|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 17, 2014 18:06:10 GMT -9
This thread is focused on the creation of a few basic guidelines that will make a set work well on its own, but also make it relatively easy to convert the set so that it works with existing linking systems. Following these guidelines is completely optional, but a set that follows these guidelines will get to use a stamp on their marketing materials that will instantly tell customers that this set will work well with all other sets bearing the same mark and that it is safe to buy it. While it would be great to get a lot of existing sets on board, it is more important that future sets work well and so our focus here is to get a solid set of rules going forward. If an old set meets the criteria without any extra work, that's awesome, but there is no pressure on anyone to go and update old sets to bring them in line. We want feedback from designers on the guidelines. • Is there anything that's not mentioned here that you think should be included? • Is there anything in the guidelines that you feel is too restrictive? • Would you consider building future sets to comply? • Are you working on a set at the moment that would like to put the stamp on? Fans and customers, we want to know what you feel about this too! • When you've bought from multiple service providers in the past, have you had any particular struggles getting the pieces to work together well? Proposed 28Terrain Guidelines Last updated: 11-03-2014These guidelines apply to terrain intended for use with 25-32mm miniatures and Clix. Other scales, like 15mm, will have their own best practices which will be dealt with separately.Scale and Dimensions:• Always use True Inches (ie. 25.4mm). • A standard scale of roughly 1:60 must be followed for details on the terrain • The dimensions of ground tiles should be in multiples of 3" (ie. 3x3, 3x6, 6x6, etc.) For simplicity, this will be refered to as Base 3. • Multiple grid options must be included, either as layer options or by releasing multiple versions of the PDF. At a minimum, options should allow for 1", 1.5" and no grid. Design and Printing Requirements:• The kit must include the 28Terrain end-user description text, which can be found at (a link to be provided later)• Standard page size of 11" x 8.25" if you're working in imperial units or 279 x 210 mm if you're working in metric. This is to ensure that it will work well whether the end user prints on US Letter sized paper or A4. (note: The imperial measurements and the metric ones are approximately equal, but not identical. They've been rounded off to keep things simple)• There must be a margin of 0.4" or 10mm on all sides, effectively giving an art area of 10.2" x 7.45" or 259 x 190 mm. Automated cutters:(note:mproteau (Paper Realms) has set up some templates for this)• Artwork must include registration marks for automated cutters. There are two types of registration currently being used and artwork should include both as optional layers. • Registration marks rely on the the automatic cutter's optical recognition of their shapes, it is best to avoid placing artwork within 0.25" (6mm) of the marks.• Rectangular shapes must be kept away from the corners of the artwork as the cutter may falsely interpret these as registration marks. Logos and Marketing Material: This section will cover the guidelines for optimal use of the stamp, as well as informational text that should be included in product descriptions on sales pages. It is deliberately being left empty for the time being as these discussions are low priority at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by WackyAnne on Feb 17, 2014 21:05:57 GMT -9
This thread is focused on the creation of a few basic guidelines that will make a set work well on its own, but also make it relatively easy to convert the set so that it works with existing linking systems. Following these guidelines is completely optional, but a set that follows these guidelines will get to use a stamp on their marketing materials that will instantly tell customers that this set will work well with all other sets bearing the same mark and that it is safe to buy it. The current guidelines are as follows:• Always use True Inches (ie. 25.4mm). • A standard scale of roughly 1:60 should be followed for details on the terrain. 1:60 seems to be a good median fit for most popular 25-32mm minis used in RPGs. We could split the best practices to account for other scales, so there could be a "15Terrain" or a "54Terrain" with a different scale. • The dimensions of ground tiles should be in multiples of 3". • 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. • Always include registration marks for automated cutters. Even if you do not personally plan to release cut files, it's useful to make it easy for the community to make and release their own.(details on this one to follow) • Grid options should allow for 1", 1.5" and no grid. The above will get updated as the discussion moves forward. While I've been so busy with life (and a little helping out with the Fat Dragon kickstarter campaign) this last little while, from what I've gleaned, all of the above seems pretty reasonable. A couple of things, though, stand out. "28 mm" itself means different things to different people, whether to the eyeline or the top of the head, although adding a ratio note like "1:60" mitigates that somewhat, it may not save confusion when "28" is built into the name. The second point I have is much more important. You MUST go further afield with these discussions. The Cardboard Warrior forum, while terrific, still doesn't encompass the whole of paper craft terrain, and maybe not even the larger part of it. I suggest you take it to each individual publisher you can track down, OneBookshelf and other retailers generally (for greater dispersal and contact possibilities), and invite them into the discussion ASAP. If you leave it too late in the process, you'll risk this project going no further than the dozen or so active publishers on this forum. Latecomers will have a harder time feeling invested in the outcome if they are not involved in the process from early stages. And, the more perspectives, the better chance something important won't get overlooked. Of course there are the counter-arguments (too many cooks spoiling the broth, design by committee, etc.), but since we are seeking a broad standard, we need the broadest input possible. This is a great idea, but it's moving so fast even I can't keep up, and I come here to the forums daily.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 18, 2014 0:41:27 GMT -9
The reason I chose 28 is simply that the big 3 brands of minis used in the market (ie. Games Workshop, Reaper and Wyrd-Games) are almost universally considered to be "28mm miniatures", and to all intents and purposes, the definition of 28mm in this context means "it will look good with Warhammer, Reaper and Malifaux figures".(I am aware that at various times in the distant past Reaper and GW both labelled themselves as 25mm even though they never truly were that scale, and aren't even technically 28mm now.)
I stand to be corrected, but I believe that 28mm is more likely to be understood by the general masses than 1:60 as the latter is something that shows up on the packaging of model aeroplanes and cars and while the former is what is considered to be "the scale" in tabletop gaming circles.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 18, 2014 0:54:26 GMT -9
Just to bring the thread up to speed: Been thinking about a stamp, sort of like this for the [x]Terrain idea. This would be a sort of visual shorthand for customers that any and all designers can add to their marketing materials to say that their set conforms to the best practices guidelines for a given scale and also shows which common features the set contains As explained in the above image, the icons represent certain features. • Base 3 means that the dimensions of the tiles are in multiples of 3 (ie. 3x3, 6x6, etc). • Painted Style means that the set is textured with colourful detail and shading (eg. World Works Games, Kev's Lounge, Dave Graffam, Fat Dragon). • Hand-Drawn Style means that the set is based on linework, with flat basic colours if it has colour at all (eg. Inked Adventures). • Cutfile Compatible means that the pages of the set include registration marks for automatic cutters. This is just a first draft of course, and it will almost certainly change as we consider what needs to be incorporated into the best practices guidelines, and which bits of information need to be made clear upfront. There will be a similar stamp for the minis as well. What do you guys think? Overall I like the idea of the stamp, the pictograms are nice (and make identification easy for non-english speaking users) Some thoughts: I know I keep pushing this, but I really think using a ratio scale would be better since it's not unit-specific. Plus, pretty much all the other miniature scales go by ratio (this is something I think needs to be adapted for gaming miniatures in general) While I do like the idea of the pictograms, they seem a little vague—with the exception of the base 3. Even if you exclude things radically outside the norm, separating art style into an A or B group is going to be tricky. Are automated cutters common enough to warrant giving cutfile compatibility such a large section of the stamp? (honestly I have no idea on this one, are they?) It seems like we're at a point where we need to start hammering out the specific details, until we have those pinned down it's hard to say what should and shouldn't go on the stamp. Regarding the automated cutters... If we publish a couple .png files to use as layers to at least facilitate the automated cutting, and guidelines to educate folks on how to ensure their designs are compatible, then that's a big win. There are a lot of us with automated cutters who don't mind making the cutfiles for the community (though including them with the models is a lot nicer!) but it's so much an easier task when the pages already fit in the safe cutting area, and it's just a matter of tracing... If anyone is planning on selling anything on their own and would like someone to help them make cutfiles, it's worth asking around here to see if anyone is willing/able to help.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 18, 2014 1:18:46 GMT -9
To reply to some of the above, the stamp presented is solely for concept purposes... the one we eventually use will likely look very different from that.
With regards to pictograms, there may not be any at all. Those will only be incorporated if we allow for some parts of the best practices to be optional. To illustrate: there are likely more than a few sets out there that adhere to every point we've currently added, but don't conform to the Base 3.
Automatic cutters might not be common, but they are definitely significant. They go a long way towards making this hobby practical for many of the customers. For various reasons I distribute my cutfiles separately from my actual product downloads, so I can actually see how many of my customers download the cutfiles and I can confidently say that: a) a sizeable portion of my customers will go on to download the cutfiles for a given set (about 10 - 30%) b) sets with cutfiles available (even just fan-made ones) sell more than sets without them
Based on this, cutfile compatibility should definitely be a part of the best practices guidelines, but need not be a mandatory part of them. There are specific rules that should be adhered to when dealing with cutfiles and these should be elaborated in the best practices above and, as mproteau suggests, it is a good idea to make some templates that will make this easier for people to implement.
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Feb 18, 2014 7:10:40 GMT -9
I design at 1:60 for the 28mm, so I'll concur with that. I agree that a ratio is a more sensible way to scale the designs, why not put the ratio in the scale area? A 6'x9" base fits quite nicely on a 7.5x10" printable area for a sheet (which is what I use to not inconvenience European customers), so that seems OK. However, the logo seems to imply the buildings are 3x3 (or fit a 3x3 base), and while I know that's not the case, how to correct that impression? (Not being snarky, I really don't know) I do a lot of slums and other non-standard buildings--I may need to rethink how they go together. I use mostly photo-realistic textures, so I suppose that's painted style--but is it? The little icons don't seem to do the job. You'd need three logos on each sheet: copyright, company, and this new one (or are you just putting the logo on the product cover?). That starts to take up some significant real estate unless we shrink them. Then you have a problem of legibility. The cover art (and thumbnails for sites like rpgnow and wargamevault) for the product ought to inform the customer about the style, so are you sure you really need that part of the logo? Regarding icons: I remember a tongue in cheek article some years back about icons wherein the headlight icon on car dashboards was interpreted as "coffee is hot, don't spill!"
Wackyanne is right, though, about bringing others into the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 18, 2014 7:52:59 GMT -9
It seems to me, if the logo just said 28Terrain all a producer has to do is put the logo on the cover for potential customers to know the product complies with the guidelines.
The question then becomes: how do you let consumers know what the guidelines are?
Could each product description include a pre-fab paragraph? (and/or) Could there be a link to an explanation? Other ways to spread the word?
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 18, 2014 8:12:02 GMT -9
Reluctant to get too deep into logo design just yet as I still want some more input on the actual guidelines. What I'd actually want on the covers would be little more than a subtlely stylised square with "28" in it, large enough that it's about 10 or 15 pixels tall when it's reduced to the thumbnail on RPGnow. On a full sized page, that would be about 2cm (a fair bit less than an inch). At that height the 28 would still be readable on the thumbnail and the logo would be recognisable at any scale. What's included above would be more akin to a jpg that would be dropped into the description, though even I'm not a fan of the design as it currently stands... the intention with that was really to get conversation going about what should and shouldn't be there.
As for the point of getting as many people into the discussion as possible, I wholeheartedly agree. I do think all of the discussion should take place here though, so that it is all in a single place and it doesn't become a nightmare to collate, or an exercise in redundancy where points have to be readdressed because different parties are unaware that their concerns have already been addressed. I am also limited in my reach so any help in getting folks to read and respond here would be very much appreciated!
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 18, 2014 8:17:31 GMT -9
It seems to me, if the logo just said 28Terrain all a producer has to do is put the logo on the cover for potential customers to know the product complies with the guidelines. The question then becomes: how do you let consumers know what the guidelines are? Could each product description include a pre-fab paragraph? (and/or) Could there be a link to an explanation? Other ways to spread the word? As I envision it, there would be an image and basic summary text which would be pasted into the description, along with a link to either this thread or, alternatively, a wiki-type page that elaborates in a little more detail. A big part of this mission is to make papercraft terrain more accessible to the broader gaming community, and I think either of those options would be helpful in achieving this.
|
|
|
Post by oldschooldm on Feb 18, 2014 8:47:35 GMT -9
Yup. There needs to be a persistent home for this effort, capturing the current guidelines/standards details (aka conclusions) and provide a home for the open source repository. GIThub? or something else? I'd offer to host it, but that's not permanent enough.
|
|
|
Post by mesper on Feb 18, 2014 9:46:36 GMT -9
I think that logo should be: 1. As SIMPLE as possible == LEGIBLE (even when set/model cover is minimised - like RPGnow thumbnails size) 2. All information should be INFORMATIVE and clearly/indisputable UNDERSTANDABLE - even (or mostly!) by "casual" or new to hobby users/modellers 3. Should be clear what is it's role / purpose So: 1. I'd add "mm" 2. I'd replace "TERRAIN" with "SCENERY" 3. I'd add "COMPATIBLE" - to make it clear why / what it is all about 4. I'd remove all small icons/pictograms and additional text Here is very quick and simple mock-up (so please do not pay attention to rough corners or font or colours): // EDIT: some special graphic accent/elements might be added to make it more unique or specific - if there is such a need - but it's not that important at this stage of discussion//COMMENTS---------------- 1. Why SCENERY instead of TERRAIN?(I know I'm entering very thin ice - trying to discuss with native language speakers - so I'm sorry if I misunderstood something and please be polite) Thing is that for me TERRAIN associates mostly with ground or tiles or floor-plans (which are just a PART of what we use as playable scenery) and not with buildings, props etc. while SCENERY contain ALL these elements, right? Now, this mine narrow understanding of terrain is additionally enforced when looking at 3x3 Base icon - it brings immediate association with some grid-plan or battlefield field (tiles, hexes) According OXFORD DICTIONARIES (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com)
TERRAIN a stretch of land, especially with regard to its physical features: they were delayed by rough terrain
SYNONYMS land, ground, territory; topography, landscape, countryside, country
SCENERY 1 the beautiful scenery of the Rockies landscape, countryside, country, terrain, topography, setting, surroundings, environment; view, vista, panorama; cityscape, townscape, roofscape; riverscape, seascape, waterscape, snowscape 2 we all helped with the scenery and costumes stage set, set, mise en scene, backdrop, drop curtain; setting, background, decor
2. PictogramsThese are really nice but I'd see these rather on terms page attached to the set/model not on "standard label": a) these are too small to be readable even previewing cover thumbnails (or even enlarged 400 x 500px) b) not enough understandable (at least for me) Frankly speaking when I see BRUSH my first association is that I'll have to... manually paint figurines or models Then seeing BLADE / KNIFE I think that I'll have to cut and clean edges of plastic or metal figurines) Perhaps shame on me but I'd never guess intended meaning of these just looking at label, without SirKev's additional explanation (brush = painted style and the other one stands for hand-drawn) IMHO such icons (and even more if needed) with text explanations could be placed in attached to the set/model page (the same page which could contain rules / terms / licence etc.) OK, these are my 2 cents, hope that somewhat helpful
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 18, 2014 11:51:09 GMT -9
Thanks very much for your input Mesper! The difference between scenery and terrain is basically the role it serves. Scenery is about decorating and setting the scene, while terrain is basically the land and all of its features and how they would affect logistics, tactics and other strategic decision making. At least in the english world, when a tabletop game's rulebook talks about terrain it is talking about features on the battleground that can be interacted with and which have an effect defined within the mechanics of the game, so that would encompass buildings, trees, swamps, rubble piles and everything in between... Short version is that a model railway set-up would have scenery, but a gaming table would have terrain. The pictograms seem problematic all around so they'll probably get scrapped, or complete rethought. We only really need them for parts that are optional for compatibility. As for the logo in general, I've got an idea for what might work there and I'll probably post that tomorrow morning once I've had a chance to work on it. That all said, I think we need to avoid getting too hung up on names and logos just yet, because we're not really done talking about what the guidelines actually entail. I think there's a general consensus that all the stuff in there is a good idea so far, but what I'd still like to know is how the designers who already have stuff out there will be affected by this. I'm looking for answers to these questions: • How many of your existing sets would not be compliant? • If the number is low, would you add this stamp (once it's designed and looks awesome) to all of your existing compliant sets? • If the number is high, would you consider adjusting your old sets to bring them up to standard at some point? • Would you consider putting effort into ensuring that all of your future sets are compliant and get the stamp? • If the answer to the last question is "no", I'd like to know what's putting you off and what would change your mind.
|
|
|
Post by mesper on Feb 18, 2014 12:20:55 GMT -9
EDIT: was writing while SirKev was answering - so now it looks that I'm spamming;)
Anyway: changed Scenery for Terrain (but what about "28mm Terrain System" too long perhaps?) OK - will stop adding mine cents into this discussion, as in fact I'm not terrain publisher so it's not even my area of interest:)
Previous post was mostly about label's readability. Now, as I understood, bravesirkevin idea is to establish brand NEW STANDARD, so we need to HIGHLIGHT in some way that this particular label is a sign / way or approval (certificate?) We want End User to quickly RECOGNIZE that product is compatible with this standard So let's add some side-element In this case it's kinda Price Sticker style, but it can be redesigned - for example I have something which is based on Castle Wall and Tower - so it is almost immediately associated with some construction/building model. Just for purpose of this example I've bring to life PMG (Papercraft Modellers Group), or PMPA (Paper Model Publishers Association) etc (Group sounds for me more "open for community" and less formal than Association - still I'm pretty sure that our friends from US could suggest something much better/appropriate?) Then I've added "RECOMMENDED" and "APPROVED" infos. =>>>However IMHO Recommended is better - kinda less formal but with strong message! NOTE: information about Group or Association (including: why it was established, what is purpose, info about membership, rules of using and most IMPORTANT - ADVANTAGES for users who took buying decisions based on label / Group recommendation) should be placed in text/page attached to EACH set/model whhich will be compatible with standard. Then the standalone / dedicated web-page with such above mentioned info, samples, download section with labels, info text/rules and some free resources etc. (and of course LINKS to member's webpages and shops:) available should be designed (for a small webpage with some .INFO suffix and basic hosting service cost per year should be minimal and I think that all members could easily support it) OK, some quick samples, feel free to change, redesign etc.: In this case I've changed SCENERY for SYSTEM - as in fact we are talking here about whole system, which contains buildings, structures (bridges, walls, gates etc.), props, tiles and figurines... Next step - as this label is rather very simple then it's easily to add some more content-oriented info: - Art style - Cufiles included etc.
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Feb 18, 2014 13:46:01 GMT -9
Speaking from a consumer's point of view: Both WackyAnne and Mesper have excellent points. While I agree that you should court more opinions from the larger market place, do be wary of this, as others may not see this as an attempt to create more cooperation within the hobby - but as a way of taking over. We know that your intent is honorable, but do 'they'? Mesper's take on the design of the logo has merit. Now, I went through school here in the US before they started to teach metrics (thus my difficulty), I wonder how many others of my era out there who enjoy this hobby? If someone explains to me that 28mm = 1", I can get that. But, if you say this kit is built to a 1:60 ratio, I get that even better (maybe that's just because I am exactly 60" tall myself?) Still, the point remains, some of us are just not that familiar with metrics. Perhaps if both are mentioned somewhere? I also agree that the icons need ... something? A little more clarity, perhaps. I'm not a graphic design artist, so I don't really know what to suggest here. (big help, I know ) By and large, I believe you are one the right track. I am following all this with great interest.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 18, 2014 19:40:35 GMT -9
FYI. DungeonMistress, 1"= 25.4mm 28mm is used as a standard by many miniature companies. "Usually" it is the distance from the bottom of a miniatures foot to their eye level, if they are standing up straight.
28mm is a hair more than 1 1/8"
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Feb 18, 2014 20:53:59 GMT -9
I think (and I could be wrong) that for figurines anywhere in the 25mm -30mm height is probably acceptable. It's when you are making buildings and walls where one needs to be a bit more accurate, do you agree?
But then again, my friends, we are not talking rocket science, are we? Though standards are great because they make it easier for the consumer to get what they want the first time without the worry and frustration of the guessing game that is often the case with some product lines today.
Thanks for correcting my math, Cowboy. Like I said, metrics is not my thing.
|
|
|
Post by WackyAnne on Feb 19, 2014 3:54:55 GMT -9
But then again, my friends, we are not talking rocket science, are we? I had to laugh at this, because it is the same disjuncture between the metric and imperial systems that almost stranded the Apollo 13 mission in space ... So in fact, it _should_ be rocket science! ;D
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 19, 2014 4:57:34 GMT -9
2cm tall at 300dpiI'm thinking something more like this as a cover stamp. This is the actual size you'd drop in to your cover art if it's at 300dpi, so it would actually be a quarter of that size on a printed copy of that same cover. Actual printed sizeWhen RPGnow reduces your cover to thumbnail size, the stamp will still be visible, and the 28 will even be legible: Example of a thumbnailNow, there's a lot that I like about Mesper's design too and I think something like that would be good to include in the description text on the product's page, but whatever we do put on the cover should be small and minimalistic, and rely more on its recognisable shape than the actual words. This way it will be clearly identifiable in the cover thumbnails and people will spot it right away while browsing through the products on RPGnow. This is even more certain if we make a policy of always putting it in the same place, but this might be tricky to get people to agree to do. While I agree that you should court more opinions from the larger market place, do be wary of this, as others may not see this as an attempt to create more cooperation within the hobby - but as a way of taking over. We know that your intent is honorable, but do 'they'? I find this comment quite interesting... I don't really see how anyone doing this would be in a position to take anything over. Establishing best practices merely helps everyone to make their products more relevant to the average consumer. You're not wrong in saying that I want more co-operation between the designers. In fact, I'd love it if we all adopted a philosophy that said "other designers are compatriots, not competitors"... we are all in this together, and with very few exceptions, it is not a very profitable business. That latter part is not going to change for any of us unless we are able to get more and more gamers into this hobby. To do that we'll need to provide them with a great variety of products to cater to a variety of tastes and those products will need to be of a very high quality. To elaborate : we shouldn't be the cheap alternative that fills the gap while they save up for Dwarven Forge, it should be something that is every bit as useful and attractive as those expensive plastic bits, but available in more variety and vastly more accessible to the average gamer. That's a lofty goal, and it can't be achieved by just one person on his own doing this wherever he can spare a couple hours in between "real work". If we are going to achieve that it's going to have to be a group effort, and everyone will benefit from it.
|
|
|
Post by grendelsmother64 on Feb 19, 2014 10:15:43 GMT -9
This looks promising.... Having skimmed the posts on this.....and not having particularly good retention.... What does PMG mean exactly....? Does this refer to a particular group...this board....? Or the designers that choose to adopt the system....?
GM64
|
|
|
Post by mproteau (Paper Realms) on Feb 19, 2014 11:13:18 GMT -9
From mesper: Personally, while I like the label system, since there's no control over it's usage, I think it could be devalued pretty quickly by anyone without scruples. Just saying - it might be worth it (a ways down the road) to use a forum thread to keep track of sets that use the label and have actually been 'approved' by the community.
|
|
|
Post by grendelsmother64 on Feb 19, 2014 12:06:22 GMT -9
Thanks.....must have missed that bit....
Gm64
|
|
|
Post by zigmenthotep on Feb 19, 2014 22:35:38 GMT -9
First, I just want to thank the fine folks who are providing consumer viewpoints on this topic, those are essential and often overlooked. Now, I went through school here in the US before they started to teach metrics (thus my difficulty), I wonder how many others of my era out there who enjoy this hobby? If someone explains to me that 28mm = 1", I can get that. But, if you say this kit is built to a 1:60 ratio, I get that even better (maybe that's just because I am exactly 60" tall myself?) Still, the point remains, some of us are just not that familiar with metrics. Perhaps if both are mentioned somewhere? This is exactly the point I (and others) have been making. The idea that the average consumer (especially those new to the hobby) knows, understands, and will base their purchase decisions on the 28mm scale is not entirely sound. Since we're defining a new standard, and if we're going to define the scale as 1:60 why should we name it after an unrelated and poorly defined scale? Because the big manufacturers slap that label on there miniatures? Well good for them. There's no reason someones "28mm terrain" can't be published under a 1:60 terrain standard. I'm looking for answers to these questions: • How many of your existing sets would not be compliant? • If the number is low, would you add this stamp (once it's designed and looks awesome) to all of your existing compliant sets? • If the number is high, would you consider adjusting your old sets to bring them up to standard at some point? • Would you consider putting effort into ensuring that all of your future sets are compliant and get the stamp? • If the answer to the last question is "no", I'd like to know what's putting you off and what would change your mind. As long as I'm replying I might as well answer these. I mostly do miniatures, but of my terrain, I'm pretty sure none would be 100% compliant. Depending on the final outcome, I may adjust existing sets, but would probably just focus on compatibility for future products.
|
|
|
Post by Zephalo on Feb 19, 2014 23:02:53 GMT -9
Since we're defining a new standard, and if we're going to define the scale as 1:60 why should we name it after an unrelated and poorly defined scale? Because the big manufacturers slap that label on there miniatures? Well good for them. There's no reason someones "28mm terrain" can't be published under a 1:60 terrain standard. As a consumer I look for terrain for my miniature games. Most of the time the minis I use will be from one of the major manufacturers, and when I search for terrain it would help me much more to read '28mm', the term most people use when talking about my minis, than reading '1:60', a term that (for me - not a native speaker) remindes more of building historical plastic models from companies like Airfix, Revell, or Tamiya. Just some consumer thoughts Greetings, Zephalo
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 20, 2014 0:04:00 GMT -9
Most of the time the minis I use will be from one of the major manufacturers, and when I search for terrain it would help me much more to read '28mm', the term most people use when talking about my minis, than reading '1:60', a term that (for me - not a native speaker) remindes more of building historical plastic models from companies like Airfix, Revell, or Tamiya. This is my take on it. A lot of people in the US may have no idea what a millimetre is, but virtually any gamer who has done stuff with miniatures is familiar with the term 28mm and has an idea of what it means to them. It may be completely true that the term 28mm is nebulous and ill-defined, but I'd wager that any gamer that uses minis knows that their figures are 28mm. I'd also wager that they have never thought of those miniatures as being 1:60 in scale. We are not looking for the most technically accurate description here, only the one that will mean the most to most people. We want them to look at the marketing material and see "Good for use with 28mm figures" and say to themselves "hey! I've got 28mm figures... this will work with them". I don't think 1:60 has the same impact or ability to communicate to the gamers in the same way. To draw a parallel: If we were reaching out to model railway enthusiasts instead of gamers, we'd label the product as HO scale, not as 1:87.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 20, 2014 0:22:50 GMT -9
From mesper: Personally, while I like the label system, since there's no control over it's usage, I think it could be devalued pretty quickly by anyone without scruples. Just saying - it might be worth it (a ways down the road) to use a forum thread to keep track of sets that use the label and have actually been 'approved' by the community. Using the stamp simply means that your set follows the guidelines. The only real way to abuse this system is to claim your set follows the guidelines when it actually doesn't, but guidelines aren't particularly difficult to follow, and most designers are already following most of them anyway. The way I see it, someone's only going to bother with the stamp if they think the best practices are a good idea and they agree with the goals we've laid out here. Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I don't think that anyone who gets on board with this is likely to cheat. Once use of the stamp becomes widespread, you may see a few clueless newcomers put the stamp on their product without knowing what it means, but I'm relatively certain that if that happens they'll get called out on it pretty quickly. People are generally pretty quick to give bad reviews to products that don't live up to their claims. On the other side of the coin, if we do decide we want to moderate everything and make sure that only worthy people get to use the stamp then every new set on the market is going to have to go through an approval process and several manhours are going to need to go into the approval of everything. While there is a risk of abuse, I'd say the risk is very low, and doesn't really warrant the effort that would go into eliminating it.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 20, 2014 5:30:58 GMT -9
I was just at RPGnow and I clicked on all the "hottest" publishers in the "paper miniatures" and the "buildings and terrain" and a few others because FatDragon has pretty much monopolized the "hottest" category in 3d terrain.
Some publishers don't mention scale at all.
One (or two?) talk(s) about their grid being 1"-5',
Two say "for games using a 1" base."
One says "1/72 gaming scale but can be shrunk to 15mm or 6mm (WTF?)
The rest (6 or so?) all use mm. Some say 25-28mm and some say 28-30mm
None of the publishers uses 1:60 (as much sense as that would make, it is just not currently done)
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Feb 20, 2014 6:35:29 GMT -9
I was just at RPGnow and I clicked on all the "hottest" publishers in the "paper miniatures" and the "buildings and terrain" and a few others because FatDragon has pretty much monopolized the "hottest" category in 3d terrain. ... The rest (6 or so?) all use mm. Some say 25-28mm and some say 28-30mm None of the publishers uses 1:60 (as much sense as that would make, it is just not currently done) I'm one of the ones using a mm scale on my logos. The reason is simple, even though I design at 1:60 and 1:100, customers don't buy that way. They buy what the miniatures (and rules) companies use for putative scale. Until you change that, I'm not sure changing to 1:60 does anything for the customer except produce another creeping scale number to try to interpret. So, my solution is design to the ratio scale and market to the mm scale. If we all do that, the buildings and other structures will fit together in size. Not sure why the reaction to 6mm, as it's been a home for cardstock since the first incarnation of Space Marine/Epic/Adeptus whateverus (my first version was the one after the expanded foam buildings--I've still got the card stock buildings). There are things you can't do (in 6mm I've tried designing 3D tank barrels in 6mm--gave me the willies), but buildings and figures aren't that much different in the design process.
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Feb 20, 2014 9:40:13 GMT -9
Why not something as simple as this: Compatible with 28mm/1:60...? Again, just a thought, but something like this would go far in appeasing both the metric impaired and the metric gifted. And I realize for some who are comfortable with metrics this may seem a silly point, but for those of us who need the help, well...
Once again, my 2 cents worth...
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 20, 2014 11:02:12 GMT -9
My reaction wasn't to 6mm it was the crazy mix of terms. I expect someone who says they design to 1/72 to say their stuff can scale to 1/144 and 1/288 (or whatever) it seems strange to use a ratio at one scale and mm eye-line in the other two.
to beat the other dead horse, put it this way:
Every car add talks about horsepower. I don't actually know what 1 horsepower is or does, but I know a 150hp motor is weaker than a 200hp motor. If some car manufacturer starts saying 150hp/300MegaJoules (I made that up, probably off by a crazy amount) I don't think it is value added. People who want to buy cars educate themselves about horsepower. As glennwilliams says, it is how customers have been taught to think by the gaming and miniatures companies.
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Feb 20, 2014 11:24:51 GMT -9
So, if the gaming and miniature companies having been "teaching us how to think, then why don't they actually teach instead of confuse? I see packaging that says 28mm, this means almost nothing to someone who is not familiar with metrics. Other packages say 1:60, which is just as meaningless to someone not familiar with the imperial system.
So - TEACH US! Maybe in a tutorial posted on the vender sites under the CUTS banner (or whatever the logo ends up being), explain, as Cowboyleland so kindly did for me, what constitutes an inch in metrics and and how these pertain to measurements and compatability in tabletop gaming. Don't put it on every package, let the venders carry it as a tutorial. Something like this should solve this question. Then go on with your designs using the 28Terrain emblem.
Does this sound like a reasonable compromise?
|
|