I need your marketing feedback

[Faust23]

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

[Colonel Tubby]

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!

[OSHIROmodels]

I would go for three as well but with possibly the opportunity of mixing the both together.

cheers

James

[Westfalia Chris]

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.

[Faust23]

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,  , 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?

[Faust23]

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

[Damien]

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

[Faust23]

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.

[phreedh]

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.

[Argonor]

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.

[Viper]

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.

[Faust23]

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! 

@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. 

[number9]

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.

[Faust23]

@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!

[ogryn]

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.