|
Post by oldschooldm on Feb 20, 2014 14:23:33 GMT -9
The logo doesn't have to communicate everything in one image. Perhaps we should defer the image until we know how to express the text that is *behind* the logo (the mandatory inclusion in the guidelines/standards section of the PDF)
Perhaps stating that 28mm is 1:60 is 1" = 5' (etc.) could be taught in the text. The naming/logo can go through a completely separate process (and our thinking might evolve as we express what we need to say in the text.)
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Feb 20, 2014 14:27:03 GMT -9
Thank you, Oldschooldm, you stated that better than I could.
|
|
|
Post by zigmenthotep on Feb 20, 2014 18:24:30 GMT -9
Other packages say 1:60, which is just as meaningless to someone not familiar with the imperial system. Not true, ratio scales are non unit dependent. 1:60 could be 1 inch=5 scale feet, or 2.5cm=1.5 scale meters. Versus 28mm≈the height of a human... depending on how that particular miniature has been sculpted. Side note: 16mm scale means 16mm=1 scale foot. I should probably address the comments that ratio scales are used primarily in non-gaming miniatures. That is true, and using a scale consistent with other scale models makes for easier incorporation of models not specifically designed for tabletop gaming. Also, if we're saying the biggest miniature manufacturers use 28mm, the biggest RPG publishers use no scale reference other then 1"=5'.
|
|
|
Post by WackyAnne on Feb 20, 2014 18:28:51 GMT -9
I for one don't think it would be such a bad thing to have a mini-logo like this:
1:60 | 28mm TERRAIN
Why? Because I think one way to broaden the audience for these projects is not just to aim at the gamer and gaming miniature collector, but to draw in other modellers. 1:60 is a viable scale for airplane modelers and train modelers (if niche in the second, at roughly S scale), and as I've said elsewhere, some buildings can make for a nice Christmas village, for those who wouldn't otherwise call themselves modelers. Bizarre idea on my part? Maybe, but I didn't come to this part of the hobby because I saw terrain while gaming, but because of my passion for small things. I collected and crafted miniatures when I was a child through young adulthood - mostly of the dollhouse variety, but also antique toy trains and model ships. Every one around me GMs with just a flat map, sometimes pre-print from Paizo or whomever, othertimes hand-drawn on a reusuable mat or paper). Although at last Free RPG Day I did see some Dwarven Forge or equivalent, it's still a radical introduction for 3D terrain, and certainly for papercraft models and miniatures around here...
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 20, 2014 19:01:14 GMT -9
Broadening the target is good, but most of the stuff covered buy the guidelines are not meaningful for scenic modellers. They probably don't want a grid showing at all and the "base 3" dimensioning is really only an issue if you are going to rearrange your set-up on an ongoing basis.
Of course, nothing prevents a publisher from putting their chosen scale on their cover.
I think the goal of having the logo legible in thumbnails is a wise one and that will require keeping it as simple as possible.
Once again there does not seem to be anyone with concerns about the actual guidelines. Maybe nailing down the logo IS the only thing left to do?
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 21, 2014 1:37:41 GMT -9
The logo doesn't have to communicate everything in one image. Perhaps we should defer the image until we know how to express the text that is *behind* the logo (the mandatory inclusion in the guidelines/standards section of the PDF) Perhaps stating that 28mm is 1:60 is 1" = 5' (etc.) could be taught in the text. The naming/logo can go through a completely separate process (and our thinking might evolve as we express what we need to say in the text.) I for one don't think it would be such a bad thing to have a mini-logo like this: 1:60 | 28mm TERRAIN 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... In terms of the logo, it has only one goal. It needs to instantly communicate to folks that a given product is part of a set that is designed to be suitable to their needs. While a lot of good points have been made about all sorts of factors like how a set might appeal to non-gamers too, and the fact that metric is confusing to americans and all of that, we have to remember the context that these will be sold in. If someone's designing a set following these standards, it's almost 100% certain that it's going to be sold on one of the OBS shops (RPGnow, Wargame Vault or Drive-Thru RPG). There are a few things we can be certain about in that context: • The people who see it will be gamers. • If they do buy it, it's very likely going to be with the intention of using it in a game. • 28mm means something to them even if they can't tell a centimetre from a kilogram. • There first contact with the stamp is going to be a tiny 15 x 15 square of pixels. In light of this, we want the logo that appears on any covers and marketing material to be small and simple have a distinct recognisable form to it. Consider the power of this logo: It doesn't explain the details of what the system entails, nor does it say "Dungeons and Dragons clone". All it does is take a concept that is recognisable to all gamers (the twenty sided dice) and say "this is the most important part of the system." It's also simple enough that it would still be recognisable even if it was squashed down to a 10x10 pixel square. In a similar fashion, I want to quickly communicate the idea that this set works with 28mm miniatures, and that is something that I am confident will resonate with gamers. I think that saying anything more than that will clutter the stamp too much, robbing of it of it's power to impact people. I think that saying anything other than "works with 28mm miniatures" will weaken the message and will cause potential customers to overlook it completely. That said, we will also want to educate people about what the logo represents. Any product that includes the stamp on their cover would also include a pre-made description image (and some accompanying text) in their product description that will explain to consumers what it means. In that part of it we would elaborate about the fact that the scale is 1:60 and that it is designed to work modularly and has been optimised to make conversion between similarly stamped sets easy. Once again there does not seem to be anyone with concerns about the actual guidelines. Maybe nailing down the logo IS the only thing left to do? This has been echoing in my thoughts too... but in truth there is something more important than even the guidelines themselves and that is the buy-in of the designers. This whole exercise is likely to be fruitless if there aren't at least a few designers on board. While there hasn't been much negative feedback on any of the guidelines, that could just mean that the designers who don't agree with it have simply decided that they have no interest in participating in the project and have simply kept their mouths shut about what they don't like about it. I'd like to reiterate that we need answers to these questions from designers: • Are you interested in being a part of this? • 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. Some have already answered, but I'd like to hear from as many different designers as possible!
|
|
|
Post by squirmydad on Feb 21, 2014 7:59:28 GMT -9
• Are you interested in being a part of this? Yes. • How many of your existing sets would not be compliant? All of them. • 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? It'll take a while, but yes. • Would you consider putting effort into ensuring that all of your future sets are compliant and get the stamp? Absolutely. Word.
|
|
|
Post by mproteau (Paper Realms) on Feb 21, 2014 8:27:27 GMT -9
And, if what's concerning you is spending the time to bring older sets into compliance, I'll throw myself under the bus and offer whatever assistance I can provide in "modernizing" anyone's older sets. Many hands make light work and all that.
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Feb 21, 2014 9:03:37 GMT -9
With 130 products out, redoing them isn't economically feasible (almost all are 1:60, some are 1:100, and a few are actions figure 3 3/4" size). I can go with standard bases for the upcoming releases. Standardized textures? No. Usually when I design I have a specific original in mind. My Lincoln, NM, wild west series, for example, recreates specific buildings in a town near where I grew up (and a small number that are specific to where I live now). The textures are derived from the photos I took there. The same goes for my Egyptian series and Meso-American series.
BTW, a quick review of why scale is a problem can be seen in Mantic's Pandora: Grim Cargo and Deadzone. The Deadzone figures are unusable with the Pandora Corporation marines as they tower over them (makes you wonder what Mantic means by "true scale"). If I design one product it should work with both sets. It's headache inducing. Don't get me started on what the pedestal-style bases do to doors, windows, and panels.
|
|
|
Post by oldschooldm on Feb 21, 2014 9:16:00 GMT -9
The decision to resize/re-release sets is purely an economic one for each creator. Only if you suspect you lost sales because you made it the "wrong size" for "the market" in the first place. I can't think of many vendors that have released multiple scale sets (DGM just puts a printer-scale chart in his instructions...) I don't think a standard changes that calculation at all. Tying adopting standard to that is a bit of a red herring, IMHO. No one is required, compelled, or even urged to convert their old sets. Totally optional, if you think it's worth it to you personally. Some of us (like mproteau (Paper Realms)) have been doing partial conversions to sets (aka cutfiles) for awhile now, because we thought sharing was a good idea. Only some vendors have integrated our work in their sets. It's all cool, either way. As a builder, the standard just tells me that this stuff works together straight out the printer. Other (non-standard) stuff may work too, but I might have to scale it first (as is the case now.)
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 21, 2014 12:57:17 GMT -9
oldschooldm summed it up pretty nicely... There's no obligation to update old sets at all, even if you decide that every set going forward is going to meet the new standard. (Many would argue that they'd rather see us designers putting out new awesome stuff than going through and updating the old anyway). I can go with standard bases for the upcoming releases. Standardized textures? No. Standardized textures aren't a part of the best practices, so there's no need to worry about that. As a separate, but related project, there's the idea of creating a repository where designers can share their textures (with certain restrictions and conditions) so that they may be used by other designers as optional alternative layers. This would be most beneficial in the areas of props and buildings, as it would allow customers to have bases that match what they have in their collections without having to do heavy conversion work. This project would be completely optional on both fronts. No designer would have to share his textures, nor would he be forced to include textures created by someone else, and participation in that project would not be tied to participation in this one. We could already do this with out the repository... It's as simple as contacting the designer and saying "hey, mind if I use your cobblestone roads texture as an optional layer in my upcoming market day props set? I'll only use it on the floor sections, and of course, I'll credit you for the design and provide links to your shop in the PDF." but the repository would make that whole process a lot easier. That's something that will take a fair bit of organisation to get going, and so it will only be dealt with once we've got the 28Terrain idea implemented and running smoothly.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 21, 2014 13:05:12 GMT -9
I agree. It might take slightly longer to "catch on," but if only three or four of the prolific three or designers put it on their future releases it should get good traction. Then it might be worth going back and adding the stamp to older sets that need only a minor adjustment, like adding a 1.5" grid.
Note that the guidelines currently at the start of this thread make no mention of sharing textures or graphics style (hand drawn, otherwise, etc.) That is another discussion.
|
|
|
Post by grendelsmother64 on Feb 21, 2014 13:26:45 GMT -9
For my part.
• Are you interested in being a part of this? Yes
• How many of your existing sets would not be compliant? I have to say that most of my 3d stuff is already pretty close to "compliant".... Except for the European page size and the cutter registration marks.
• If the number is low, would you add this stamp (once it's designed and looks awesome) to all of your existing compliant sets? I would if you'd let us "freebie" guys in.....
• If the number is high, would you consider adjusting your old sets to bring them up to standard at some point? Might be difficult to do as many of my old stuff only exists in final PDF and JPG form.....many of the originals were lost 2 hard drive crashes ago.....
• Would you consider putting effort into ensuring that all of your future sets are compliant and get the stamp? Yes.
• 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.
GM64
|
|
|
Post by Nemo on Feb 23, 2014 2:27:37 GMT -9
Hi, everyone I'm a total noob here, so please excuse me in advance if I will sound naive or I will make obvious questions. In terms of the logo, it has only one goal. It needs to instantly communicate to folks that a given product is part of a set that is designed to be suitable to their needs. While a lot of good points have been made about all sorts of factors like how a set might appeal to non-gamers too, and the fact that metric is confusing to americans and all of that, we have to remember the context that these will be sold in. If someone's designing a set following these standards, it's almost 100% certain that it's going to be sold on one of the OBS shops (RPGnow, Wargame Vault or Drive-Thru RPG). There are a few things we can be certain about in that context: • The people who see it will be gamers. • If they do buy it, it's very likely going to be with the intention of using it in a game. • 28mm means something to them even if they can't tell a centimetre from a kilogram. • There first contact with the stamp is going to be a tiny 15 x 15 square of pixels. In light of this, we want the logo that appears on any covers and marketing material to be small and simple have a distinct recognisable form to it. Consider the power of this logo: It doesn't explain the details of what the system entails, nor does it say "Dungeons and Dragons clone". All it does is take a concept that is recognisable to all gamers (the twenty sided dice) and say "this is the most important part of the system." It's also simple enough that it would still be recognisable even if it was squashed down to a 10x10 pixel square. In a similar fashion, I want to quickly communicate the idea that this set works with 28mm miniatures, and that is something that I am confident will resonate with gamers. I think that saying anything more than that will clutter the stamp too much, robbing of it of it's power to impact people. I think that saying anything other than "works with 28mm miniatures" will weaken the message and will cause potential customers to overlook it completely. That said, we will also want to educate people about what the logo represents. Any product that includes the stamp on their cover would also include a pre-made description image (and some accompanying text) in their product description that will explain to consumers what it means. In that part of it we would elaborate about the fact that the scale is 1:60 and that it is designed to work modularly and has been optimised to make conversion between similarly stamped sets easy. I really like this idea (I can see its convenience) and I completely agree with everything above Luckily I have just one set out there and mostly it is compliant to these guidelines (True Inches, page format, roughly 1:60 scale), so I'd be more than happy to be part of this. Still, I don't think I would be able to use variable grid options, since in most cases the grid in my tiles is part of the drawing itself (and I don't think I can make plans to redraw every single tile to comply this). Also, I don't always adhere to the "multiples of 3"" indication (and I can't promise I always will). Ah, if someone could explain to me what "registration marks for automated cutters" means, I'd be grateful I may be compliant in that, too, but I'm not sure (yep, you are authorized to facepalm me). So, from what I gathered reading this thread, the primary goal is to make sure of scale compatibility between different sets from different developers. By what bravesirkevin said, I guess I could (or better, should) inform in the description about what that particular product isn't compliant to the guidelines. Did I understand correctly?
|
|
|
Post by mproteau (Paper Realms) on Feb 23, 2014 3:45:03 GMT -9
Reg marks are the little "L"s people put in the corners in order for a machine cutter to align the cut head with the print. www.dropbox.com/s/l0mwc9arp5yn9yb/reg_mark_layers.zipThat's got a couple PNGs in it that I think are a suitable starting point for some common reg marks. There's a cameo-compatible layer and an older SD-compatible layer. There's also a layer that defines the 'safe' cutting region (don't put that in a PDF... just use it as a guide...) and a sample .studio file that has the reg marks set up to match the files. Feel free to use them if you'd like. If you're just making rectangular tiles, there's not all that much benefit to cutfiles, but they're still relatively cheap to make. The Silhouette Studio software is free and easy to use, if you want to take a stab at making the cutfiles yourself. If you need some help, shoot me a PDF with layers for regmarks and I can make cutfiles for you.
|
|
|
Post by Nemo on Feb 24, 2014 1:47:09 GMT -9
Thanks for your thorough explanation, mproteau
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 24, 2014 3:09:57 GMT -9
Still, I don't think I would be able to use variable grid options, since in most cases the grid in my tiles is part of the drawing itself (and I don't think I can make plans to redraw every single tile to comply this). The main reason for the various grid options is that we're catering to 3 very different but related markets: • The RPG crowd. They play games like Dungeons and Dragons or something similar, and those systems commonly use 28mm over scenery with a 1 inch grid. • The Clix crowd. They're playing Mage Knight or HeroClix or one of those kinds of mini-based games. The clix minis themselves are slightly smaller than the 28mm figures, but their bases are huge! They use a 1.5 inch grid to account for this. • The skirmish games and wargames crowd. They play all sorts of miniatures based battle games, and a lot of the more popular systems work with 28mm scale figures. They don't use grids at all, and all distances for movement and shooting are based on measurements with a ruler. Arguably they could just use the gridded scenery and ignore the lines, but a lot of the systems do require you to estimate the distance before you declare your actions and only allow you to measure afterwards when you actually execute the action, and there are often consequences for guessing badly. A grid makes that estimation a little too easy and so those sorts of gamers would find a built-in grid undesirable. Generally speaking, it's usually worthwhile to make a product cater to all 3 because in most cases it's relatively simple to give all three options, either by making separate PDFs or by adding the grids as a layer option and doing so will greatly broaden your customer base. I don't know if this should be a mandatory part of 28Terrain, because not everyone is doing it at the moment, but it certainly is something we should aspire to get into every set in the future. The reason we want to do multiples of 3 for the dimensions is that it solves a particular problem very well, and that problem is linkage. When working with multiples of 3, it's very easy to put the connection spots in at regular intervals, and that makes it very easy to take a whole bunch of tiles of different shapes and sizes and get them to all play nicely together on a very large table... Since our goal here is compatibility between a wide variety of sets, this is very desirable! We could arguably do the same with Base 2, but then you'd need a connection point every 2 inches and that means the customer has to do a LOT more work. Base 4 would be less work, but you can't fit an 8x8 inch square on a single sheet of standard sized paper, so you'd be limited to 4x4 sections and 4x8 sections. Base 3 gives us a nice average on the amount of work and gives us a lot of variety in our options. We can do 3x3, 3x6, 6x6, 3x9, 6x9. It also has the advantage of working really well with both 1" grids and 1.5" grids. There are obviously a few downsides to this method... it's fairly common to have 2 inch wide corridors, for example. Those are still possible with this system though. It's just a matter of blacking out, or walling off, the used line of squares.
|
|
|
Post by mproteau (Paper Realms) on Feb 24, 2014 4:55:03 GMT -9
I don't know if this should be a mandatory part of 28Terrain, because not everyone is doing it at the moment, but it certainly is something we should aspire to get into every set in the future. I have no idea what the market is for 1.5" grids, though I've heard noise from folks who really want gridless options. I think in order for someone to have confidence that this label means anything to them, the grid systems should either be a part of the standard from the beginning, or not be a part of the standard. I'd prefer it be part of the standard. There's never a perfect time to lay down a standard, but sooner is better than later. If that means a set that's being worked on right now won't meet the standard, it's not the end of the world - just something to consider when designing for the future.
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 24, 2014 8:31:52 GMT -9
The balance here is that you want to get buy-in from as many as possible, so sticking near to what people already do seems smart. On the other hand if everyone was already doing all of it there would be no need to introduce a standard. The standard must be prescriptive, not just descriptive and it should be the same from the very beginning or it will be confusing.
You don't want to have to write this email: "Dear Customer, Sorry you wasted your money. THAT 28Terrain set doesn't have 1.5" grids because it was designed before May of 2014. All the sets published since then do have 1.5" so I hope you can find something else you like."
People who have an idea for a set that can't conform to the standard for some reason are still free to publish exactly the set they envision but without the logo.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Feb 24, 2014 9:29:41 GMT -9
let me toss in my 2 cents ( american that's completely worthless in Europe ... and many other places LOL ) as a consumer I'm completely visual, I'm also a creature of habit. Marketing companies are aware of this and capitalize on it by making logos and labels that cater to me and the millions of people like me. 28mm, 1:60, D20 , Topo Gigio it doesn't matter what the logo looks like or what it says.
when I go to buy a product ( especially if I'm new ) I won't know about scale or size and I will buy what looks good. If I keep seeing the same symbol on things everywhere I go I will either think they are the same company behind everything or look up it's meaning.
once I understand the meaning of the symbol then I will know to look for it but the actual symbol can be anything. if you make it too wordy or full of numbers I won't know what that means.
The typical american ( which doesn't include most of the people on this board ) have no idea what 28mm means and they will know even less what 1:60 means ( it looks like a weird time on a broken digital clock) and if you start explaining everything then, you don't have a logo anymore you have a descriptive paragraph, which is almost as annoying as the lady telling you how you leave a message on an answering system... again and again and again. the fact is the symbol for 28mm ,or what ever were calling it now, is mostly for the developers not the consumers. it's the idea that were all going to make our stuff compatible because metaphorically we realize that whether we like it or not we are all apart of the same company make product for the same consumers. If I make a really awesome gaming system and some one else makes awesome terrain then consumers can buy both and we all work together in a symbiotic relationship. or we can all continue to do our own things and we all see how well that's been working out LOL so to cut my long winded post to a short and sweet: I wouldn't focus on the logo or the consumer I would focus on getting the standards laid out and defined getting everyone on board with it. then we can eventually build a website that we all contribute to and customers can go there like a virtual shopping mall under the 28mm banner and then the 28mm will mean something. people will say dude that's cool where did you get that!! I found it on 28mm I think Cowboyleland did this one.
( did any of this make sense ? ) or should I just go sit down before I hurt myself.
|
|
|
Post by glennwilliams on Feb 24, 2014 9:42:17 GMT -9
I'm putting the final touches on my next release, a set of sci-fi colony hab modules. They're baseless and designed to a 2x2x4" volume. That's approximately the size of a small ISO container, which is their intent. As nearly all my work it's 1:60 and specifically aimed at the 28mm sci-fi market. Wargame (skirmish, TTG, and RPG) customers know what 28mm means for them (let's forget that some companies can't even keep 28mm figure scale consistent within their own product lines). To me, the 28T label would mean consistency in scale--that's important and I completely agree with the idea. Practical issues will cause some "wandering" from the standards while holding to the general principles.
FWIW, if Deadzone really takes off, then we've got a system that supports a 3" base plan. I'm modernizing my original Slagtown release and several months ago settled on 3" modules, so I'm happy, and it would be fully 28T compatible.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 24, 2014 14:17:19 GMT -9
The balance here is that you want to get buy-in from as many as possible, so sticking near to what people already do seems smart. On the other hand if everyone was already doing all of it there would be no need to introduce a standard. The standard must be prescriptive, not just descriptive and it should be the same from the very beginning or it will be confusing. You don't want to have to write this email: "Dear Customer, Sorry you wasted your money. THAT 28Terrain set doesn't have 1.5" grids because it was designed before May of 2014. All the sets published since then do have 1.5" so I hope you can find something else you like." People who have an idea for a set that can't conform to the standard for some reason are still free to publish exactly the set they envision but without the logo. I think CowboyLeland summed it up pretty nicely here. Can we all agree that all requirements of the 28Terrain standards have to be met for a set to have a logo then? (ie. no optional bits... a set is either all in, or it doesn't get the logo) Also, is there any requirement in there you guys feel should be taken out because it is too restrictive? Anything that you think should be in there that currently isn't? This is what the current set of rules consists of:
|
|
|
Post by Christopher Roe on Feb 24, 2014 18:40:01 GMT -9
The 1:60 thing is mostly my fault--the biggest reason I plastered that scale all over my stuff is because 1:60 scale equates to five feet per inch/grid square, which is the default ground scale for D20 systems. The actual figure scale of my stuff is somewhat larger at somewhere between 1:60 and 1:48, depending on what line of miniatures it's meant to look good with.
|
|
|
Post by dungeonmistress on Feb 24, 2014 20:57:49 GMT -9
Hey! If you were to make a mini of me, it would be exactly 1 inch tall, 25.4mm (see, I pay attention) - perfect 1:60 scale!
|
|
|
Post by oldschooldm on Feb 25, 2014 0:08:36 GMT -9
There are obviously a few downsides to this (multiple of 3") method... it's fairly common to have 2 inch wide corridors, for example. Those are still possible with this system though. It's just a matter of blacking out, or walling off, the used line of squares. This statement confuses me. I think there's some set-logic that needs to be hashed out here. A 28Terrain-compliant kit that offers tiles must offer 3" tile options, but is not prohibited from also offering 2" tile option, is it? Stated other ways: 1) Does everything in a kit comply with 28terrain in order to use the label? [If so, the 3" requirement may be too restrictive for known common use cases and we should consider dropping it.] 2) Or must all of the requirements be met by some of the set's pages? (In which case, the stamp might be better on a per-page/item basis or something.) I think it's #2 as in software; For example, an implementation of an API can be fully compliant with a standard but still offer additional, non-compliant features on a per-vendor basis. If this is right, offering a 2" corridor tile is not an issue for the standard at all - it is an additional non-compliant option in a kit. If you're leaning toward #1, consider that I don't think a single DGM building would have a compliant base and I don't see any reason it should - nor should any internally based building be required to be 3" based... on the other hand, offering a 3" compliant basing option is reasonable for new kits.... This is one of the tricky parts of a standard - remembering to remain silent on any issue that is not a requirement of the standard.
|
|
|
Post by Nemo on Feb 25, 2014 1:53:27 GMT -9
A 28Terrain-compliant kit that offers tiles must offer 3" tile options, but is not prohibited from also offering 2" tile option, is it? Not really, if I understood correctly: in this case the tile is still 3'', but one "row" is blackened out to make it look like a 2'' corridor. I can't find a way to apply a 1,5'' grid to a 2'' wide corridor without "cutting" the grid, though. Would it be acceptable?
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on Feb 25, 2014 4:45:55 GMT -9
dungeonmistress: I liked your post, but remember that 28mm,15mm, 6mm is meant to be to the miniatures eye-line. I say that because I was making a fig the other day for my character who is 6' 2" and I was using 5'9" as average height but then I used 5'9"= 28mm as my baseline. After facepalming, I decided it is close enough for gaming. Nemo: good point! I hadn't thought of that, but maybe someone else has?
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 25, 2014 7:17:21 GMT -9
There are obviously a few downsides to this (multiple of 3") method... it's fairly common to have 2 inch wide corridors, for example. Those are still possible with this system though. It's just a matter of blacking out, or walling off, the used line of squares. This statement confuses me. I think there's some set-logic that needs to be hashed out here. A 28Terrain-compliant kit that offers tiles must offer 3" tile options, but is not prohibited from also offering 2" tile option, is it? Stated other ways: 1) Does everything in a kit comply with 28terrain in order to use the label? [If so, the 3" requirement may be too restrictive for known common use cases and we should consider dropping it.] 2) Or must all of the requirements be met by some of the set's pages? (In which case, the stamp might be better on a per-page/item basis or something.) I think it's #2 as in software; For example, an implementation of an API can be fully compliant with a standard but still offer additional, non-compliant features on a per-vendor basis. If this is right, offering a 2" corridor tile is not an issue for the standard at all - it is an additional non-compliant option in a kit. If you're leaning toward #1, consider that I don't think a single DGM building would have a compliant base and I don't see any reason it should - nor should any internally based building be required to be 3" based... on the other hand, offering a 3" compliant basing option is reasonable for new kits.... This is one of the tricky parts of a standard - remembering to remain silent on any issue that is not a requirement of the standard. This is actually a great point... The set is compatible with other sets as soon as it has one or two base 3 tiles in it, so you're quite right in saying that it wouldn't matter if there's also non-compliant stuff in the set. Even so, we are trying to maximise the compatibility of the various sets so we should have some ruling to indicate that any key components of the set should be Base 3, even if other components aren't. Also note: For a building to be compliant it merely requires that its base is Base 3. There is no requirement for modularity of the building, or even interior rooms. Dave hasn't really commented on anything since this discussion started here, so I'd kinda like to hear what he thinks on the matter, but I do know that he's been championing the idea of Base 3 for a while now.
|
|
|
Post by oldschooldm on Feb 25, 2014 8:17:17 GMT -9
...if I understood correctly: in this case the tile is still 3'', but one "row" is blackened out to make it look like a 2'' corridor. I can't find a way to apply a 1,5'' grid to a 2'' wide corridor without "cutting" the grid, though. Would it be acceptable? What I'm getting at is that statements like yours should not be a part of the standard. We should say that a kit must offer 3" based tiles and they must offer 1"/1.5"/none grid options inch options for those tiles, but doesn't require only those options. If we want to be explicit about either requirement being mandatory for all tiles, we need to be clearer.
|
|
|
Post by bravesirkevin on Feb 25, 2014 8:49:46 GMT -9
If we want to be explicit about either requirement being mandatory for all tiles, we need to be clearer. I think this is really is about identifying whether existing sets would qualify as compliant without the need for modification. Future sets would either be built compliant, or they wouldn't. My take would be: If the set has ground tiles and a few of them are Base 3 and it is still useful without the tiles that are not Base 3, then it's compliant.
|
|