In the vein of similar threads (games played, purchases, hobbying and painting, etc...) why not a slightly motivational thread for the sub-forum?
What did you do with game design today?
I'm a night owl, but I'm about to sit down and give another run-through on my Creature cards (assigning and detailing actions). Trying to get enough done for another test print as I've re-done maybe 90% of the stuff since my last one!
I also am going to work on the revised text for a number of Trap cards.
V4 of my personal pen and paper rpg. Im pulling away from emulating core systems whole sale from my inspirations and instead creating something new that just builds on the ideas. The basic game structure is all there but i need to get into the nitty gritty lists of things so they can be tested and balanced. But i am excited about the new directions.
The changes will fix problems in multiple systems that i noticed could be exploitable easily enough if i wasnt super careful about certain elements and now instead it will just work and be self correcting.
Working on the layout of the Zero Dark rulebook. Having mostly written it all, now I have to re-jig the text to make room for illustrations and colour text. Then I have to replace the images I "borrowed" from the Internet with ones I actually own the copyright to...
Independent game publishing: it's not all fun and games....
Few weeks back I playtested my skirmish game for the first time. Pleased with how the mechanics are working, but it appears a lot of the magic of the game comes from not knowing what your opponent skills are, and in what combination are they used. Playing alone removes that and slows down a bit due to tracking all the stuff going on.
This is a 3 vs 3, the Elves have a Necromancer, Ranger and Warrior. They easily dominated the forces of Chaos as they wrecked from a distance the Beastman (before being executed by the elven warrior) and the corrupted-Dryad while keeping at bay the Chaos Warrior with curses and arrows to the knees.
I think at least 4 models per side should work better (I was aiming 3 to 8 for the game), leaves more room for varied skills to face every situation.
Need the motivation to further test. Balancing out those 209 Skills and possible combinations can potentially take a while.
precinctomega wrote: Working on the layout of the Zero Dark rulebook. Having mostly written it all, now I have to re-jig the text to make room for illustrations and colour text. Then I have to replace the images I "borrowed" from the Internet with ones I actually own the copyright to...
Independent game publishing: it's not all fun and games....
I feel your pain. I can't afford to pay any artists, etc., so all of my imagery is being concocted from 3D dungeon set-ups with painted miniatures. Downside is that I have to take hundreds of photos (for hundreds of cards) and I have to paint every single thing I want in the game...so my shopping list is lengthy and I need to paint a ton.
Also been learning GIMP (free photoshop) the hard way...trial and error. Made a lot of progress since 2012 when I started working on self-produced games.
precinctomega wrote: Working on the layout of the Zero Dark rulebook. Having mostly written it all, now I have to re-jig the text to make room for illustrations and colour text. Then I have to replace the images I "borrowed" from the Internet with ones I actually own the copyright to...
Independent game publishing: it's not all fun and games....
You can also use WkikMedia Commons and Pixabay for images.
They have rules for use, but are generally free use. I am always surprised with what I can find that will fit into my generic rule books.
I have been working on the scenario generator for Wars of the Republic. I was unsatisfied with the number of scenarios in Men of Bronze so I am trying to expand it for this book to provide a fresh experience. This is taking much longer than I thought....
PsychoticStorm wrote: Trying to hammer discipline and scope in a design mess that has neither of these and more ideas than restrictions...
My current game I'm working on was started in 2002...so, nearly 18 years of notes/garbage, dozens of failed attempted starts, etc. It'll eventually happen May just...take two decades.
I have quite a few years of starting, reaching a point, scraping, restarting, doing something else, restarting this, I feel I want to see it finally reaching a definite state so I can start shaping it into something.
It’s a steady thing now, that I only work on my game project on train journeys, and Xmas time granted me three of those, so I’m moving forward a bit. A lot of moving parts in my game is chosen/drawn/defined dynamically after players meet, including unit abilities in some cases. So the latest thing I did was going through the notes of those for my basic factions and word them in coherent way.
PsychoticStorm wrote: I have quite a few years of starting, reaching a point, scraping, restarting, doing something else, restarting this, I feel I want to see it finally reaching a definite state so I can start shaping it into something.
Oh, I feel you. My other published game I thought up and put into 90% form in a single evening...so that made this project ultimately more frustrating. I always wait for that "shower" moment, and thankfully mine hit around June this year when all the disparate pieces of what I wanted finally snapped into place. It's still far from finished but the spine of the project is there.
I have another side project that is likewise waiting for the "oh, here we go!" moment...I just hope this one doesn't take 18 years. I may not be alive that long!
Slowly, but surely, working my way through a science fiction skirmish game that I've had on the backburner for quite a while. The whole of the pieces are there, I just need to put fingers to the keyboard and get typing - although a bit more slow going than I'd like, because I'm writing in my non-native tongue.
Hopefully I'll have a working prototype ready for 2020, so I can get it out and tested. I'm aiming for a release around July this year, uni permitting.
I've been slowly painting up more figures (which I need for photography for main components in my game). This has increased the cost/time producing my current game quite a bit. Every encounter card, chamber card, etc. etc. needs painted miniatures and terrain for pictures....so...just painting some stuff.
PsychoticStorm wrote: Trying to hammer discipline and scope in a design mess that has neither of these and more ideas than restrictions...
My current game I'm working on was started in 2002...so, nearly 18 years of notes/garbage, dozens of failed attempted starts, etc. It'll eventually happen May just...take two decades.
I'm trying to work up the motivation to start trying to make the art for my game, which I have the basic rules & cards set up for, I just need to start actually producing something people will want to buy!
I also need to stop jumping to new projects and actually frikkin finish one!
Today I'm going into the text file and carefully wording everything, having established a vocabulary and an index. Describing all of the many Creature/Ally actions that will be used in the game. Also creating a bit of a style-manual for the game rules, so they should be consistently worded.
I was glad to have my three boys home for the holidays to play test my new game "Realm Lords" and got it all ironed out. Just polishing up the final miniatures and some promotion play testing at my two FLGS next week and then launch on Kickstarter in about 4 weeks. You can check out the promo KS page here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mdsw/realm-lords-for-castle-and-country?ref=5ra4gp&token=54b51f2f
Well I had to bite the bullet and put placeholder images on a handful of my cards, but I just ordered the version 2 test print, a slick 303 individual cards...
Now I just have to hope they show up in time for the convention I'm supposed to attend in a few weeks.
Another train journey, another part done. Two basic factions done, now to preliminary point costing. My system has compound cost, there are four values: mobility, offense, defense and build. List building stage uses build value and then m/o/d sums comparison is used to determine which and how many special tactics cards players draw to balance out differences.
Madness as usual, found a few new cracks that need filling. The second picture is our last two heroes (on one and two wounds each) escaping a random Wyvern by a single turn (the Wyvern moves exceptionally fast and was chasing them down). The surviving Dwarf had already ran up the stairs.
I also got to run a playtest this weekend for Wars of the Republic that had been set-up and sitting on my table for a while. Just using paper templates right now.....
I do all of my best thinking sitting in the shower in the dark, lol...like a kind of ghetto sensory-deprivation tank.
I also carry a voice recorder if I've got a job where I drive a lot (which I frequently do). Helps a bit. I also try to keep a notebook by my bed in case I suddenly have a good (or terrible) idea while laying there.
This time I returned to my computer to find the draft document open and ready for me! I was able to type about 5 pages into the document! That finished off the 1st draft of the core rules.
I am now working on the Historical Scenarios. 1 down, and 9 to go!
I restricted myself to 5 Historical scenarios (as opposed to 9) since I am at my Word limit all ready. I am sure a second draft will have to thin things down a bit.
Only 2 more Scenarios to go and I am on to revisions!
I've been putting in a little bit of design work, but mainly just waiting for my Version 2 cards to ship...and they did today! Now I just sit impatiently for 2-3 days.
I've been adding stats to a variety of cards (after completely redesigning my game after a several month hiatus) and trying to make everything fit into my new plan. Hopefully I can have the mock-up cards sorted soon and I can do some playtesting!
Biggest stumbling block for me is the artistic side of things, I suck at graphic design!
I am putting all the army lists and units stats into a spreadsheet so I can look and validate for redundancy since I am covering a wide period of time in these rules.
I just scrapped most (Well, really all), of what I had been working on rules wise, because I had taken a break and came back and was majorly unsatisfied with it. New beginnings I suppose, but now I need motivation to get down and start writing again.
some bloke wrote: I've been adding stats to a variety of cards (after completely redesigning my game after a several month hiatus) and trying to make everything fit into my new plan. Hopefully I can have the mock-up cards sorted soon and I can do some playtesting!
Biggest stumbling block for me is the artistic side of things, I suck at graphic design!
Sir Heckington wrote: I just scrapped most (Well, really all), of what I had been working on rules wise, because I had taken a break and came back and was majorly unsatisfied with it. New beginnings I suppose, but now I need motivation to get down and start writing again.
Awwwwww yiss! Version 2 playtesting components arrived. Have at least one game planned for tomorrow. I expect to go through another 2-3 revisions before it's all finalized.
I'm a huge fan of cards, but...I build my games around them. Also the stuff posted is around $40 print to order, so I don't plan on selling many. If I mass-ordered them they'd be reasonable, but I enjoy having a simple rulebook and then all the info necessary on the cards. It opens up a lot of options that dice-tables don't allow, etc.
Definitely a stylistic choice. Would I make more money just writing up rule-sets and selling them as $5 PDFs? 100% absolutely, yes. But I tend to simply design games for me to play, so if they sell or not it doesn't really matter. I like the visual impact and the joy of drawing a random card, etc.
I've been going through previous editions of Giant Monster Rampage, looking for optional rules I can tweak and update for Giants: The Action Figure Game of Colossal Combat (new version of GMR).
So far the swarm rules are the only thing I have decided to add to Giants.
Elbows wrote: Awwwwww yiss! Version 2 playtesting components arrived. Have at least one game planned for tomorrow. I expect to go through another 2-3 revisions before it's all finalized.
Thanks! It's been a long road learning GIMP (free photoshop), and taking hundreds or thousands of photos, and trying to put it all together into good lookin' components! Going to get a game in tonight on an equally swank dungeon we set up last night...huzzah!
I spent a few hours the last couple days furiously researching if the Pontic Army had elephants in its line-of-battle. I have seen army lists for other historical games feature them, but have not found and primary source material to back that decision up. Now I have to decide if I want them in my historical army list or not!
I ordered some micron pens and some graph paper - going to take a stab at doing old school looking dungeon maps for my game (see if I can make them palatable). Would be nice to add the old school charm.
Some really great work from everyone... I finished the photos for my upcoming REALM LORDS kickstarter that starts 2/13/20. Here are some of the game components and additional race figures. So, still putting the final touches on the KS page before launch. I welcome everyone's support!!
Struggling through being sick for a few weeks, but I did get a page full of stuff to edit/review/fix from my last playtest. Starting to open those files and look at fixes.
Also doing up a temporary work sheet since I'll be giving my newer game its first public outing this weekend at a convention nearby.
Yesterday I sorted 500 transparent bingo chips into separate bags by colour. As it turns out, 500 isn't that much, as it looks like I'll need ~40 per four-player set.
Got all my taxes for my little LLC filed. Haven't done much otherwise on any development work this year, though, sadly. Just a bunch of small eBay sales and minor royalties from DriveThru.
Hopefully this year I can get more done on a few projects, including getting another card game or two into POD and get more artwork commissioned for my big project, as well as some model-agnostic rule sets I've been toying with.
Yesterday, the dungeon crawler got its first public outing...so that was cool. Good responses, and the players had fun - that's all that matters to me.
Did some copy-editing the other day; it's amazing how many errors can creep in when you're mocking up cards. I think I need to learn how to do a mail merge with Visio.
Elbows wrote: Yesterday, the dungeon crawler got its first public outing...so that was cool. Good responses, and the players had fun - that's all that matters to me.
Spoiler:
Ha! I see the name of your company is a clever play on your name. Nice! It looks really impressive on the table.
Thanks, I wanted to build a bit sexier/interesting dungeon but I was tired and rushed...so it ended up being a little "meh" for my tastes. However, the playtests went great, everyone seemed to have fun - can't complain. Now all the fixing...
What I really need to work on is figuring out how to produce some play-test copies without breaking the bank, that I can send out around the world for people to try/keep.
Nurglitch wrote: What I really need to work on is figuring out how to produce some play-test copies without breaking the bank, that I can send out around the world for people to try/keep.
If you're needing cards to be printed out, DriveThruCards is actually pretty reasonable and doesn't have a minimum run. I've used them for printing out playtest versions of various stuff, as well as eventually going full Print-On-Demand offering for sales.
Nurglitch wrote: What I really need to work on is figuring out how to produce some play-test copies without breaking the bank, that I can send out around the world for people to try/keep.
If you're needing cards to be printed out, DriveThruCards is actually pretty reasonable and doesn't have a minimum run. I've used them for printing out playtest versions of various stuff, as well as eventually going full Print-On-Demand offering for sales.
That's a good idea that I'm going to bookmark. The problem being the card has more components than just cards. Currently I need the following printed out: Cards, a board, building section stickers, a box, and a rulebook. Non-printed components would include 2" Meeples, 1" cubes, and transparent bingo markers. I'm uncertain about spreading what people need across so many vendors, you know? It would be easier to find a single source.
Nurglitch wrote: What I really need to work on is figuring out how to produce some play-test copies without breaking the bank, that I can send out around the world for people to try/keep.
If you're needing cards to be printed out, DriveThruCards is actually pretty reasonable and doesn't have a minimum run. I've used them for printing out playtest versions of various stuff, as well as eventually going full Print-On-Demand offering for sales.
That's a good idea that I'm going to bookmark. The problem being the card has more components than just cards. Currently I need the following printed out: Cards, a board, building section stickers, a box, and a rulebook. Non-printed components would include 2" Meeples, 1" cubes, and transparent bingo markers. I'm uncertain about spreading what people need across so many vendors, you know? It would be easier to find a single source.
Gotcha. Game Crafter might be an option for you, then, since they can do most, if not all that.
Sending playtesting copies is expensive and frustrating...especially if you're a single-man hobbyist like myself. I sent off two copies of SnS before more or less giving up. Sent both to large YouTube reviewers/gamers out of the US, and international shipping is expensive for US based companies. One of the guys at least responded and let me know he'd received it, but neither ever bothered to mention/discuss/try the game, etc. In retrospect I don't believe either of these reviewers were that interested in indie game designers. In both these instances I paid maybe $40 a pop to buy/ship the test item for zero result/feedback.
As I do my stuff print-to-order (don't have the money/time/space to start a proper shop or warehouse several hundred copies of my game), it's about the same cost for me as a normal customer.
PS: As mentioned above TheGameCrafter.com does most if not all of those things - but as the components pile up, so does the cost. You definitely pay for the convenience of single or tiny product runs...but it's a great solution, particularly for playtesting.
I was looking at the TheGameCrafter, and an outfit called BoardGameMaker who likewise do short runs. I think I need to get a quote from the latter, as places like that will often do things that aren't on their site, like the 1" cubes Titanomachina would need. I mean, in theory it could work with smaller cubes, but after a certain size these things get very difficult to actually use in play.
Still recovering from a minor illness which has sapped my willingness to paint/properly hobby, I'm slowly going through every existing card (over 300!) and editing with a style manual approach - making sure all of the cards read in a similar tone, with the proper terminology. Verifying timing during phases, basic grammar, removing "Your" and "You" and replacing with "This Hero", etc. Trying to make it all consistent to avoid any misunderstanding from players. Just massaging stuff basically.
Also inventing the last 11 cards, swapping out some Legendary encounters for normal ones, changing up the Elf's starting trait and abilities, etc. etc.
After seeing what I did with Godzilla, making a Titan Dashboard and Deck for it, my eldest asked me to do it with another Universal Studios Titan, and I figured "Ghidorah"
I went back to my initial design document and see that I want to restructure the rules lay-out for the Wars of the Republic game. This means I will probably have to go do some more research that I am putting off doing.
My Godzilla mini-figures came in yesterday, and thankfully it was two Heisei-era Godzilla figs and one female MUTO. So today I whipped up a MUTO Titan dashboard and made a specialized systems, the EMP Pulse, Eye Pit, and Eggs. The Eye Pit is essentially just Sensors, but the Eggs are a Range 1 system that increases the value of the MUTO's building sections, and the EMP Pulse is an omni-directional Shock and Shield Breaker (2) weapon.
Thanks to current coronavirus lockdown here in Poland I’ve finally been able to playtest my ruleset for the first time, and to my satisfaction it’s working as intended. Only minor tweaks were needed here and there, but overall it has proven to be easily understandable to new player.
I am currently working through some rules for my game. I had shelved it for a while, and after re-reading it, realised that I had blown it into a larger and much more complex game than I had wanted it to be - even as the designer, it intimidated me to read the rules!
So I've listed out the key aspects of what I wanted the game to be, and I am re-writing the core rules to cut out all the unnecessary crap that I had added in!
I'm now feeling a bit more motivation to get it done, where I had been feeling like it was too large of a task before.
some bloke wrote: I am currently working through some rules for my game. I had shelved it for a while, and after re-reading it, realised that I had blown it into a larger and much more complex game than I had wanted it to be - even as the designer, it intimidated me to read the rules!
So I've listed out the key aspects of what I wanted the game to be, and I am re-writing the core rules to cut out all the unnecessary crap that I had added in!
I'm now feeling a bit more motivation to get it done, where I had been feeling like it was too large of a task before.
I managed to time the release of my game-you-can-play-solo-or-pvp rather well, but I promise I'm not responsible for the current crisis!
As my professional contact ended last week, I've also decided not to actively seek a new contract (again: good timing) and to focus on game design and marketing for the next twelve months at least.
So now my day splits equally between schooling the kids, developing new stuff for Zero Dark, working on a new game, painting and building minis and terrain for new stuff, and pushing my products on social media.
I find the last one by far the hardest. I am naturally quite diffident, so standing up in public going "LOOK AT THIS THING I MADE!!" doesn't make me feel at all comfortable.
However, sales so far are very good and no one has complained, so I guess I'm doing OK.
Yep, I do almost zero marketing...though this is all just a hobby of mine so far (and will likely stay that way). On the rare occasion someone says they're interested in games in the genre I'm doing, I'll bring it up - but I have no social media presence, and definitely don't think too much about promoting my stuff. I do enjoy conventions though, but that's more hosting the game and watching people enjoy it.
The reality of life as a full-time wargame designer is turning out to be that a quarter of your time is spent on marketing.
Oh, and Pinterest will reject your adverts because they look like they're to do with, like, weapons n' stuff. :rollseyes:
Every new follower, re-tweet and Insta-like is treasured almost as much as an actual sale. I love the name of my game, but I'm kinda wishing I'd done a GW and given it some trademarkable gibberish name so I could do better SEO. As it is, I keep clashing with other, more important cultural things that used similar words. Weirdly, "Horizon Wars" does much better on SEO, but I suspect that's because Bloomsbury (who own Osprey) have people to do that sort of thing, while I'm just making it up as I go along.
The good times are when I'm actually working on new stuff. Planning the new campaign book for Zero Dark is a lot of fun. I've got some awesome ideas. But the trick, I think, is to avoid what I think of as the "Human Sphere Error", in which you produce a core rulebook and then produce another book that makes things so that two players both have to be playing all of the rules from both books (so both need both books).
Operation Nemesis will, rather, provide some options that will only require one player to actually have the book, because invoking them will affect both players equally. For example, introducing hackable terrain (being able to turn the lights on is pretty important in a game with darkness mechanics).
I'm also getting to lavish a bit of attention on my patrons and give them some cool extra bits and bobs to try out (motorcycles, for example).
You think now would be the time to do all sorts of stuff for game design. Alas, no.
I have been working on a battle report for Men of Bronze, very slowly. I have also been around online talking to folks and searching up other people playing the game.
However, I have a bad case of "Not really caring right now" so there you go.
All this extra time and proximity to my prototypes is stimulating my thoughts. I've managed to make a few connections I hadn't before, and I've thought up some new features to implement in my Titanomachina game. One is simplifying a new feature, which is always good. Another is finding a space between wholly voluntary and wholly involuntary movement caused by attacks. The third is putting systems in buildings so that Titans can equip them as the game goes on...
I've been doing...indirect things, such as painting up miniatures that I need for photos for my cards and game components - so while time consuming, I get a good mix of "painting stuff" and "writing stuff".
Lets see, i've formed and registered my LLC (been selling 3d terrain, which I have a different dakka account for because this account is kind of an donkey-cave and probably shouldn't be associated with any sort of business ), started revisiting my *first* game design (I really gotta learn to manage my designer ADD issues, I am *never* going to get anything done if I keep jumping between them) and figured out what I gotta do to make a super-basic playtestable prototype so I can start pushing forward, read the goonhammer interviews with James Hewitt (I like his approach and mindset, maybe if the terrain business keeps the money flowing and I manage to focus long enough to actually develop a basic playable ruleset I'll reach out to him/Needy Cat for some consultation).
I've been busy. Hell of a time to be starting up a business though.
In that sense I'll be very very very ok, I have a full time job that pays very well, this is a side project that I do in my free time, I'm already making money on it and my costs are very very low (low enough that if sales dry up over the next 18 months I can afford to keep things rolling out of my own pocket).
After a couple of months of preliminary design work, on Friday I entered the first ACTUAL card designs into the ACTUAL database for my next Magic set. I get four more months with the set before I hand it off to the next design team for final design work.
I managed an actual playtest of my game this weekend, the second occurrence of it since I started trying to make it!
It went well. We established that the game was taking too long, so took steps to correct it. combat system was basic but seemed remarkably balanced. Resource management was not, however.
(Principle is that you mine resources then spend them for cards)
Ultimately we both mined more tokens than we ever needed for cards, so I need to up the cost for cards.
All in all, it went really well. I now have a few changes to make and then I have to write up the rules in a proper first draft, and then it's time to test again!
Pariah Press wrote: In that case, I'm sorry to inform you that we're retiring the Kraken creature type, starting with the next set. There just wasn't any interest in it.
I had another playtest last night, the game went well and actually was quick enough to reach a conclusion this time
Made an improvement to the resource management, which made it a lot less of a given that a player would be able to draw cards every turn. Also have concluded that I need to add more ranged weapons, and increase the range of some of the existing ones. Currently, by the time you're in range, you can be charged!
Next step is to draw an actual hex-grid out instead of staggered squares, and to amend the cards with new values, then playtest 3 will commence!
Also, got a payment from my Publisher! Woot! Woot!
Got my latest royalty statement from Bloomsbury.
I am sure as time goes by, they get smaller, and smaller, and smaller. But, mailbox money is mailbox money.
I was having a conversation with a freelance author friend of mine, and he had this insightful comment for me:
"If you publish one book.... great. You can;t even get a cup of Joe from what they send you each month. However, once you have published 50 books, now you start to make ends meet from published books."
chaos0xomega wrote: Lets see, i've formed and registered my LLC (been selling 3d terrain, which I have a different dakka account for because this account is kind of an donkey-cave and probably shouldn't be associated with any sort of business ), started revisiting my *first* game design (I really gotta learn to manage my designer ADD issues, I am *never* going to get anything done if I keep jumping between them) and figured out what I gotta do to make a super-basic playtestable prototype so I can start pushing forward, read the goonhammer interviews with James Hewitt (I like his approach and mindset, maybe if the terrain business keeps the money flowing and I manage to focus long enough to actually develop a basic playable ruleset I'll reach out to him/Needy Cat for some consultation).
Hit me up! You can send an email through the Needy Cat site.
We're running a game design course at the minute, you know. Talks a lot about steps you can take (and processes you can use) to get good at *actually* making games. Plug plug plug.
chaos0xomega wrote: Lets see, i've formed and registered my LLC (been selling 3d terrain, which I have a different dakka account for because this account is kind of an donkey-cave and probably shouldn't be associated with any sort of business ), started revisiting my *first* game design (I really gotta learn to manage my designer ADD issues, I am *never* going to get anything done if I keep jumping between them) and figured out what I gotta do to make a super-basic playtestable prototype so I can start pushing forward, read the goonhammer interviews with James Hewitt (I like his approach and mindset, maybe if the terrain business keeps the money flowing and I manage to focus long enough to actually develop a basic playable ruleset I'll reach out to him/Needy Cat for some consultation).
Hit me up! You can send an email through the Needy Cat site.
We're running a game design course at the minute, you know. Talks a lot about steps you can take (and processes you can use) to get good at *actually* making games. Plug plug plug.
Im still a long ways off from it being worth hitting you up, but youre definitely on my radar! Ive got frighteningly little to show for 15+ years of work Actually theres probably the basics of a full core ruleset there, just most of it is in my head/very little of it is written down :/
I saw you were running a course but it looked like it was a "live" thing which unfortunately doesn't work with my schedule, will it be available for purchase as pre-recorded content anywhere?
I am sure as time goes by, they get smaller, and smaller, and smaller. But, mailbox money is mailbox money.
And zero is zero.
Indeed. Good thing you are probably pulling in Wargame Vault money now. The pass-through to you is much better anyway but the marketing is a bit more intensive.
I worked on the Campaign system for one of my WIP games on the blog a bit. Then stupid real work got in the way and derailed me.
Edit: So far, 2020 has been a good year for sales. Let's see if that changes now that the Pandemic has hit full stride globally.
Spent the weekend doing yard work, but I was busy thinking about a "Dexterity style" game in the vein of Little Wars only as a first person shooter. More of a hybrid wargame/dexterity/shooting game.
More to come soon......
I also made some paper templates for testing out my Space Game with Altitude Band designs
After watching a little video from a small publisher I follow, I got energized to go back to working on my own things which I haven't touched for about a year due to "real life" getting in the way (mostly, hating my job so much that it sucked all my energy, but I started a new day job about a month ago and I'm recovering ).
So did a little bit of card clean up and art wrangling on my "big project," an ambitious miniatures game with a full bespoke line of models. Yes, getting art and commissioning sculpts is expensive, so it's taking quite a long time.
But also went through my list of game ideas. I keep a Google Doc around that I throw a little blurb into whenever I have some half-cocked idea for a game. Some (most) will probably never see any real development, but it's good to keep those seeds around just in case. This time, seeing a couple of ideas on that doc, it sparked an interesting combination of a couple of them, so I started drafting out that combined idea: a co-op/single-player minis-agnostic game (yeah, I know, there's a ton of those so far...) set in a Victorian/Lovecraftian/Gothic horror setting. Seeing some of the popularity of games like Rangers of Shadow Deep, Sellswords & Spellslingers, Walking Dead, Fallout, Horizon Wars: Zero Dark (shout out to Robey!), it feels like the small co-op skirmish games have a reasonable market, plus it felt like it might be a fun thing to do.
I think the market for small co-op and solo wargaming is going to be growing exponentially! I too have been looking in that direction a bit more, but not started any "new" work in that arena.
I worked on the campaign side for my post-apoc skirmish game. I find that these skirmish games are murder on my design time/resources because the campaign elements take so long to build! The Mechanics I can pop out in a about a week or less. Adding on the campaign layers takes me months.... and I love campaign games!
Easy E wrote: I think the market for small co-op and solo wargaming is going to be growing exponentially! I too have been looking in that direction a bit more, but not started any "new" work in that arena.
I worked on the campaign side for my post-apoc skirmish game. I find that these skirmish games are murder on my design time/resources because the campaign elements take so long to build! The Mechanics I can pop out in a about a week or less. Adding on the campaign layers takes me months.... and I love campaign games!
Agreed, mechanics alone aren't too much work (though finding some that fit the "feel" of what you're going after can take a little experimentation, but the rest is just math).
I also want to add a campaign system to my newest idea, and I'm partially dreading how much work that part will be. I think that will also require the most playtesting work, to see if the progression makes sense, is "balanced," and so on.
Ran through the first playtest session on my current solo/co-op project. As expected there is still a lot of development work to do, but I was pleasantly surprised that the engine seems to work pretty decently. Mainly noted I wasn't getting bad guy activations frequently enough (I'm using a modified ASOBAH style activation), so I'll tweak that. Also I completely forgot to deal with a couple of situations that clearly cropped up a lot.
And I only had one very basic encounter with only one very basic type of bad guy (zombie) because writing an AI table for zombies is pretty easy...
For the longest time, I have wanted to design a 40k version of axis and allies- with the exception that it takes 3 hours instead of 12. I finally started laying the ground work today. Sketching out the pieces I will need from Vanguard miniatures, gaming aids like acrylic cubes, mdf hexegons, ect...
I want it to have an element of diplomacy as well, so I will be set in the age of Strife, between warring houses of the Imperium, with Orks as a 4th faction.
Long way to go on this one, but I just watched a youtube video on Twilight Imperium, so am super pumped. Axis and Allies really is one of my all time favorites, I just don't know a soul who has the time to complete a game. Looking to find a happy medium but with grim dark stuff.
Ran a few more playtests with some numbers tweaked after spending most of the morning messing around in anydice.com to get some maths. Felt pretty good, I think the base system is more or less there, now to develop more bad guy AI types and encounters and so on. Then eventually the campaign system.
Lately, campaign systems have been killing me! They take three or four times longer o build than the actual core game mechanics. Especially now-a-days when the expectation for them is so high. You need injuries, experience, advancement, base building, resource management, special treasures, etc. It gets to be too much!
Speaking of which, i built and worked on the campaign system for my Space Game with Altitude Bands, and also my Post-apoc skirmish game.
I am currently working on a weather system for the RPG me and a friend have been working on for the last 3 years. Running a calendar is very important to the system, I had figured a weather system would allow differences for when players can do down time/training or special effects during missions.
After a couple of months of inactivity, I got back to work on my skirmish fantasy game. Cleaned up a bunch of rules, made a quick reference sheet to fit all in 1 page (easy as the main rules are 9-10 pages total ) and seems like now have to do a lot of playtesting. After that (anywhere between many months and a few years), I think this will be ready for publishing. Here's to keeping up the motivation.
Yesterday was a good day - playtested a really simple card game I thought up and it worked a treat. Mechanically it's smooth and consistent, now I just need to come up with a lot of artwork for it and it'll be a good starting point for me to test the waters of kickstarter & self-publication!
I'm also working on an exploration style game with my partner, which is really capturing our imaginations. Hoping to get a rough draught of the rules together this week, draw a dodgy board on a sheet of wallpaper in pencil, and have a go at it!
I keep biting my tongue on this, but I really gotta ask - what does a space game get from altitude bands?
I've seen many people ask for a three dimensional space game, I've even played a few, but none of them have ever truly made a compelling argument for the inclusion of a third dimension of gameplay (and in my experience most 3D space games play effectively the same way in 2D, meaning that the inclusion of the third dimension is extraneous and unnecessary). Theres only one game that I've found that really makes a compelling argument for altitude considerations - Dropfleet Commander - and it isn't "really" a space game according to most that have played it.
Altitude bands matter in atomosphere, because altitude matters in terms of energy-maneuverability theory and the myriad practical considerations associated with aerial combat. Altitude is also limited and bound by technological and scientific considerations, its possible to occupy an unreachable high ground as a result that tangibly translates into a form of advantage in combat. In space, altitude is irrelevant, there is no energy-maneuverability advantage gained from occupying a different altitude than an opponent, nor is there any limitation or bound that allows for a "high ground" to be attainable (or for that matter, unattainable)*.
There is an argument to be made that 3d orientation matters in terms of weapon arcs (and a few games include 3d movement/combat on that basis), but IMO its far too fiddly and complex to get into angular declination etc. when determining whether your little ship is able to target another ship above you. Besides that, I think realistically two warships or fleets that engaged eachother in space would pretty quickly re-orient themselves towards a more or less planar engagement in the opening moments of a conflict (orbital mechanics notwithstanding) - ie even if your enemy is on a vector 3-dimensionally perpendicular to your own, once battle was joined the forces would end up reorienting into an arrangement that was effectively 2 dimensional - not by intent, but out of simple practicality.
*TECHNICALLY - there is a point where "altitude bands" become relevant from a realistic point of view - orbits (and lagrangian points), but it doesn't require three dimensional gameplay (realistically most motion in such an environment would be mostly/roughly planar) and I don't think is a game that most people looking for a space wargame want to play.
Edit: Slightly longer answer. I am not trying to simulate "reality" I am trying to simulate "Mecha Anime" reality. In that medium, attacks come from all over and unexpected directions, and some of them are directions that can not be countered by firepower, only maneuver.
Ahhhhhh that makes a bit more sense in that regard, but I'm still inclined to think that the third dimension isn't strictly necessary.
BUT, I would think that something like Blood Red Skies "advantage" system would be a good stand-in for altitude bands in this case. You aren't really concerned with "absolute" altitude (i.e a specific height "level" above an arbitrary point) so much as you are a "relative" altitude in relation to other mechs/craft - BRS advantage theoretically represents an infinite range of possible "altitude bands" broken down into just 3 bands (advantage, neutral, disadvantage) which can change dynamically depending on who is attacking who (forcing an advantaged aircraft/mech into disadvantage under certain criteria, etc.). Based on what I read in that other thread, it sounds like you're already mostly there.
I started fleshing out our new game somewhat, it's gone from a rough concept to a rough game, with a pleasingly interlinked progress tracker concept which, if it works, will be very smooth and easy to use.
biggest upcoming challenge will be to make a board, tiles, and all the markers/buildings for a playtest. Fortunately I have a load of white & green glass beads, which I can write on using marker pens, and they work really well for playtesting games!
chaos0xomega wrote: Ahhhhhh that makes a bit more sense in that regard, but I'm still inclined to think that the third dimension isn't strictly necessary.
BUT, I would think that something like Blood Red Skies "advantage" system would be a good stand-in for altitude bands in this case. You aren't really concerned with "absolute" altitude (i.e a specific height "level" above an arbitrary point) so much as you are a "relative" altitude in relation to other mechs/craft - BRS advantage theoretically represents an infinite range of possible "altitude bands" broken down into just 3 bands (advantage, neutral, disadvantage) which can change dynamically depending on who is attacking who (forcing an advantaged aircraft/mech into disadvantage under certain criteria, etc.). Based on what I read in that other thread, it sounds like you're already mostly there.
Yes. That is a good idea as well. I frankly do not know enough about Blood Red Skies so I may have to look it up for more info.
I spent some time making Mecha markers for playtesting the Space/Mecha game.
I also worked on my Post-Apoc game to add some Base-building as that seems to be a big deal for folks now-a-days.
Finally, I did some work on my Korean Air War game to document aircraft, get some tech specs, and start to put it all in a Spreadsheet.
i also completed a week long, slo-mo playtest of the Wars of the Roman Republic rules.
Working from Home rules..... but I would probably be able to do the same stuff from my office too. LOL!
I don't really have too much experience with the game myself, but the rules are simple and very elegant in their design and I *think* you might be able to find some inspiration in there for your design
Threw together a draft of campaign rules. Ugh, that's gonna be a lot of work testing that stuff out.
Also, for no reason other than I was amazed I didn't have any sitting around, I put together, and got primed and started painting, a bunch of old GW zombies for use in a couple of the scenarios for my latest game project.
I don't really have too much experience with the game myself, but the rules are simple and very elegant in their design and I *think* you might be able to find some inspiration in there for your design
Cool! Thanks!
Just some marketing online for most of the day today.....
Edit: Downloaded and started reading the BRS booklet.
I've spent this weekend working with my partner on our exploration game, it's coming along nicely - we have the basic rules, the factions, the board, half of the tiles cut out (if you want to playtest a game with over 400 hexagonal tiles, heed my warning - make them square instead!)
Hopefully we can have the necessary elements finished tomorrow and have our first rough-playtest on Thursday!
More playtesting over the weekend and last night. Found I needed some tweaks on ranged weapons (both in how they function and ranges, etc.). Added a couple ideas on terror and faith rolls (it's a horror-themed game), and so far kind of like them, but will take more testing (as everything does) to see if they slow things down too much, too harsh, etc.
Still have a couple other scenarios to test out, and of course all the campaign rule stuff is yet-untested.
My current issue is the implementation of "trigger" tiles in a game where the trigger tile could well not be on the board... My options are either to group several trigger tiles together to increase the chance of the event triggering, or to make it compulsory to include said trigger tile.
That, or treat it as a feature of the game that the triggers may never go off (as they are not key to scoring).
So I discovered that theres someone else working on a game that is almost identical to the one I've been working on on-and-off for the past 15 years. Same top-level setting, same gimmicks and hooks, similar mechanical approach (though taken in different directions), etc. etc. etc. Except this other guy is a bit ahead of where I'm at despite starting sometime in the past 3 or so months (I've "reset" my progress numerous times and gone through many iterations as I attempt to dial in something I'm happy with). In a lot of ways what hes doing now resembles more closely what I did maybe 10-12 years ago, around my second or third iteration of things.
I don't know how to feel about it, its incredibly frustrating to me as I feel he will likely beat me to market on this, as I'm juggling a number of personal and professional projects and can't go nuts on this one thing. I felt like what I was working on was something fairly unique and different and would fill its own niche in the market, but now that I have what I guess would be a competitor I'm feeling much more self-conscious and uneasy about things. The one question I keep asking myself is "am I basic?" since it feels like if someone else is doing this thing too then I must not be as clever as I thought I was.
There is nothing new under the sun, and innovation is over-rated in the market anyway.
I am convinced I have no idea what players want to play. Therefore, I only make games for myself. If other people want to buy and play it.... awesome!
Make games for no other reason than because you HAVE TO MAKE games. You can't help yourself. If you do it for any other reason.... you will fail to make a single game.
chaos0xomega wrote: So I discovered that theres someone else working on a game that is almost identical to the one I've been working on on-and-off for the past 15 years. Same top-level setting, same gimmicks and hooks, similar mechanical approach (though taken in different directions), etc. etc. etc. Except this other guy is a bit ahead of where I'm at despite starting sometime in the past 3 or so months (I've "reset" my progress numerous times and gone through many iterations as I attempt to dial in something I'm happy with). In a lot of ways what hes doing now resembles more closely what I did maybe 10-12 years ago, around my second or third iteration of things.
I don't know how to feel about it, its incredibly frustrating to me as I feel he will likely beat me to market on this, as I'm juggling a number of personal and professional projects and can't go nuts on this one thing. I felt like what I was working on was something fairly unique and different and would fill its own niche in the market, but now that I have what I guess would be a competitor I'm feeling much more self-conscious and uneasy about things. The one question I keep asking myself is "am I basic?" since it feels like if someone else is doing this thing too then I must not be as clever as I thought I was.
/rant
It's a big world out there and more & more people are coming into game design - the fact that only one person is doing the same style of game as you means you're not basic!
I spent a long time making a game called "into the lab". It featured players going into a laboratory, exploring as they go, placing room tiles and dead ends, finding pools of blood, taking psychological damage, and then revealing one of many plots where one of them was the traitor and playing it through to the end. I even had my friends help me to playtest it. Then we went to a board game cafe a week later, pulled out Betrayal in the House on the Hill, and I realised that everything I had been working on had already been done, and better!
That was an issue with me not researching the market before I started - something I now do whenever I have an Idea!
It's unlikely that your game will be exactly the same - especially if there are as many unique ideas in it as you imply - so keep at it, and if they seem similar at the end, consider tweaking the imagery or the setting of yours, even if the gameplay is reminiscent of one another - most games I play I see a mechanic and think "oh, like suchandsucha game". I'm sure yours will be unique to you!
Easy E wrote: There is nothing new under the sun, and innovation is over-rated in the market anyway.
I am convinced I have no idea what players want to play. Therefore, I only make games for myself. If other people want to buy and play it.... awesome!
Make games for no other reason than because you HAVE TO MAKE games. You can't help yourself. If you do it for any other reason.... you will fail to make a single game.
So heres the thing with that - I am 100% making the game I want to make. I'm taking a pretty big gamble with that though, because a lot of the things I want from a game are things that a majority of others do not want, or at least they think they don't want. So, I feel like I have a stacked deck against me and to do it right and the way I want to do it, is also going to be fairly costly. I have a "startup plan" that can get things moving for low cost and build a fan/customer base with so that I can build up the product over time through expansions and modules, etc. BUT I feel like with someone else doing many of the same things I am I am now facing two big risks (especially since, in all likelihood, I think he will get his product to market before me):
1. The other dude gaks it up and alienates potential customers from my game more or less via association/similarity (i.e. chaos0xomegas game has features x, y, and z. I played this other game from this other designer that had a lot of the same features and hated it, so I am 100% uninterested in chaos0xomega's game), preventing me from ever getting it to where I want it to be. Its not an insurmountable risk, but it makes my product a much tougher sell, and I already feel like my game is facing an uphill battle in that regards as I've consciously made certain decisions that I know people are going to complain about without ever even giving them a chance.
2. The other dude succeeds and his product overshadows mine, preventing me from ever really gaining traction in the market to build the product i really want to build, because mine will always be seen as the "knockoff" version or just the inferior version. There are some differences in our game designs based on what I've seen from him, but I think some of the differences are actually to his benefit rather than mine.
I will say, I think my IP/fluff setting will be more unique - and IMO better - despite the obvious surface similarities, but I'm not sure that will make up for the fact that gamers are seemingly automatically disinclined towards certain mechanical aspects of what I'm working on. So as to not beat around the bush too much, I think the biggest thing I have against me (but by far not the only thing) is that my design (but not the other guys) uses both proprietary (polyhedral) dice AND a proprietary/non-standard deck of playing cards. All the survey and market data I have ever collected (or seen collected by others) basically says that there is a large chunk of gamers out there that will say "no thank you" to any game that features features playing cards OR proprietary dice automatically without ever giving it a shot, to have both proprietary dice AND proprietary playing cards in my game is just a nightmare from a marketing standpoint BUT mechanically speaking I simply could not efficiently achieve what I want to make by doing it any other way - not really being hyperbolic here, but the simplest way to put it is that the cards and dice are being used for more than just RNG.
From what I have gathered the biggest issue with this is that the moment the word "proprietary" gets attached to something gamers see it as a cash-grab, I have a plan to address that and I intend to release a printable deck of cards and 3d printable stl files of the dice so that gamers can print-and-play it themselves at a lower cost (which will basically be necessary anyway as I intend to put the game out to a free open beta before going commercial with it) AND for those that really don't like cards I am exploring the option of chits/tiles that can be printed instead and you would pick em out of a bag or a scramble (domino style, at a basic level it works the same mechanically for most applications, but there are certain things which become more complicated when you aren't using a deck of cards) AND for those who are just really attached to their bespoke $500 set of premium dice made from precious gemstones I plan on releasing a set of conversion charts/tables and tokens to help them translate their non-proprietary dice to proprietary results (but that will add a huge cognitive load and dramatically slow things down so I'm not even sure its worth it), but I'm not sure if this is really enough to shake the stigma and convince people to say "lets give this a chance".
It's a big world out there and more & more people are coming into game design - the fact that only one person is doing the same style of game as you means you're not basic!
Thats a good way to look at it. I mean, mechanically it seems that my design is still fairy unique, its more an issue of what it is I'm trying to accomplish with those mechanics is virtually identical. At a basic level its like comparing DnD and Pathfinder (or maybe a more apt comparison might be Warmachine and Malifaux, or Warmachine and Warcaster). Strong thematic/fluff similarities (in this case DnD/Pathfinder would be a better comparison than the other two I gave, the IP here is fairly unique, which is why its so jarring that this other person came up with so many of the same concepts and ideas), very similar intent on what the game is trying to model and achieve, but different executions on that concept mechanically - they both get us to the same place, but they do so via different means.
It's unlikely that your game will be exactly the same - especially if there are as many unique ideas in it as you imply - so keep at it, and if they seem similar at the end, consider tweaking the imagery or the setting of yours, even if the gameplay is reminiscent of one another - most games I play I see a mechanic and think "oh, like suchandsucha game". I'm sure yours will be unique to you!
I think the thing I am most frustrated about is really the non-mechanical elements, i.e. the fluff and theme. Its the part of all this that has changed the most dramatically over the past 15 years, and those changes were a big source of why its taken me so long to really advance things. Within a few years of starting the project another game with a very similar setting and theme was released, so I went back and made revisions to differentiate mine, within a couple years of that another game was released with an IP similar to my new setting, so I went back and then a couple years later yet another popped up. After 4 or 5 revisions I basically said to myself "I'm going to scrap the setting entirely and restart from scratch, no more iterative development on my existing setting, I'm going to push this as far as I can into new territory and try to do something much less obvious - while still being true to my original inspirations - so that I don't have to worry about a crowded field of otherwise very similar IPs." Basically, I wanted a setting that was Age of Sigmar in a sea of WHFB clones and knockoffs. And for all intents and purposes I feel like I nailed that, it took me a few years of work to figure out, but I think I got there and I was happy with it, and I *finally* could really get cracking on the mechanical stuff again, and now suddenly I feel like I'm back to square one with someone else doing something that, at least superficially, very strongly resembles what I had been working on.
Like, I don't think I'm creative enough to push the boundaries any further than I already have in terms of fluff, it took me years of frustration just to get it to where I am now. Mechanics and crunch, I think I can do (and I think, like I said before, I'm safe there - mechanically the "journey" part of my game is unique, even if it gets you to the same "destination", I think I'm mostly okay with that), but I don't want to have to revisit my fluff when I finally got it somewhere where I am happy with it and where I could say it was completely unlike anything else out there (up until like 2 weeks ago). Maybe I just feel like I'll be accused of plagiarism or something? I dunno, maybe I just need to start getting some fluff published online and start actually building recognition of the IP so it doesn't feel like I'm following in someone elses footsteps.
Easy E wrote: There is nothing new under the sun, and innovation is over-rated in the market anyway.
I am convinced I have no idea what players want to play. Therefore, I only make games for myself. If other people want to buy and play it.... awesome!
Make games for no other reason than because you HAVE TO MAKE games. You can't help yourself. If you do it for any other reason.... you will fail to make a single game.
So heres the thing with that - I am 100% making the game I want to make. I'm taking a pretty big gamble with that though, because a lot of the things I want from a game are things that a majority of others do not want, or at least they think they don't want. So, I feel like I have a stacked deck against me and to do it right and the way I want to do it, is also going to be fairly costly. I have a "startup plan" that can get things moving for low cost and build a fan/customer base with so that I can build up the product over time through expansions and modules, etc. BUT I feel like with someone else doing many of the same things I am I am now facing two big risks (especially since, in all likelihood, I think he will get his product to market before me):
1. The other dude gaks it up and alienates potential customers from my game more or less via association/similarity (i.e. chaos0xomegas game has features x, y, and z. I played this other game from this other designer that had a lot of the same features and hated it, so I am 100% uninterested in chaos0xomega's game), preventing me from ever getting it to where I want it to be. Its not an insurmountable risk, but it makes my product a much tougher sell, and I already feel like my game is facing an uphill battle in that regards as I've consciously made certain decisions that I know people are going to complain about without ever even giving them a chance.
2. The other dude succeeds and his product overshadows mine, preventing me from ever really gaining traction in the market to build the product i really want to build, because mine will always be seen as the "knockoff" version or just the inferior version. There are some differences in our game designs based on what I've seen from him, but I think some of the differences are actually to his benefit rather than mine.
I will say, I think my IP/fluff setting will be more unique - and IMO better - despite the obvious surface similarities, but I'm not sure that will make up for the fact that gamers are seemingly automatically disinclined towards certain mechanical aspects of what I'm working on. So as to not beat around the bush too much, I think the biggest thing I have against me (but by far not the only thing) is that my design (but not the other guys) uses both proprietary (polyhedral) dice AND a proprietary/non-standard deck of playing cards. All the survey and market data I have ever collected (or seen collected by others) basically says that there is a large chunk of gamers out there that will say "no thank you" to any game that features features playing cards OR proprietary dice automatically without ever giving it a shot, to have both proprietary dice AND proprietary playing cards in my game is just a nightmare from a marketing standpoint BUT mechanically speaking I simply could not efficiently achieve what I want to make by doing it any other way - not really being hyperbolic here, but the simplest way to put it is that the cards and dice are being used for more than just RNG.
From what I have gathered the biggest issue with this is that the moment the word "proprietary" gets attached to something gamers see it as a cash-grab, I have a plan to address that and I intend to release a printable deck of cards and 3d printable stl files of the dice so that gamers can print-and-play it themselves at a lower cost (which will basically be necessary anyway as I intend to put the game out to a free open beta before going commercial with it) AND for those that really don't like cards I am exploring the option of chits/tiles that can be printed instead and you would pick em out of a bag or a scramble (domino style, at a basic level it works the same mechanically for most applications, but there are certain things which become more complicated when you aren't using a deck of cards) AND for those who are just really attached to their bespoke $500 set of premium dice made from precious gemstones I plan on releasing a set of conversion charts/tables and tokens to help them translate their non-proprietary dice to proprietary results (but that will add a huge cognitive load and dramatically slow things down so I'm not even sure its worth it), but I'm not sure if this is really enough to shake the stigma and convince people to say "lets give this a chance".
It's a big world out there and more & more people are coming into game design - the fact that only one person is doing the same style of game as you means you're not basic!
Thats a good way to look at it. I mean, mechanically it seems that my design is still fairy unique, its more an issue of what it is I'm trying to accomplish with those mechanics is virtually identical. At a basic level its like comparing DnD and Pathfinder (or maybe a more apt comparison might be Warmachine and Malifaux, or Warmachine and Warcaster). Strong thematic/fluff similarities (in this case DnD/Pathfinder would be a better comparison than the other two I gave, the IP here is fairly unique, which is why its so jarring that this other person came up with so many of the same concepts and ideas), very similar intent on what the game is trying to model and achieve, but different executions on that concept mechanically - they both get us to the same place, but they do so via different means.
It's unlikely that your game will be exactly the same - especially if there are as many unique ideas in it as you imply - so keep at it, and if they seem similar at the end, consider tweaking the imagery or the setting of yours, even if the gameplay is reminiscent of one another - most games I play I see a mechanic and think "oh, like suchandsucha game". I'm sure yours will be unique to you!
I think the thing I am most frustrated about is really the non-mechanical elements, i.e. the fluff and theme. Its the part of all this that has changed the most dramatically over the past 15 years, and those changes were a big source of why its taken me so long to really advance things. Within a few years of starting the project another game with a very similar setting and theme was released, so I went back and made revisions to differentiate mine, within a couple years of that another game was released with an IP similar to my new setting, so I went back and then a couple years later yet another popped up. After 4 or 5 revisions I basically said to myself "I'm going to scrap the setting entirely and restart from scratch, no more iterative development on my existing setting, I'm going to push this as far as I can into new territory and try to do something much less obvious - while still being true to my original inspirations - so that I don't have to worry about a crowded field of otherwise very similar IPs." Basically, I wanted a setting that was Age of Sigmar in a sea of WHFB clones and knockoffs. And for all intents and purposes I feel like I nailed that, it took me a few years of work to figure out, but I think I got there and I was happy with it, and I *finally* could really get cracking on the mechanical stuff again, and now suddenly I feel like I'm back to square one with someone else doing something that, at least superficially, very strongly resembles what I had been working on.
Like, I don't think I'm creative enough to push the boundaries any further than I already have in terms of fluff, it took me years of frustration just to get it to where I am now. Mechanics and crunch, I think I can do (and I think, like I said before, I'm safe there - mechanically the "journey" part of my game is unique, even if it gets you to the same "destination", I think I'm mostly okay with that), but I don't want to have to revisit my fluff when I finally got it somewhere where I am happy with it and where I could say it was completely unlike anything else out there (up until like 2 weeks ago). Maybe I just feel like I'll be accused of plagiarism or something? I dunno,
maybe I just need to start getting some fluff published online and start actually building recognition of the IP so it doesn't feel like I'm following in someone elses footsteps.
That's a good idea. Especially if you can turn it into a webcomic or art series, or a set of awesome stories - something that people will start to follow, and when your game is ready, you have the foundations to prove its origins.
(by webcomic, I'm imagining more like romantically apocalyptic, rather than a cartoony webcomic!)
Yeah, I would love that - thats one of my biggest struggles in all this - I can't draw for gak. I can picture stuff in my minds eye but I would need someone else to translate it to paper for me. I have some friends who I've roped in to helping me with all this, one of whom is a decent artist - at least as far as doing some concept sketches go, I wouldn't necessarily want to use him for "production" art of the sort that would go into a rulebook, but hes basically my Ralph McQuarrie or John Blanche (not as technically skilled either, but I think he might be more creative and "out there" than both). The way I figure it will end up working in the near term is he will do pre-concept type design studies, which will then be handed off to better artists and illustrators for more refined concept sketches and artwork (the sort that could actually be published), which will in turn be developed into finalized production art that can be used to sculpt minis from, etc.
Problem is I don't know how committed they are to all this, I've bounced ideas off of them and we've discussed things, but they haven't really stepped up to help out and I think they're holding off unless I start putting cash in their hands up-front, which I can't really afford to do. I could understand it if they were pro-level artists and stuff, but considering they are both working minimum wage retail jobs/currently on unemployment, you would think they'd be more willing to take the risks and work for whatever meager pay I can offer them at the moment with the expectation of a bigger payout down the line, rather than hold out in the hopes of me figuring it all out on my own and suddenly just being somehow magically rich enough to cut them 3-4 figure checks every week.
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah, I would love that - thats one of my biggest struggles in all this - I can't draw for gak. I can picture stuff in my minds eye but I would need someone else to translate it to paper for me. I have some friends who I've roped in to helping me with all this, one of whom is a decent artist - at least as far as doing some concept sketches go, I wouldn't necessarily want to use him for "production" art of the sort that would go into a rulebook, but hes basically my Ralph McQuarrie or John Blanche (not as technically skilled either, but I think he might be more creative and "out there" than both). The way I figure it will end up working in the near term is he will do pre-concept type design studies, which will then be handed off to better artists and illustrators for more refined concept sketches and artwork (the sort that could actually be published), which will in turn be developed into finalized production art that can be used to sculpt minis from, etc.
Problem is I don't know how committed they are to all this, I've bounced ideas off of them and we've discussed things, but they haven't really stepped up to help out and I think they're holding off unless I start putting cash in their hands up-front, which I can't really afford to do. I could understand it if they were pro-level artists and stuff, but considering they are both working minimum wage retail jobs/currently on unemployment, you would think they'd be more willing to take the risks and work for whatever meager pay I can offer them at the moment with the expectation of a bigger payout down the line, rather than hold out in the hopes of me figuring it all out on my own and suddenly just being somehow magically rich enough to cut them 3-4 figure checks every week.
Art is the stumbling block for me as well - I've found I can achieve passable sketches, given enough time, motivation & cups of tea, but nothing which falls into the purview of releasable art with which to advertise the game. I hope to get a drawing tablet so I can scan in my pencil sketches and then go over them on photoshop, see if I can improve my graphics that way.
Have you made any concerted efforts into art? My partner has recently put a fair amount of time into learning to draw, and she has come on leaps and bounds in a few weeks. It might be worth really pushing yourself (and most importantly, not giving up because it doesn't look exactly as you pictured it off the bat) and trying to get some sketches and concepts together for your lore. If you can start posting some sketches and concepts along with the descriptions and background stories, and steadily improve your artwork (or ultimately take the plunge and hire a professional) then you will also have the "I was there from the beginning" fanbase, and you can include special sets with original artwork for those hardcore fans. If your skills lie in the writing, then a series of short stories with sketches to set the scene better would also do well. It's the fluff you're plugging, not the art, but a story with so-so pictures is far better (to me) than a story with no pictures at all.
So, it sounds like your game has a lot of overhead and production costs.....
.... as a Business guy, not as a game design guy, I will say that is bad, very, very, very bad. Unless, you can find someone else to take the $$$$ risk or you have plenty of $$$$ to lose.
The essence of good business is getting other people to risk their money. You may wan tot connect with your local Chamber of Commerce or Small-Business Community to see if they can tap you in with an Angel Investor. The SBA might also be able to help if you have a local office.
Right now, based on the small amount you have told us; your biggest issue is getting money and connections to help. That will require a business plan for the scale of game you have described to me. This is not a basement gig style game. Probably worth its own thread......
As for me, I made some quick templates/play tokens for some common American and Communist forces for my Korean Air War game.
+1 for giving it it's own thread - even if you stay shtum on the details, we can offer you more advice, support etc in your own thread. Tell us all you can!
I did some "product research" today...
...I played board games. didn't do anything on the game
chaos0xomega wrote: Yeah, I would love that - thats one of my biggest struggles in all this - I can't draw for gak. I can picture stuff in my minds eye but I would need someone else to translate it to paper for me. I have some friends who I've roped in to helping me with all this, one of whom is a decent artist - at least as far as doing some concept sketches go, I wouldn't necessarily want to use him for "production" art of the sort that would go into a rulebook, but hes basically my Ralph McQuarrie or John Blanche (not as technically skilled either, but I think he might be more creative and "out there" than both). The way I figure it will end up working in the near term is he will do pre-concept type design studies, which will then be handed off to better artists and illustrators for more refined concept sketches and artwork (the sort that could actually be published), which will in turn be developed into finalized production art that can be used to sculpt minis from, etc.
Problem is I don't know how committed they are to all this, I've bounced ideas off of them and we've discussed things, but they haven't really stepped up to help out and I think they're holding off unless I start putting cash in their hands up-front, which I can't really afford to do. I could understand it if they were pro-level artists and stuff, but considering they are both working minimum wage retail jobs/currently on unemployment, you would think they'd be more willing to take the risks and work for whatever meager pay I can offer them at the moment with the expectation of a bigger payout down the line, rather than hold out in the hopes of me figuring it all out on my own and suddenly just being somehow magically rich enough to cut them 3-4 figure checks every week.
Art is the stumbling block for me as well - I've found I can achieve passable sketches, given enough time, motivation & cups of tea, but nothing which falls into the purview of releasable art with which to advertise the game. I hope to get a drawing tablet so I can scan in my pencil sketches and then go over them on photoshop, see if I can improve my graphics that way.
Have you made any concerted efforts into art? My partner has recently put a fair amount of time into learning to draw, and she has come on leaps and bounds in a few weeks. It might be worth really pushing yourself (and most importantly, not giving up because it doesn't look exactly as you pictured it off the bat) and trying to get some sketches and concepts together for your lore. If you can start posting some sketches and concepts along with the descriptions and background stories, and steadily improve your artwork (or ultimately take the plunge and hire a professional) then you will also have the "I was there from the beginning" fanbase, and you can include special sets with original artwork for those hardcore fans. If your skills lie in the writing, then a series of short stories with sketches to set the scene better would also do well. It's the fluff you're plugging, not the art, but a story with so-so pictures is far better (to me) than a story with no pictures at all.
I simply don't have the time, by night I work on my 3D miniatures and terrain business, by day I do my regular job and find time to squeeze in some writing/rules design when Mr. Boss Man ain't looking.
.... as a Business guy, not as a game design guy, I will say that is bad, very, very, very bad. Unless, you can find someone else to take the $$$$ risk or you have plenty of $$$$ to lose.
The essence of good business is getting other people to risk their money. You may wan tot connect with your local Chamber of Commerce or Small-Business Community to see if they can tap you in with an Angel Investor. The SBA might also be able to help if you have a local office.
Right now, based on the small amount you have told us; your biggest issue is getting money and connections to help. That will require a business plan for the scale of game you have described to me. This is not a basement gig style game. Probably worth its own thread......
Connections are absolutely the *last* thing I need right now, I'm probably one of the most inadvertently well connected people to post in this thread (Mr Hewitt notwithstanding) - My girlfriend works for one of the largest board and tabletop game publishers in the industry and is on a first name basis with a lot of major designers and quite a few publishers, personalities, etc. I've discussed my project with a couple of them in a past and they took some interest in it, but I see them more as "her friends" rather than someone I would feel comfortable approaching in a business capacity Also I'm very much interested in self-publishing this, even if it takes time to get myself fully up to speed.
Money though, yes. If I could get a bucket load of it that would be great. In any case, I have the 3d printing startup going, pulled about $6k on the kickstarter and have a few hundred more in late backers waiting for me to go live on my online shop, hoping to keep expanding my operations in that area as the stl sales are low overhead and a good "ramp" or springboard I can use to raise funds for other endeavors. I have a product launch plan for physical prints too but but COVID derailed that entirely.
I have ANOTHER semi-related project on the back of my mind that I would absolutely love/need an angel investor for, as well as a team of really knowledgeable coders. If it worked/took off that project alone would bankroll everything else I could ever dream of doing for life, but app/tech development is an area that I have no knowledge or familiarity with and wouldn't even know how to begin laying the ground work to make a realistic pitch to someone for the funding.
In any case, I think I can launch as a print and play type project via Patreon to cover some of the early development costs, and ramp up to Kickstarter as it matures. While the fully realized game would be a massive undertaking (as you suggest), its "modular" enough that I can break it down into smaller chunks as I build it up into its final form over a period of time. Provided that the cash flow builds over time of course.
And yeah, it probably *does* deserve its own thread, but I'm still working on maturing the mechanical parts of it to the point that I can actually post something on dakka that people will actually read and be able to discuss in a meaningful manner. Hoping for that to happen this summer.
I simply don't have the time, by night I work on my 3D miniatures and terrain business, by day I do my regular job and find time to squeeze in some writing/rules design when Mr. Boss Man ain't looking.
...
And yeah, it probably *does* deserve its own thread, but I'm still working on maturing the mechanical parts of it to the point that I can actually post something on dakka that people will actually read and be able to discuss in a meaningful manner. Hoping for that to happen this summer.
Ah, busy man! yes, I can agree that it's a lot easier to squeeze in sneaky rules-writing than having a sketchpad open full of doodles!
Hopefully your 3D printing will take off sufficiently for you to go part time and get some more free time for your passion!
We'll look forward to seeing the basics of it when you've got it together!
I worked a bit of tinkering here and there on a couple of projects, a paragraph of rules on this, a paragraph on that, some mock-up profiles there.....
Nothing too conclusive as it was in between video meetings.
When I get around to getting more public with things it'll come from my "professional" account, I'll make sure to pm you guys so you know its me. Very much prefer to keep that identity and my online shitposting troll identity separate lol
I threw some ideas for a time travel game around a bit, then threw them all out of the window again. it might be some of the ideas will resurface in time (badum-tsh) but I didn't get excited about enough of it to make it seem interesting to me!
chaos0xomega wrote: When I get around to getting more public with things it'll come from my "professional" account, I'll make sure to pm you guys so you know its me. Very much prefer to keep that identity and my online shitposting troll identity separate lol
Nice! I should follow your approach, but I am too dumb.
Not to hog a thread, but a question for you wizened gentlemen:
How developed do the rules be for you to be comfortable publishing them? I'm trying to gauge a "standard" for what point I should be ready to put the rules on dakka or elsewhere.
My current thinking is that I'm going to try to just get the barebones "core" rules written up - i.e. basic turn structure and combat mechanics, etc. Not worry about things like the mission/scenario, deployment, terrain rules, force construction/points system, etc. - Even though all of that will have a big impact on gameplay given the intent of the game design, worrying about feedback and playtesting on that is pointless within a solid base to build on.
Beyond that, the plan is to include a single sample unit in 3 "tiers" - basic, intermediate, advanced. The tiers don't have any applciability to the final game design, but rather refer to the complexity of the unit design itself for testing purposes. The basic unit is barebones, no special rules, just basic statline and thats it - you play a game or two with it just to get the hang of the mechanics, and then you move on. Playing with the basic unit gives you an understanding of the "how" the game play, but not the "why" - specifically with regards to the card/dice system. If you only play with the basic unit then I think you're going to say, "okay, I see how this works, but I don't understand why you would do it this way when you get the same results much more simply with just a d6". It's not necessarily ideal for introducing someone to the game and letting them understand what it is I've created, but the game design uses a very non-traditional approach to turn structure (through my various game design explorations I've basically realized I'm allergic to conventional turn structures) and I don't want to overwhelm them with special rules effects while they are still adjusting to some of the new concepts I've introduced.
So then you step up into the "intermediate" unit, and you play a game or two with that so you get introduced to some of the more complex rules interactions and aspects of the mechanical framework. You can start to see the card/dice integration and the mechanics at work, and you get a better appreciation for the "why" and what core gameplay is like.
And then you step up into the "advanced" unit which is the extreme end of what the system is capable of, but probably not something you would encounter in the fully realized game (and if you did it would be a rare thing, hero unit, etc.). I view this as serving the role of a bit of a "stress test", not just of the ruleset but also the cognitive load placed on a player by way of unit design.
If everything goes smoothly I can continue development from there, if not its back to the drawing board. Good approach? Yay/nay?
More or less my approach too, bare-bones mechanics> vertical slice> fleshing out parts> then fine tuning.
I would wish I could get the bare-bones part working its been 3 months that I just keep scrapping it...
I have also found telling the core rules to somebody else can be a great way to externalize them and scrap them because 9/10 when you describe your idea it shows its flaws.
This week, I finished the first pass at a Data Disc, which is basically the 'stat card' used to control a unit in my game Saucer War One.
I'm pretty happy with how that's looking for now. The Orange ring has named Connector Points that indicate where you place the Saucer's Crew Disc, Weapons, (Hardpoints) and Equipment or transported things (Special). Some tweaks to add, but I think it has the right look for a 50's retro vibe. What do you think?
However... I also found a fundamental flaw in a basic unit concept (at 1:00 in the morning, of course), which led me to completely trash that concept, and re-write some fundamental rules.
The problem was that I'd let myself wander off-target. Saucer War One is all about combat between flying saucers. Flying saucers are the front-and-centre focus. They have to be. It's right there in the name. No getting round that.
So why did I start writing up every unit aside from Saucers as options that could potentially be taken en masse and gang up on the Saucers in ridiculous ways??? Things like 20 anti-aircraft half-tracks against each Saucer!!!!
Why? Because I'd started to stray into exploring how to make jet fighters of the era viable unit choices. Seemed reasonable. Saucer War One is intended to appeal to gamers who like air combat. Stands to reason they may have squadrons of fighters they'd like to get into the game. I've set the scale at 1/200th partly for that reason. Early feedback is proving I'm right there.
So, I tried to beef up the fighters, so they wouldn't just get creamed by the Saucers. But then, looking at the other Assets (units) players can choose, I realised they were now really underpowered. So I added some muscle to those, too.
And then I thought if the Saucers can have options to swap out weapons, crews, and equipment, (which they do), shouldn't the other Assets be able to do the same? Halfway through that process, I had the sense to step back and look at the monster I was building. Gahhh! What had I done? Why was I bothering working out weapon options for a couple of Men-in-black agents in a Buick when the game is about Saucers fighting with guided plasma missiles at Mach 4????
Things like Men-in-Black and 'contactees' and other Ufology-related Assets do serve essential roles in Saucer War One; The game can't be won be just shooting down more Saucers than your opponent. It is scenario-driven, and 'boots on the ground' are vital for silencing witnesses, recruiting believers, abducting people or mutilating cows. But, those shouldn't be given equal focus in the game's mechanics. They are supposed to be more a means to an end; the supporting cast. Not the heroic leads that makes you want to pay for admission and popcorn.
Result: Assets are now treated as Equipment that must be transported on a Saucer, dropped off, do their thing, and be retrieved. A bit like a spec ops team being inserted by helicopter, and then extracted when the deed is done. Each Asset has fixed stats, presented on a smaller Data Disc the same size as the discs used for Equipment, Crew, etc.
So, the moral of this week's lesson is - be like Gold Leader, and "Stay on Target".
PsychoticStorm wrote: More or less my approach too, bare-bones mechanics> vertical slice> fleshing out parts> then fine tuning.
I would wish I could get the bare-bones part working its been 3 months that I just keep scrapping it...
Im guessing you've been playtesting and not finding it to your liking?
I have also found telling the core rules to somebody else can be a great way to externalize them and scrap them because 9/10 when you describe your idea it shows its flaws.
That depends on how self-conscious and self critical you are I think. Whenever Ive tried explaining my rules verbally has only ever really resulted in me getting inside my own head and worrying that they don't undestand it, they think its ridiculous or overly complicated, etc. In my case I think its a real challenge communicating the concepts and design concisely as I've taken such a different approach to so many things that unless the person I'm discussing things with is interested in game design themselves and/or has dug into a wide variety of games from the past 50+ years across a number of different genres they are probably going to struggle to comprehend what it is I'm trying to explain to them. I wouldn't consider the design complicated (but it is certainly complex), and I think its fairly simple to wrap your head around it once its down in writing and you can follow the steps for yourself or look at a visual example in the rulebook, etc. Unfortunately, when so many games on the market today can be described in terms of "Its like warhammer 40k, but instead of x it has y instead", or "its like D&D but it uses d6 dice pools", etc. etc. and the person you're speaking to can instantly figure out what it is you're describing, but you can't make any such simple comparisons for your own design or are reliant on games that you know they've probably never even heard of, you kinda start to feel nervous about what it is you've done.
This week, I finished the first pass at a Data Disc, which is basically the 'stat card' used to control a unit in my game Saucer War One.
I'm pretty happy with how that's looking for now. The Orange ring has named Connector Points that indicate where you place the Saucer's Crew Disc, Weapons, (Hardpoints) and Equipment or transported things (Special). Some tweaks to add, but I think it has the right look for a 50's retro vibe. What do you think?
That looks so cool, I think its a really good bit of graphic design thats functional but also highly thematic.Without knowing the mechanics of your game, just looking at that I think I can get a pretty good idea of what everything means and represents.
The game sounds awesome though, and a very unique thematically. I'd play it!
Im guessing you've been playtesting and not finding it to your liking?
Yes, the more I tested some core concepts the more I felt this is a digital game in the making and not a hybrid of a skirmish/ dungeon crawler boardgame I want to make, or a pure resource management boardgame simulating skirmish combat that does not need spacial elements, just cards.
Maybe both could be nice games by themselves a digital xcom style game and resource management cardgame, but neither is what I want to design.
I'm trying to write new posts every week. It helps my creative output, because it gives me a regular deadline to meet, and that stops me from giving in to distractions. (So many shiny things to occupy the idle wargamer...
Im guessing you've been playtesting and not finding it to your liking?
Yes, the more I tested some core concepts the more I felt this is a digital game in the making and not a hybrid of a skirmish/ dungeon crawler boardgame I want to make, or a pure resource management boardgame simulating skirmish combat that does not need spacial elements, just cards.
Maybe both could be nice games by themselves a digital xcom style game and resource management cardgame, but neither is what I want to design.
Sounds like maybe your issue is one of scope? Not in the sense of your scope is too broad, but rather that the way you've implemented that scope has resulted in the game becoming mechanically broad instead of focusing that scope narrowly into one particular area? When I hear "resource management" and "skirmish game" the first place my mind usually goes is Warmachine. The resources management exists within the Focus system, but the way that integrates with the rest of the gameplay the resource management aspect remains solely around supporting the core gameplay elements rather than overpowering it, or becoming a sub-game or a side-game to the skirmish battle element. If you're comparing what your mechanical impelementation is doing to XCOM or concerned that it constitutes a resource management game which simulates skirmish combat, then it sounds like the resource management aspects of your mechanics are essentially overpowering the "core" gameplay that you're striving for? If thats the case then you have to peel back the resource management layer and find a way to re-integrate it back in with the skirmish combat layer in a way that enmeshes the two together more closely so its a more holistic design.
That being said, whats wrong with a tabletop game that feels like a digital game? Mechanically speaking, 2 of the biggest influences on one aspect of my game mechanics are Eve Online and World of Warships, another aspect of the design attempts to simulate "button masher" combat from hack and slash games like Devil May Cry and God of War, or fighting games like Street Fighter and Tekken (I promise you this will make a lot more sense once I'm ready to stop being cryptic about my project). In many ways, what I'm shooting for pulls a lot more from video games than it does from other tabletop games, even though I mostly referenced tabletop games as part of my design research - the digital game concepts are what inspired me, the tabletop games are what informed the implementation of those concepts. Anyway, all of this is to say is if your design is playable and you enjoy playing it, it shouldn't matter that it feels like it should be a video game.
Macrossmartin wrote:chaos0xomega, thank you! I'll start a thread about the design and writing of the rules for Saucer War One soon, rather than hog this thread.
Meantime, do come and take a gander at my blog, if you'd like some more insights into what I'm up to:
I'm trying to write new posts every week. It helps my creative output, because it gives me a regular deadline to meet, and that stops me from giving in to distractions. (So many shiny things to occupy the idle wargamer...
I'll be reading through your blog over my lunch break and will def keep an eye out for more from you!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm back from reading your blog Martin. Your work thus far is incredible, makes me want to toss all my work out and sulk in a corner, nothing I do will ever be that clever or intuitive.
I'm back from reading your blog Martin. Your work thus far is incredible, makes me want to toss all my work out and sulk in a corner, nothing I do will ever be that clever or intuitive.
Well, I am flattered and ashamed, simultaneously!
Delighted that you took the time to come and peruse my blog, but I never intended it to be anything other than a record of my ramblings and (hopefully) a source of inspiration. I can only say that I consider myself neither clever nor intuitive. It's just 20 years experience as a professional editor, graphic designer, and hobby retailer combining with an absence of work right now, and a sustained session of finger-out pulling!
Hoping you don't mind the unsolicited advice, chaos0xomega, but I'd suggest getting your light out from under the bushel; You seem pretty coy about your game? I have been the same way in the past, but have found that showing others what you're working on, gathering feedback, building community and buzz, works wonders for your creative output and confidence. Even if its current state is the gaming equivalent of a sketch pad full of doodles, Whatever you're designing, stick it out there! (All together now: "Oo-er, Missus!")
Delighted that you took the time to come and peruse my blog, but I never intended it to be anything other than a record of my ramblings and (hopefully) a source of inspiration. I can only say that I consider myself neither clever nor intuitive. It's just 20 years experience as a professional editor, graphic designer, and hobby retailer combining with an absence of work right now, and a sustained session of finger-out pulling!
I don't think you appreciate the brilliance of your maneuvering system. Not only is it highly thematic ("Keep it in the green, Dean!" - I could totally see/hear that coming from one of those 50's era educational films, followed by the narrator chuckling to himself as the enthusiastic young ANTIC cadet gives the camera a thumbs up), but its *simple*, very appropriate to the subject matter (if flying saucers are/were real, your maneuver system is an accurate representation of how I would expect them to realistically behave), and its what I would call "delightful" in both form and function. Its an incredibly simple and downright elegant way of handling something that is otherwise extremely complex. The fact that (at least at a quick glance) the artwork on the maneuver discs looks like radar screen return blips makes it even cooler - as a player I could imagine a Radar operator (the other player) staring at his screen watching these impossible maneuvers in a panic while I'm laying these discs down on a table to plot my course, etc.
This is the sort of thematic-mechanical integration which allows for a simple solution to a complex problem that I strive for in my own work, but I think I often come up short on. I often find that I am a creature of complexity, I thrive on it in many ways and enjoy seeing all the many moving parts under the hood coming together - if complexity were a bright flame, then I'm a moth. But I also intrinsically understand the value of simple and elegant solutions that mitigate or eliminate much of that complexity and boil it down to something that has little or no cognitive load involved. While I want the latter I am attracted to the former, and I often find that I am at odds with myself when approaching a design problem which usually results in something that I'm happy with on the surface, but wish was more "high concept" in execution.
Maneuver is a particular area that has given me some trouble in streamlining/figuring out. I too opted for tripod bases, but in my case the tripod is used basically as a stand to create a raised platform for a proper base with some relevant unit info on it (similar to an X-Wing/Armada base, or Dropfleet Commander), from which a single stem rises up to carry the model in position. Basically a "best of both worlds" type approach, but I still haven't figured out a movement system that I am happy with.
Hoping you don't mind the unsolicited advice, chaos0xomega, but I'd suggest getting your light out from under the bushel; You seem pretty coy about your game? I have been the same way in the past, but have found that showing others what you're working on, gathering feedback, building community and buzz, works wonders for your creative output and confidence. Even if its current state is the gaming equivalent of a sketch pad full of doodles, Whatever you're designing, stick it out there! (All together now: "Oo-er, Missus!")
Don't mind at all. You're right, thats what I would like to do, but I'm a bit of a perfectionist and have a "minimum standard" I would like to achieve before doing so. I don't just want to put a word doc/pdf out there thats a wall of text, I'd like some basic artwork and diagrams and "polish" so it looks like its a serious attempt at designing a consumer product. Your blog meets that standard, IMO. Unfortunately, what I have done so far for myself does not.
"Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good"
- Some famous dead guy
This is the #1 mistake I see game designers, writers, artist, etc make. Then, they get in their own way and never get anything finished or released into the wild.
To be a game designer you need two things, a game and a person willing to play it. Everything else is bonus.
It is good advice to not let perfect get in the way of better. tabletop games, particularly complex ones, are akin to nearly unsolvable equations - you might spend months or even years working on them to get the exact answer of 3.0294652974683, only to realise the "about 3" works just as well for the context you're working in.
99% of players won't have an issue if one particular ability is marginally better or worse than it should be, and such things can be fixed through playtesting fairly easily.
I've not gotten to this state myself yet, but most of what I've heard tells me that a game will rarely (if ever) make it through large-scale playtesting unscathed. You might have mechanics you spent months writing need re-jigging because one player found one unit which abuses them. You're better off getting the rough ideas and then playing some games with a friend expecting to have to change things, than spending years writing what you think to be the perfect rules, only to still have to change them when you play it. You'll be a lot less emotionally invested, and you will therefore find it easier to change things which need changing, thereby resulting in a better game.
I do not know about you guys, but this WFH has done wonders for my creative output.....
I have managed to knock out the basic rules for about 4 rulesets that have been circling in my head for years. I did all 4 in about 4 weeks. 1 a week for core rules is not bad.
Too bad the campaigns, scenarios, playtesting, editing, and other stuff will take me a long time afterwards to flesh out. Still, not bad.....I am at least at I point where I can make pitches for some of these projects.
Im extremely sour and salty about the whole "working from home" thing. The lady has been enjoying that since February (and her productivity had increased dramatically even though she's sleeping in), but my job is both essential and national defense critical so I've been having to go into work daily, even when the rest of the building has been told to stay at home - about 800 of the 1400 employees at my location have been working from home though, and it sounds like management is going to push for that to be a permanent thing - unfortunately my job can't be done at home so I'm not ever going to get that benefit.
I could get *so* much done if I wasn't in the office every day.
Did some more playtesting and tweaking, and I'm feeling pretty good about the main engine. I'm sure there's a bit more balancing that needs to be done, and lots of new scenarios, but I feel like it's getting there. So much so that I shot out a call for playtesters in my Facebook groups, so I'm bracing for the incoming "your game sucks" posts.
Feeling for you, chaos0xomega. But also appreciate that you're at work, given the whole "national defence critical" thing. *salutes*
Meanwhile, my life is now about 50/50 game design and marketing, with a possible 60% shift towards marketing. I don't mind this, so much, because it's sales that puts food on the table, but it's not my comfort zone and - right now - I can get away with leveraging my virtual presence (podcast interviews and video content etc) but when lockdown eases I will have to hit the road and hooray for social anxiety!
Still, got to play a Versus (PvP) mission with Number Two Son. He is *not* a wargamer, so this was a huge coup. As he is currently enjoying playing Modern Warfare Warzone with his friends, he could immediately see that Zero Dark was an analogue version of that kind of FPS experience and got into it, playing some excellent tactical moves to keep me on my toes.
He suggested starting heroes with no upgrades but having them seek out loot boxes to upgrade themselves during a Versus mission. Suffice to say, I *love* this idea.
precinctomega wrote: Feeling for you, chaos0xomega. But also appreciate that you're at work, given the whole "national defence critical" thing. *salutes*
Meanwhile, my life is now about 50/50 game design and marketing, with a possible 60% shift towards marketing. I don't mind this, so much, because it's sales that puts food on the table, but it's not my comfort zone and - right now - I can get away with leveraging my virtual presence (podcast interviews and video content etc) but when lockdown eases I will have to hit the road and hooray for social anxiety!
Still, got to play a Versus (PvP) mission with Number Two Son. He is *not* a wargamer, so this was a huge coup. As he is currently enjoying playing Modern Warfare Warzone with his friends, he could immediately see that Zero Dark was an analogue version of that kind of FPS experience and got into it, playing some excellent tactical moves to keep me on my toes.
He suggested starting heroes with no upgrades but having them seek out loot boxes to upgrade themselves during a Versus mission. Suffice to say, I *love* this idea.
Marketing is definitely something I'm not good at either, but will need to improve eventually once I have some more stuff ready for release. Yeah, see, there I am putting it off with excuses, too.
And sometimes you get fantastic ideas from non-traditional gamers, and that is a great one.
Feeling for you, chaos0xomega. But also appreciate that you're at work, given the whole "national defence critical" thing. *salutes*
Hah, thanks, but its nowhere near as glamorous or important as it sounds, im mostly just keeping the lights on and maintaining infrastructure so that the actual important work can continue uninterrupted.
Marketing is important though, Im not as effective at it as I could/should be I think, but its very time consuming to do for free, and somewhat expensive to just buy advertising. I just launched my webstore for late pledges on my recent kickstarter and have dropped the link in a couple places, got a few sales but im still not getting a lot of visibility on it
I worked on creating some aircraft profiles for the USAF and Communists to properly test out my Korean Air Wargame more fully.
I have also started putting together USN/USMC, Royal Navy, and Australian Forces for a more completely look.
This means I have been researching the conflict pretty heavily to try and get these right. It is setting up a nice "scenario" driven campaign by date in the War.
I finally got my targeting and EWAR system mostly figured out (took a loooooong time). Now I need to revisit my movement system as its been a pretty persistent bugbear for me over the years, I've never managed to settle on something that I was actually happy with.
I spent most of the last couple days feverishly building and painting so I can get some photos for the PDFs on a couple of rulesets. Plus, have some content for ongoing marketing online via the usual online channels and methods.
Today (and yesterday), my only contribution to my game design was to research a god quality drawing tablet so that I can start drawing digitally and to stop myself from feeling held back by a lack of art. rough sketches are all well and good, but digital art lets you put colour in, and switch things around easily!
some bloke wrote: Today (and yesterday), my only contribution to my game design was to research a god quality drawing tablet so that I can start drawing digitally and to stop myself from feeling held back by a lack of art. rough sketches are all well and good, but digital art lets you put colour in, and switch things around easily!
ANY progress is progress, no matter how small. My design blog got an update, and I revised this 'mockument' for one of Saucer War One's factions to better reflect the changes to its fluff that have come about:
I've reached the stage where I'm really happy with the fluff for the 3 initial factions. All have believable motives, none are two dimensional 'goodies' or 'baddies'. All are embroiled in the tangled mess of secrecy that keep the reality of the first Saucer War from the eyes of the unknowing public.
Now I just need to make the rules follow suit. Easy, right...?
Started doing some editing on my Diadochi game as I finish painting the models for bat reps. Once they are done being painted, I plan on launching the game on Wargame Vault with a few batreps on the blog.
@PrecinctOmega- I Saw Zero Dark in the top seller son Wargames Vault again. Good work!
I have been waffling around a bit about how I want the Roman formations to work in Wars of the Republic.
Currently, they are not very strong on the attack, but rock hard on the defense. Therefore, good tactical play can defeat them by use of terrain and flanking attacks. However, I have found the Romans weak on the attack themselves.
I've been giving a lot of thought to the backstory behind my massive pipe-dream backburner project of making a tabletop wargame. I've realised that the main attraction of said wargame has to be the art, models, and stories, and how well you can immerse yourself into the game. Making the rules balanced and the units interesting is one thing, but it takes some real depth to make a game stick - look at 40k, its rules are the most hotly complained about I've ever seen, and yet they still keep going, and the reason for it (besides being very well know, easily accessed and having exclusive stored in every major population centre) is that their fluff, and the imagery of the units, is so finely intertwined that you can literally get lost in reading it. Limited backstory, like "this faction hates that faction because of their hair" or "these guys want to kill everyone because they are the bad guys" might give you a foot in the door, but if you can't back it up with more depth, people will likely just drop it again.
so I'm working on the fluff, and getting it fixed in my head what I want the armies to be like before I even start trying to design them with stats and rules. Make some doodles, write some stories of skirmishes between the factions, and maybe even writing some short novels based in the universe - then, when I've got the background locked in, I can start to give them stats.
I think the GW experience is very different than many similar games Bloke.
That is part of why I am attracted to "historical" games. The "background and Fluff" is all ready in place! It is just making a game that matches the Fluff to some extent.
I spent some time today continuing to flesh out my Korean Air War game. I think the core rules and Aircraft profiles are done. I am surprised at how streamlined and simple the core rules are. Now it just needs to perform on the table..... LOL!
Got Heirs to Empire: Wars of the Diadochi ready to add to Wargame Vault on September 1st.
Also, I am still waffling around a bit on the Wars of the Republic and what to do with the Hastati/Principe as they are not very good on the attack, but rock hard on the defense..... More playtesting is in order.
Did some very minor administration type crap: tweaking some settings in Mailchimp, setting up a Google Form for playtest applications and feedback. Not a lot else.
Oddly, I frequently get ideas and concepts for games from dreams. Weird, I know.
Last night, I had a dream to help me figure out how I wanted to do the Campaign for my Korean Air War game. I need to be able to feather various aircraft in and out of the campaign based on how they were used in the conflict. As the campaign moves through time, access to aircraft will have to change.
Therefore, I think the "historical" campaign will be based on "Periods" of the war that will move you through the campaign. The first battle will always be a set battle based on the first Twin Mustang battles vs North Korean Yaks. From there, the "winner" of the engagement will be able to start choosing the scenarios as we go into each phase of the war.
The second dream also was about how to do a solo/co-op WWI game based on the Harlem Hellfighters..... maybe?
There was a mix of mechanics that I have started to write down. It involves grid based movement like To The Strongest across No Man's Land. Players will get a random amount of momentum to move their platoons across. Then there will be randomized "challenges" that will degrade the approaching troops Elan and Momentum. The goal is to get across No Man's Land with enough Elan to win a combat in the opposite trench line just off the board edge on the opposite side. I am think a 3x4 board in 6 inch grids going long ways.
Challenges will be mounting friction to your troops, and not just combat/casualty type situations. Things like barbed wire, quagmire, injured soldiers, communication trenches, busted radio lines, airplane strafing, Unexploded shells, etc. Early days still.
Yesterday was a new one for me. I was in a "what could be a game" mood, and due to the volume and nature of the previous nights dinner, let's just say it was pretty "windy" in the car. I jokingly said that you could make a game about farting, to wind my mrs up. She said "don't even think about making a game about farting".
Long story short, I made a game about farting. I call it "poop", and it's an incredibly tasteless memory-based game about trying to fart whilst avoiding unfortunate and messy side-effects.
As a joyous and entirely accidental side-effect, the game features cards, and they have the word "poop" on the back. As a result, I turned to my mrs that evening, after making the cards, and said "would you mind shuffling the poop deck". then we laughed. Well, I laughed; she sighed.
Edit: I think POOP is all ready a card game. Still, a fun idea!
I made some minor tweaks to Wars of the Republic on stat lines for Romans. Just need to run them through a few scenarios now.
I also started working on the Manuscript for my other Osprey title, Castles in the Sky. This will be V4, with V3 having gone through a version 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4...... however, I am still not 100% happy so switching it up to V4 now!
I am re-evaluating scenario win conditions, point costs, Friction, some weapon systems, and completely re-arranging the way the rules are presented in the book. What could go wrong?
June 2022?? Thats an insane lead time? 2 years to design and publish a game that you theoretically mostly already designed? Or did it get pushed back because of your desire to v4 it?
Nope, that was the lead time. They have a very packed publishing schedule and they have get Osprey stuff in with other stuff from Bloomsbury. They only have so many printing presses I guess.
I actually have to have the manuscript to them by April of next year. This one also requires original art and pictures as there is not much you can pull out of Osprey's existing catalog for flying battleships!
some bloke wrote: Yesterday was a new one for me. I was in a "what could be a game" mood, and due to the volume and nature of the previous nights dinner, let's just say it was pretty "windy" in the car. I jokingly said that you could make a game about farting, to wind my mrs up. She said "don't even think about making a game about farting".
Long story short, I made a game about farting. I call it "poop", and it's an incredibly tasteless memory-based game about trying to fart whilst avoiding unfortunate and messy side-effects.
As a joyous and entirely accidental side-effect, the game features cards, and they have the word "poop" on the back. As a result, I turned to my mrs that evening, after making the cards, and said "would you mind shuffling the poop deck". then we laughed. Well, I laughed; she sighed.
Ha! Reminds me of a board game called Nasty Habits I designed in college for a course. Players are dealt a number of nasty habits and they run around the board trying to get rid of them by getting cured or passing onto other players and not picking up more habits. Once you are habit free you have to make it to the center of the board and get into "Sebastian Ambercrombie's Etiquette Club of America" - some of the cures were pretty hilarious that required a bit of action. I still have the full prototype from over 30 years ago. Alas, all of the game companies I peddled to at the time were not interested - just too progressive for its time!
chaos0xomega wrote: Are you responsible for getting your own artwork or do they handle that on their end?
Sourcing flying battleship artwork is something I am looking forward to doing for my own game!
From what I have seen, Osprey will handle the artwork and artists but you may need to handle any photographs. That is why the quality of the photos can vary so wildly between books.
If you look at the reviews for Men of Bronze, a common complaint is about the photos. That's because I had to get the models, paint the models, get the terrain, take the photos, edit the photos, and send them on to Osprey. I did not have any models when I sold the book and I am not a photographer. Therefore, the pictures they got were not that inspiring. I am pretty sure Robey Jenkins has spoken about this for Horizon Wars as well.
I think they have made in roads into the community, as for Wars of the Republic and Castles in the Sky I did not have to source my own photos. Instead, they used their industry connections to get the photos too. i was very happy as that was a big stress point for me when doing Men of Bronze.
Yesterday I did some more work on a tile exploration game I'm putting together, working out the mechanics to ensure that the plots trigger in the games, despite random tiles on the board (and not all the tiles being used).
I also looked into the bits I would need for a better trial run of my fart game, which I was surprised to find to be moderately fun when we playtested it (but extremely slow due to key design aspects being absent). I can probably throw a much better version together for about £10, so roll on payday!
Actually had a little back and forth chat with a buddy who had come up with an idea for a game, and we started taking notes. Did a little bit of social media junk, looked for artists, and administrative stuff like that. Hoping to do a bunch more playtesting on the solo/co-op horror skirmish minis game I'm currently working on. Ideally would like to publish via Wargame Vault by end of year, but of course that depends.
I've spent the last few days creating technical specifications for a faction's vehicle fleet. That involved comparing real world analogs (or as close as I could find) and then trying to extrapolate how things like mass, fuel economy and weapons would realistically function in the setting to make a plausible design.
(Hello by the way. I've been hanging in the News & Rumors forum but saw this thread and wanted to join in. Really looking forward to sharing more and learning how others are navigating the tight rope of game design!)
Valander wrote: . Ideally would like to publish via Wargame Vault by end of year, but of course that depends.
Excellent! Do not under-estimate the time it takes to sort decent photos, art work, and "in game" photos!
Oh, I know. I've been collecting art for my other "big project" for years at this point... (Paying artists of course). Since I had the rights to that art due to the way the contract worked (TL;DR: artists I use keep copyright, I have exclusive use rights), I did use some of it for a couple of POD card games, mostly so I could get some experience in layout software and test out DriveThru/WGV's stuff.
I'm debating on whether or not to include photos, since this wouldn't have a bespoke line of models, thus I'd be using other companies' models. I know that happens a lot in the Osprey games, so it "seems" like making sure to credit them and you're probably ok, but I need to research that a bit more before making that call.
Unrelated: Easy E if you wouldn't object, I know you've done some work with Osprey, and I'd be very interested to hear about their payment structure (through DM of course; don't pollute public threads). More because I eventually want to be a publisher of other people's games, too, so I'm curious what Osprey pays compared to some of the other (non-miniatures) contracts I've researched. Or if anyone else would like to share their experiences in that area, again, feel free to direct message me.
I have been making some massive changes to Castles in the Sky as I work on version 4 for Osprey.
The core features of Castles in the Sky are as follows:
1. Altitude and Maneuver
2. Firepower vs. Armor
3. Attrition, Friction, and Critical Damage
4. Command and Control
I have been making big changes from V3 to how Firepower is calculated, Morale, Friction, and more.
The core is still Vertical Maneuver and Attrition, but it is now so much different from V3. I really did go back an kill some of my babies on this one! I did a lot of playtesting on V3, but I will have to go back and start from Playtesting Phase 1. There is so much different now.
The core features of Castles in the Sky are as follows:
1. Altitude and Maneuver
2. Firepower vs. Armor
3. Attrition, Friction, and Critical Damage
4. Command and Control
Not to be a wet blanket, but thats a bit generic, no? You've basically described just about every naval wargame out there, the only difference is you've added in the usually non-existent altitude criteria - which incidentally means it also describes basically every airship combat game out there too.
Intentionally vague because who wants to read a missive on design philosophy longer than the actual rules will be?
Probably no one.
feth, I do. There is a general dearth of intellectual discussion and analysis of miniature wargame design and theory on the internet. Plenty of sources for RPG, but very little for wargames (and a lot of the discussion that is out there mostly focuses on historical wargames and approaches the discussion from the perspective of trying to reproduce historical results rather than make an enjoyable game).
I think there's much better design discussion to be had for wargames out there in the board game world these days. Board game Twitter especially are good.
Yep, I've been following a few on twitter, but IMO its not a good platform for it, nor is it an effective repository of that information for purposes of posterity/future reference.
I spent some time working on tweaks to Wars of the Republic.
I also worked on Castles in the Sky a bit more. I think V4 is written, but I need to go do some playtesting. I decided to move away from using modifiers to Target Numbers and instead went to modification to the umber of Dice rolled. I also made a pretty significant change to how the size of guns have optimal targets and to use them against other targets reduces your dice pools. I also complete re-arranged how the turn plays. Finally, I re-tweaked how Stalling works so it will be a bigger factor in the game.
When I stand back and look at the rules, there is a bit more fiddly bits and rivet counting then I wanted initially. However, as I research the genre and Naval wargaming there are some elements inherent to that genre that I think are needed for people who like that genre.
I finally finished up the beta-rules for the sci-fi skirmish game that I've been pondering for the last five years, and began working on in earnest when the pandemic hit.
A weird feeling - so much angst and anguish, yet also so much joy and excitement... and It's only the core rules and far, far, far from done...
Four months after last checking my skirmish game, I did more clean up. Been doing this for the last year and half or so, every couple of months spending a day reviewing everything I did.
Feels like it is easier to spot errors, reworking rules, etc... As if you were reading rules for the first time.
Started to do the "official" layout (ie. how will it look when published) as I got to a point where the core rules and mechanics seem very solid, I just need to work a lot on the balance which isn't evident if self-testing.
I predict a few years still before finally getting it all out. Not in hurry as the whole thing was more of an experimental challenge, sort of a tool to get back interested into the hobby (circa 2015-2016).
Worked on my Gargant(building a Mega Gargant) and painted some Bolt Action miniature's up, ontop of that, started to work on the Adeptus Mechanicus codex for 5.5 Edition.
I've been working on the combat mechanics for my skirmish game - I've gone back and reviewed all the combat-related threads I've started or participated in on here and I'm trying to bring all the feedback into a single, fast paced but exciting system.
Current focus is:
- some lots of dice good, single dice bad, oodles of dice bad
- both players have to have things to do during combat
- system has to work for shooting and combat in exactly the same way
- system has to feature non-lethal effects EG suppression, morale damage etc.
I'm aiming to reduce the effects of combat down to a single roll of several dice. It's proving tricky to account for model skill, weapon strength, and multiple attacks in one go, so it's taking lots of attempts and many spreadsheet tables to work out something which looks worth trying!
It is based on the Men of Bronze core rules, but modified for much larger armies that have Center, Left, and Right Wings. It also focuses on the Diadochi period (about 50 years) after Alexander's death. The game is scale and model agnostic, but it is a game for "Big Battles" on a smaller budget.
Signed on 3 new artists today to do some interior illos for the solo/co-op Lovecraftian horror minis game I'm working on. Now to get back to doing more playtesting so that I can eventually do the layout and get it on WGV.
I having been reviewing and adding bits an pieces to a number of projects including but not limited to:
1. White Star/Red Star- Korean Air War
2. Under the Martian Yoke- Post-Apocalypse Orson Welles War-of-the-Worlds Survival Skirmish
3. Wrath and Ruin- Assyrian Ancient Battles
4. Fury of the Northmen- Norse "Men of Bronze"
I tried sourcing laser-cut hexagonal tiles for game testing. It's quite hard to find them affordably and not with a month delay from ordering to receiving.
Sometimes, it is just easier to use paper cut outs with words like "Library" and "Hallway" scribbled on them for testing. I am a huge believer in paper templates and such for testing. It doesn't really need to look polished at this point.
I finished the latest drafts of Wars of the Republic and Castles in the Sky and sent them off to my editor for review.
Easy E wrote: Sometimes, it is just easier to use paper cut outs with words like "Library" and "Hallway" scribbled on them for testing. I am a huge believer in paper templates and such for testing. It doesn't really need to look polished at this point.
Agreed. Proxies, scribbled paper, index cards, pieces of candy... all that is the kind of stuff that you should be using in first stages of any game design, IMO. If you're spending time early on with things like art or making layout decisions, you're focusing on the wrong thing. (Of course, if you're doing something like a dexterity based game this has other requirements, but for pretty much any other games that don't rely on some physical gimmick, you don't need anything more than simple placeholder tokens and the like.)
On my side, no real "work" done other than getting some more art pieces in from some contracted artists. Bathroom remodels kinda suck out any "free time."
My issue is that the game involves lots of hexagonal tokens, and you have to flip them over as you play. Using paper ones not only is taking a long time to cut out (it's like 300 of the damn things) but they are really awkward to flip over, which is in turn impacting the experience of the game.
I found 200 wooden ones for £10, which I'll be putting stickers on to represent the various tiles I need, and then I can re-use them for any future playtesting of hex-grid games!
I dusted off my old project, and figured out what dice mechanic I want to go with after all. I think I may be able to have a good sitdown and work with this.
My editor officially accepted the copy of Wars of the Republic! I had to cut some of the historical content to fit the size requirements, but it is "delivered"
I also did some work on Only The Strong Survive which included playtesting. This is a game of Dinosaur vs. Dinosaur combat. I think it still needs a bit more chrome to make it special. Right now it is serviceable but not memorable.
Finally, I order some Aeronefs to start doing "serious" playtesting V4 Castles in the Sky. V3 got a lot of playtesting, but I changed up some core rules so back to basics on that one.
Worked on a new army list for Heirs to Empire, the Mauryan Empire.
Really, it is more of a 'What If" since we know very little about the potential conflict between Seleucus and Chandragupta around the Indus River valley before the Battle of Ipsus.
It is unclear if the two even had an actual battle, before Seleucus mended fences, made some marriage alliances, gave up some barely governable land, and headed West.
I've spent the last couple of weeks pondering my most finished game, and have decided to rip it apart and jam it back together in a different way. I worked, but was a bit too clunky and slow for my liking. there was little feeling of progress and it tended to be that when a player got the upper hand, they kept it.
I've a new plan, with a smoother system, which I'm going o be putting together this week, and hopefully playtesting this weekend. with a bit of luck.
Finally put Zero Dark: Operation Nemesis to bed. Turning to developing the work on Horizon Wars: Infinite Dark, which is a space combat game. But I also have a bunch of other stuff to work on for Zero Dark, including Antediluvium (a cyberpunk prequel to the main game) and Millennium, a grimdark sequel. I also need to work out some tricky mechanical questions in Hero Dark, which is a completely different setting and adaptation of the rules - a standalone game, rather than a supplement.
Also now planning a Zero Dark set of miniatures which I hope will be the start of a themed range of generic, hard sci-fi types. We'll be running a Kickstarter early next year. I've done most of the concept art and my sculptor is making good headway on the digital sculpts. I've found a local 3d printer who can do the work, have resin and metal printing operations read to go, and have the capital allocated. Just got to talk to a fulfilment service to make sure everything flows like silk.
,
I put up Only The Strong Survive on my Wargame Vault page as a Pay What You Want. It is completely playable and fun, but I don't see myself developing it any further than it is.
As part of a recent 2 day Game Jam on One Page Rules, I have been working on 'We're not meant to be here', a game were a small group find themselves in enemy territory, it is dark and they haven't been spotted, perfect time for an ambush.
Play tested the first version, absolute disaster. So back to the drawing board. made some large changes to the game, so thought I'd video my first test of the new version.
Plan was to have the following:
A game were you start off with full synergy, which over the course of the game gets lessened
Quick game play.
Plenty of options.
Small footprint.
Nothing too heavy, nothing too light.
Model agnostic.
Solo option.
I had a stab at the One Page Rules game jam, but after a really successful Friday night where I hashed out the first full draft of the rules, my weekend got super busy due to me rushing my weekly commitments and having to go back and do them again (looking at you, lockdown church service video editing...). As such, I ended up not being able to submit my ruleset.
The theme was a kind of 'team-based' FPS vibe, but on the wargames table. I initially stole the playing system of the card game "Sh*thead" (otherwise known as 'Palace' or Parlour Games') to create my synergy; different wildcards have different effects and can combine to create combos. After cannibalising the bits I needed from the traditional card game, I added an extra level of synergy with 15 miniature profiles, which can work in conjunction with one another. In addition to a respawn mechanic and multiple victory conditions (to be chosen at the beginning of each game), in theory it should be a fast paced, brutal 2 player skirmish wargame, where the 'race against the clock' clock is actually the running down of the card deck as you activate miniatures.
Damn, I had forgotten about the game jam. I might give myself the challenge of completing it in 24hrs anyway, just for the fun. It's got to be worth having a go at these things to open new ideas.
I made a basis for a game last night which I think has merit as a nice simple card/board game. Mechanics are simple and mathematically sound (a big thing for me, I hate designing things based solely on whether they "feel" right. it has to feel right too, but if it's mathematically fair/even/random then it's a much stronger starting point!). Next up is for me to do some artwork, for a total of 8 different cards, one board and some information/mission cards (which aren't going to have art so much as just a nice design). I'd also like to playtest it with more people, but that's going to have to wait until after lockdown :(
I am taking a break from my latest board game design to recreate one of my favorite childhood games: Dogfight!
I found a website dedicated to the game and able to order all parts, but I am resin printing my own planes and such - I will be ordering an original board, but designed a new board that I can print to give my boys a set of the complete game, too.
I have been pondering the merits and issues with my basic card game's theme. The premise was that you worked in a lab, and the lab rats had escaped, and you needed to put them back in their cages. I have since been battling with the simple fact that this is not an appealing theme, and that whilst the game worked quite well, I don't think people would want to play a game about experimenting with lab rats.
So, bizarrely, I have decided to change it up and have the plot revolve around social experiments on people instead. For some reason, this works way better - I can indulge my dark sense of humour without feeling like a bad person - doing bad things to lab rats is horrible, doing bad things to people is funny - so can expand my game a bit more without feeling like I'm stepping on dodgy ground. In my original concept, the experiments are all very benign - is this trait hereditary, can smart rats invent the wheel - and now, with people as the subject, I can add more twisted ideas.
It's a little dark, but I plan to raise it up with silly art styles and lots of humour.
I could see this working as a comedy twist on the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Meanwhile, my laptop has died, leaving me twiddling my thumbs (i.e. painting minis like a maniac and finally tidying and sorting my office) while I wait for the parts I need to fix it (can't afford to replace, as all my current capital is dedicated towards a Kickstarter project I have planned for next year).
Right now I'm developing my V2 of my game but also ingesting my time into 'lore' of historical events as my game is based on Alt. WWI-sort of. Made a thread on Dakka under a different account years ago but the idea has always been with me, and I'm still going at it. I just need to read into more history for consistencies sake (we all know one or two folk who would nitpick if it weren't).
Alternatively, I'm also working on tweaking the 40k 5th ed. ruleset up the way I always wanted to see it
My files weren't at risk, because the failed part was the charging cable. Unfortunately, I could only order it from China and it took weeeeeks to get here. But it's arrived and I'm back at work!
So, to celebrate, this week I finished the very first, basic draft of the core rules for Infinite Dark, the space combat game built on the Horizon Wars mechanics and set in the same universe (although still a generic space game).
I'll be sharing these with my patrons later today, and moving on to flesh out the solo and campaign rules for the game over the next few weeks.
Looking forward to taking at least a week off over Christmas to just roll dice and have fun with my family.
Patreon has been great for me. I don't make much from it, but it gives me a ready source of enthusiastic supporters who are paying for the privilege of early access and who are therefore well motivated to tell me if they think it's BS.
I've figured out my core dice system, and through working on that, I've been able to streamline my turn structure and activation system around it, to figure out how morale works for my game, figure out how Magic works for my game...
I've been doing the initial draft of rules writing. Like, actual rules writing. Most of the last 15 years have been note-style writing, conceptual ideas, summarized processes, disorganized stream-of-consciousness brain storming, etc. Now I'm actually translating all of that to "proper" rules that can be read, interpreted (or misinterpreted, hopefully not though ), and played with.
This isn't necessarily my first go at it, mind you. I've done various iterations of rules writing over that time period, but never anything quite this concerted or necessarily this well developed. Even still, when I'm done with this draft it will be a far far cry from being "finished".
Learning Table of Contents, and organizing concepts at a 'high-level', while filling their entries out in a way that will make sense.This is a matter of slowly filling things out.
I haven't done much game design work lately, mostly because I've been testing out my new 3d printer. Which, if I am honest, is at least related to my eventual business plan, so it's not like I did nothing for my tiny LLC.
I cleaned up a bunch of old rules, started writing down implementations for several USRs, adding 'examples' (including using Dice Unicode for roll results to show things in more detail), and otherwise making progress.
Today I'm working on adding more depth to character creation. I have a background system in place to help players flesh out their backstory and make it fit with the time. I have to dig through a log of Reconstruction era history in an attempt to make it accurate, so it's a slow process. I'm also tweaking my skill selection system, which goes hand in hand with backgrounds.
I had a 'summary/demo' this past tuesday, and am working on cleaning up the RAW. I've updated the TOC to rearrange stuff by topics, and have rearranged my stats some for the sake of streamlining. I am looking at the prospect of making 'unit cards' next.
Continuing to write on my end. I had the shocking revelation that my attack resolution process is 17 steps long (technically 18, but that extra step is basically "declare if other models are going to combine their attacks with this one". Arguably I could collapse that down to 10 (11 including the supporting/combined attack), but I prefer to keep several of the steps as separate for the purposes of being able to clearly explain the process as opposed to potentially confusing a player by throwing too many things at them in one go.
I knew it was a lengthy and complex process, but in preliminary self-testing it didn't seem *this* egregious - I had thought I had already accounted for the issue with the combined/supporting attack option, which basically lets you piggyback attacks from differenbt models/units against a common target so that you don't have to run through the complete process so many times, but I think that only gets you so far...
...so my solution is to offer the player the choice of two attack resolution mechanisms which they are free to pick from at any time, the complex one mentioned previously and a greatly simplified one that lets them breeze through the process much more quickly, but theres a tradeoff here:
-The complex system takes time because there are numerous data inputs into it which allows it to generate a complex and detailed damage output that takes a lot of factors and variables into account. Using it allows you to potentially cause a significant amount of damage to the target if all the variables factors fall in your favor, at the risk of potentially doing little to no damage at all if things don't work out the way you think they are going to.
-The simple system eliminates a lot of the variables/factors or simplifies them down into fixed values and produces a very simple and straightforward damage output. Using it is quick and easy and comes with guaranteed damage against the target at the cost of doing significantly less damage than what you could *potentially* achieve using the complex system.
Right now I'm digging the idea as it solves a design problem while also creating gameplay depth via a meaningful player choice that strongly factors player skill into the mix - if I implement this correctly (with regards to unit design) then I think there will be a huge element of player skill in knowing when to use one resolution mechanic vs the other. Fluff-wise, I liken the complex system to a precisely aimed shot vs the simple system being the equivalent of firing from the hip. I haven't quite worked out how many steps the simple resolution will be, but its looking like it will be between 8-10 - while that might still seem to be on the lengthy side, its mostly the simplest steps in the process, such as "select target", "select weapon", "select special ammunition/firing mode (if applicable)", "check line of sight", and "check range" - so really nothing to concern myself with a players ability to understand and follow.
Wrapping up my project for the day. I had several test gunfights and overall I like the feel of how the system is working. I'm making tweaks to skill modifiers and such but the lethality of gunfights is where I want it to be. Players will have means of surviving fatal hits but I want at least some consideration paid when someone decides to starting throwing lead about.
Tomorrow I'll run some more tests and fine tune my aiming mechanics.
chaos0xomega wrote:
...so my solution is to offer the player the choice of two attack resolution mechanisms which they are free to pick from at any time, the complex one mentioned previously and a greatly simplified one that lets them breeze through the process much more quickly, but theres a tradeoff here...Looking forward to seeing how this actually goes.
Mind if I ask what the steps in question are? One thing I usually figure is that when a game has too many steps, some of them are redundant/repeats in way that they can be streamlined.
Gridge wrote:Wrapping up my project for the day. I had several test gunfights and overall I like the feel of how the system is working. I'm making tweaks to skill modifiers and such but the lethality of gunfights is where I want it to be. Players will have means of surviving fatal hits but I want at least some consideration paid when someone decides to starting throwing lead about.
Tomorrow I'll run some more tests and fine tune my aiming mechanics.
Good to hear it's coming along smoothly.
I figured out how to draw SmartArt in OpenOffice yesterday. I am working on prototyping statcards for the units in question.
I will probably use some more time to create an "Armory" chapter as well.
chaos0xomega wrote:
...so my solution is to offer the player the choice of two attack resolution mechanisms which they are free to pick from at any time, the complex one mentioned previously and a greatly simplified one that lets them breeze through the process much more quickly, but theres a tradeoff here...Looking forward to seeing how this actually goes.
Mind if I ask what the steps in question are? One thing I usually figure is that when a game has too many steps, some of them are redundant/repeats in way that they can be streamlined.
Would be a bit too complex to explain it without the context of the rest of the game (once I'm far enough along in writing I'll be posting a pre-alpha draft and some print-n-play materials here for people to mess around with), I already mentioned 5 of them though: "select target", "select weapon", "select special ammunition/firing mode (if applicable)", "check line of sight", and "check range". The shooting process also incorporates detection/fog of war mechanics, defensive reactions, and a few other things that are usually handled as separate processes and mechanics, as it makes more sense to integrate everything in order to cut back on unnecessary die rolls, etc. Its actually a fairly interactive process in which both players are involved and have a number of meaningful decisions to make, as opposed to just one player taking a bunch of measurements, flipping through stats and charts, and repeatedly rolling multple handfuls of dice while the other player stands there and takes it until they roll some saves at the end.
chaos0xomega wrote:
...so my solution is to offer the player the choice of two attack resolution mechanisms which they are free to pick from at any time, the complex one mentioned previously and a greatly simplified one that lets them breeze through the process much more quickly, but theres a tradeoff here...Looking forward to seeing how this actually goes.
Mind if I ask what the steps in question are? One thing I usually figure is that when a game has too many steps, some of them are redundant/repeats in way that they can be streamlined.
Would be a bit too complex to explain it without the context of the rest of the game (once I'm far enough along in writing I'll be posting a pre-alpha draft and some print-n-play materials here for people to mess around with), I already mentioned 5 of them though: "select target", "select weapon", "select special ammunition/firing mode (if applicable)", "check line of sight", and "check range". The shooting process also incorporates detection/fog of war mechanics, defensive reactions, and a few other things that are usually handled as separate processes and mechanics, as it makes more sense to integrate everything in order to cut back on unnecessary die rolls, etc. Its actually a fairly interactive process in which both players are involved and have a number of meaningful decisions to make, as opposed to just one player taking a bunch of measurements, flipping through stats and charts, and repeatedly rolling multple handfuls of dice while the other player stands there and takes it until they roll some saves at the end.
Ultimately, you are dealing with three components: Declare, React, Resolve.
-Range&LOS are target eligibility.
-Depending on your rules, 'select weapon' could be part of the declare, while 'select ammo/firing mode' could be part of your resolution sequence.
I am not sure how you are handling Fog Of War/Detection Mechanics.
Ultimately, I went for reducing everything in my system into a 'single roll' framework, and resolving either at the 'unit' or the 'stand', level, rather than for individual troopers.
-Roll Attack # of D6s, counting all successes (normally 4+s.)
-Opponent rolls Agility # of D6s, adds Toughness to the result. Subtract to determine the casualties.
-Doubles/triples/quadruples on either roll result in Critical results.
Making it a singular opposed diceroll thus prevents the need for a separate "keep" phase, inherent to the "Roll/Wound/Save/Save-after-Save" system GW tends to prefer.
Yep, my process is technically a single roll broken into two parts (or maybe its technically two rolls combined into one? Not really important).
As I stated previously I could absolutely collapse several steps together - select target, weapon, and ammo could very easily be one step - theres only a paragraph worth of text between the three as it is. Checking range and line of sight (currently 4 steps total to check range/los as there are arcs/facings involved) could likewise be a single step - but you're looking at about two pages worth of text for that explainer at that point, to me it makes more sense to keep these as discrete steps to prevent a player from being overwhelmed by too much information.
Fog of War/Detection are covered in two steps which could be collapsed into one which would cover about a page - but the second of these two steps is "optional" (i.e. if the attacker decides its a good idea to push their luck a bit).
Likewise theres another 2-step sub-process where the attacker has to make a couple decisions about whether they want to prioritize volume of fire, accuracy of fire, or damage - about a page worth of text that could be one step, but one of the two steps is wholly optional depending on whether or not they think they should in order to maximize their potential.
From a process standpoint it just feels like it makes more sense to keep them separate steps. Admittedly, some of the text can, and probably should, be pulled out of the attack resolution sequence and moved to a separate section ala "Game Basics" - if Im not explaining things like how weapons and ammunition work, or how range and line of sight and facings, etc. are measured as part of the process step then it might be more logical to compress and collapse some of these steps together - but thats for a future draft/revision.
I spent more time streamlining my damage system to include the possibility of losing limbs, mainly if struck with large bladed weapons (which probably won't be too common in a Wild West rpg). I don't want the game to be bogged down by charts, but combat needs to have the potential to be lethal. There will also be rules for other weapons to break bones or cause debilitating damage. It's really tough to strike the balance between fast paced and realistic as well as find the right level of danger. This weekend I'll be running some more test combat sessions.
I had a productive day. Worked a bit on my skills system as it relates to character creation and had more test combat. The combat is coming together. I didn't have too many notes to add afterwards for things that need changed or tweaked, so that's a good sign in my book. I also found at least one potential playtester. It's nearly to the point that I'm going to need a few of those.
I started creating "index tables" for unit statlines and weapon profiles to get content written in a faster form. I decided that rather than do "weapon advantage/disadvantage" as a +1/-1 modifier to the die roll, to make advantage into a "Roll&Drop" system. That is, if you have six attack and advantage 1, you roll seven dice and drop one. If you have six attack and disadvantage 1, you roll seven dice but your opponent chooses the die to drop.
This also affects the odds of criticals or fumbles accordingly.
Working on how to make some form of Morale rules for a 30-50 model skirmishy game both easy to use, as well as giving some interesting decisions for the player.
Have considered simply ditching the normal "roll for morale", and leave it up to the players whether a model should seek cover or not when attacked.
However, I doubt that any player would ever choose to do so - and thus it doesn't really become a decision in the first place. Doubt there's any real soloution to this question.
Easy E wrote: They would choose to do so IF keeping a model or unit in being is more valuable then their shooting/combat ability in following turns.
True enough. And seeing as there's a breaking point for your army once you've suffered 50% casualties (a high and unrealistic number, I know, but it's space fantasy I'm working on, so... ) - that might be all of the incentive that is needed. Thanks for that EE - hadn't considered that angle!
It has been quite the joy - until I hit this snag - to work on this game; I'm attempting a "best practice" kind of deal in what started out as an attempt at a retro-clone, but has steadily evolved into its own beast.
Easy E wrote: They would choose to do so IF keeping a model or unit in being is more valuable then their shooting/combat ability in following turns.
True enough. And seeing as there's a breaking point for your army once you've suffered 50% casualties (a high and unrealistic number, I know, but it's space fantasy I'm working on, so... ) - that might be all of the incentive that is needed. Thanks for that EE - hadn't considered that angle!
It has been quite the joy - until I hit this snag - to work on this game; I'm attempting a "best practice" kind of deal in what started out as an attempt at a retro-clone, but has steadily evolved into its own beast.
Saga uses "Fatigue tokens" to represent overextension and morale damage. Essentially, each time a unit is in a melee, it gains a fatigue. When a unit has 3 fatigue on it, it cannot activate except to Rest. Your opponent can spend Fatigue on your unit to debuff its movement, attack, or defense, or can spend 2 Fatigue to autofail an activation.
I'm doing something that is a hybrid of that and Epic/Bolt Action's system. Each time a unit takes morale damage, you place a D6 next to it. When the unit has more D6s than its threshold, it breaks. However, your opponent can spend those D6s to modify luck/chance against your unit.
Whats the significance of the D6 in your system vs just using a fatigue token? If you're not rolling the d6 then its basically a waste of space and dice to use them. Bolt action almost has the same issue - it doesn't need to be a die that you pull, but it saves itself a bit on the basis that the die have six different faces which represent one of the six different orders you're issuing to the unit you're activating and serve as an activation token to remind you that you've already did something with that unit this turn.
Easy E wrote: They would choose to do so IF keeping a model or unit in being is more valuable then their shooting/combat ability in following turns.
True enough. And seeing as there's a breaking point for your army once you've suffered 50% casualties (a high and unrealistic number, I know, but it's space fantasy I'm working on, so... ) - that might be all of the incentive that is needed. Thanks for that EE - hadn't considered that angle!
It has been quite the joy - until I hit this snag - to work on this game; I'm attempting a "best practice" kind of deal in what started out as an attempt at a retro-clone, but has steadily evolved into its own beast.
Saga uses "Fatigue tokens" to represent overextension and morale damage. Essentially, each time a unit is in a melee, it gains a fatigue. When a unit has 3 fatigue on it, it cannot activate except to Rest. Your opponent can spend Fatigue on your unit to debuff its movement, attack, or defense, or can spend 2 Fatigue to autofail an activation.
I'm doing something that is a hybrid of that and Epic/Bolt Action's system. Each time a unit takes morale damage, you place a D6 next to it. When the unit has more D6s than its threshold, it breaks. However, your opponent can spend those D6s to modify luck/chance against your unit.
I did consider the "Fatigue token" style of Saga, but I'm also limiting myself by having the following dogmas for this design:
- IGOUGO (or rather I-phase, U-phase); I really wanted to see if I could make something that works for what I want.
- No tokens, except for wounds (simply for the ease of it). While some tokens might be needed, it isn't strictly nessecary. Thus a Fatigue token system would counteract this rule.
- More player decision in game, with a greater emphasis on using the units you bring, not what you bring.
But I do like your idea; sort of how Nerve tests works in Kings of War?
chaos0xomega wrote: Whats the significance of the D6 in your system vs just using a fatigue token? If you're not rolling the d6 then its basically a waste of space and dice to use them. Bolt action almost has the same issue - it doesn't need to be a die that you pull, but it saves itself a bit on the basis that the die have six different faces which represent one of the six different orders you're issuing to the unit you're activating and serve as an activation token to remind you that you've already did something with that unit this turn.
The way my game system works, you get an 'attack roll' for every stand of four models or so, in a manner akin to Warmaster.
For most stands, this is a small pool of D6s; I have it so that a baseline unit of swordsmen with "Strength 3" would roll "Strength+3" or six attack dice, with hits on 4+.
Hits minus saves=casualties inflicted to a unit. There is no separate 'to-wound' roll so to speak.
Now, most units/weapons have critical effects which are triggered off of getting 'repeated' rolls on the dice. That is, doubles/triples/quadruples. In most cases, a 'triple' means 'morale damage' meaning placing a die with that face on the enemy unit.
For example, if a unit of swordsmen roll 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, they would only do "one" hit (meaning very low odds of actually inflicting casualties), but would place a "3" morale die on their target.
Both players have a pre-rolled pool of three "Fortune" dice, which can replace a die in a roll. For example, if a player had a 3 in their fortune pool, they could replace the "2" with a "3", resulting in a quadruple 3 ("3 extra hits") instead of a triple 3 ("place a '3' die as morale damage). You can substitute one die, either on one of your rolls or your opponent's rolls.
Normally, you can only substitute ONE fortune die into a roll like this, but if an enemy unit has morale dice on it, you can spend a morale die to either interfere with one of that unit's rolls, or to boost a roll made against that unit. Since this can also mean messing with activation rolls, this also lets me abstract out "suppression" rules or exploiting weaknesses in an enemy unit. Morale damage dice with 'low' values (1-3) are more valuable to trade in for messing up activation rolls, while morale damage dice with 'high' values (4s-6s) are good for getting extra hits or hi-value criticals.
Easy E wrote: I am also not a fan of Fatigue tokens or Pin markers as the clutter up a table fast.
That said, I like the idea that the opponent applies the disadvantage and not the player.... hmmmm....
I think it could be handled reasonably with some mild DIY ingenuity; a separate "tray" of dice, perhaps 2x4 or otherwise so that you can move the D6 morale dice around without accidentally cocking/tipping them over.
With Saga, you can probably just use D4s or large D6s next to individual units to show how many fatigue they have; just because it says token doesn't necessarily mean they have to be individual mandala stones or so. That said, I think this system will make things 'simpler' in the long run because I don't NEED to have separate rules for suppression, fatigue, disruption, or anything else. They're all just abstracted out into manipulation of the dice mechanics.
Ah, so I guess the part that I missed (and maybe you didn't entirely elaborate on) is that you are using the die to store "data", i.e. depending on whats going on, the die that the unit takes as a fatigue point has a specific value and that value sticks/travels with the unit up until the point that their opponent spends it to trigger some effect.
chaos0xomega wrote: Ah, so I guess the part that I missed (and maybe you didn't entirely elaborate on) is that you are using the die to store "data", i.e. depending on whats going on, the die that the unit takes as a fatigue point has a specific value and that value sticks/travels with the unit up until the point that their opponent spends it to trigger some effect.
Bravo, excellent implementation!
Yup. I decided that I am ok with raising the morale threshold a little more while making it easier to inflict morale damage accordingly.
The 'x2', 'x3' and 'x4' represent abilities that trigger on criticals. For example, a unit of swordsmen that rolls a 1,2,2,3,4,5 would inflict two hits, but also place a '2' of morale damage on their opponent.
The up and down arrows represent 'advantage' and 'disadvantage.' In those cases, you roll additional dice for a 'drop'. You choose the dice dropped if you have the advantage, but your opponent chooses if you have a disadvantage.
For example, a unit of Strength 3 Swordsmen normally rolls six attack dice against another unit of Swordsmen.
Against a unit of axemen, they would roll seven dice but the swordsman's player chooses one die to drop.
Against a unit of spearmen, they would roll seven dice, but the opponent chooses one die to drop.
This either increases/reduces the odds of criticals.
One thing I am "considering" for the game, is that should a roll NOT have any natural successes, any 'repeats' are not treated as criticals, but as 'fumbles'; for most intents and purposes, this means 'reversing' the effects of the critical to affect your unit instead. For example, if the Swordsmen rolled '1,1,1,1,2,3', then they would not only score zero hits, but their opponent gains Armor Piercing[1] on their next counterattack!
Easy E wrote: I am also not a fan of Fatigue tokens or Pin markers as the clutter up a table fast.
That said, I like the idea that the opponent applies the disadvantage and not the player.... hmmmm....
It's possible to minimize the clutter if you create a mini-tray for storing D6 results, like in this crude sprue&plasticard proof of concept. The idea would be that the d6s on those unit could be spent by the opponent for fate manipulation.
I am thinking about three more supplements depending on how things shake out with this one sales-wise. Future one could be based on the Ionian Revolt as a campaign book, a Mod for Trojan War, and a Mod for War of the Gods. A Mod means new units, special rules, and scenarios but based of the same core mechanics.
We will see if any ever actually see the light of day!
May just...take two decades.
