Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Cloud giantess is well sculpted, but her outfit looks like something from the cover of a 90's Dawn comic, Count me in with the folks who prefer minis without unnecessary sex appeal shoehorned in and who tire of female mini's battlegear looking more like evening wear. A succubus looking hot is to be expected, but IMHO a Vampiress with exposed cleavage in her full plate is just Really Dumb. I like the cloud giantess overall, but if she wasn't part of the bones deal I'd pass on her and track down a DDM GOL #63 Storm Giant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 525
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'll tell you the story that popped into my mind the very instant I saw that concept art. It was like a key that unlocked a door, and I got a peek beyond.   I would only ever use this miniature onc

I disagree. I think it's a perfect gaming pose precisely because it's a poor traditional gaming pose. If I put that on the table, people will crack jokes.   8 rounds later when half the party is o

We already sort of do that, except instead of a bagpipe we just fill a kobold up with beans and squeeze 'im.   Also, kilts are not pants so I'll bring that to our leader. Which is me. You'd think

Funny that no one ever says anything about the gazillions of shirtless male figures. Seriously, look at the Bones offering and marvel at the amount of bare-breasted males. I don't ascribe to the notion that one is acceptable for viewing when the other is not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a female gamer since the lonely days when almost nobody else was (since 1980 anyway).

 

I've got no particular problem with cheesecake female minis, as long as there are other options as well.

 

I understand that roleplaying games and the miniatures hobby are pretty male-dominated (less so than they used to be), and that any sensible business is going to cater to the tastes of its customers.

 

And to be honest some of the cheesecake is really cute.

 

What I have found more problematic is when cheesecake is the only female presence or there is no female presence at all.

 

Reaper is way better about this than many companies. One of several things I found impressive about it when I started researching it during its Kickstarter was how very many female figures it offered, and how broad a variety.

 

Like I said earlier on this thread, I'd enjoy and be grateful for a giant couple where the female was actively engaged in combat (Skadi the Dwarf Goddess isn't bad). But the Storm Giantess figure is really nice, and I think the designer and the sculptor did good jobs.

 

Galbraithe, I'm not sure who here you're arguing with.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that no one ever says anything about the gazillions of shirtless male figures. Seriously, look at the Bones offering and marvel at the amount of bare-breasted males. I don't ascribe to the notion that one is acceptable for viewing when the other is not.

 

I suspect the more relevant comparison is cheesecake to beefcake. A shirtless male does not have the same social and sexual meaning as a topless female. How many male figures are meant to primarily be pretty?

 

Besides, my general argument is more inclusiveness. The more variety of genders, charismas (as it were), forms of dress, species, colors, and ages, the more interesting things are.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So when are we getting the miniature of the female vampire is full body plate with her two gimps on chains then?..... actually i think I would order that... :blink:

 

Honestly I think there's more than enough room in this hobby for both the questionably dressed of either gender and the more sensibly outfitted.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that no one ever says anything about the gazillions of shirtless male figures. Seriously, look at the Bones offering and marvel at the amount of bare-breasted males. I don't ascribe to the notion that one is acceptable for viewing when the other is not.

 

I suspect the more relevant comparison is cheesecake to beefcake. A shirtless male does not have the same social and sexual meaning as a topless female. How many male figures are meant to primarily be pretty?

 

I think I may be desensitized to this argument b/c half of gamers at my table on any given weekend are gay. Male breasts are just as sexualized by women (experience) or gay men (what my buddies tell me). My friends and I aren't shy about such subjects, so maybe pulling from a broader social context.

 

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that a lot of female Reaper minis aren't super-cheesecake. I have also noticed that many female sculpts in recent past have breast sizes that are comparable to what most women actually have with respect to breast-body ratio.

 

When I look at the cloud giantess, I'm not objectifying her. I just see an elegant sculpt and a variety of painting challenges which includes realistic skin tone, all that hair, and transitions based on lighting, etc.

 

Maybe the problem is that those most offended are those most likely to objectify?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Mascot

Buglips, perhaps a compromise is in order. Could goblins take up the tradition of wearing kilts and marching into battle with a bagpiper? Your raids might even see an uptick in success as a result. At least, until your bagpipers actually figure out how to play the instruments.

 

We already sort of do that, except instead of a bagpipe we just fill a kobold up with beans and squeeze 'im.

 

Also, kilts are not pants so I'll bring that to our leader. Which is me. You'd think this would eliminate bureaucracy, but you grossly underestimate my uncanny powers of procrastination. No amateurcrastinating here, no sir.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Buglips, perhaps a compromise is in order. Could goblins take up the tradition of wearing kilts and marching into battle with a bagpiper? Your raids might even see an uptick in success as a result. At least, until your bagpipers actually figure out how to play the instruments.

 

We already sort of do that, except instead of a bagpipe we just fill a kobold up with beans and squeeze 'im.

 

Also, kilts are not pants so I'll bring that to our leader. Which is me. You'd think this would eliminate bureaucracy, but you grossly underestimate my uncanny powers of procrastination. No amateurcrastinating here, no sir.

 

Buglips you crack me up. I just wish I could figure out what they feed you in the mornings!

Link to post
Share on other sites
My issue is with you dismissing an interesting game that does indeed offer an alternative to D&D and generic fantasy, as something created purely to appeal the above group of people, and thus an obvious waste of time and effort. You're tarring it with the same 'feminist' in quotes brush that you used when describing that group of people, and I'm objecting to that. It has feminist elements in the sense of women being equal partners in the society depicted and the artwork refraining from overtly sexualizing women (or men). It has a whole lot of other interesting elements, as well.

 

Let's not pretend that Blue Rose wasn't designed to cater to that crowd. There are some elements that aren't clearly feminist, such as the talking animals, but its pretty hard not to notice that the game is highly concerned with gender and gender identity, sex and sexual orientation, and that in every case it takes a decidedly pro-feminist, politically correct stance. All the way down to making the bad guys a bunch of patriarchal, homophobic religious zealots (seriously, the game should have just called them The Christian Right). You're right that it had elements other than feminism, but you're delusional if you're trying to claim that the only point of Blue Rose was something other than creating a feminist-friendly version of D&D.

 

And I'm not saying that to dismiss the game. I'm just saying that because its true. It was pretty overtly the point. The origins of Blue Rose are deeply connected to what was going on in the gaming community in the early 2000s, when places like the WOTC forums were overflowing with discussions about how D&D wasn't inclusive enough and too geared towards adolescent males. Green Ronin Publishing decided to capitalize on the under-served market that supposedly existed for a feminist-friendly version of D&D and put out Blue Rose. That isn't a dismissal of the game at all.

 

See, I'm not dismissing Blue Rose. The market did that. The market decided that Blue Rose isn't worth having, and now Blue Rose is gone. And the only reason I brought up Blue Rose is because its a prime example of the industry trying to cater to that cadre, only to discover that cadre is either too small or too stingy to make it worthwhile to cater to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...