Yes, they are doing almost exactly that, almost to the letter (minus one tiny "a"), leaving little to the imagination.
Let me add the Argonian style to the skimpy outfits:
ImmortalCX wrote: »Bradyfjord wrote: »I got the minotaur chest motif. The light version has a couple of bandoleer type straps, and otherwise it's bare chested. Looks very manly on my manly dk.
There are a few bare chested styles on Male characters, that are not bare chested on Females. Obvious unfortunate reason is obvious.
Sometimes its sexier to leave a little to the imagination.
ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »Sometimes its sexier to leave a little to the imagination.
Yes, they are doing almost exactly that, almost to the letter (minus one tiny "a"), leaving little to the imagination.
Let me add the Argonian style to the skimpy outfits:
Grammar police are always the life of the party!
ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »Sometimes its sexier to leave a little to the imagination.
Yes, they are doing almost exactly that, almost to the letter (minus one tiny "a"), leaving little to the imagination.
Let me add the Argonian style to the skimpy outfits:
Grammar police are always the life of the party!
I don't think you understood the pun in my post.Compare the different meanings of the two sentences:
1. Leaving a little imagination.
2. Leaving little imagination.
ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »Sometimes its sexier to leave a little to the imagination.
Yes, they are doing almost exactly that, almost to the letter (minus one tiny "a"), leaving little to the imagination.
Let me add the Argonian style to the skimpy outfits:
Grammar police are always the life of the party!
I don't think you understood the pun in my post.Compare the different meanings of the two sentences:
1. Leaving a little imagination.
2. Leaving little imagination.
I did understand, but "grammar police" is the closest description of your objection.
There is no pun there. There is no humor there.
ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »Sometimes its sexier to leave a little to the imagination.
Yes, they are doing almost exactly that, almost to the letter (minus one tiny "a"), leaving little to the imagination.
Let me add the Argonian style to the skimpy outfits:
Grammar police are always the life of the party!
I don't think you understood the pun in my post.Compare the different meanings of the two sentences:
1. Leaving a little imagination.
2. Leaving little imagination.
I did understand, but "grammar police" is the closest description of your objection.
There is no pun there. There is no humor there.
ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »Sometimes its sexier to leave a little to the imagination.
Yes, they are doing almost exactly that, almost to the letter (minus one tiny "a"), leaving little to the imagination.
Let me add the Argonian style to the skimpy outfits:
Grammar police are always the life of the party!
I don't think you understood the pun in my post.Compare the different meanings of the two sentences:
1. Leaving a little imagination.
2. Leaving little imagination.
I did understand, but "grammar police" is the closest description of your objection.
There is no pun there. There is no humor there.
There was no objection and no grammar policing in my post. If it makes you feel better, your sentence was gramatically correct as far as my limited knowledge of the English language allows me to judge.
I simply made fun of the two similar sentences, which each means something else and mine meant basically the opposite to yours.
You said that some room should be left for imagination by keeping more skin covered.
I said hardly any room actually was left for imagation by keeping so little skin covered.
ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »Sometimes its sexier to leave a little to the imagination.
Yes, they are doing almost exactly that, almost to the letter (minus one tiny "a"), leaving little to the imagination.
Let me add the Argonian style to the skimpy outfits:
Grammar police are always the life of the party!
I don't think you understood the pun in my post.Compare the different meanings of the two sentences:
1. Leaving a little imagination.
2. Leaving little imagination.
I did understand, but "grammar police" is the closest description of your objection.
There is no pun there. There is no humor there.
There was no objection and no grammar policing in my post. If it makes you feel better, your sentence was gramatically correct as far as my limited knowledge of the English language allows me to judge.
I simply made fun of the two similar sentences, which each means something else and mine meant basically the opposite to yours.
You said that some room should be left for imagination by keeping more skin covered.
I said hardly any room actually was left for imagation by keeping so little skin covered.
Grammar parse humor is not humor. And there was no pun.
Leaving "a little" to the imagination. Is the same as leaving "little" to the imagination. Your sentence had an equivalent meaning.
I don't agree that a reasonable person would translate you grammar parse into the meaning of your second sentence (above). Based on your star rating, you are a forum regular and have been posting here for years, so other people are likely to support your interpretation even if it makes no sense.
It was a bad joke based on an incorrect grammar parse. Let it go.
ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »Sometimes its sexier to leave a little to the imagination.
Yes, they are doing almost exactly that, almost to the letter (minus one tiny "a"), leaving little to the imagination.
Let me add the Argonian style to the skimpy outfits:
Grammar police are always the life of the party!
I don't think you understood the pun in my post.Compare the different meanings of the two sentences:
1. Leaving a little imagination.
2. Leaving little imagination.
I did understand, but "grammar police" is the closest description of your objection.
There is no pun there. There is no humor there.
There was no objection and no grammar policing in my post. If it makes you feel better, your sentence was gramatically correct as far as my limited knowledge of the English language allows me to judge.
I simply made fun of the two similar sentences, which each means something else and mine meant basically the opposite to yours.
You said that some room should be left for imagination by keeping more skin covered.
I said hardly any room actually was left for imagation by keeping so little skin covered.
Grammar parse humor is not humor. And there was no pun.
Leaving "a little" to the imagination. Is the same as leaving "little" to the imagination. Your sentence had an equivalent meaning.
I don't agree that a reasonable person would translate you grammar parse into the meaning of your second sentence (above). Based on your star rating, you are a forum regular and have been posting here for years, so other people are likely to support your interpretation even if it makes no sense.
It was a bad joke based on an incorrect grammar parse. Let it go.
Omg.... Leaving a little to the imagination and living little to the imagination mean the OPPOSITE.
Where was the incorrect grammar in anyone's statement? Please tell.
Love the conspiracy theory though... Forum stars = hivemind?!?!
ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »ImmortalCX wrote: »Sometimes its sexier to leave a little to the imagination.
Yes, they are doing almost exactly that, almost to the letter (minus one tiny "a"), leaving little to the imagination.
Let me add the Argonian style to the skimpy outfits:
Grammar police are always the life of the party!
I don't think you understood the pun in my post.Compare the different meanings of the two sentences:
1. Leaving a little imagination.
2. Leaving little imagination.
I did understand, but "grammar police" is the closest description of your objection.
There is no pun there. There is no humor there.
There was no objection and no grammar policing in my post. If it makes you feel better, your sentence was gramatically correct as far as my limited knowledge of the English language allows me to judge.
I simply made fun of the two similar sentences, which each means something else and mine meant basically the opposite to yours.
You said that some room should be left for imagination by keeping more skin covered.
I said hardly any room actually was left for imagation by keeping so little skin covered.
Grammar parse humor is not humor. And there was no pun.
Leaving "a little" to the imagination. Is the same as leaving "little" to the imagination. Your sentence had an equivalent meaning.
I don't agree that a reasonable person would translate you grammar parse into the meaning of your second sentence (above). Based on your star rating, you are a forum regular and have been posting here for years, so other people are likely to support your interpretation even if it makes no sense.
It was a bad joke based on an incorrect grammar parse. Let it go.
ImmortalCX wrote: »I read this again, and now I realize what you are saying.
Pyr0xyrecuprotite wrote: »If characters are bare-chested in town, they might just be using an outfit that displays "no item worn" in that slot?
Pyr0xyrecuprotite wrote: »If characters are bare-chested in town, they might just be using an outfit that displays "no item worn" in that slot?

It would be nice to have more choices like this.
If you want to use the outfit station to design your own look, and you want that look to include a skin, or, especially, a set of body markings, you have about... half-a-dozen choices for outfit styles. (Fewer if female.) That's out of 84 total numbered motifs, plus all the non-numbered bits. And the first 10 motifs make up 40 different styles.
Example: