Bugbears!

[Hobgoblin]

No, not the giant hairy goblins we all know and love, but “causes of obsessive, fear, anxiety, or irritation”!

Here are some of the things I really dislike in fantasy miniatures. I wonder how many others share my peeves – or take an entirely opposing view!

1.   Oversized weapons
I have very limited tolerance for this. Not only does it hinder the pleasing intermingling of fantasy and historical miniatures, but it also tends to imbalance miniatures that are otherwise nicely sculpted. Ironically, the move to plastic should have made this better; early-80s sculptors were often constrained, to some extent by the need to avoid making figures too fragile. I also find that oversized armament renders miniatures unnecessarily comic: one can’t escape the lurking suspicion that their weapons are supposed to be made of foam. I was basing up some old Citadel gnolls the other day and was struck by how pleasingly proportioned their axes and swords are – despite the limitations of lead.
A special place in Hell is reserved for oversized warhammers. I reckon all miniature designers should keep the Uccello image below in constant sight: this is what a warhammer looks like.

2.   “Dual wielding”
Oh how I loathe this! I have nothing against a figure with a sword and a main gauche dagger or even some other convincing “off-hand” weapon, so long as the stance is appropriate. But the “both weapons overhead at once” approach is an abomination.
A special place in Hell is reserved for dual wielders of axes, which always looks unconvincing to me (as indeed do warhammers: it’s something to do with the accuracy needed to guide the head). And, for some reason, dual-axe-wielding dwarves most of all.

3.   Steroidal fighters
I find overmuscled fantasy figures immensely tedious. Think of how strong a chimpanzee is. Then take a look at one. They’re immensely brawny, sure, but they don’t look like simian bodybuilders. And nor should orcs. But human figures are perhaps worst of all in this respect.
A special place in Hell goes to overdeveloped pectorals. The bench press didn’t really take off as an exercise until the second half of the twentieth century (compare and contrast the physiques of modern bodybuilders with early-twentieth-century strongmen like Arthur Saxon), so it seems odd that models from fantasy versions of the Dark Ages have been spending quite so much time on it.

4.   Underclad barbarians
Sure, there’s a time and a place for screaming not-Celts in nothing but a layer of woad. But the default loin-cloth-only barbarian is just boring. There’s so much rich inspiration for fantasy barbarians, from the boar-crested hemets of Beowulf to the bound skulls of the Huns.
A special place in Hell is reserved for underclad barbarians from very cold places.

5.   Attractive women only
This just gets boring. Why shouldn’t female fighters and adventurers have their fair share of facial scars and broken noses? And why should they all be good-looking to begin with? Early Citadel adventurers were actually very good in this regard. They had some hefty and doughty-looking female clerics and fighters who didn’t look like they’d wandered in from the catwalk or the Sultan’s harem. There’s a great, battle-scarred female dwarf with an eyepatch from that era. And the Amazons were pretty good (rather than pretty). In this regard, I think the Dice Bag Lady’s shieldmaidens and she-orcs are excellent.
A special place in Hell is reserved for universally attractive underclad female barbarians. From the North. With steroidal physiques. Who are dual-wielding oversized weapons.

Have I missed anything?

This is a warhammer:

[Braxandur]

While I prefer more normal sized weapons as well, especially on historical miniatures and prefer it if the anatomy of models is correct, I don't really mind if artistic freedom has been applied to fantasy miniatures.  It's fantasy after all. Perhaps not your fantasy, sometimes also not mine,  but probably the fantasy of the sculptor/designer and I respect that instead of wishing them a special place in he'll.  

[Hobgoblin]

While I prefer more normal sized weapons as well, especially on historical miniatures and prefer it if the anatomy of models is correct, I don't really mind if artistic freedom has been applied to fantasy miniatures.  It's fantasy after all. Perhaps not your fantasy, sometimes also not mine,  but probably the fantasy of the sculptor/designer and I respect that instead of wishing them a special place in he'll.  

I did make sure that it was the tropes, rather than the sculptors, that I was consigning to the Underworld!

[Globlin]

I don't mind a bit of exaggeration in fantasy miniatures, otherwise you might as well just stick to historicals (not that there's anything wrong with that I hasten to add!). Some of the latest modern offerings do seem a tad overblown though, but that might be because I'm just an old grognard...

As to under-clad barbarians - a classic fantasy trope!

[Hobgoblin]

I don't mind a bit of exaggeration in fantasy miniatures, otherwise you might as well just stick to historicals (not that there's anything wrong with that I hasten to add!). Some of the latest modern offerings do seem a tad overblown though, but that might be because I'm just an old grognard...

It's certainly a question of degree. But I think that fantasy miniatures that work well with historicals are by far the best: things like the Perry's pre-slotta goblins, or Nick Bibby's Great Spined Dragon, or the Thunderbolt Mountain goblins. "Naturalistic" fantasy, in other words.

As to under-clad barbarians - a classic fantasy trope!

They are indeed - but there's a time and a place, surely? (And the time might have been the 70s and 80s ...? ) And isn't one of things about Conan that he dresses for the weather? His "loincloth-only" get-up is when he's in hot places. (He's in full armour - and presumably clothing - in The Frost Giant's Daughter, for example.)

[Vermis]

Never change, Hobgoblin.

1. With you on that. In fact, I made a little commentary about it a couple years ago.

3. I have two bugbears about this, from either end of the spectrum. One is steroidal fighters where the main reference seems to be comic books. Or, as you say, bodybuilders. (Preening, artificially swollen, dehydrated bodybuilders) I've just seen someone wax lyrical about Mantic werewolves, but to me they're one example of this trope taken to extremes. (Even for giant fictional wolfmen) I can see three things wrong with the shoulders alone, that break whatever illusion and unnecessarily emphasise the fact they're fake mandollies.

The other side of it, though more to do with historicals than fantasy, is rushing through a set of game counters and sticking on two flat semicircles in place of pecs. It might be a bit rich, me complaining about people rushing sculpts, but I don't like it.

The thing is, like green-gorilla orcs, I wouldn't mind all this so much if it didn't pop up so often.

4. Frank Frazetta has a lot to answer for...

5. You have a point, but personally I think it's less to do with attractiveness (how many male minis have scars and broken noses? ) as overemphasising attractiveness. The whole sexy pose - chainmail bikini - boob window - boobplate trope thing.

Some of me own...

6. Animals, especially fictional/fantasy animals, especially dragons. I've said in the 'favourite dragons' topic that this is an obsession of mine. I could fill a page, but it boils down to something like the steroidal bodybuilder problem, with an extra layer of 'it's not real so it doesn't matter' for the fantasy examples. References, and some smidgen of knowledge of real world anatomy, seem to be ignored.
Sometimes it looks like the only references are other sculpts, so iffy tropes and memes become ingrained. Sometimes it looks like the only references are human anatomy. (Steroidal human anatomy, even on RL animals.) Sometimes I see sculptors who are utterly fantastic in sculpting human anatomy, struggle with animals. Sometimes I see things like bears and elephants with digitigrade legs. Ironically these are usually fairly good examples of digitigrade sculpts, compared to the assumption that digitigrade legs are permanently folded. Too often I see ropey (even nonexistant*) anatomy and structure covered with a thick crust of textures and spikes and armour, as if it's some kind of disguise.

* That's 'this thing doesn't have much discernable anatomy', not 'this is the anatomy of a nonexistant thing'.

Sub-bug: sometimes the responses get me too. I mentioned the 'it's not real' attitude, but I watch some gamers argue and be surprisingly insistent about the distinction between a dragon and a wyvern (and a drake and a wyrm and...), never mind that the model they're arguing over might look like a sausage rolled in gravel, with a couple of bits of umbrella stuck in it.
I guess my TL;DR: to the fictional part of this bugbear is that it's not real, so it doesn't really matter how many legs and wings it has; but there are so many great RL animals and anatomy features to use, and swap about, and tweak, to make it look realistic.

Even shorter TL;DR: google images is a thing!

7. Might ruffle some feathers with this, but: nostalgia.

I'll start by saying that overall, sculpts and sculptors are getting better and better. That's not to say new sculpts are all good, or old sculpts were all bad - you've shown me that yourself, Hobgoblin, and then some. I'm also fond of some ranges before my time, like Citadel C11 halflings and Julie Guthrie's Grenadier minis.
But I like good old sculpts because they're good, not because I grew up with them. I see old, kinda wonky sculpts (or new sculpts in old, kinda wonky styles) being proclaimed as 'better than anything today'; and with the surrounding context, even which forum or blog it's on, I can only easily translate it as 'this is the kind of thing that was around when I was a kid'.
With me disclaimer up there, this is more of a 'whuh...?' thing, rather than 'you're ruining the hobby!!!'; but I've still seen instances and niches where sticking to old styles just comes across as a missed opportunity, or limiting the market.

I don't think I have too much excess of nostalgia. I found this hobby when I was already in my late teens, so I didn't grow up with any style of figures. I got into 40K and Fantasy because of genestealers and skaven, respectively, but when those old minis were eventually replaced I wasn't too sorry to see them go. In retrospect they were pretty bad, and IMO the newer models looked better. As said, I like thoughtful design and skill, regardless of what decade it's from.

[Vermis]

It's certainly a question of degree. But I think that fantasy miniatures that work well with historicals are by far the best: things like the Perry's pre-slotta goblins, or Nick Bibby's Great Spined Dragon, or the Thunderbolt Mountain goblins. "Naturalistic" fantasy, in other words.

Agreed. You're already dealing with strange, unworldly things like orcs and dragons. Why emphasise the fiction and put more strain on the suspension of disbelief with too many cartoony features and proportions? (If the style isn't meant to be cartoony, that is)

[Diablo Jon]

For me this will always be a Warhammer (the actual one the guy is wielding not the game)

[Diablo Jon]

No, not the giant hairy goblins we all know and love, but “causes of obsessive, fear, anxiety, or irritation”!

Here are some of the things I really dislike in fantasy miniatures. I wonder how many others share my peeves – or take an entirely opposing view!

1.   Oversized weapons
I have very limited tolerance for this. Not only does it hinder the pleasing intermingling of fantasy and historical miniatures, but it also tends to imbalance miniatures that are otherwise nicely sculpted. Ironically, the move to plastic should have made this better; early-80s sculptors were often constrained, to some extent by the need to avoid making figures too fragile. I also find that oversized armament renders miniatures unnecessarily comic: one can’t escape the lurking suspicion that their weapons are supposed to be made of foam. I was basing up some old Citadel gnolls the other day and was struck by how pleasingly proportioned their axes and swords are – despite the limitations of lead.
A special place in Hell is reserved for oversized warhammers. I reckon all miniature designers should keep the Uccello image below in constant sight: this is what a warhammer looks like.

2.   “Dual wielding”
Oh how I loathe this! I have nothing against a figure with a sword and a main gauche dagger or even some other convincing “off-hand” weapon, so long as the stance is appropriate. But the “both weapons overhead at once” approach is an abomination.
A special place in Hell is reserved for dual wielders of axes, which always looks unconvincing to me (as indeed do warhammers: it’s something to do with the accuracy needed to guide the head). And, for some reason, dual-axe-wielding dwarves most of all.

3.   Steroidal fighters
I find overmuscled fantasy figures immensely tedious. Think of how strong a chimpanzee is. Then take a look at one. They’re immensely brawny, sure, but they don’t look like simian bodybuilders. And nor should orcs. But human figures are perhaps worst of all in this respect.
A special place in Hell goes to overdeveloped pectorals. The bench press didn’t really take off as an exercise until the second half of the twentieth century (compare and contrast the physiques of modern bodybuilders with early-twentieth-century strongmen like Arthur Saxon), so it seems odd that models from fantasy versions of the Dark Ages have been spending quite so much time on it.

4.   Underclad barbarians
Sure, there’s a time and a place for screaming not-Celts in nothing but a layer of woad. But the default loin-cloth-only barbarian is just boring. There’s so much rich inspiration for fantasy barbarians, from the boar-crested hemets of Beowulf to the bound skulls of the Huns.
A special place in Hell is reserved for underclad barbarians from very cold places.

5.   Attractive women only
This just gets boring. Why shouldn’t female fighters and adventurers have their fair share of facial scars and broken noses? And why should they all be good-looking to begin with? Early Citadel adventurers were actually very good in this regard. They had some hefty and doughty-looking female clerics and fighters who didn’t look like they’d wandered in from the catwalk or the Sultan’s harem. There’s a great, battle-scarred female dwarf with an eyepatch from that era. And the Amazons were pretty good (rather than pretty). In this regard, I think the Dice Bag Lady’s shieldmaidens and she-orcs are excellent.
A special place in Hell is reserved for universally attractive underclad female barbarians. From the North. With steroidal physiques. Who are dual-wielding oversized weapons.

Have I missed anything?

This is a warhammer:

My favorite fantasy artist is Larry Elmore (blame early 80s D&D) and my favorite fantasy characters of all time are the Companions of the Hall (dual wield scimitars Drow check, muscle bound barbarian in lion cloth from the icy north check, hot chick with bow check) so I find myself disinclined to agree with you



Still that's the great thing about fantasy there is room for every conceivable style   

 

[Hobgoblin]

1. With you on that. In fact, I made a little commentary about it a couple years ago.

Ha! That's brilliant!

A little more on weapons: I reckon "less is more" is generally an excellent rule of thumb in artistic expression of all kinds - from Tolkien only describing the foot and arm of the cave troll in Moria to not showing the shark in Jaws to Cormac McCarthy's brief paragraph on the horrors of the cellar in The Road. And I think it applies particularly to descriptions and depictions of weapons. Two examples from popular fantasy fiction: in A Game of Thrones, Robert Baratheon's warhammer is described as "huge" and "almost too heavy" for Ned Stark to lift (I paraphrase). In contrast, in The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien describes Sam negotiating the threat of the wounded Shagrat, who is armed, apparently, only with a knife (a long red one that he licks and then holds between his teeth). The threat of the knife-armed orc is much greater than if he'd been described as holding a huge axe (I've recently read that bit of the book again with my son - we've almost finished the whole thing now - and it's a really terrifying passage). Less is more - and that works with miniatures too. A huge axe looks like a totem pole or a carnival prop; one with a small head looks like a tool designed for murder.

The thing is, like green-gorilla orcs, I wouldn't mind all this so much if it didn't pop up so often.

That's exactly it!

5. You have a point, but personally I think it's less to do with attractiveness (how many male minis have scars and broken noses? ) as overemphasising attractiveness. The whole sexy pose - chainmail bikini - boob window - boobplate trope thing.

You're probably right on the male minis: many of mine probably looked that way because they were stripped of paint in my youth - with a Stanley knife.

I guess my TL;DR: to the fictional part of this bugbear is that it's not real, so it doesn't really matter how many legs and wings it has; but there are so many great RL animals and anatomy features to use, and swap about, and tweak, to make it look realistic.

Couldn't agree more - and I think it applies to painting too. A dragon painted to look like a real-world snake or lizard is likely to look particularly effective.

Even shorter TL;DR: google images is a thing!

Yes! And of course it wasn't once. As I said in another thread, I was looking through a nostalgically purchased Warhammer 3rd edition, and I was struck by the fact that none of the wolves are painted anything like a real wolf. It's almost as if the painters were going on second-hand descriptions of wolves ("grey" or "brown").

7. Might ruffle some feathers with this, but: nostalgia.

This is a really interesting topic, I think.

I'll start by saying that overall, sculpts and sculptors are getting better and better. That's not to say new sculpts are all good, or old sculpts were all bad - you've shown me that yourself, Hobgoblin, and then some. I'm also fond of some ranges before my time, like Citadel C11 halflings and Julie Guthrie's Grenadier minis.
But I like good old sculpts because they're good, not because I grew up with them. I see old, kinda wonky sculpts (or new sculpts in old, kinda wonky styles) being proclaimed as 'better than anything today'; and with the surrounding context, even which forum or blog it's on, I can only easily translate it as 'this is the kind of thing that was around when I was a kid'.
With me disclaimer up there, this is more of a 'whuh...?' thing, rather than 'you're ruining the hobby!!!'; but I've still seen instances and niches where sticking to old styles just comes across as a missed opportunity, or limiting the market.

Lots to digest here. I think there are lots of points to be made about technical ability/facility versus style. I mean, the old Nick Lund Chronicle hobgoblin shaman (masked, pointing, leaning on staff) strikes me as a much better miniature than almost any subsequent Citadel orc or goblin shaman - even though those are far better sculpted. The Chronicle model is just far more powerful and dramatic; it's a cruder sculpture, but it's a more effective one.

But the kids are quiescent and a rare pub opportunity beckons! More anon ...

[jthomlin]

AMEN brother!

Couldn't agree more, while I understand all points of view are equal in the imaginary, I prefer my fantasy to be rooted in reality with the exceptions at least reasonably defined, rather than post-hoc rationalisations for silliness.

1. Oversized Weapons
So many nicely sculpted miniatures ruined by weapons that would look big on a 54mm figure. 6 foot swords with 6 inch wide blades, axe heads the size of the wielders torso and of course the classic 'anvil on a stick'. It does seem to most that the term fantasy is synonymous with 'oversized weapon'. Case in point, I was recently looking at some upcoming figures from Eureka Miniatures and upon suggesting that the weapons were indeed on the large side, Nic immediately came back with ... "but it's fantasy" ... to which I replied with "urrrruuggghhh" and wept a little inside.

2. Dual Wielding
History says: Clearly not that effective, bugger all known examples.
Fantasy says: Hey! It looks cool, so it must be good! Twice the number of weapons, surely that's twice the number of attacks?

3. Steroidal fighters
It's a wonder anyone has time to fight in these fantasy universes, to look that 'cut' they must be spending most of their time in the gym. A classic case of modern sensibilities pushed to extremes by advertising and Hollywood.

4. Underclad barbarians
Sadly this trope is so entrenched I can't see it going away off any time soon. In the books Conan dressed appropriately for the conditions, but everyone who illustrated him went the loincloth route.

5. Attractive women only
Blame society for this one, sex sells ...
Then again, maybe they have just realised that with the obvious penetrating power of all these massively oversized weapons, armour is pretty much useless anyway? Doesn't excuse high heels however ...

6. Blatantly dumb sculpting
My own hobby horse, figures where the anatomy or costume don't bear up to a moment of thought. Or to put it another way, 'What the f..k were they thinking?'

Some examples:


What? You think it might get in the way?


Clearly the beast only feasts on small or thin prey, otherwise you wonder what all those big nasty teeth are for?


This one must only eat very tall grass and require a substantial body of water just to take a drink ...


My favourite, one wonders just how he got the axe to that position, you know with the helm blade and nasty sharp horns, or indeed how he intends to deliver an effective blow with 2 hands and not end up impaling his arm on that frontal array of sharp pointy bits ...

Cheers! and Harumph!
Joe Thomlinson

[Gabbi]

I suppose you don't mention them just because you're not aware of them (admittedly, they're more common in videogames (especially those from Japan) than miniatures, but what about absurd-looking made-up weapons?   I'm not speaking just about open split swords or skull bone axes.

Stuff like transforming sword whip:



Or razor-edged hula hoop:



Last one is present in at least one miniature, too:
 


As for me, I'm almost fine with anything that bugs you (and the above weird weapons, too)

What really bugs me is of a more practical nature: I hate models split in too many pieces (for easy of breakage more than difficulty of assembling), or with too thin parts, or in ubercool superdynamic poses that makes them a hell to store, transport and play with. Rackham was one of the main offender in this, but PP and Wyrd (and sometimes even GW: Jain Zar, I'm looking at you) have lots of bad designs in this aspect.

[beefcake]

Well I imagine the sword whip woman was originally clothed quite properly however the use of said weapon quickly shed her of her regular attire.

The biggest thing that bugs me, as previously said is high heels on female adventuring sorts. This bugs me more than any other apparel (which certainly does annoy me, chain mail bikinis and all that)

[jthomlin]

Ah yes, swords! Another pet peve!

Swords are primarily cut and thrust weapons, any change along the blade that disturbs it's linear nature ruins it's ability to do both of those by preventing that cut or thrust motion. But hey it's 'fantasy', so spikes, bumps and 's' bends abound and besides everyone knows from TV and the movies that 'chopping' with a sword is the way to go. Limbs and heads just fly off in all directions regardless of sword type or shape, as clearly demonstrated by Maximus in Gladiator when he clove a skull in two with a Gladius Hispania (a thrusting sword), which easily accounted for the Roman helmet with the specially designed cross brace that was meant to protect against the Dacian 2 handed Falx!

Really, those scantily clad females do have it worked out, the overwhelming cinemagraphic evidence is that armour just doesn't work. Go back and watch the Lord of the Rings for example and count the number of plate armoured Orcs or Gondorians that needed a second blow to the body to take them down. I bet you don't even need to take your shoes and socks off ...

In the real world if you want chop, use an axe or a blade with a long lever like a great-sword or pole-arm. If you still think chopping is better than cutting, how do you eat a steak? Dragging a blade along the meat to easily separate a piece, or bashing away at it like a madman?

Double harrumph!
Joe Thomlinson

[Gabbi]

Really, those scantily clad females do have it worked out, the overwhelming cinemagraphic evidence is that armour just doesn't work.

Glamour is the best armor a woman can wear.
I support both combat heels and chainmail bikinis!