Semiotics for Intermediaries

Hello again, everyone! Miss me? No? Well... fair enough then.

So, to continue on from last week, let's talk about semiotics some more. We've covered some basics - colours mostly, but also touched on symbols ! But now we have to think about details. Specifically - what makes a good icon?

Alright, so, first things first - what are you using it for? Is it a knight's coat of arms? A battalion' s patch? The religious icon? Cos, that will drastically change how it looks.

Perhaps this would be a better thing to say when you start - keep it simple. Unless it's the coat of arms of a major noble - or even royal - house, it won't be overly complicated. Even then, they'd use a simplified icon for day to day use, and save the full imagery for special occasions. 

There's two very good reasons for this; firstly that it would be a lot of hassle for everyone involved, and secondly that a lot of detail makes recognition exceedingly difficult, which kinda defeats the objective for a visual short hand.

Personally, I like the limit myself to a single object, and one division (that is to say, stripes or halving/quartering of the field). That's not the only option, of course, but it tends to be a good starting point. Obviously, edit this as needs be - a company in an army probably wouldn't have any divisions, whilst a religious group would have neither division nor field.

I feel that, really, religious symbology is the hardest. They are - with a few exception - pretty basic shapes or geometric patterns. Christianity has the Cross, Shinto has the Torii Gate, Zoroastrianism has Fire. Generally, there is a good reason to keep symbols as simple as they can - i.e. so they are easily accessible. A highly complicated, intricately detailed icon would be very impressive I'm sure, but the fact of the matter is that most people, even most artists, would be incapable of creating person icons, and certainly not in a quantity appropriate for the number of worshipers. The reason so many Christians wear a crucifix or cross around their neck is that any idiot can make one. Grab two sticks and a couple lengths of string, and there you go - your own necklace. But, by the same token, crosses in major churches still manage to be ridiculously elaborate to behold, and are clear status symbols.

So, for example, I am going to present a symbol to you now.  

What is it? Well, quite clearly a representation of the sun rising. It took less than two minutes on paint, and is something that literally anyone could recreate if given some mud and a bit of rock. But, by the same token, it could easily be turned into a giant mural made of gold and silver to be displayed in the entrance to a cathedral in some capital somewhere. Or turned into a simple necklace for a devout villager. Or, it could be used as the guard of a sword by a 'well-meaning' but misled knight.

I think that's the key to religious icons; keep them simple enough that use can imagine a farmer's daughter wearing it, but complex enough that you have room to work with when the High Priest of the [insert temple here] turns up. 

... Anyway, it's kinda getting late, and I'm running out of words to make you read. So I shall see the anon. Farewell!

Volodanti out.

Semiotics for beginners.

So, first off - yes, I'm late. I'd like to say it's intentional, or I have a good reason for it, but... no. Just busy, and not a lot of things to write about at the minute. I'm still enjoying this little blog, but I'm starting to wonder if I should move to a fortnightly post, so that I have more time to come up with something I'd actually like to talk about, and not just whatever I can to fill the space...

... eh, a thought for another time.

Anyway - semiotics. For those of you who are smart enough that you didn't take media studies, Semiotics is the theory and science of signs and symbols... sorta like the Da Vinci Code, but not rubbish.

Y'see, whether you're making a church in an RPG, or designing a standard for a wargame - or designing a personal banner for your holy knight in either - you're gonna come upon the need to make a symbol; something which will express, at a glance, all the relevant information necessary for a player/opponent/the GM to know how to interact with your character/army/faction.

A good source of inspiration for this, unsurprisingly, is Warhammer... possibly Age of Sigmar too, but I honestly wouldn't know. In Warhammer Fantasy, it was quite apparent, but 40,000 really took the gold. Iconography everywhere; intricate and bold and simplistic and a lot of thought actually going into it.

Of course, not all of it is amazing - some is pretty generic, but it's certainly worth a look. If nothing else, the use of skulls is pretty impressive; striking and kinda alluding to the darker aspects of the Imperium, but at the same time a reminder that, despite colour and gender and preference, all humans are the same. Kinda heartwarming, in a stalinazi kinda way...

... In another, real-life example, look to religion. Religion is rife with symbology, and the effects that has on the world around it. Ever wonder why virtually every European sword between the 8th and 17th century is cruciform? The descriptor 'cruciform' ought to give you explanation enough as to the reasoning... Of course, it's actually a good design regardless, and people wouldn't have kept using it otherwise, but still - that's just a smallest example of how symbols can warp the world around them.

So, I'm not gonna go into depth on every symbol in existence - and I'm not even gonna touch on coat of arms - but I can give you some simple pointers. Of course, I'd probably advise you to do your own research if you really want to put a lot of thought into your symbols... but, then this is just for beginners, and I'm nowhere near qualified to give a proper talk on that.

... But, for those who just want a couple quick tips before they launch their game, here's my advice.

Alright, first off, pick your colours. Typically, you want just three - two for the base, and one for detail; basically the same as when you're painting. Of course, their can be bits of other colours here and there, but you'll wanna keep your primary palette pretty tight. There are 9 'main colours' to keep in mind, and they all have a meaning associated with them... these change almost constantly, but for a modern audience they are:
White - purity, goodness, and other positive words.
Grey - neutrality, dourness, stoicism.
Black - darkness, evil, death... y'get the idea.
Red - fire, anger, passion.
Purple - regality, wealth, power.
Blue - peace, cold, sadness.
Green - nature, safety, jealousy.
Yellow - cowardice, danger, happiness.
Orange - spontaneity, extroversion, and according to some Orks a larger explosion.

... Sorry if that seemed a little patronising - I didn't mean it as such, it's just... something we're all aware of, but which we don't really acknowledge, at least not consciously. So, now that I've said it aloud, you can probably start to see how things combine. Things which are dangerous, in real life, use black and yellow stripes, not merely because they are striking and make you very aware of them, but because on an instinctive level we are aware that it means 'danger; death'. There's a reason Bees, Wasps and Hornets look like they do.

Lets make up one ourselves though - say, for example, you are approached by a knight (presumably in an RPG, but I live in Northumberland, so it's not impossible). Before he starts speaking, you see the design on his shield; a white lion on a blue field, with a yellow stripe bisecting it. Now, ignoring the actual (ridiculously complicated) rules of heraldry, what would a modern player take from this? Well, it's a white lion, so he's a good guy, and probably a courageous warrior. The Blue implies that he doesn't mean you any harm (a dark blue would probably mean a curt but polite Knight, while light blue would be more chivalrous and friendly), but the stripe of yellow hiding at the back implies a danger should he be provoked.

See - that's the power of semiotics. It goes further of course, but that's a simple enough way to convey to players the sort of individual they're dealing with, and how they should probably behave around him.

Now, this is just the most basic level of semiotics here, but we can go a lot deeper... and in fact, will; this has actually been really fun for me, and I wanna write more about it. This is about as much as I want to write in a single post, but I reckon that I could easily write at least one more decent sized post about semiotics. So, if you would, please join me next time in Semiotics for Intermediates, where we'll cover basic symbols and the common mistakes when making your iconography.

... No, seriously. Please do. And I'll try my best to make it more timely than this.

Volodanti out.

Almost enough Dakka

... almost...

Hello everyone! Did you miss me? Probably not. Sorry about last week - I had planned to write up my blog on the train, which I missed. And, trust me - you can't write a post on the metro at rush hour. It is just physically impossible. Shame, I had something good planned. But, I suppose that I can use it for next week, since I actually have something to share.

Models!

That's right, I managed my monthly quota, and completed a squad of Flash Gitz, and a commander... I gave the commander away, but it still counts. Besides, I still haven't managed to decide what, exactly, I am going to do for Grak... I have ideas, but they're not quite playing out...

... anyway - Flash Gitz. As you'll probably notice, they are not what you think of when you here that name. That's cos I converted them up about a year before the box-set came out, and as much as I like the webstore exclusive, I refuse to use a squad of five identical models. So, instead, we have this.

The idea when making them was pretty simple; Orks are more than happy to lop off their arms to replace them with more deadly appendages so, why wouldn't shooty-Orks do the same? And that led to me wondering how many different gun-fists I could make...

... the answer is probably around 7, but we won't have to find out for a while, if ever.

So, lets go left to right, shall we?

First we have probably the simplest conversion here; for him, I literally just cut off the jackhammer from a power claw, and replaced it with the end from a multi-melta. Well, if I'm being completely honest, I also gave him a backpack from a Tau Breacher Team, but that was more for fluff than anything... although, if I ever go back to them, I'd like to run a pipe from the backpack to his snazzgun...

Next, in the back row, we have a lovely gent with a battlesuit's arm grafted onto his own. A bit less sizeable than his own, but he'd probably agree that a steel fist makes up for the slight reduction in bulk... especially when that fist has a scavenged plasma-rifle mounted on the back. He also has a wee pet squig, because there is no Death Skulls banner top. But no, that's fine.

Alright, up front and centre we have a twin-plasma gun. Originally I was going to be using the plasma guns for some sorta vehicle - possibly a Dread, possibly a tank - for my Black Blades, I realised that it'd probably work a lot better here. Also, uniquely, it's removable - based off the basic Power Klaw, it is held in place by a leather strap, hidden under his pauldron - or, a piece of armour looted from a Crisis Suit. Sensing a theme here?

So, back right, we have an interesting one. It's made from three guns, actually - or three weapons anyway. The body of the weapon is the circular-saw arm, but with that blade replaced with a chaos bolter, and then a pulse carbine. Slapped on the back - because it's Orks, of course you add more where you can - is a seeker-missile pod, which I believe comes from a Devilfish, though don't quote me one that.

And, finally, far right; the first one I made. The body of the weapon is the same a the original - or, at least it was. Instead of a multi-melta though, he could only afford a meltagun... but, not one to let that hold him down, he quickly attached a grenade launcher to it, just in case. Definitely the bulkiest weapon of the group, but arguably my favourite, if for no other reason than how nicely it fit together.

Painting wise, these were... well, I loved it and I hated it. I kept the colour palette relatively tight; grey and brown for cloth, white and blue for armour, metal silver going on rusty. The issue was that I'm used to painting regimented soldiers, so every model is basically identical to the next... as it is in proper military forces. With Orks though, each model had to be at least a little different to the others, and that really did throw me. I bet veterans are shaking their head at me right now, but it really is a little jarring.

One last thing to mention - the prodigious use of Tau parts. That's relatively simple to explain; first, my Orks operate in and around the Damocles Gulf, and like Dakka, so obviously they're going to be looting some Tau sooner or later. More specifically though, the parts are painted in the colour of the Unjust's Sept - the models he is painting for his half of our challenge. /Also, cos his colour scheme fit so well next to mine... I'd hoped to add a piece of Tau equipment on each model, but sadly I ran out before I reached melta-launcher. Shame, but I might come back to them at some point and add that in...

Anyway, that's probably about as much as I can say about these guys. Sorry again for missing last week, but I hope you enjoy my month's work. Wow, that sounds really bad when I say it aloud...

Volodanti out.