|
Post by sammo on Dec 31, 2011 9:06:23 GMT -9
I’m not above a few sound effects myself! I have a few sound effect apps on my ipod touch that get used during our game nights.
As for using paper minis… I use them all the time. I run a weekly rpg group and paper minis are often used for hoards of monsters or a particular NPC or type of creature. If I don’t have a painted mini ready to go, I go for a paper mini.
Also if I am trying out a game that needs minis or pawns, paper minis make for a good stand in while I figure out what I am doing.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Dec 28, 2011 12:48:09 GMT -9
I need a little advice.
I am getting my paper miniatures game ready for release and I'd like to make the figures ready for a cutter, but I don't actually have a cutter.
I'm not trying to make the cut files, but I would like to have the PDFs with the miniatures cut-ready, so if(when) I get a cutter, or work out a deal to get cut-files made I don't have to go back and retrofit all the PDFs.
Is this just a matter of including registration marks or is their something else that needs to be done? Can I just get a blank sheet with the registration marks (and does someone have on that they would share with me) and build my PDFs on that?
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Dec 28, 2011 11:51:24 GMT -9
That's basically where I came out on World Tree as well. It looked good enough to give it a try at the game table but my players couldn't get past the fact that it was a world populated by "furries."
Let's just say they were unwilling to look past the differences between furries and anthropomorphs.
I'll try again, I always have players coming and going, so maybe next time I bring it up I'll get a better response.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Dec 23, 2011 7:16:58 GMT -9
Generally I’d say, leave weapons so that they are only effective within their range. Especially if you are planning to use some kind of odds based, I don’t have to make a roll mechanic (rolling 60 dice and getting 10 auto hits at any range, even in the first round of combat) might really change the strategy of your game.
It doesn’t necessarily make for extra simplicity, but that might be the kind of thing to keep for a special ability. Something like Sniper: this unit can fire at targets that are beyond extreme range, hitting only on a natural 6.
As for the avoiding rolling a ton of dice and relying on the “odds” to figure out the results. I am usually leery of such things. I like to trust my dice to save my rear or decimate my foes; it makes for more dramatic situations. Though there are others that take the exact opposite view. I had several play testers for ITF lament that they had put themselves in a position to roll like 17 dice (which is quite a few for ITF) and flubbed the roll. They wanted a way to cash in dice for hits to ensure their big attack at least bore some fruit.
This isn’t necessarily bad, but I would caution you that it may change the nature of your game. By having the “auto-odds” stand in for dice rolls you may generate a viable strategy in using the odds instead of rolling dice. It may be that by getting rid of the die rolls you have players that decide that the best way to win is to put themselves in the position to roll as few dice as possible (in order to fully embrace the odds).
Once again this isn’t necessarily bad, but it does provide a different flavor for the game. I have a player that hates dice. He feels like he is the best tactician in the world (which may or may not be the case) but his dice always ruin it (like burning 20 armies in risk to take the one lonely troop who just always seems to roll a 6). He loves options where he can count on a specific number and never roll. Me, I like the dice. Why can’t my one lonely troop who can always roll a six be the most elite luckiest troops in my army (like “300,” Rasczak’s Roughnecks, etc.).
Anyway there is my 2 cents worth.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Dec 12, 2011 18:21:32 GMT -9
For every person here that wants to take the wind out of your sails there are two that want to hear what you have to say, even if they have a different point of view.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Dec 12, 2011 13:31:59 GMT -9
There has indeed been many a debate on this subject and I think ultimately it depends on who your audience is. Personally, I got into fantasy with the old sword and sorcery pulp stories, so for me the Frazetta covers are spot on. In fact that is how I prefer my fantasy; to me it is very primal and emphasizes the fantastic. Also I enjoy the idea of women in fantasy being portrayed as the femme fatale, so the explicit sexuality of bikini type armor should be seen as empowering, not demeaning. Of course I am also a regular lecherous guy and as such I like to see scantily clad warrior women, regardless of how inappropriate it seems. If you are shooting for realism, it depends on how real you want to be. Traditionally women weren’t warriors, so those that were would be wearing the same armor as the men (like the images of Brienne). In the end the full armor with a feminine style, like this one Is probably the best bet to appeal to the most people, modest, yet still feminine and it looks like it would offer protection in battle. Of course my vote still would be cast for scantily clad warrior women…
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Dec 5, 2011 10:00:05 GMT -9
I picked up my copy, and I am certainly not disappointed.
Really makes me anxious for the full crypt/catacombs set that is on the horizon.
Great tile, great minis, who could ask for more.
I love the hand drawn tiles too, provides much more ambiance at my gaming table than some of the hyper-real tiles that are out there now.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Dec 5, 2011 9:56:48 GMT -9
I suppose it shouldn't be a big surprise that we all have different uses for minis, and want different things out of minis sets (I certainly wasn't implying mine was the "right" point of view.
One thing I didn't mention about the sets that have been released lately (mostly Sanity Studios and Okumarts crossing my mind right now) is that although I am going to be using them primarily for RPGs, I really like the war-game style release that gives you a group of minis that are essentially the same (different poses or weapons or colors) so that they can be used whenever you need a bunch of somethings for a battle.
I have tons of metal/plastic minis from my years as a gamer, so when it comes to the one notable orc or NPC I have quite a few options, but when I need 25 of one kind of miniature I have less choices. So whether it's Drew's town folk, Okum's orcs or wood-elves, Sanity's humans (or orcs or dwarves), being able to fill up a table with these awesome looking minis is pretty sweet.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Dec 5, 2011 9:46:08 GMT -9
After another lengthy silence (though this time it was one where work was continuing), I am proud to announce that Into the Fray is ready to move to the next phase of development.
As the second round of playtesting for Into the Fray draws to a close, I am beginning to think all of the revisions are complete! With a working rules set that I am satisfied with and enough units to keep the game interesting while I work on new units/factions, Into the Fray is finally moving towards an actual commercial release.
My estimates show that I am going to have some thirty days worth of work left to get ITF into shape for a proper release, and knowing that I have a bit of school left and the hectic demands of the holiday season, I am going to announce a tentative release date of February 1st, 2011. If all goes well I will begin posting some build-up and teaser posts during January to give everyone an idea of what they’ll be getting if they decide to purchase ITF.
Once again, I’d really like to thank all of the people who helped with playtesting (you know who you are) and inspiration (you also know who you are). I would not have gotten this far without your input!
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Nov 21, 2011 13:21:03 GMT -9
I have many talents, I can be a loyal customer and a friend! Plus if I have issues I know how to contact the designer
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Nov 21, 2011 13:17:28 GMT -9
As for minis, I love lead (or plastic) minis, well painted and based. Throw in some good terrain (paper terrain has plenty of good alternatives for structures, but flocked/painted scratch built looks the sharpest for the rest of the terrain) and you can have a really immerse experience. I also love painting them and building terrain but the time obligations make that difficult at best. A picture of a climatic rpg encounter at my table last year: Difficult to do with my current schedule...So paper it is! One thing that gets left out of many discussion about paper minis is how new game designers can bring their games to production. With the e-publishing format and paper minis someone can now create a game, with game specific miniatures with little out of pocket expense and we can all reap the rewards. As a hopeful game designer my skirmish wargame started as a non miniature specific game, use whatever mini you think is appropriate. But as Parduz mentions this robs a game of some of it's story and immersion. When I found One-Monk I was in heaven, now I could produce a game with my rules and my story/setting! Of course development of my game (Into the Fray) has been painstakingly slow. Still, I think that the entire concept is sound. Making some assumptions about Belicose (sorry if I am way off base Nik). Reading the book, plenty of cool stories, a good rules set, fun to play. But as a consumer, I am picking up some generic minis, using proxies, whatever, and I think the overall experience suffers for it. Now with paper minis (I know there are Belicose specific minis and more one the way, plus the inclusion of the OneMonk minis) there exists minis that fit with Belicose and that adds an air of completeness to the game. Plus the costs for the developer and the customer are way down. I'm going to guess that most budding game designers are unable to come up with the kind of capital needed to produce a line of traditional miniatures, and if the game is not a huge success the investment may not even pay for itself. As soon as you introduce investments and tangible products, the focus shifts to a commercial/business outlook. I've gotta sell a bunch of these to cover my costs and make enough money to invest in the new miniatures line. With paper minis a lot of these issues are less prominent. Now if Nik has the inclination he could get a single figure done, stat it out as a hero and add it to the Belicose game. All for little monetary investment (there is of course plenty of time that would go into it). He could even charge a small fee (since his investment is low) or even give it away for free (as a way to promote Belicose). Plus, for me the paper/e-publishing model seems to remove some of the money-grubbing that has seem to crop up amongst the major game companies lately. I know a tough economy and all of that, still the prices seem to be really inflated. Kind of like they know there is a captive group of consumers who really want to game and they are getting every cent they can. Paper minis get rid of that feeling for me so I am all for them.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Nov 21, 2011 12:47:07 GMT -9
I'm a little late to the party I know, but I'll toss my 2 cents in anyway.
First I love these sketches and I will totally buy the set when they are completed.
My real issue is going to be what I use them for. Wargamers probably love the larger than life orcs and want to see them running across the battlefield to crush their foes. Why not. Who would want to play an army full of wimps?
Me, I'm more into RPGs and all of the supper bad-a-mo-fo orcs don't seem to fit with that model. In many RPGs, orcs are fodder, taken down a dozen at a time by a competent hero. Your orcs look like they could dismember someone without a weapon!
I thinks it's why I like the pig faced orcs, they seem oafish enough to be easy targets, but still dangerous if you slap a bunch of them down on the table.
Anyway, I'm not lobbying you to change your design or anything (like I said they look awesome), but when I buy this set they are going to be some nasty tribe of half trolls or some such and I'll still have my players massacring bumbling pig faced orcs!
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Nov 20, 2011 21:35:43 GMT -9
Best of luck Kiladecus. As a fellow verging on breaking into the e-publishing market I love to hear about others trying to do the same.
I've said it many times, that the internet will put the gaming industry back into the hands of the hobbyist and every one of us that starts getting their work out there makes that more and more true.
You know you'll have another loyal customer in me!
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 16, 2011 13:55:49 GMT -9
So many sets would be cool to see implemented.
Ettercaps or Bullywugs would be cool for an encounter type set.
I'd really like to see a Githyanki vs. Githzerai set (with a few mind flayers to round it out) but this might be a little too specific for most folks.
A set of familiars would also be cool, or golems, or demons.
A set of lizardmen, with a similar variety as your orc set so an entire village could be represented would be pretty sweet as well.
If you decide to do beholders I would suggest a page that has all of the Beholder kin variants, which I would really love to see.
Anyone else think a set of SpellJaming figures would be cool?
What about halflings or gnomes? (or gully dwarves?)
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 4, 2011 22:53:36 GMT -9
The new revisions are ready. i sent them off to the play-testers to see what the reactions are.
While I wait for feedback I will be working on artwork, layout and getting the flavor text up to snuff.
I feel like I am hitting the home stretch, it won't be too long 'till ITF is ready for a proper release.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 4, 2011 22:38:39 GMT -9
It's a ten year old anthropormorphic (sp?) fantasy RPG. Has some similarities with the d20 mechanic, but with some twists and a really cool magic system.
Has anyone tried it out or know what I am talking about?
I'm considering firing up a campaign for my game group and was looking for some opinions.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Oct 4, 2011 22:27:11 GMT -9
I've had good luck with the Barbarians of Lemuria system from Beyond Belief games ( HERE). Simple 2d6 mechanic and a profession system that takes the place of individual skills. It's specific enough to be playable and vague enough to really let you go with the flow. The only thing I have heard complaints about is the magic system, which is very free-form, it takes some getting used to if you prefer a game with an expansive list of spells. For my money it's the best rules light system you can get your hands on. The downside is the fact that you can't really get an idea of what it's like without paying the $7.50.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Sept 19, 2011 8:48:44 GMT -9
Congratulations Winners!
If you could make sure that the e-mail address you send to Nik is the same as the e-mail address you use for RPGNow, that would make it much faster to get your well deserved rewards!!
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Sept 18, 2011 20:57:21 GMT -9
An update, the new rules are ready to go and have gone out to those that had experience with the original rules so things are on track there. The talents and spells are being revised to match the new rules and cards are being edited as well. Here is a sample of the new cards... nearly identical, though the damage track has been changes (adding the mettle box and the skull box) and they have been made lighter and larger for easier book keeping. Plus spell casting units also have a track for recording mana.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Sept 18, 2011 20:00:56 GMT -9
This looks pretty cool. Looking forward to the minis.
I still flop back and forth on the Savage Worlds system, but I'm liking what I am reading about this version of it. Maybe I'll pick it up and give it a read.
|
|
|
BUNZAI
Sept 18, 2011 19:53:11 GMT -9
Post by sammo on Sept 18, 2011 19:53:11 GMT -9
I like it. Brings back plenty of memories about Usagi-Yojimbo (sp?).
I think I have that rpg and some of the comics around here somewhere.
I'm considering running an rpg with the World Tree system/setting, which is anthro's in a fantasy setting. No rabbits but this mini gets me thinking.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Aug 25, 2011 8:08:52 GMT -9
I dig the pig faced orcs, definitely puts the retro into your fantasy line. ;D
My hope is that when (if) you ever do set of kobolds they'll be the gygaxian barking dog kobolds and not lizardy creatures like their modern iterations.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Aug 25, 2011 8:06:26 GMT -9
I've been picking up your sets as they've been released, but I've been sort of away from the forum and haven't commented...
All of your releases are phenomenal. You are definitely hitting all the right notes for paper minis. From what I've seen so far you can put me down for a copy of any of your future releases.
Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Aug 25, 2011 8:01:13 GMT -9
Glad to see the game left an impression. ;D I've got a few other people that are really interested in trying out the game with the revisions. So I'll get the stuff to you as soon as it is ready to share. Right now I am focusing on getting the core rulebook up to date to reflect the changes. My neighbor and I ran through a few quick games with the new mettle rules and turn order and between those two things gameplay was smoothed out so much. Anyway, thanks again for the continued interest. As I get things ready you will be among the first to know
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Aug 22, 2011 7:51:14 GMT -9
Well it’s certainly been awhile since I checked in. Things on my end have been very hectic as of late and that has kept me from working on Into the Fray in earnest (or participating much at cardboard warriors), which is unfortunate since I really want to get this game finished up and out there where people can start playing it, but life has been pulling me in other directs. (I’m not necessarily looking for sympathy, by and far the things that are keeping me busy are positive, but I do miss having a chance to work on my creative projects). Anyway, work on ITF has begun again; I’ve gotten some of the artwork and card revisions underway. After some glowing initial impressions my play-testers settled down and gave me some much needed constructive criticism that is being implemented (mainly in the mettle system and turn order) and the mock up for that has had a few trials runs so I am working on the re-writes for the rules and such.
So for the handful of people that have been anticipating ITF, it is still on the way and it will be quite a bit better of a game for the wait.
Also, thanks again to everyone who offered up input (especially parduz and kalidecus), it pulled ITF into some directions that I might not have looked into on my own and it is definitely improving the quality of the final product.
I hope to be checking in here with more regularity again (this is certainly one of the best web communities around). See you all in the forums!
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Jun 15, 2011 21:03:11 GMT -9
After quite a bit of deliberation and some forethought into some other long term plans I have for the ITF system (if it ever catches on) I have decided to go with the I tap a card you tap a card system.
The basis for the mettle system outlined above looks like it is going to work out well based on some initial simulations so I am going with that.
The one card, one unit plan is also happening.
There are also a number of small revisions happening here and there.
In the long run it will offer a game that is a bit faster to play, more accessible to players and generally more intense game-play.
The only real drawback to this is it is going to take time to do some re-vamping of the cards and units and I am super busy (with work and summer school) for the next month so the revisions might take some time. However I think it will be a much more fun game as a result so I will be devoting my time to getting version 1.1 (which will likely be the final version) ready to go.
Thanks again for everyone that offered input and suggestions!
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Jun 15, 2011 20:50:54 GMT -9
If you are looking for "heroes" I'm not sure is there is much beside rummaging through the hordes for the few minis that are here and there.
If you want soldiers, slick's minis on RPG now has some good sets (for a few dollars each) or there are the terra force sets here on Onemonk. Though you probably don't need much soldiers for Vampire.
Other than that I can't think of many.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Jun 11, 2011 21:20:27 GMT -9
I found the original post interesting (and informative), but I suppose it was a bit removed from Into the Fray. I will be reading your other thread with interest…
As far as the troop vs. squad issue (and naming each “figure” a “unit,”) the thing that your discussion did make me realize is that we all have so many things associated with various words and even if I change the names around, there will still be room for interpretation (since the new words will imply their own connotations to other people). The same thing with the word “skirmish,” which seems to have many connotations (based on what frame of reference you use).
So this convinces me to make the wording less important and go with the one card = one cost = one figure or squad. This will take some of the language out of the equations and make for less confusion.
Of course I also see how some of the wording is a bit misleading, so I will be taking your advice during revision. More specifically making sure that a squad is defined as a group of units, with the same stats, that is added to the forces for a single point cost. Then the addition of the squad to the army should be basic, and the idea that each unit functions separately is supported by the rest of the text (which always refers to units).
As for the word “crunch,” using it to describe a game system, typically it implies a depth or variety in the rules. I have heard it used both in the positive (as in a crunchy rules system is robust enough to make gameplay fun and interesting) or negatively (as in that game is too crunchy and offers to much opportunity to bog down or for rules lawyering).
As for armor, it was intended that the controlling player roll the armor check (I’ll have to clarify this in the final draft as well). But (depending on the players choices) not all units have armor, so while you may participate by rolling armor it is 1) not happening for every attack and 2) rather passive on the overall scale of things.
In the first draft of ITF players rolled their own units defense (as was suggested in one of these posts), however this was quickly changed since (IMHO) it slowed gameplay significantly.
I like the idea of stacking the unit cards to set the turn order (randomly determining the order does not appeal to me as much, but setting your own order of unit actions does), but it offers some obstacles. The cards are two sided and there is plenty of opportunity to smudge the wound tracks when handling them. So if I want to use this system I might have to produce a second set of “turn order” cards and I’m not sure if I like that idea.
As far as the overall turn order is concerned, both sides seem firmly entrenched. I may go with the a tap one card you tap one card system simply because it is fairly popular in the current generation of skirmish games and I think it would make for a more commercially viable game, since I think it will make the rules set more accessible.
I am still mulling the whole turn order thing over, as I think it is only thing that is still up in the air at this point.
Thanks for the lively discussion, and keep it coming…
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Jun 10, 2011 8:35:17 GMT -9
a) A single troop per card It looks like this is the general opinion. Along with this will come a way to integrate the unit marker flags that I have been using (they are a bit fiddly any way) though it will require a bit of reworking of cards and minis. Then i vote for the "tap" way. This may wind up being the final solution, though honestly I am waiting for someone to come up with a brilliant idea that makes everyone happy. My current leaning is to eliminate the mettle phase entirely. Each unit will have a mettle box (or boxes) on their damage track and when that box is filled in the unit has to make a mettle test. This is a GREAT idea. You can even write on the "Mettle Box" the number of hits needed to pass the test (if you want even more variations). But just the box in the life bar and the Mettle Stat is really great. Unless someone offers me a better suggestion this looks like the basis for the new mettle system. Fearless will now offer automatic hits on any mettle test, while leadership and rally will still function the same.
|
|
|
Post by sammo on Jun 10, 2011 6:46:25 GMT -9
I had been keeping these minis quite, but I will take your post as a prompt to offer the first preview...
|
|