|
Post by asphodelius on Apr 29, 2017 0:23:18 GMT -9
Long time lurker, first time poster. I just wanted to show you guys something I made a while back for my D&D group. These are 2.5D paper miniatures. I posted more images and a better description of the premise here. It would be great if I could get some feedback regarding the design of the miniatures. Let me know if you guys have any ideas to improve on the design.
|
|
|
Post by Vermin King on Apr 29, 2017 4:49:53 GMT -9
Looks good. I think there is a reason that we tend to look for new ways to do 2.5d. It just seems that there should be a way to do it that isn't overly fiddly. Nicely done
|
|
|
Post by chiefasaur on Apr 29, 2017 4:52:11 GMT -9
I dig these! I like to add 2.5D elements to my models from time to time. Do you have any pics of these guys where their details aren't obscured by shine/dull shadow?
|
|
|
Post by asphodelius on Apr 29, 2017 10:19:56 GMT -9
Looks good. I think there is a reason that we tend to look for new ways to do 2.5d. It just seems that there should be a way to do it that isn't overly fiddly. Nicely done Thanks! It always bugged me that you can't see your character from certain angles with flat figures, and figures that involve origami-style folding get too complicated at the miniature scale. I've attached a design for a monk. It's kind of rough. I haven't made instructions for it. But maybe figuring it out is part of the fun?
|
|
|
Post by asphodelius on May 1, 2017 2:18:39 GMT -9
I dig these! I like to add 2.5D elements to my models from time to time. Do you have any pics of these guys where their details aren't obscured by shine/dull shadow? I tried taking a few new pictures but unfortunately my camera isn't the best and the results came back worse or the same. If you haven't, you should check out the album I attached to the original post. It's got a few individual close-ups of the minis. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on May 1, 2017 4:44:38 GMT -9
The thing about 2.5 (and I have been thinking about it and trying stuff for at least 9 years now) is that everyone has a different idea about how much is "enough" and how much is "too fiddly." I trust you have seen eddnic's stuff? minipapermodels.blogspot.ca/And I have shared quite a few in my members section: cardboard-warriors.proboards.com/board/22/cowboylelands-projectsYou have stuck with flat heads and bodies but emphasized the weapons and cloaks. It is certainly a viable approach but my personal preference is for round heads and bodies.
|
|
|
Post by asphodelius on May 1, 2017 22:19:01 GMT -9
The thing about 2.5 (and I have been thinking about it and trying stuff for at least 9 years now) is that everyone has a different idea about how much is "enough" and how much is "too fiddly." I trust you have seen eddnic 's stuff? minipapermodels.blogspot.ca/And I have shared quite a few in my members section: cardboard-warriors.proboards.com/board/22/cowboylelands-projectsYou have stuck with flat heads and bodies but emphasized the weapons and cloaks. It is certainly a viable approach but my personal preference is for round heads and bodies. I have seen eddnic's stuff. While the minis are aesthetically pleasing, I find that the designs lack structural integrity. Especially working with folding parts; gluing paper onto card-stock hampers the ability to fold. If you've checked out the album I posted, you'll notice frayed edges on the capes because I folded them. My tabletop group tends to manhandle all the stuff I make. Even this batch of minis has been through a lot (check out those bases). I just think that when designing gaming accessories, one should keep in mind the structure strength as much, if not more, as the aesthetics. Obviously this is all personal philosophy, so I don't exactly believe there is a set "correct" method when it comes to design. I just checked out your 2.5D designs. I can't believe I haven't come across these yet! It seems to me that you're going for a more realistic style and I think it makes more sense to have rounded shapes in your designs.
|
|
|
Post by Vermin King on May 2, 2017 6:43:16 GMT -9
|
|
|
Post by cowboyleland on May 2, 2017 7:04:30 GMT -9
My tabletop group tends to manhandle all the stuff I make. Even this batch of minis has been through a lot (check out those bases). I just think that when designing gaming accessories, one should keep in mind the structure strength as much, if not more, as the aesthetics. Obviously this is all personal philosophy, so I don't exactly believe there is a set "correct" method when it comes to design. The solid core of my figures makes them pretty robust but they take a comparatively long time to build. My current personal philosophy is: Solid core 3d will last for scores of game sessions so I use it for player characters and monsters I am going to use a lot in different campaigns (goblins etc), "Eddnic style" (though he learned the style from me ) 2.5's for monsters that show up in multiple but limited occasions (like the Sinspawn in Rise of the Runelords) and simple 2d fold-overs for creatures that appear only once (i.e. unique villains because they rarely escape to return again) The most complete set of instructions for my most 3d figures can be found here: cardboard-warriors.proboards.com/thread/7861/hang-gliding-sherlock-holmes
|
|