|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 12, 2014 17:57:43 GMT -9
Hi guys, this thread comes about as a result of recent discussions I've had with some folks in the community including OldSchoolDM and Dave Graffam, and I'm opening the floor to everyone to have their input here. To preface this discussion, I'd like to point out some trends: • Very few people stick to a single publisher when purchasing papercraft scenery. • Most gaming scenery is designed for use with some sort of 28mm miniature. • People want stuff that is easily storable and easily usable In light of the above, it makes a lot of sense for there to be a single standard to work towards. A lot of us designers are very protective of our techniques and all the clever ideas we come up with that make our products special and unique, but the fact that our stuff is different from everyone else's is a bit of a double edged sword. If our stuff is so different that it can only be used with itself, then people who have other stuff may not be that interested in it, even if it is awesome! To this end, I'm proposing that between us, we identify and establish a universal system that designers can use if they choose to. Suggested features of the system: (this has been updated to take into account suggestions posted already... everything listed is up for discussion) • a standard scale for all sets using the system. 1:60 seems to be a good median fit for most popular 25-32mm minis used in RPGs. • a standard modular set-up that works well for 2d, 3d and buildings. • standard grid options (no grid, 1 inch, 1.5 inch) • standard page size of 279 x 210 mm to ensure that it will work well whether the end user prints on US Letter sized paper or A4. • compact storage where possible. • foam-core optional? I personally think foamcore is a good basing material, and makes for really easy linking methods, but if we can make it optional rather than necessary that might be a good selling point. • (optionally) a small selection of shared textures that are always available as a layer option, regardless of who is releasing the set. • (optionally) sets within the system can be categorised according to their art styles and genres to help compatibility.This universal system would be a standard that we as designers would come together and agree on as a group, based on the feedback we receive from the fans who buy the stuff and love it. Once the standard has been codified, no one is obligated to follow it, but any set released that does comply gets to bear a very prominent stamp that tells all the potential customers that this set will work perfectly with any other set that bears the same mark. We will also put together templates and resources which will be available to all designers to help them make their sets fit the new standard. A few of the many benefits of doing it this way are: • Customers will feel safer trying out a newly discovered designer's work • Customers will be able to build up large, varied libraries of sets that all work well together • Designers will help promote each other's work while promoting their own, opening up new opportunities for everyone • Collaboration between designers will become a lot easier, and it will be much simpler to create multi-publisher bundles All designers who are interested, we need to decide on these standards between us. We could go for a system (or a combination of systems) that's already in place and working well if the original designer behind it agrees to do so, or we can put our heads together and come up with something even better. To start with, I'd like for everyone, whether a fan or designer to weigh in on this and share their opinions about what works well and what doesn't. old squirmydad: can we add a new section dedicated to discussing the topics around this point?
|
|
|
Post by oldschooldm on Feb 12, 2014 18:21:10 GMT -9
Cool. Things have been slowly migrating this way in dribs and drabs for awhile, with cross-designer texture sharing, transition tiles, and even wall geometry (FGD and LZW]... As a builder, "compatible" is a definite plus.
Two immediate thoughts:
Any standard should have a proper-noun for a name, for sake of example (only) I'll pretend this proposal is "The 28Terrain Standard" [or perhaps The 28Terrain Guidelines?]
I can think of this as an opt-in standard. No designer is required to follow the standard , but if a kit is compatible, they get to claim on the packaging and sales pages and advertise that "This set is 28Terrain Compatible"
---
|
|
|
Post by oldschooldm on Feb 12, 2014 18:32:35 GMT -9
From my experience, most proposed standards efforts fail, BTW. What is needed to succeed is a consensus that the benefit's outweigh the costs.
It's pretty much a given that the consumers always want standards, so that isn't really what drives the choice for designers. Consumers want lots of things that are too expensive for designers to produce(snow textures for all the different options/layers on a building in a single PDF, for example.)
There will be costs for designers to comply with any standard - it takes time to make new layers/transition tiles, etc. What do the designers here think the benefits are? If the benefits are clear, then it seems that folks may contribute their ingredient to the standard (texture, geometry, PDF techniques, etc.)
It seems to me 28Terrain (or whatever it ends up being called) should deliver either 1: More sales to existing customers, 2) Increase the market size, by bringing in new customers, or 3) Make it cheaper/easier for designers to release new kits.
Is there another benefit to designers? I don't know anything about sales numbers or market research y'all have done, so I'm eager to hear what you think.
|
|
|
Post by mproteau (Paper Realms) on Feb 12, 2014 19:05:16 GMT -9
I've started down this path - I'm glad to hear others looking into it. I'm pretty heavily invested in WWG's TLX system, and I know some people are pretty vocal about why they don't like it. I hope we can avoid ganging up on any one style, and I'll stick my neck out and offer what I really LIKE about TLX: 1. It's very modular. I can take anything from one set and combine it easily with another set. 2. It's sturdy. I've built huge multi-level structures out of the stuff, and it all moves around easily and lets me move around whole sections easily. 3. It's easy to modify. Making new tiles, walls, etc are super easy for me as a kitbasher. 4. It's high quality. The layout was designed to work with machine cutters and different page sizes. 5. It all comes in gridless, 1" and 1.5" grids. 6. The tiles connect easily and are very sturdy. The railing system is great. In fact, everything about TLX seems VERY sturdy to me. When you build a structure, it's pretty solid. 7. It breaks down and stores well. 8. I like the 2" wall height. It's close enough to scale and it is easy to work around when moving minis. 9. It's all paper. There's no extra bits needed. I don't want to get too bogged down in things like grid styles. I assume that's not what this is about - it's about being able to connect pieces together effectively. Things I don't like: 1. I don't mind cutting things out by hand or by machine, but edging is a pain in the butt. TLX requires a lot of edging. 2. The roof system is pretty complex. That in itself I don't mind, but the trusses have the roof textures on them, making them less interchangeable. 3. They don't use layered PDFs. I don't like too many layers, but here are some things that would be nice to see: a) Turn on/off SD reg marks, or CAMEO reg marks (separately) b) Turn off cut/score line guides (for those using machine cutters) 4. There are some shapes you just can't do well with TLX. They have curved walls and diagonal walls, but in the end, a lot of builds end up boxy. 5. The anchor positions are fixed in 3" increments, making some builds awkward. I've built a number of Graffam buildings. I love them all. But, I don't have the space for them. I'd really like to kitbash them into TLX-like modular pieces, complete with interiors, so I can get more use out of them regularly. I own the fantasy tiles too, though I'm waiting on settling this tile format question in my own mind before I apply his textures to the right form factor. I've bought all the Fat Dragon Games stuff, though I don't yet have the files (waiting for the KS campaign to end before I get what I paid for ). From what I've seen, it looks easy enough to build, though it will take a great deal of getting used to a different tile system and different wall types. I use a scroll saw to cut the notches out of my TLX tiles, so I can make stacks of 6 at a time, and they only take a few minutes to prep the foamcore. I'm considering trying magnets for the posts, and I'd use a drill press to quickly poke the holes in the right places. That's a bit too much hardware to ask most crafters to use though...
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 12, 2014 19:07:11 GMT -9
From my experience, most proposed standards efforts fail, BTW. What is needed to succeed is a consensus that the benefit's outweigh the costs. There will be costs for designers to comply with any standard - it takes time to make new layers/transition tiles, etc. What do the designers here think the benefits are? If the benefits are clear, then it seems that folks may contribute their ingredient to the standard (texture, geometry, PDF techniques, etc.) You're quite right... The main "cost" to the designers, as far as I can tell, would be the initial jump from one method to a new one. I hope that this can be overcome through a collaborative effort at the start to get some templates together and that that will streamline the process for everyone going forward. As I mentioned before, it's an opt-in system on a per-set basis. There would be no obligation for anyone to go back through their entire library and overhaul each existing set to bring it up to standard (though they could if they wanted those sets to get the stamp). As for the benefits - The basic principle of marketing is that if you understand what your customers want and need and you can cater to it well, then you'll profit from it. I don't believe anyone is going to lose sales by switching over to a standard that works well and is loved by the customer base. I also think a lot of time will be saved once templates have been established. A lot of the veterans likely already have their templates set-up, so it would just be a matter of using the new template rather than the old one. For the new artists, they could just jump right into using the new templates.
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Feb 12, 2014 19:50:05 GMT -9
As a fan and avid tabletop Dungeon Mistress, I will put in my two cents worth (actual value):
I think that creating a standard for scale and a shared table of textures is a fabulous idea. It would make it a lot easier for people like me - the end user.
Of course I have no idea what this might entail for you designers and publishers, but I would welcome it wholeheartedly!
Just my humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by kane on Feb 12, 2014 21:34:59 GMT -9
My main concern about trying to standardize TLX is that I think WWG has that copyrighted and does not allow for compatible products using their templates. I could of course be wrong. The other "big player" would be FDG's E-Z Lock and I have no idea where Tom stands on others using that standard for their own retail product. I know he is VERY lenient about fan made mods, though.
|
|
|
Post by WackyAnne on Feb 12, 2014 22:04:24 GMT -9
This is a very intriguing proposition, which could of course be of eventual benefit to the consumers, but I can quickly see numerous roadblocks: 1) Who are we considering to be the major players who would have to be on board to make this a success? There not all here, there not all active, and they might not all get along (I've heard of one in particular not playing nice) 2) There are at least two main publishers with multiple lines in active service, who over time further refined and specialized their systems. Each has a fairly loyal following, with certainly some overlap, but each of those followings includes members who have years, tens/hundreds of dollars, and tens/hundreds/thousands of building hours invested in such systems. There would certainly be some resistance to change. 3) There is a wide diversity of building methods and geometries, from vertical 2D, to 3D fixed (in many thicknesses), to moveable, pure paper to foamcore reinforcement (like Stoelzel’s Structures), novice to advanced (ie. WWG's Maiden), just how do determine what you want to fall under the umbrella of the new standard. 4) The decision on the new format - who decides and how? Extensive discussions via email? forum? Google Hangouts or similar? Publisher and/or current customer vote or consensus? Market research of current and potential customers? 5) This is not an industry like media technology where one standard must win out (ie Beta vs. VHS), but a niche one which can actually thrive on diversity (I see it more as an app store than an OS). 6) Building the community of gaming papercraft producers (including professionals, amateurs, and novices) is where I believe we should focus our efforts, promoting the hobby as a whole to the wider gaming and crafting worlds, cross-promoting each others work, creating those transition pieces between sets among publishers, and I think Cardboard Warriors is itself a great beginning for this. In all honesty, I actually enjoy the diversity of the construction offerings. I would never have gotten into this hobby if my first encounter would have been with a WorldWorks TerrainLinx model, and even though my entry was Fat Dragon's Kickstarter last year (was it really so recent?!), it was Dave Graffam's free Hovel that I first started to ease me into things*. Good designers, as they grow in skill, experience, and confidence improve their own works, with input from their customer base, and that applies not only to increasing sophistication in textures and technologies (like layered PDFs), but also to geometries that work with those. I've quoted before "that it is within limits that an artist reveals himself", but I'm not convinced this limit will be worth it. TL;DR: I am ALL for growing and strengthening the hobby of papercraft gaming, but I'm not convinced that a standard format is the way to go as it faces challenges on the part of the producers and customers.I hope this is coherent and constructive, not opinionated and/or offensive. It's just about 4am here, I suffer from insomnia, and about half of this was written on my phone before I scrapped it. <3 WackyAnne *Although my first finished model was the Hovel by Fantasy Cutouts - I even left the last roof flap of the DGG Hovel unglued for the 7 hours it took me to cut, build, customize, and photograph it.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 13, 2014 0:16:50 GMT -9
My main concern about trying to standardize TLX is that I think WWG has that copyrighted and does not allow for compatible products using their templates. I could of course be wrong. The other "big player" would be FDG's E-Z Lock and I have no idea where Tom stands on others using that standard for their own retail product. I know he is VERY lenient about fan made mods, though. I am very specifically NOT trying to propose we make TLX the standard. However, if WWG offered it up as a possibility, it would definitely go under consideration. Ideally, I would actually like us to come up with something that is better than any of the currently offered systems. 1) Who are we considering to be the major players who would have to be on board to make this a success? There not all here, there not all active, and they might not all get along (I've heard of one in particular not playing nice) I don't think it's dependent on getting major players on board, though it would be nice. The effects will compound as the amount of sets under the banner increases, so if there are a few prolific designers involved and we can get up to about 10 or 20 sets between us in the next few months, that would be enough to make it work. Of course, if we have some bigger names, we'd reach that number (and pass it) a lot more quickly. That would depend on how dramatic the change was. At the moment, there are more similarities than there are differences. The standards would simply chip off the differences a little. Nothing about adding standards would nullify the value of stuff that already exists... it would just enhance the hobby going forward. Having a standard in place wouldn't affect any of that. It would simply mean that if you had Designer X's model that fit the standard, you could confidently buy Designer Y's model that also fits the standard and be confident that they will work together well. It may be worthwhile to add labels to the "stamp" to give buyer's an idea of whether something is suitable for novices, intermediates or advanced builders, and which genres it would be suitable for. I'm inclined to make it a democratic decision between all interested parties. I, for one, am absolutely committed to applying the new standard, whatever it may be, to all my future sets and, time permitting, all my existing ones too, but this is something that will be decided as a group by all of the designers who want to be a part of it. The input of fans and customers will be a big determining factor in the decisions we make as they're the ones who will be spending the money at the end of the day. As for where the discussion will take place, I think we can do it right here. You're 100% correct about that. This is not about creating a system to end all systems, it's about creating a lot of content that all works well together. Customers will benefit from it, and designers will benefit from it. I couldn't agree more! This is one of the major goals of this proposal. To be clear, I am not proposing that we make everything work in only one way. I'm proposing that a group of designers work together to make a bunch of sets that work really well together.
|
|
|
Post by zigmenthotep on Feb 13, 2014 3:25:00 GMT -9
Well here's my thoughts as a producer of dungeon-based goods.
Scale: Having A standard scale wouldn't work, game scales vary too much. There would have to be multiple standards for different types of games (eg skirmish, squad, air, ship, kaiju... well maybe not that one) But I only work in RPG/skirmish level so I'll direct the rest of my comments that direction. There's also the issue of artistic style, a cartoony 28mm may look bigger than a realistic 35mm. I'd like to see something like a loose 1:60 scale, enough to keep everything is the general area of consistency.
Walls: I'd like to see a standard guideline for wall dimensions,(walls are X thick an Y tall) and a standard for linking would be nice, I only know 2 methods and I'm not in love with either of them. Although such standards should only really be applied to free standing walls, in a structure sometimes they just need to be thinner/wider taller/shorter. And one again this comes to the need for multiple standards for 3D, flat, foamcore, and whatever else folks are doing.
Something else I'd like to see would be a basing standard for miniatures, basically a standard tab/slot size. A standard base style that's free for anyone's use would be nice too but I wouldn't like to see it as a required part of the standards as long as any miniature will fit any base.
Overall I think it's a great idea, I wish there were a standard when I started, figuring out all that stuff as a novice is a little daunting.
|
|
|
Post by WackyAnne on Feb 13, 2014 4:56:18 GMT -9
Well here's my thoughts as a producer of dungeon-based goods. Scale: Having A standard scale wouldn't work, game scales vary too much. There would have to be multiple standards for different types of games (eg skirmish, squad, air, ship, kaiju... well maybe not that one) But I only work in RPG/skirmish level so I'll direct the rest of my comments that direction. There's also the issue of artistic style, a cartoony 28mm may look bigger than a realistic 35mm. I'd like to see something like a loose 1:60 scale, enough to keep everything is the general area of consistency. Walls: I'd like to see a standard guideline for wall dimensions,(walls are X thick an Y tall) and a standard for linking would be nice, I only know 2 methods and I'm not in love with either of them. Although such standards should only really be applied to free standing walls, in a structure sometimes they just need to be thinner/wider taller/shorter. And one again this comes to the need for multiple standards for 3D, flat, foamcore, and whatever else folks are doing. Something else I'd like to see would be a basing standard for miniatures, basically a standard tab/slot size. A standard base style that's free for anyone's use would be nice too but I wouldn't like to see it as a required part of the standards as long as any miniature will fit any base. Overall I think it's a great idea, I wish there were a standard when I started, figuring out all that stuff as a novice is a little daunting. [ bravesirkevin So many good counterpoints, I'll get to this later today ] zigmenthotepScale: Yes, there is a huge variation, from Billiam Babble's Inked Adventures being true 25mm, I'd say, from the example figure he includes with the door which I converted into a mini ( here), to One Monk's stuff which is closer to 32mm. And whether you measure the scale number as equal to five feet or man's eyelevel. Heroic, or more natural proportions, regular- or 'Clix-based. However, that matters less in terrain than miniatures, as we all pretty much stick to 1" = 5' (1/60, or S-scale in model RR) for maps and terrain, with some being produced (horizontally at least) for 1.5" to 5" (1/40, even bigger than O-Scale in model RR). Mini-basing: I _love_ the way you've tweaked the Reivaj tweak of the One Monk basing system with your Pixel Dungeon, and your brilliant "base station" (get it free & see it in action here guys). I think it would be great to use a variation on that with textures from One Monk and the other battlemap and maptile producers. I have a further suggestion/thought on the matter: print the top texture and the rest of the base separately: Step 1: pre-print the texture to a sheet of paper Step 2: over-print it with a grid/layout of the base shapes/sizes you plan to make Step 3: cut out = topper Step 4: print the bottom of the base using yellow ink or toner onto black cardstock or light posterboard Step 5: cut out = base of base Step 6: glue together A lot less edging required, a lot less paper wasted, and a lot less ink/toner wasted if you combined step one & two into a layered mask, allowing for a range of size and shape options. A little more complicated, though. Addendum: I have yet to test this yet to see how it works. It does in my head, but that's no proof of anything
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Feb 13, 2014 5:08:15 GMT -9
This all sounds a little too close to various attempts to "standardize" wargaming and RPG rules systems down the decades; none have succeeded for any length of time, and just look at the current diversity that's available, with more appearing almost daily (for RPGs, certainly).
I'm with WackyAnne in looking for and enjoying the diversity of what's available in papercraft minis and models, and how different people have come up with variant solutions to the same problems.
As for scale, I don't want that standardized! I've modelled in paper/card at 54mm, 25mm/28mm/30mm/32mm (or whatever we're calling it this week - standard? What standard?!), 20mm and 15mm over the years, and I like the idea that on computers now I can rescale anything if necessary. Plus standardizing implies a "one true way" that newcomers will end up feeling obliged to follow.
What would be nice is if there were to be agreement between designers as to exactly what size an average human should be in the different scales, and thus actually apply the scaling correctly on that basis, but that's never happened in half a century of cast miniature gaming figurines, so I can't see it working any better for paper minis!
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 13, 2014 5:12:10 GMT -9
I think this is a good idea. I think Sir Kev is on the right track by wanting to "start fresh." People with a large collection of models can be encouraged to kitbash pieces that can transition between their collection and "28Terrain." (I know Old School didn't necessarily intend 28Terrain to stick, but it is the one name going right now and he used it the magic three times in his post so if anyone really hates it they need to offer an alternative NOW or this baby is going to cement itself into consciousness) I advocate for all paper. It stores that much flatter and not everyone wants to go through the step of gluing to foamcore. On that note: a patch of packing tape on the back of a tile will give you a place where a piece of masking tape (or painter's "green tape" ) can be stuck on and easily peeled off. You can even re-stick the pieces of masking tape back onto the roll for re-cycling. Cheap, easy and "tile agnostic"
|
|
|
Post by fatdragontom on Feb 13, 2014 5:44:20 GMT -9
Just a quick comment with my .02. I'm not sure about a standard format, lots of customers like different ones for different reasons. What about coming up with an adaptor piece(s) for the more common formats though?
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 13, 2014 5:51:25 GMT -9
Remember: this is meant to be a voluntary standard that some designers may choose to follow on someof their models so that their models will work with the models of the other designers who have decided to work with the standard. It is planned as an alternative, not "One Standard to Rule them All." We are mostly talking about terrain that works with 28mm-32mm figures. Designers who want to work in 15mm or 54mm can offer their models at that scale (without the standard logo on the package) or consumers can try there luck printing at whatever scale they like. BTW Pathfinder uses 5'/inch but Savage Worlds (at least Explorer's Edition) uses 6'/inch and there is really no issue using the same figures and terrain for each. There is a lot of wiggle room for scale in gaming, less for accurate dioramas. I think the real challenge is going to be what "compatibility" of style means. Both Nemo and Billiam Babble use 1" squares, but the art style is very different. If they both want to use the logo, can they? Transitioning from one tile to the next would be jarring, at least. Who has the power to enforce "that is close enough" and "that is too different?" on an ongoing basis?
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 13, 2014 5:57:28 GMT -9
Hi Tom! Glad to see you chiming in... Just to reiterate, there is no need to get rid of the diversity of ideas out there. This is all about creating a standard system that is not tied to one company, but instead is open for anyone to use so that a multitude of designers can easily create compatible items without treading on toes. Much as Wizards created an open d20 licence a few years ago, it will not cause the scene to suddenly become uniform, but instead will create a wealth of products that are readily accessible to anyone who has had experience with just one.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 13, 2014 6:01:14 GMT -9
Just a quick comment with my .02. I'm not sure about a standard format, lots of customers like different ones for different reasons. What about coming up with an adaptor piece(s) for the more common formats though? That is what I meant by "kitbash" Since any transitional piece is going to have to be half an established company's system and that company may not want to allow their lock piece shape (or whatever) to be used, people with large collections of their stuff who want to also collect Terrain30 (in the middle of 28 and 32) will have to come up with a transitional solution. The users may then want to offer it on the company's forums etc if the company will allow that. Of course if a producer wants to offer transitional pieces on their own, there is nothing stopping them.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 13, 2014 6:04:23 GMT -9
I think the real challenge is going to be what "compatibility" of style means. Both Nemo and Billiam Babble use 1" squares, but the art style is very different. If they both want to use the logo, can they? Transitioning from one tile to the next would be jarring, at least. Who has the power to enforce "that is close enough" and "that is too different?" on an ongoing basis? Well, those details are things we'd hammer out later. For right now I'm more interested in getting a few designers on board. I (perhaps naively) believe that we're all adults and all relatively honest, so I think we may be able to clearly define what standards a set needs to meet in order to warrant a stamp of compliance and allow people to judge for themselves whether their product warrants it or not. If between us we decide that they need approval to use the stamp, then we'd have to set up a committee to review submissions.
|
|
|
Post by mproteau (Paper Realms) on Feb 13, 2014 6:06:02 GMT -9
Just to reinforce what bravesirkevin has already said. The idea isn't to force every terrain maker into one system. But, if there are people who want to make terrain, want to learn from the past as to what people like and don't like, and are interested in making terrain that is more compatible with the stuff other people are making, then this is the start of THAT standard. It's not THE standard for all terrain. It's an open, agreed upon style developed by a larger community that can be freely used by others. I don't care for 28Terrain myself, but I have nothing better right now to offer. If we're looking for a (TM) buzzword, how about OpenTerrain? Open in the sense of developed by and shared with the community freely, and it is a kind of play on the term 'open terrain' being a wide open space. Ok fine. I had something else to offer, but I can't claim it's any better. I wanted to start the year by learning to make my own textures and start making my own terrain. I'm not quite there yet - my day job is turning into my nights-and-weekends job right now too, so hobbies are taking a back seat. But, if/when I do make terrain, I fully expect to want to be able to do the following: 1) Have a modular build system 2) Have a permanent (or semi-permament fold-flat but not modular) build option with interiors 3) Have a cheap, quick build option with just exteriors 4) Support the option to have battle maps using the terrain I think each category is worthy of it's own 'standard'. There's so much wheel-reinvention, and some of it may be a good things, but most of it is just "oh - I have to come up with my own style for representing where to glue, and what is a reverse score. I have to come up with my own templates that accommodate Letter and A4 paper (preferably), old and new registration mark formats, have space for branding, etc. I have to make yet another template for different wall styles, floor styles, stairs, etc. I have to make sure cutfiles are in a consistent format and documented so folks know how to use them. I have to release my own 'how to papercraft' manual. etc etc." I'm not whining about the work - it call comes along with it, if you want to do a nice job. However, it seems like a waste for every part-time Joe who wants to trickle out some stuff. A on open, community-backed collection of templates seems like a win for everyone. So, bravesirkevin, do you have a checklist of things that you think should be covered? If you have any interest in a more real-time brainstorming session, I'm "mproteau" on AIM and Steam, and am almost always available to chat. I've been starting down this road since the beginning of this year, collecting my thoughts, but I'm only now getting a chance to really look at what others offer that I haven't experienced yet. EDIT: I'm too slow, trying to respond while also working. I see several responses came in while I was typing... Also, setting up a Steam group to allow for a collection of people to chat in real time might be a fun way to share ideas, as long as one person has a specific agenda to follow...
|
|
|
Post by WackyAnne on Feb 13, 2014 6:08:51 GMT -9
BTW Pathfinder uses 5'/inch but Savage Worlds (at least Explorer's Edition) uses 6'/inch and there is really no issue using the same figures and terrain for each. Yeah, Savage Worlds also tends to favour tri-folds AKA figure flats instead of REAL(TM) paper minis ( see first dozen products & their publishers), and strange things like "edges" and "hindrances". Weirdos!
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 13, 2014 6:23:43 GMT -9
I've added you on Skype mproteau (Paper Realms). Been getting quite a bit of feedback, and that's great! About the name, I'd favour something simple and descriptive. Universal Dungeon System would suit me fine! I am open to any suggestions that are more interesting and awe-inspiring. As for the checklist, the keypoints remain the ones mentioned right at the start. A modular system with linking, and some specific ground rules about scale. A lot of people have mentioned the variety of art styles out there, but I don't think it's that big a deal to add tags to the stamp. UDS: Realistic, Fantasy. UDS: Handdrawn, Sci-Fi. etc. There are some other factors we could include to enhance the value of the stamp to customers, but that is for a later discussion.
|
|
|
Post by mproteau (Paper Realms) on Feb 13, 2014 6:40:16 GMT -9
Skype? What's Skype? Looks like I will be installing yet another communication channel... :-P
Hmm... there's an mproteau on skype already, but it's not me... I'll have to set something up that I won't forget. I'm mproteau EVERYWHERE! (except for skype)
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 13, 2014 6:48:01 GMT -9
I like "Open Terrain." Most people will know what "Open Terrain Licence" means
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 13, 2014 6:54:25 GMT -9
I like "Open Terrain." Most people will know what "Open Terrain Licence" means Unfortunately that's the problem with it Can't go around implying our sets are free when they're not.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 13, 2014 7:24:34 GMT -9
I'm going to propose the acronym CUTS(cardboard universal terrain system). I am also updating the original post to include a more specific outline of the features.
|
|
|
Post by sproutchu on Feb 13, 2014 9:27:10 GMT -9
(I' d like to add a few things, and you will excuse my "professional deformation" as a former marketing analyst and presently general business management counselor.)
I'm pretty much new to the hobby myself, but I see 2 important factors here when considering what to "standardize".
1- The streamlining of the production for everyone interested in using those standards for the creation of new models.
2- Making it more "user friendly", at least a bit, for newcomers to the hobby by having lines of products that we know all fit together, either in style or in function. Everyone may not agree with me, but I beleive that standards in style may be either impossible to achieve or something that would not be interesting for customers, new or returning.
Seeing that variety must and will remain a key selling point to paper modeling (I know that's what attracted me to it in the first place), the standards, even if optional, would have to be general. Some structural specifics, such as the size of ground tiles, what technique to use to stack floors or to add annexes or dormers to buildings, etc. could benefit everyone I think.
One more thing. If point #2 (attracting new clientele) is also an objective, you might want to consider having all producers of such CUTS products have a "line" of compatible products. For example, on RPGnow and others alike, when seeing all models from FDG or DG, I would automatically see what models are compatible with one another without having to browse them all, one at a time. Could even be a whole section devoted stritcly to that standard, listing all producers.
That, to me, is crucial for this to succeed with new customers.
|
|
|
Post by hackbarth on Feb 13, 2014 9:44:42 GMT -9
Some of these proposals are very rational. The nogrid, 1"grid and 1.5"grid opyions, the A4 and office paper formats compatibility, the 1:60 scale for some. These are all standards that makes the models useful for the greatest amount of possible buyers.
I would like also a standardization of tile sizes, but then they aren't constant in the products by the same publishers. I have FDG Tiles that are 6"x6" and 8"x8", WWG that are 6"x6" and 7"x7", 0HR that are 7"x9", F&T that are 6"x9", MEL that are 6"x6"...
But I see that these are standards that would be difficult to reach an agreement over, even because they represent artistic and economic decisions by each publisher. Even so, this is the problem that I have with using different kits (some from the same publisher!) together.
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Feb 13, 2014 10:07:01 GMT -9
I agree with sproutchu. For example: I absolutely love the wall sets by Lord Zsezse Works* and Fat Dragon Games* and would dearly love to have all of them (maybe this summer?). However, though they look like they would be compatible in size, I can see that the textures are very different. But if in the layers, they both offered among their regular textures, a few that match or are at least complimentary (maybe some in B&W), that would be fabulous! And if that were to be the case, putting a label on their products like "CUTS compatible" would, at a glance make the decision to purchase those products much more attractive.
In this case it wouldn't mean a reworking of the whole kit (I imagine that would be near impossible) but merely an upgrade? Does this make sense?
For what it's worth I think you guys are on the right track and I look forward to see what comes of this. I'm quite excited, actually.
*I used these wall sets as an example, only, because I believe they are products that are familiar to most folks in the hobby. (And I, not so secretly, lust after them).
|
|
|
Post by mproteau (Paper Realms) on Feb 13, 2014 10:27:03 GMT -9
Again - it's not that every publisher needs to be on board, but if there's a community consensus that tiles are in 3" increments - 3x3, 3x6, 6x6, 6x9... well, that gives the folks who WANT to be on board something to run with. WWG stuff that isn't in 3" increments represents their older stuff. All the relatively recent products are 3" based. As a labor of love, I went and did a total conversion of their Atlantis set to TLX format. It involved retexturing almost every piece since the wall heights and tile sizes all changed. Still, most of the hard work was in packaging it up in the hopes someone else might get to use it, since I had to build all of the TLX templates myself. I haven't seen enough FDG products yet to know, but it seems like the 3d terrain tile stuff is mostly 6" based. Dave Graffam has bases to use with his buildings, but they can be of arbitrary size. Not sure if he's changing that to standardize the base sizes. I personally have take the route of not basing his buildings on foamcore, with the intention that they'll go on top of another tile. If I wanted to mount his buildings directly to something, I'd probably kitbash a 3"-based tile specially for it...
I strongly encourage choosing either a 2" or a 3" base system for tiles. TLX supports making other tile shapes and sizes for higher levels of the build, but the foundation is pretty fundamental.
|
|
|
Post by kane on Feb 13, 2014 10:31:25 GMT -9
Definitely on board with the 3" base. That way, can do 1" or 1.5" squares easily. Also fits with Deadzone, so that is a plus.
|
|