Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: Faust23 on May 09, 2011, 06:08:39 PM
-
First I want to say that I really dig the guys on this forum. You all seem pretty level headed and mature. That's why I've chosen this forum to ask important marketing questions for my man-to-man skirmish game expansion for fantasy.
The game rules are designed to cater to historical players. The first expansion that I want to release a couple weeks later is called Epic Heroes. It will be a pure Fantasy supplement.
My questions are these:
1. Do you like a system that lets you build your own game world from scratch?
2. Do you like a ready made "turn key" system that has its own background?
3. Or 3 do you like the idea of both options in one book?
Don't worry about system mechanics. Let's just kick the ball around on those three concepts. If the majority would like something turn key, I'll look to focus on that. If its build your own, or modify existing from another company, I'll court that. If its both, then you'll get both! :)
I look forward to your thoughts on this.
Thanks,
Faust23
-
I'd like to say for number 1 - but I've part created too many D&D worlds that have never been finished in my time so I'd have to vote for 3!
-
I would go for three as well but with possibly the opportunity of mixing the both together.
cheers
James
-
I like systems that are generic enough to be applied to a variety of settings without being too much of a "jack-of-all-trades", i.e. it does everything so-so and nothing properly.
That said, there is a "core complex" of things that should be in a Fantasy ruleset, and if you get melee and ranged combat smooth and fluid, with magic for those so inclined, I think you could adopt it to a variety of settings without too many problems.
As I grow older and more grumpy, I usually don't really care for new settings (unless they are really catchy and clever) and rather prefer to implement "classics" from my misspent youth (e.g. Conan/Hyboria, Sinbad, et al). More often than not I find attempts at such background fluff heavy-handed (although I don't know anything about your auctorial qualities, and I would like to be pleasantly surprised), clichéd and trite, if not blatant ripoffs.
What I am aiming at: if you are convinced you have what it takes to draw up a nice background and fill it out in a holistic manner, do it. If you don't have a proper concept and ideas for its execution, it might be better to focus on creating a really good, sound ruleset that will appeal to a multitude of splinter groups on account of its quality.
-
Good points from all. Chris, I get what you're saying.
My current line of thinking is what I would call a 'collaborative framework'. What I mean by that is that since I'm not producing miniatures with this expansion or game, I can offer a basic world framework that allows players to take the basics and further contribute 'their' elements to the world, using whatever models they want to.
If any of you played Traveller, you may be familiar with the acronym IMTU, meaning, In My Traveller Universe. I'm a huge Traveller fan and the idea of creating an "official" fantasy world that my customers could get buy in from by adding their own creations, using the rules for such that I could provide, and then growing that so each player group will have "Their Epic Heroes Game World" or TEHGW, :D, appeals to me.
Would such a thing appeal to you all? It would be like defining certain periods of history and geography in the game world, and then leaving plenty of room for players to create their own skirmish forces with backgrounds if they chose, or they could use 'official' forces, etc.
What do you guys thing of that concept?
-
Another question for you:
Do you like 'fixed' characteristics for troops and monsters?
Or would you like to have the ability to build your own troops & creatures with a points system?
Thanks,
Faust
-
Hi Faust,
For the first question I would have to say option #3. As for the second question, I would have to say 'yes' to both options, what I mean to say is I would like fixed characteristics for a quick game (or when learning the rules) with the option to customize troops or special characters (for more advanced games or gamers). I hope you don`t think I am sitting on the fence on this one.
Damien
-
On the contrary, Damien, I don't see it as fence sitting at all. I am right there with you. For plug n play games, fixed stats work fine. For more detail, customizable stats are a must.
Depending on the feedback from LAF members, I'll be able to weight it toward one type more than the other.
Great feedback.
-
Question 1 would be answer 1 for me... I prefer to apply settings of my own accord. I mostly play SBH in the (old school) GW Old World setting, but also have my eyes on completely different settings. When reading the rulebook, I don't want to learn how halflings ceremoniously prepare for going to the loo, I want to learn how adept he is at punching things in the face.
One of the things that irk me most about fantasy games is the way "business logic" (as a software development term) is often mixed with the presentation layer. "The elves have Shadow Sight of the Mystic Tandoori, granted to them by the arcane mystic entities of Tandooria."... No, you numpties - elves have dark vision. I can rationalize it myself. =) Even worse is if someone imagine their version of elves as winged, swamp dwelling mathematicians and stat them as such in the rules. If you just want Legolas clones poncing about, then you can't use the elves from the rules as elves. "But, we wanted to get away from the cookie cutter fantasy templates!".
This brings me to question 2. Definitely need a points system to stay happy. =) How else can your game have winged, swamp dwelling mathematician elves without fucking up my christmas? =D Pre-calculated standard creatures would be good, at least some sample warbands for "pick up and play" gamers and first timers.
I play SBH, and the two things that have really grabbed me are the fact that there's no setting, and the fact that I can with very little hassle stat up any miniature from any manufacturer and go to town.
-
I play SBH, and the two things that have really grabbed me are the fact that there's no setting, and the fact that I can with very little hassle stat up any miniature from any manufacturer and go to town.
What he said. One of the BIG advantages of SBH. Apart from being simple, yet subtle, of course.
-
Along the same vein would be Rattraps Narrative skirmish games, .45 Adventure, Broadsword Adventures, etc...
While the character building in those isn't really a points based system it still has a good backbone of balance to go along with the staggering amount of options you have when it comes to putting stats and skills together.
Coming up with a balance system that allows for a lot of freedom is probably one of the hardest things with any small skirmish system. If you can work out a system that works right for creating a range of human characters though then that system only needs slight additions to allow the stat changes to make other races and on into making monsters and stuff too.
You don't need to have a full range of creation for every possible race but just enough of the basics (like how to design humans) to then add a line about people modding the creation system themselves to create other things they want using the human creation as a baseline.
Of course a few pre-generated mooks and monsters that people can just pick up and play with is a good idea too.
On the rules/settings front I would probably say option 1 or maybe 3. Certainly getting a good and slightly flexible set of ideas down is the important part, then from that you can decide if you want to flesh out a full world of your own or just add a page or two of short world ideas and plot hooks.
Even if you have your own setting in mind you could decide to leave it out for now and have it as a separate release which focuses totally on world creation ideas and character and creature modding of the main stuff.
-
You don't need to have a full range of creation for every possible race but just enough of the basics (like how to design humans) to then add a line about people modding the creation system themselves to create other things they want using the human creation as a baseline.
Of course a few pre-generated mooks and monsters that people can just pick up and play with is a good idea too.
Even if you have your own setting in mind you could decide to leave it out for now and have it as a separate release which focuses totally on world creation ideas and character and creature modding of the main stuff.
Great feedback guys. As I expected it would be from this group! :D
@Viper - You nailed what I have done already and the reason I wanted to make a core game focused on Historical games first, since most humans are distinguishable more by their abilities, training, and gear than by any special powers. As you mentioned, having that 'human' baseline so to speak now allows for add ons that will give the Fantasy powers/abilities a core foundation.
I considered doing a separate supplement for my home grown world. As it stands now, though, hearing what you all are saying, I might have the 'build your game world' section, and then follow it up with 'here's an example' section that features what me & Drew have created.
One thing play testing has shown me is that leaving troop creation wide open to scratch building your force is kind of intimidating, since there isn't really a 'stock' troop roster to lean on. Your Elite Spartans won't be the same as my Elite Spartans, which is realistic on a granular level. No two people are the same, and that is true of our historical warriors. However, it takes a little finesse to get the points where you want them and having some 'stock' profiles might be something I include for speed of preparation. It seems to be a common response so far.
Great feedback gang. Please tell me more. I'm hearing you and its helping me dial the fantasy supplement in more clearly. :D
-
I'm a fan of an established generic stat-line for generic races. You set a minimum and maximum number any given race can have any given stat, and allow each player to add or subtract a predetermined amount of stat points also established by race.
This way you don't have to make "dark" elves, "wood" elves, and "high" elves. You just write up "elves" and allow enough freedom for players to manipulate stats or abilities to make them fit their idea of dark, wood, and high. This gives you a baseline with mins and maxes you can playtest off of with a bit more reliability than a wide open system. Same goes for special traits/abilities. Your generic stats would also probably be enough to get people playing out of the box without any need to tinker at all.
This also allows you to define in more subtle terms the constraints of a world without detailing it. Do dwarfs live underground? Are elves at a higher base skill level than humans? Do orcs have poorer organization and intelligence? All these thoughts would influence min and max stat levels and available special abilities. Said simply, it provides a structure to a fantasy world that makes sense (has a common ground with established or well known fantasy backgrounds) without forcing a particular fantasy world upon a participant.
Along with this idea you could set-up generic "bipedal humanoid" or "formless monster" or "mindless undead" or "mechanical/arcane construct" stat lines to allow people to create stuff with broader limits outside of racial restriction to suit their miniature collection or desires (along with the caveat of "design at your own peril, game balance may be in jeopardy").
Just a thought.
-
@Number9 - I agree with what you said regarding having a generic stat line for 'x' race/species and then a variance of ranges.
That is something I've been toying with lately. I have considered having something akin to what you said about a generic template that lets people use it for their own interpretation of 'x' race/species.
Instead of making a Racial Trait named 'Elf' or 'Dwarf', etc, I had considered using a more generic term like 'Graceful' or 'Sturdy' as a Racial Trait that conferred 'x' bonus and gave 'y' limitation. Then you could use Graceful for your Elf, Melnibonean, Fey, Githzerai, or Sprite, or other such nimble/dextrous race, and Sturdy for your Dwarf, Gnome, Orc, Beastman, or other toughskinned hardy race.
I encourage players to tailor the name of Traits to their own liking, putting the actual name of the game mechanic in parenthesis. This helps keep the buy in from players while not putting a burden on them if they don't feel like creating something else.
Great ideas. Keep 'em coming!
-
I am for #3 in ?? one.
I would like a build systems with a ton of pre-built stuff. Having to build everything like goblin and human fighters is extra work which I do not need. Building my hero or weird monster is a plus. I can tailor things to specific models. Building goblins all day is no fun.
-
Thanks Ogryn. I hear what you're saying.
What do you guys think about me listing the most common 'standard' trooper profile for a given fantasy race, so if Ogryn wants to pop in some pre-statted gobbos he can, fixed profiles for powerful monsters like Dragons, Griffons, Ogres, etc, and then leave room for scratch building your forces as well?
I might just have monsters be a fixed profile without many options for the sake of game balance.
I'm also thinking about having a table that shows different prebuilt profiles and their total cost in Supply Points.
-
While I was typing my extensive (and not very well thought out) contribution, you posted anyway... you've answered some of my concerns about 'powerful monsters like ... Ogres' (though I call them Trolls) but even so:
As it's a skirmish game I'm assuming that you're imagining that games will involve small gangs - parties - warbands - crews - whatever. Does that then mean that each warrior will have individual stats? Or are you thinking that each warband will include some generic troops, and some specialists (heroes, wizards, assassins of whatever)? And, are you envisioning 'a Dwarven warband' against 'an Elven warband' or is it possible to mix races - something more like two Fellowships of the Ring up against each other?
If each warrior has individual stats I think the idea of the 'Graceful' type profiles will be a bit limiting (if I've understood them correctly). Apart from anything else, taking Elves an example, we all know they are more graceful than humans, but are they all as graceful as each other? Are there not relatively less graceful but more sturdy Elves, or more graceful and less sturdy Dwarves? I'd advocate different racial profiles and skill/stat ranges (or maybe skill specialisms) for a few tried and trusted fantasy classics - Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, various Undead, Ogres/Trolls and Lizard Men, probably. That would probably give you a basis for people to add different things that aren't covered (eg, Cavewights=Orcs, Algroths=Trolls, not sure about Broo but maybe they's equal Lizard Men). Maybe not all of these would be able to do a full warband though, perhaps one or two trolls might be considered enough for any group!
One way of doing the specialists might be to look at them as professions or classes and apply skills and penalties there - warrior (good in close combat and maybe holding morale together, not so good with missiles and magic), ranger (or hunter, assassin etc - good with ranged weapons, maybe has some kind of hiding skill or extra movement maybe, not so good in close combat), magician (can choose 1-3 spells, but isn't much good at actual fighting). These could then interact with the standard racial stats. So a Dwarf Warrior gets an attack bonus for being a warrior plus another attack bonus for being a Dwarf - whereas an Elven warrior only receives one attack bonus for being a warrior, but a dodge bonus for being an Elf, etc.
If you go down that route, it might mean that you consider that some races won't get the classes - maybe trolls only have one class, warriors; maybe all Halflings are rangers, maybe all ghosts are wizards or whatever. It might be that these races can't make a full warband but can be usd as specialists for other bands. I dunno. Just some stuff that occurs, I hope some of it is useful.
-
Hey Red Orc, thanks for the feedback. Good ideas there. Here's a little more info to help you get where the rules are coming from without getting bogged in too much detail.
All forces are scratch built at this point by the player. If you want all cavalry, a mix of cav & foot, or all foot, its up to you. Same goes for weapons, armor, etc.
All models are purchased individually. No generics or groups as this is really man-to-man level in its granularity. You don't have to keep models within a distance or in units. Your force is organized into one of three organizational types: Standard, Elite, & Horde. This tells you the minimum and maximum number of models, and what percentage of points can or must be spent on your Commander, Veterans, and Troops. These model types also give the maximum a Rating can be purchased for that type of model.
You then buy their Ratings, Traits, & Gear. Ratings are Combat/Command/Constitution, Traits are special abilities, training, or manuevers that the model has learned, and Gear is all armor, weapons, and equipment.
So, with that in mind, you could have a huge variety of bands for a Fantasy setting. If you wanted a Fellowship/Band of Heroes or Villains set up you could do it, or a military unit feel, or what have you.
For the Fantasy supplement, I want to add not only new Traits representing powers, magic, and other special 'fantastic' abilities, but also give a Racial Trait option that only costs points and doesn't occupy a Trait slot, since those are limited by model type: Commander (3), Veteran (2), Trooper (1).
You might have Elves that you want to be more unique and less sterotypical, so you could buy whichever Racial Trait you wanted. Hence the idea with a Graceful type that wasn't locking you into something. If you want Sturdy evles and Graceful dwarves, well, that's between you and your accountant! :o :D
does that make a little more sense?
Go to my blog at www.4sparta.blogspot.com and have a look at my Playtesting with Drew post to see a sample of my Judicial Champions using only existing game mechanics.
-
That kind of overall organisation reminds me a bit of Darkson Designs' AE:Bounty, in so much as the range of normal/elite/horde type options.
One thing, which AE:Bounty has, that may be of use would be the idea of having base stats that you can tinker a bit with as is, and choose gear and generic skills... but then on top of that there is a list of "race bonuses."
Because AE:Bounty is Sci-fi there are some race changes that do make a lot of difference in how the model functions but most of them are just small tweaks to strength, durability or number of skill choices things like that.
What you are thinking of at the moment seems to me like a more free form version of that, to be honest the first thing I did when looking at the AE:Bounty race choices was start working out new ones in my head while your idea goes for that from the start.
I rather like that idea.
In terms of ease of use perhaps organising the Racial Skills into basic sets such as agility, strength, intelligence as you would put learned skills into melee, ranged...etc...
That also leaves things organised in a way that if you wanted to move away from a points based system and just have something like each character gets, I dunno, a (2) (1) and (1) that they can assigned how they want to agility, strength and intelligence racial traits. So if they wanted a fast race they would take 2 from agility, 1 from strength and 1 from intelligence...or perhaps give them 4 choices they can split however they want.
Just random brainstorming as I'm kinda not sure where I stand when it comes to having points totals and restraints. On one side my example of 4 racial choices might be enough, but on the other someone might want to create a creature with the abilities of every race and much prefer a points based system for that.
-
Interesting info there Viper.
I haven't seen AE:Bounty rules, but I sure like their figures.
One of the strengths of my rules that play testers have commented on is what you mentioned, from the get go players start thinking of possible tweaks and combos to stylize their forces.
That's the creative buy in I'm going for right from the start.
My plan is to allow a player to look at his box/shelf of minis and go, "I'm gonna play with my (insert model types here)" and within a short time have a force assembled that will cater to his tastes in less than 15 minutes.
So when two players put down similar minis, they won't be the same types of forces at all. Your interpretation of what your Dwarves can do, and my interpretation of what my Dwarves can do won't likely match up. But, with the points system, we'll know that neither of us had an unfair advantage, and that we both paid the same amount for 'x' trait or rating or gear.
What I'm curious to know from you guys is this: Do you want something that specifically and/or stereotypically defines the fantasy races at large, or do you want to be able to pick certain racial characteristics that you can then apply to your troops in your own personalized fashion?
-
Personally I'd like to be able to choose whatever I wanted, or rather it be presented in a way that makes that an easy option, and makes doing that seem less daunting for players who are more used to pre-generated stuff in the books.
If there was room though you could put some example trait choices in for the stereotypical main races.
-
That is something I've been toying with lately. I have considered having something akin to what you said about a generic template that lets people use it for their own interpretation of 'x' race/species.
Instead of making a Racial Trait named 'Elf' or 'Dwarf', etc, I had considered using a more generic term like 'Graceful' or 'Sturdy' as a Racial Trait that conferred 'x' bonus and gave 'y' limitation. Then you could use Graceful for your Elf, Melnibonean, Fey, Githzerai, or Sprite, or other such nimble/dextrous race, and Sturdy for your Dwarf, Gnome, Orc, Beastman, or other toughskinned hardy race.
While I can see the logic, it seems disingenuous to create Elfy or Dwarfy traits and not bother to simply call the template "Elf" or "Dwarf". While I applaud the concept of having a system that works for a broad range of worlds, I think the fact is that most people are going to use the templates for a pretty standard range of common High Fantasy "races": Elf, Dwarf, Orc, Goblin, Halfling, Troll, etc. Folk that want to branch out from those templates shouldn't have a problem doing so anyway.
As a consumer, the first question I ask of any system is: "Does it have Elves?" and the second is: "Do they do what I want?"
;)
-
Great points gentlemen.
@Viper - hear you loud & clear man. And you nailed it; most gamers are used to fixed stats, so giving my audience what they are used to will lessen the complaint/dissatisfaction factor. On the other hand, I want each player to have as much 'buy in' to the system as they can handle, so it becomes more than just a game; it becomes 'their' game.
@Heldrak - Yes, I believe in calling an Elf an Elf; however, you touched on one dilemma, "Do they do what I want?"
And there lies the rub; I don't know what you want 'your' Elves to do. So, if I put a Racial Trait together that limits or defines Elves by 'my' standard, then I've shut the door on your interest or buy in to the game.....and I don't want to do that. ;)
So, that takes us back to my initial thought which is having Racial Traits that describe abilities by nature of what they do or are, rather than which specific race they belong to. Then you will be able to make 'your' elves and the next guy can have them his way, etc.
Perhaps the best compromise to satisfy the more part of both camps is to give examples of Racial Traits that would be best used for traditional Races.
That would let you build them your way, and Viper could build his how he sees them, and with my points system, you both would have balanced rosters.
thoughts?
-
Speaking for Elves everywhere, I like the idea of being able to build one's own Elfy template from a smorgasboard of abilities.
Are you seeing your game as more character/RPG-driven or more unit/Miniatures game-driven? It's one thing to craft the perfect Elf when you're working on an individual character, but I can see it becoming tedious if you have to re-invent the wheel for each and every unit of standard (elf) troopers.
-
3-20 models per side, average number is usually 7-10 minis.
It's a man to man level game. Its one step above RPG level of granularity, and one step below squad/company level homogeneity.
Fellowship of the Ring, the Dirty Dozen, or Sharpe's Rifles would give you a general idea of the scope of forces.
And modular or multi-option Elves will be yours for the building! :D
-
Does anyone else have thoughts on the matters discussed above?
I have other questions to ask, but want to get as much feedback on what's been discussed before moving on.
Thanks!
-
Been out of town so my comments come late, sorry.
You said:
"...important marketing questions for my man-to-man skirmish game expansion for fantasy.
The game rules are designed to cater to historical players. The first expansion that I want to release a couple weeks later is called Epic Heroes. It will be a pure Fantasy supplement..."
Wow, dropping that on my historical friends would result in dead silence. Hard core doesn't begin to come close.
That said, I like to draw up my own worlds (much) more than fitting into someone else's.
The building by trait thing instead of assigning traits (or limiting traits by race) to Dwarf, Elf, etc., has some to much merit but will run into the "It's... different..." mind set of some fantasy players. Run into that before. But I think it would be a great idea if very difficult to combine with a point based design (which I don't think I read but I'm tired so maybe you did,) that many will want.
Some traits become more valuable when paired to other traits.
Looking forward to more details/questions.
Gracias,
Glenn
-
Yeah, I hear you on the hard core historical gamer comment. They will be the hardest market to please.
That's why the core guts of this game will be for 'real world' historical skirmishes. They'll throw a fit, until they play a few different games and realize its not that bad.
I also hear you on the 'its new, I don't like it' front. Always the type of push back you have to be prepared for.
I'll probably release a 'stock' list of fantasy races. Then I'll have a DIY method if you don't like the stock racial templates.
Now, lets talk about Magic!
What would you like to see in a skirmish magic system?
-
What would you like to see in a skirmish magic system?
A sensible and intuitive magic system that doesn't overpower the game. Magic is fun to have, but it does seem to almost always draw too much attention to itself. My instinct would be to keep magic's effect on the overall game system small in the name of preserving balance.
It also comes down to what you want Mages to do: Blast stuff? Summon stuff? Augment stuff? Protect stuff? Curse/weaken their enemies?
-
I agree with you there Heldrak. Keeping Magic in balance is one of my key missions.
The game system is pretty intuitive to begin with, so keeping that element will be easy.
One discussion I've had with Drew over this is whether or not to build prepackage spells, give them 'eldritch' sounding names and set effects, or to keep them more generic and almost modular where you can group different elements together to create your own unique spells.
Any one want to sound off on those ideas?
-
I think "keeping magic in balance" and designing it to be "modular where you can group different elements together to create your own unique spells", are mutually exclusive concepts.
Add this on top of very flexible racial/class construction and I think you've created a pool of variables you likely can't insure proper balance for. Now there isn't anything particularly wrong with systems that are out of balance, just that the onus of balancing opposing forces for a game falls on the shoulders of the participants or a GM, and not the rule system. If there are unaccounted for "broken" combinations of abilities and effects in your system, players will intentionally or unintentionally discover them. This can cause disappointment and a lack of "faith" in your rules.
I like fantasy games that equally value melee, missile, and magic forms of combat. If I am given options I want to be assured my choices in any given direction are reasonably valid against any other combination. I do not like any of those three main concepts to be designed to be a lesser option unless I am very clearly told that is so within the rules; before I buy and paint models; before I play games or convince others to play games.
-
I agree with you there Heldrak. Keeping Magic in balance is one of my key missions.
The game system is pretty intuitive to begin with, so keeping that element will be easy.
One discussion I've had with Drew over this is whether or not to build prepackage spells, give them 'eldritch' sounding names and set effects, or to keep them more generic and almost modular where you can group different elements together to create your own unique spells.
Any one want to sound off on those ideas?
I lean towards prepackaged spells for simplicity myself. Personally, I like spell names to be rather prosaic, so that you can remember what they do (Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Summon Skeletons, whatever). People get all caught up in tongue-twisting pretentious names for spells and it becomes impossible to remember what they do or how they work.
-
Excellent points from both of you.
This is perhaps the one topic of discussion I am most interested in having on the forum. The quandary of specific over general is best represented by magic.
I want it to be less dominating than most systems present it. I also want each spell to have one or two different functions that the player can employ.