I need your marketing feedback

[Faust23]

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.

[Red Orc]

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.

[Faust23]

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! 

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.

[Viper]

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.

[Faust23]

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?

[Viper]

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.

[Heldrak]

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?"
 

[Faust23]

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?

[Heldrak]

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.
 

[Faust23]

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!   

[Faust23]

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!

[Conquistador]

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

[Faust23]

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?

[Heldrak]

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?

[Faust23]

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?