|
| ||||
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| ||
I started painting figures as aids to role-playing, and although I do now sometimes do figures purely for display or as dioramas, I still think of them in role-playing terms. This, I suspect, gives me a slightly different attitude to both the wargamer who wants vast armies, and the figure artist after a Golden Demon.
Virtually all the figures I have are in the 25mm- 35mm bracket. That is, when I started collecting figures were generally 25mm, and in recent years this has gradually creeped up to 28mm, 30mm and beyond.
I don't do fancy bases for most of my figures. Since they are for use in role-playing games where fights are more likely to happen inside buildings or in cramped alley-ways than in open fields, I really like bases to be big enough to keep the figure upright and no bigger. The collection was already quite large before the introduction of slotta bases, and from early on I have tended to put milliput bases on figures without integral ones. Not having the huge bases also makes storage easier - I really don't know how I would store my large and growing collection if they all had slotta bases.
I generally prefer figures in fairly "neutral" poses. Whilst active poses can make for dramatic display pieces, overly dramatic ones are distracting for a role playing game. I also like figures to be reasonably realistic. (Given that I'm talking about fantasy, perhaps "plausible " would be a better word.) If a figure is meant to be human it should have human proportions! Designers seem to have particular problems here when it comes to female figures (see my rant below). Similarly, I don't like vastly oversized weaponry. I frequently end up filing down swords to produce something the figure could reasonably be expected to lift. I hope the characters I play are fully fleshed-out personalities rather than 2D cartoon characters and I like the figures I use to reflect that.
I also like to be able to see the face on a figure - personality again. I rarely like figures in full plate armour (affectionately known as "tin cans"), as such armour is virtually unknown in our fantasy world. Most fighters wear chain shirts at most, with leather being the most common.
What is the point of a chain-mail bikini? OK, at one level I get it. It has a very obvious and basic appeal to sixteen year old fan-boys (or older fan-boys who still think like sixteen-year-olds). But, again thinking in role-playing terms, why would any fighter (male or female) choose to (un)dress like that? A blow to the stomach is at least as likely to kill as one to the chest or groin, so if you come from a culture where you can get armour, I would have thought you would want something that offered proper protection, otherwise why bother? Even a small amount of metal armour is going to restrict your mobility and be somewhat uncomfortable. To be worth it it needs to provide some compensating protection.
The human form (male as well as female, incidently) can be a beautiful thing, and you may well find the odd scantily clad priest(ess) or wizard/sorceress amongst my figures. There may even be warrior types from cultures that do not wear much clothing, though for Northern Europeans there are enough practical, non-combat reasons for wanting to wear clothing when travelling (climate, brambles, stinging nettles, to name just three). But I just cannot believe a fighter wearing "armour" which offers no protection. All this, of course, is equally true of the plate-mail bikini, which would be even more uncomfortable to wear!
Another problem with female figures are the wildly distorted proportions they are often given. Huge busts and sometimes buttocks, along with impossibly tiny waists. As I said above, I like humans to look like humans! Properly proportioned figures are actually more attractive than extreme exaggerations. I have a suspicion that the shapes are actually getting less human at the moment. Admittedly, there are good female figures out there, mostly designed by female sculptors! Perhaps the male sculptors lack first hand knowledge of female anatomy? ;-)
On a related topic, can I just say how much I hate the word "chick", when used to describe a woman. It was patronising and insulting 40 years ago, and to find it back in use in the 21st Century is just depressing. To see my take on a "Chick in a Chain-mail Bikini" click here.
(c) Janet Vialls 2005: Page design by Peter Vialls: Last updated 5/5/05
