Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just curious what people are looking for In a TTWG. If possible list top three things. If any of you feel like you are content with what you are playing and nothing can peak your interest, please say that also.

for me

1) cool models

2) unique / interesting / fantastic setting and background story

3) Good (=balanced + fun) Game play

I mainly look for skirmish level games so I liek to see:

Fairly tight and concise rules, enabling quick play and something more in depth.

Good setting and backgrounds (that I may use in my games).

Minis area a bonus, but not essential.

I'd really like to see separation between minis and rulesets. In too many cases, rules are simply seen as something to be abused and mutilated in the in the interests of selling more minis. I've watched plenty of games start out with interesting rules and then either get completely broken by bad playtesting of content rushed into being to meet a product release, or just become unbalanced by constant escalation to make the New Thing sell.

Now, I'm somewhat biased, since I've been there-done that with writing a game (and am inexplicably doing it again), but it's really my preference that a minis game be neutral as to what minis it "requires". Give me a genre, and I'm good. I'll pick the best minis from whatever lines I can find, convert them to have a unified look, and get to it.

In addition to my designer's bias, that preference also comes from my role-playing experience. Before I did wargames, I did D&D, and I've spent far more time planning out campaigns for my players than I've spent painting minis. I like to take rules and fit them to my own settings, and systems with flexibility built-in work well for that sort of thing.

I know that's unrealistic (the money in books is poor and they can bee pirated; moving lead and plastic is where the profit comes from) but I think that with the internet being where it's at, it's more than possible for people to publish rules on a low budget and let others handle making miniatures. Frankly, I doubt GW would even care if anybody played their game, as long as people bought their minis (and they had the odd dozen people come to cons to yell Waagh).

My preference for minis is: as long as I can easily convert them, and they don't look like ass, I'll enjoy them. But that's also because I'll use them for any system I want and not get stuck into something else.

The tl;dr version:
*No"required minis" for better balance.
*Designed to let me customize my army (even better if it's from scratch)
*No freaking "I do everything, then sit around while you do everything" rules

I would really like to see a separation between miniatures and rules. It wouldn't be a "make the new plastic kit's rules overpowered so it sells like hotcakes, or, like what GW did, make a hugely overpowered book for a predominantly metal line so they make a huge amount of profit.

That makes sense. But, assuming the game system was free, no rulebooks to buy, no army books to buy, (don't laugh it already exists) would your criteria change? Would the same things be relevant?

Magc8Ball wrote:I'd really like to see separation between minis and rulesets. In too many cases, rules are simply seen as something to be abused and mutilated in the in the interests of selling more minis. I've watched plenty of games start out with interesting rules and then either get completely broken by bad playtesting of content rushed into being to meet a product release, or just become unbalanced by constant escalation to make the New Thing sell.

Now, I'm somewhat biased, since I've been there-done that with writing a game (and am inexplicably doing it again), but it's really my preference that a minis game be neutral as to what minis it "requires". Give me a genre, and I'm good. I'll pick the best minis from whatever lines I can find, convert them to have a unified look, and get to it.

In addition to my designer's bias, that preference also comes from my role-playing experience. Before I did wargames, I did D&D, and I've spent far more time planning out campaigns for my players than I've spent painting minis. I like to take rules and fit them to my own settings, and systems with flexibility built-in work well for that sort of thing.

I know that's unrealistic (the money in books is poor and they can bee pirated; moving lead and plastic is where the profit comes from) but I think that with the internet being where it's at, it's more than possible for people to publish rules on a low budget and let others handle making miniatures. Frankly, I doubt GW would even care if anybody played their game, as long as people bought their minis (and they had the odd dozen people come to cons to yell Waagh).

My preference for minis is: as long as I can easily convert them, and they don't look like ass, I'll enjoy them. But that's also because I'll use them for any system I want and not get stuck into something else.

The tl;dr version:
*No"required minis" for better balance.
*Designed to let me customize my army (even better if it's from scratch)
*No freaking "I do everything, then sit around while you do everything" rules

It all depends on what an author or mini maker wants to get out of it.

What is TTWG?

Table Top War Game

Wow I feel like a derp.

1: Good Quality cool minis that can be customized (farily) easily
2: Not having to spend well over $250 to get into it
3: A good setting that will draw people in.
4: A customization level for your models that is close to Battletech

MadNes wrote:That makes sense. But, assuming the game system was free, no rulebooks to buy, no army books to buy, (don't laugh it already exists) would your criteria change? Would the same things be relevant?

Yeah, in my opinion a good game is a good game no matter if it's free or costs money. I try to look at potential systems from the point of view of whether they'd be fun to play. A good "selling minis" game would be worth buying even if their minis suck; I'd just not use their minis. A boring free game without official minis is still a boring game, I just won't feel as bad about wasting money on the rulebook.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr. Burning wrote:It all depends on what an author or mini maker wants to get out of it.

Well, yeah, but this thread seems to be from the point of view of the player. I don't CARE what the publisher wants out of their game, beyond that knowing their philosophy means I'll be able to have some sort of idea of what they're going to do in the future with the game.

1) Cool miniatures

2) Inspiring background

3) Good support from the company, especially in marketing.

1. Well-sculpted models
2. Reasonable price
3. Smooth play rules

I'd be a bad focus group participant. Pretty much I can say, "I'll know it when I see it."

I'd say firstly: innovation. If you're just going to use the same old rules as what's already out there, chances are someone has already done it first and better, and it's already available for free.

Secondly, dynamism. Plenty of games offer dynamic gameplay, but you spent 1/10 of the game moving pieces around the board, and the other 9/10s dithering with dice, making calculations, or going back to the rulebook. While TTMG are necessarily static by their very nature, dynamism can be considered as the rate at which the miniatures themselves are moved around on the tabletop.

Crossfire by Arty Conliffe is a great example of innovation pushing dynamism. Rather than trying to track every particle of brownian motion in a game, Crossfire uses a "variable length bound" turn to develop the game. In such a turn you can move as far as you want, and as much as you want, with the limits being described by handling terrain and encountering enemy forces. If you haven't played it, then you should, just for the experience.

Thirdly, I would look for well-defined terrain and 'mission' rules like in Starship Troopers, 1st edition. Too many TTMG spend pages and pages describing interactions between all the different kinds of miniatures, and then maybe a page or two describing the board or missions being played. My advice is don't start with miniatures, or the individual elements of the game, start with the space in which the game is played.

1. innovation. Too many games go with the timeless standard of rolling dice to achieve affects.

2. Dynamism. As others have said, sitting through your opponents turn as he dismantles your army with limited input from your own side is lame. War is a dynamic experience, everything is in motion simultaneously. Very few games actually capture this.

3. Background. I see a lot of games without any real background story (they give you a setting but no dramatis personae or heroic tales, etc. for you to really latch on to), or half baked backgrounds (full of cliches and tropes and not much substance. In fact, the story seems to be an afterthought mostly tacked on to generate a few extra sales, hopefully This is my feeling regarding the Uncharted Seas/Firestorm Armada games). For examples of backgrounds done right: Warhammer 40k/Fantasy settings (for all its grimdark, it is still a driving force behind the games) and the Iron Kingdoms storyline.

4. Airtight rules. None oof the BS that GW likes to throw our way. If I have to ask a question about the way something works, then it hasn't been done right.

5. "Balance" Every force should be well balanced against every other force. There should never be a unit in a list that noone will take, because there is something else available that can do the same thing better.

I think innovation is key to a new ttwg. Something new and unique will draw me in.

Well sculpted minis is another obvious item. Frankly Im not the biggest fan of GWs humans. As a side note, I like having an equal number of female minis. Theres the aesthetic appeal of the hypersexualized fantasy/scifi babe of course. But even my gf finds Warhmachine more appleaing than WH just because they have some better lady sculpts.

Im also fond of games that can be played with a fewer number of minis, while still being fulfilling.

MadNes wrote:That makes sense. But, assuming the game system was free, no rulebooks to buy, no army books to buy, (don't laugh it already exists) would your criteria change? Would the same things be relevant?

Unfortunately, a free game system not tied to any miniature line has some inherent problems. Many people want to play a game that other people are playing. If you could get lots of people playing the game, you'd be good and it would carry on by momentum, as long as the rules were supported, and people liked it.

How to get there is tougher though, as can be seen from many dozens of historical rules sets that are played by a few people here or there. Might be great rules, but how can you gain traction with them? How do you get people to run tournaments for them? How do you get stores to push them, and stop pushing things like GW?

mikhaila wrote:Unfortunately, a free game system not tied to any miniature line has some inherent problems. Many people want to play a game that other people are playing. If you could get lots of people playing the game, you'd be good and it would carry on by momentum, as long as the rules were supported, and people liked it.

How to get there is tougher though, as can be seen from many dozens of historical rules sets that are played by a few people here or there. Might be great rules, but how can you gain traction with them? How do you get people to run tournaments for them? How do you get stores to push them, and stop pushing things like GW?

Historicals are kind of an outlier: it's an even more niche product within a niche category within a niche hobby. Also, the type of player that tends to be drawn towards historicals is not really the same kind of player (in general) that's going to get drawn into sci-fi/fantasy wargaming (except that Control Freak TFG who loves to yell at you for using non-GW minis will also yell at you about using the wrong shade of red on your British infantry, 'cause they used that shade in 1766 but not 1778).

But to answer the rest of your questions from the point of view of publishing as a proper business that's looking to publish a game and sell it to the market. If you're putting out a free game just to support a miniatures line or just as a hobby you're going to take a different tack.

You get traction with players by getting people to invest in your game not dollars but involvement. Let them playtest your game, take their input and ideas for developing new things (whether armies, abilities, whatever). You spread by word of mouth, and (especially if you're NOT putting out minis) accept that you're going to grow slowly. Do not make a plan that assumes you're going to sell a thousand copies of your game in the first month, but instead plan to have a slow buildup over time. Tournaments and events will either be run by YOU whenever you can get to a convention, or just don't bother with it: if your game is being played every few weekends by small groups here and there, that's probably good enough initially. Momentum is important, and if you can keep players involved with the process and keep their interest through an active community, you'll keep building it.

Finally, you are NOT going to get stores to push you over GW. They simply have too much market share, and stores have way too much invested in their products. Even though many retailers KNOW that they're not getting anything like a good or fair deal from GW, and that GW continuously chases away their customers, the sheer volume of product that they can move from each new batch of freshly recruited players will far outweigh anything they can get from some other obscure game. Privateer Press and Flames of War are the only ones that've come close to GW's games for "Entry Level" gaming, and they were both backed by huge investments compared to anything that a small publisher is going to be able to throw around.

The little secret, though, is that you don't really need the stores. It is so easy these days to sell directly to customers through having a well-designed web presence, being an active (but not spammy) presence on the bigger gaming forums, and doing marketing through Facebook/Twitter and the like that you don't need stores to carry you to get yourself in front of gamers. At the small volumes that a tiny publisher is going to be doing, direct sales are better anyways: you'll be operating at a higher margin since you don't have to worry about selling to the three-tier distribution channel. When I published my game, I had one retailer (that I was aware of) carrying it: Amazon.com. I sold plenty that way (though I never really found out exactly HOW well because the company I was going through for managing printing was kind of a frakked-up operation).

Keep in mind that this is from the point of view of a one-man shop publishing a book, or a small group doing a small line of minis. If you're trying to actually challenge GW and their massive marketing budget, you're not reading Dakka, you're looking for venture capital.

Are there examples of free games that have taken off / found traction? I'd actually be very curious to see / try them. I don't know of any, but I'm not very broad in my gaming world view as of yet...

mikhaila wrote:

MadNes wrote:That makes sense. But, assuming the game system was free, no rulebooks to buy, no army books to buy, (don't laugh it already exists) would your criteria change? Would the same things be relevant?

Unfortunately, a free game system not tied to any miniature line has some inherent problems. Many people want to play a game that other people are playing. If you could get lots of people playing the game, you'd be good and it would carry on by momentum, as long as the rules were supported, and people liked it.

How to get there is tougher though, as can be seen from many dozens of historical rules sets that are played by a few people here or there. Might be great rules, but how can you gain traction with them? How do you get people to run tournaments for them? How do you get stores to push them, and stop pushing things like GW?

Actually, my current favorite game only sells mini's. The rules are available for free, there are no codexes to buy, and a free army list building software is included. Ba sically you are getting the whole enchilada for the price of the minis

Back on topic, I've noticed the majority of people listed innovation as a must. However I have noticed (in my short time as a gamer, only a few years) that when new games / ideas / systems / mechanics are brought out, they are generally met with pitchforks and torches. Games which put a twist on things that already exist are usually received ok, but when something is completely out of left field, many gamers openly bash the notion. I am not accusing any of you of doing this, I was just wondering why the gamer hypocrisy is prevalent where innovation is concerned?

Anotehr I would like to add: good customer service. And I'm not just talking about if something is messed up. I'm talking about support also. Communication with your customers should be a top priority. If you can stay on top of what is going on with your customers you can easily win people over and keep them.

What examples fit your criteria, Magc8Ball? Who sells direct, supports their
game, and does not produce their own miniatures line?

malfred wrote:What examples fit your criteria, Magc8Ball? Who sells direct, supports their
game, and does not produce their own miniatures line?

I'm not sure which ones still exist (I've not really paid attention to the market) but Ground Zero Games made a few of them (Full Thrust is one that I've got, there is/was also Stargrunt), and there are of course the huge selection of historical games out there. (Yeah, I pooh-pooh'd the historical games from one point of view, but they're still an example in this case). There are probably also a goodly number of them out there being done by small publishers; I've not actively been looking for additional games in quite some time, and if they're only selling direct I've not been where I'd see them.

My criteria also isn't that they DON'T produce their own minis, but that the design of the rules doesn't take a back seat to them, or isn't affected by the desire to sell certain minis. What I've read about Flames of War, for instance, indicates that their rules haven't suffered from sales-driven power escalation over the years, and that they actively allow the use of other companies' minis. If I wasn't scared at my slightly addictive and pedantic personality getting into historical gaming, I totally would be playing FOW now. (I'm afraid I'd be the guy complaining that the Germans didn't use X camo until late in the war.)


EDIT: also, there's this other game that might make a great standalone miniatures game, and the newest edition even vaguely resembles Warmachine in its use of special abilities and card-like unit stat boxes.

I want cool models, easy & fun rules, and more pictures of JohnHwang's avatar