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.

Erebus Studios wrote:
For game boxes I am more looking into the product box itself, and in these terms I am looking to produce one with a full artwork spread across it as the more higher end board games do with their own, like zombicide for example.

I will honestly say 'Self Publishing' is not recommended or the best route to start out with. Although we have chosen that for some games ourselves, we also are working on getting others picked up with a publisher. If you are self publishing working with a company like Panda (there are others too) have a benefit because they can handle almost everything for you manufacturing.

Since you are looking at doing Kickstarter a few questions I would ask myself before settling a game box as they can weigh in on your decision as they can effect the choice.

Is your Kickstarter box going to be different than the retail box?

Are stretch goals adding value to the retail box or extras for being a Kickstarter backer (ie they can be packed in a different box)?

Do you know what your final contents of the box are going be or is this still being decided?

Erebus Studios wrote:
We would rather avoid working with amazon as they tend not to be very friendly with any company outside of the states on experience.

Each Amazon company is a different experience with who you deal with. Amazon.ca (Canada), Amazon.com (US), Amazon.co.uk (UK) are all Amazon they are essentially different entities. You also have amazon from other countries, I would tend to stick to those three mainly because they speak English so communication is easier. Other than not knowing which forms or what is needed to be filled out with the different Amazons, I haven't had much of an issue. There are other fulfillment centers out there but it really is going to depend on how much you are shipping and to where.

As for miniatures you need to ask yourself who your target market is going to be, board gamers, miniature gamers, painters and then focus on them. Since you are utilizing tiles then I'm assuming board gamers. If you are going board gamers then plastic is the best way to go. The bad part about plastic is the costs tend to put a base board game at a higher fund level requirement unless there is capital from another source. You could also start out with resin multi-part, then have a stretch goal be plastic one-piece (at the appropriate fund level) and then split off a miniatures only pledge then too.

Personally if I had the option I would do plastic and resin/metal miniatures but that is just me. One of the main questions you'll get is "Will you have a miniatures only pledge". If they are plastic and not up to miniatures gamer specs then it can create some toxicity. By going with both you can still target board gamers, providing a game for them but then also provide a 'upgrade' path to better quality miniatures later as well as meeting miniature gamers specs with resin/metal miniatures.

That doesn't mean metal miniatures can't be done as a board game. Human Interface shows that high quality metal miniatures can still draw people in. However they probably could have funded much more if they also had board game plastic miniatures as well. They also might not have, it is one of those "what if" that you have to follow the data. That doesn't mean just simply look at Dakka, look at what Board Game Geek (and other sources) have to say about games and miniatures as well. Dakka is mostly war gamers, with some that do play board games but ultimately we are all miniature gamers.

Panda can do good work and as well as bad. Just don't accept the bad and push back. They did manufacture "The Doom That Came to Atlantic City" for Cryptozoic Entertainment. Like most oversea manufacturers in China, not just Panda, they will do it on their own timetable. Nothing will get done in January even if they promise it will. They will sometimes avoid or deflect questions by asking different questions or giving answers not to your question but you have to keep on it. There are advantages to going with companies that have experience and handle most of the manufacturing. I tend to try to find games that I like, then take a peak at who did their manufacturing. Don't get too stuck on trying to keep everything local because you can control delays better... in reality you can't, it just feels like it because the company is closer to home. In the end delays will happen, plan for them and then add another 20% of time on top of that.

I'm going to jump a bit to the beginning again, to the first game we were working on, Interstellar Crisis. At the time there wasn't any real spaceship miniatures games in the market other than Star Wars X-Wing. One of the disadvantage of self publishing and being the small guy is that you will always tend to be behind the curve. Long story short we didn't have the money to thrust it out quickly enough before other emerging games came out. Although for tabletop miniatures that usually isn't an issue, spaceship miniatures have an interesting niche.

Game Outline

The first step of designing a game is to figure out what you want it to do and accomplish, while remembering to not marry yourself to parts of it. That last part can be hard sometimes especially if you think a certain mechanic is key to the game. Even if you think it is a key to the game, remember to listen to other players because not everyone will think your same way. There will be some things you will want to keep and others you'd like to do, but if they bog it down too much don't be afraid to abstract them or remove them. You want gameplay usually to be fun, fluid and overall make sense. Think back to when you watch movies and ask yourself, "Why didn't they do this or instead do something else?" because the obvious reason was it was in the script. Sometimes just being in the script isn't a valid excuse when it causes gameplay to break down.

Semi-Realistic Physics: We wanted the ships in space to not have movement like a plane or naval ship, only moving and shooting the direction they tend to face. We wanted them to be able to be moving one direction, while the ship faces a different direction and could fire. Some weapons are turret or arc facing so decisions on turning to defend a venerable armor section or bringing weapons to fire should be a choice. We wanted momentum to do something, apply too much thrust and fly off the board and effectively out of the theater of war.

Double Blind System: Part of making the choices be more valuable was to have a blind movement. It was one of the things that can make games like X-Wing a lot of fun. The hard part was to utilize the movement we wanted while not letting other players know what moves you are making was a bit difficult. It couldn't simply be done with a dial. Although we did start with writing moves out, this created a process that would bog things down. The choices weren't as fast as they should be and harder for new players to grasp the mechanics.

Card Movement Mechanics: We started first outlining what 'movement' choices were available to a person. What direction could they turn, how much thrust could they apply, could they roll the ship over (there is no real up in space). Once we figured out the different combinations we figured the best way to create a movement system was with cards. It gave a visual appearance for what the move was doing, making it easier to get visually have an idea of what you are doing. It let you plot a series of moves, while trying to predict what your opponent may do.

Sensors: This was added more for advanced play. You don't simply look out the window in space to see what ships the enemy has. You don't immediately know which ship is the main threat at the beginning of battle. This will also let us add in decoys as well.

Simultaneous Combat and Movement: There is a small bit of book keeping, so to speed things up we wanted movement to happen at the same time. Since the movement is locked in at the beginning, players can't change order of moves. Rather than have a player activate, the other player waiting, this lets both players activate and move their ships. In the event of collisions and or tie needing a resolution, initiative determines that piece for the order of events. Initiative though isn't a huge factor, shooting first doesn't mean the opponent can't respond and fire back. Destroyed ships aren't removed until the end of the game so there can almost always still be a response.

Campaign System: We wanted the battles to have more of a meaning than just a skirmish game. It can be used as part of a bigger campaign system where battles can have an effect on things. You can play skirmish with objectives or campaign, which requires building ships, losing ships and planets (planetary control is done with the ground skirmish game).

The Story

Everything has to have a story, there needs to be a reason that everyone is fighting, without it then it could get kind of boring. The best lore and stories are often based on partial truths or some background in reality. We suspend reality in war games quite a bit but it becomes easier when that story has some real basis behind it. This is going to be a rough rundown, the timeline shows the progression better but this will give the basics.

You don't want to be too exacting in science or explanations because there is always someone who will argue the 'reality' of things. Instead of Earth, it is Terra which means we can be an alternate world Earth that has some reality but doesn't have to be exact. Common problems we have today exist there but darker and more to the extremes. Society is split, pollution is high, crime is at highest, corporations partially control things from the background. There isn't enough space so the rich get to go higher, going to space to colonize. Prisons are overcrowded and become private funded, corporations using prisoners to mine asteroids in space. New undiscovered resources allow for better technology to be developed.

There is a new space race as countries make new grab for land and resources in the frontiers of space. Technology includes cybernetics and bioware with a bit of a mutation of psionics. Gene-splicing becomes a thing along with cloning replacement organs. Terra becomes destroyed and then all hell breaks loose. The conflict consists of mostly humans, although with gene-slicing and cybernetics, human is a subjective term. There are a couple alien races that that mix in but ultimately it is about survival.

To keep the nations and corporations in check a conglomerate took over some of the remaining ship factories. Part of the reason was out of neccessity as assaination of engineers and manufacturing plants, even civilians was starting to become common. At the rate of terrorism and destruction huamnity would have blown themselves back to the stoneage in only a few years. The other reason is there was plenty of profit in war. By declaring themselves neutral they could maintain, build a small army to protect the ship yards while keeping everyone else at bay all under the guise of goodwill.

Design Process

We had the who, what, where answers mostly done. Ultimately we knew where in the timeline of events we were, just needed to fill the spaces with events that led there. We had the basics for the gameplay that we wanted. Now the core crunch of the game was the mechanics. We created a list of everything a player could essentially do in the game, in no particular order:

Fighters vs Fighters

Ships and Fighter Screening Other Ships.

Ship Movement Orders

Initiative Roll

Use Sensors

Launch Fighter Squadrons

Launch Torpedos/Missiles

Move Ships

Fighter Attacks

Point Defense

Ship Attacks

Damage

Critical Check

Removed Destroyed Ships

Repair Teams

The list was actually larger than that. Some things got removed and booted back to planning, while other things were just removed. Now it was a matter of figuring out the order of events. At this point we have some of the basic ships and weapons done. As we do more testing though the list above can change slightly. Originally we didn't have Torpedos and Missiles. In today's world for the type of distance battles we are talking about they would almost be considered drones so they should be in the game. Not all nations though would have complete control over them so some might just go towards an initially pre-plotted course, while another ship might have more advanced missiles that they could alter the course midflight. Obviously the above was a bit confusing, even after you've started to develop and order of events.

Phase 1 - Planning

Ship Movement Orders

Determine Initiative

Utilize Sensors

Phase 2 - Movement

Launch and/or Move Fighter Squadrons

Launch and/or Move Torpedo/Missiles

Move Ships, based on movement orders already established in Phase 1.

Fighter Squadrons Declare Attack Runs

Phase 3 - Attack

Fighter vs Fighter combat resolved

Ship Point Defense vs Fighters

Finalize Fighter Attack Runs, remaining fighters attack

Ships Open Fire

Phase 4 - Resolution

Damage is now finalized, it was recorded but finalized means we determine if a ship is destroyed or if there are critical checks that need to be made.

Remove Destroyed Ships

Dispatch and Resolve Repair Teams, repairing ship systems/weapons.

Now that we've broken things up into more manageable phases it makes testing easier. We can test each phase seperately by itself as well as combined with the other phases. Each time we ask some questions of ourselves but also players who test the system. The questions might change depending on who was testing and what we were accomplishing. Sometimes we would add some mechanics or move things around to ensure that it fit at the point of combat it happened.

Did everything in that Phase make sense?
Did something feel out of place, if so what and why?
Did you think that the Phase gameplay flowed properly?
Did you think something should happen at a different Phase and why?
What did you enjoy?
What didn't you enjoy?

The order of events as well as what we could do is based on multiple things. Some of it is based on actual battle plans and strategies, part is based on "what would you do" and the rest comes from visualizing the actual combat.

Contact made with enemy, need to plan and determine fleet orders.

Choose to utilize sensors, using them too soon also identifies your ship to them when you turn active. Do you risk that now or later.

Do you have fighter squadrons and missiles, are you launching them?

Ships and fighters move.

Fighting happens, ships fire, fighters attack.

Sit Rep, damage report and dispatch repair teams.

Then the hard design decisions have to start to be made. How long do you want your games to last, do they make that mark or go over. Do abstract some things or keep them more realistic? For example fighters, missiles aren't typically fire and forget. They could technically be completely removed from gameplay and the game itself wouldn't suffer miserably. You could also simply combine missiles with the rest of the weapon firing phase instead of being seperate. We have played both ways and are still in testing phases. We have been leaning towards two types of gameplay, Basic and Advanced where basic those items are part of the firing resolution. Advanced is a more option environment after you've learned the basics, that gives the best of both worlds.

I'll go into more detail on each phase as well as the lore with the factions a bit later. Next post will probably focus a bit on the ship model designs we did, why we ended up going modular and how much we spent on the 3D sculpting was on them so far.

When we first started getting artwork and 3d sculpting done the capital was coming from me. I am working another full time job because I have a family and house to support, so any side money went towards the business at this time. I did initially attempt to get a small business loan for about $10,000 for initial startup capital but that isn't easy, at least for what we wanted to do. We could have gone to Kickstarter but I knew at that point we had nothing but concepts to offer, there was no way that would have been successful. In business usually in order to make money you have to be willing to put money up front, it also helps show that you believe and invested in your product. That meant funding everything from my own pockets for now. After I sent out emails out, based on portfolios, there were four 3D sculptors that I was going to work with. The unfortunate part is none of them had 3D sculpting experience when designing with 3D printing in mind. Fortunately I had a partner who was helping out on my team that I was able to utilize his skills. Like me he is working full time and basically working for free at this point. We could have gone with someone more experienced but then our initial costs would have been 3-4 times more based off the initial quotes. That meant going with less experienced sculptors because we knew we could always go back later and touch or modify things as needed later. These were never meant to be the final versions and we plan to rework the designs but first we need samples to generate some funding.

We wanted all the ship pieces to be modular. This was at first mainly for design reasons since it would be easier to modify or create ships basically like using lego blocks. That mean each section of the ships were their own pieces from the wing sections, bridge, some weapons, engines letting them be able to be moved around. This helped make it so future ship designs from a faction would look similar to other designs. It also meant we could take pieces, move, duplicate and create non-standard designs. There was definitely a lot of different styles that we went through based on what we had created. This was the initial batch we settled on for the first pass.

Another reason for using different designers was we weren't sure who could become a "go-to" person. We had no experience with these people and sometimes people just don't get along. We wanted to make sure that the people we worked with had a similar vision, could understand what we were saying and trying to do. That isn't easy to do over phone and emails. So we'd start with one design, if the experience was good we'd move up from there. Eventually we wanted to pick one or two people to do touch-up and continue working with based on how well they did on this first pass. Some were easier to work with than others, there was a language barrier with a couple, but overall they all weren't that bad. Utilizing different people also meant I could spread out the work, depending on their timeline because rarely is an artist available "now" so your job is usually in a queue. This let us balance out what funds were going out so it wasn't just one lump some and made it easier to manage.

At this point there was mixed feedback on the designs. We wanted to try to keep the ship pieces to a minimum but due to the designs so that would require us to cut them up a bit. We also needed something more to make the ships a bit more unique or have some reason that others may want, other than just the rules system. Miniature gamers are already used to mult-piece kits so we decided that we would make the ships more modular. At this time this change wasn't going to effect gameplay, it was purely a cosmetic change. It would allow players to create their own custom style of ships not only for our game but for other games as well, which we figured would be more of a benefit. There would also be some reality that some ships may be pieced together as time progressed, at least for smaller factions and pirates. This would become an abstracted part though since it wasn't going to effect combat. The decision to have not effect combat was because it is harder to do a "What You See Is What You Get" (WYSIWYG) with spaceship designs and weapons. With tanks and troops it was a bit easier but a lot of weapons for the ships were internal, with ports that would open.

For all the 3D digital work for the ships we ended up paying $1266, give or take some dollars for conversion rates as they have changed now. After some touch up and ensuring we could print them, then we needed to cut them up for printing. We didn't get them all 3D printed as it could start to get costly but we did do a few spending $450 for what we did get.

While we were waiting to hear back from two of the test groups testing out rules and for sculpting to be done, there isn't a lot to be done. There is lore writing and other planning for the game but for the most part designwise things are on hold. I wanted that time to be productive and also wanted to work with some traditional sculpting so decided to have some greens done traditionally for the 32mm miniatures we wanted to create.

We decided to have two batches of three done initially and reached out to some sculptors. We needed to put 20% down to start with £45.00. Once they were completed it was another £180.00 plus £12.00. Similar to the digital sculptor we were working with two different sculptors to find one that would match closer to what we were looking for. The second batch of three cost $400 which required us to pay a deposit of $140 to start work.

There are aspects that I do like about greens vs digital but keeping things uniformed becomes a bit harder unless your dealing with the same person. Granted that has to do with who we also used, some of it was limited by we had limited artwork at that time. The artwork we had that these are based on were just front shots, not side shots, no other concept art so most of the translation is required on the sculptor side of things.

The decision to try to stay fully digital didn't actually happen until we went to get our first set of masters cast. There required some modifications to the greens to get them properly cut up for casting. They actually required more work than the 3D prints we had. Some of that is mitigated again by different sculptors but our options at the time were limited.

To create the masters for metal casting we needed to have miniatures masters created from the 3D prints and greens we had. There were multiple ship pieces that were 3d printed, only about 4 different designs and some greens (6 28mm) done for infantry for ground combat game. All together they filled 3 master molds, requiring 17 cavities, the greens took up 13 cavities. That let's us get multiple master pieces used for production casting, each design filling a complete mold by itself. That also includes 4 copies of each sent for our copies. The master molds were $60 (3x$60=$180) plus $30 (30x$30=$900) per cavity and was a total of $1080.

Now before we've done any production, we're just in concept, design and prototyping stage we've already sunk a hefty chunk into things. After artwork, 3d sculpting, greens and casting masters we've spent $5923 give or take a couple hundred after currency conversions.

The whole process above was about a 12 month period for everything. Most of the artwork and 3D sculpting had maybe one month delay (queue) and was finished fairly quickly. The longest delay was the casting the masters. When we sent them off it took almost two months to get modified properly for casting, another two months before I finally received the master samples back from them. That was after I sent it and it was with them for another two months, total time six months. Granted this was a couple months for GenCon and I know there was a scramble to get a lot of things cast for it from other clients and for themselves.

The whole 12 month period wasn't spent solely on one game. There are waiting periods and to be productive we worked on other games and projects. We worked on some game designs with the idea to get them picked up by a publisher vs self publishing. Some games ideas were developed to a point where it needed to be put on hold. We didn't want to get spread too thin so when it came time for artwork or actual pieces, other than printing cards, we had to make a decision to continue to hold off. We took the time to get our process down for resin casting, using resin kits and various miniatures for testing. When we first started we only had the vacuum pump and not a pressure pot, then later added that to get to where we are today. We weren't going to do the initial production run, but after that we wanted to be able to continue casting in-house vs having to do another production order with someone else.

This is where we'll probably be jumping around a bit since a lot of the work wasn't linear. We didn't just work on one design from start to finish. I'll try to keep each post based around their specific games then I can create an index on the original post for easier navigation for those interested in certain games more than others.

I like the ships, especially the 2nd/4th & 6th designs,

Talking about uniformity for traditionally sculpted stuff, one of the most jarring things to see is weapons & other kit that you'd expect to be uniform not looking quite the same between figures,

I've seen two approaches to avoid this (other than using uber high end sculptors who can produce uniform results)

either make sure only 1 mini in the game has the 'super lazer blasta', or alternatively make some resin cast of the first 'super lazer blasta' the sculptor does and send them back to them to use with any future figures (worth doing with helmets and similar stuff too) even though it adds a bit to the sculpting time

You don't notice differences in the flesh/cloth/height so much as those vary in real life, but the brain really expects mass produced stuff to look the same

This has been an interesting look at a particular philosophy of bringing a table top game to market. Lots of good info.

My experience thus far has been a bit different, largely because we rejected the idea of crowfunding very early on.

Principally, I really didn't like the risks involved. You can do a lot of things, or even most things, 'right' and still wind up with a failed campaign. The idea of a failed campaign did not sit well with me at all.

Kickstarter can be a major help to a startup business, but it can also put a few nails in your coffin, even after a successful campaign. For me, Kickstarter is a big gamble, and it is a high stakes game for a brand new company. Kickstarter provides a great potential for success, but also tends to maximize the risk of catastrophic harm. I don't like to gamble.

So we had to switch gears. We have gone towards a format of aggressive risk management. For us, this means maintaining tight control over production and minimal stock levels, which means bringing absolutely everything we can in house. Our goal is to remain as nimble as possible while still allowing us to make the product that we want to make. Rather than the 'go big or go home' philosophy of crowdfunding, we have chosen to build a strong foundation, start small, focus on developing a modest core of high value customers, and then grow slowly.

Obviously, this has led us to make plenty of tough choices. We have thus far had to balance what we want to do with what we can do. And even so, we're taking more risks and funneling more money into the company than some of the more conservative folks in the market would advise. Again, we have tried to balance the product we want to make with the product we are able to make within our operating philosophy.

In terms of production, this means spincast pewter. It is simply the most cost-effective and flexible manufacturing process. Production is swift and the material is highly fungible. Miscasts get turned into merchantable goods. Products that are not selling get turned into product that are selling. We can keep stock levels low and can be in a position to shift rapidly in response to how our products function in the market.

Spincast pewter also gives us the capacity to respond fluidly to customer requests, and the equipment can be used to manufacture a wide variety of products both within and outside the table top games market.

We also invested in a CNC mill, again because it is a highly flexible means of production. We wanted to cut down printed materials as much as possible, which meant either a laser engraver or a CNC mill. Ultimately, we felt that laser engraving is more expensive to operate and less flexible than a mill. Laser engraving is also a highly competitive niche in the table top games market, whereas few companies are milling products.

Compared to many expenses, the cost of spin casting and mill equipment was a fairly modest, far less than artistic assets. We would love to expand into 3D printing at some point, but in the short term, high quality 3D printing is not worth the investment in money and time.

With this as a baseline, we had to match our product to our means of production. And in my view, this is where tough choices have to be made.

For example, as folks have mentioned already, spincast pewter is a limiting factor in terms of what markets you are going to be able to reach most effectively. But we are invested in spincat pewter. Our models will be spincast pewter. So how do you match your manufacturing capacity to your target customer?

Part of this involves adapting your target customer to match your manufacturing capacity. But in my view gamers tend to be pretty flexible. With creative product design, I believe that you can give yourself plenty of room to challenge expectations and pre-conceived biases.

For example, we want our products to be an out-of-the-box experience. Ideally, this would involve high quality pre-assembled plastics, e.g. CMoN and FFG. We can't do that because we simply do not have the capacity. But what are the most important elements of that out-of-the-box experience, in terms of the miniatures?

Engaging, high quality models and zero assembly, right? We can easily do both of those with spincast pewter. We need a product that is cast in a single piece with a full-sized, integral base, minimal part lines and no flashing. No problem. Now the only difference is a weighty metal game piece versus a flexible plastic game piece. Is that really going to be a deal breaker? We will obviously find out once our products are released, but I do not think it will be.

There's always a trade-off, of course. What do you lose with a product format like this? You lose some ability to customize the model. But who are the people customizing their models in the first place? Are these individuals who see no value in an out-of-the-box product? Are these individuals who are unwilling to do a little cutting, drilling, and sawing to get the model they want?

Is there a way that we can engage the interests such customers might enjoy without taking away from the fundamentals of the product design? Absolutely. Again, in house production allows a great deal of flexibility. We can easily include attractive conversion bits with a product, such as variant heads, hand swaps, and base detailing. We can design products to facilitate simple, expedient cuts to high value areas and leave minimal attachment points to integral bases. We can even do exclusive production runs of our own conversions with minimal expense.

In short, how can we serve an interest and tap a broader segment of the market with minimal expense? One example that always comes to mind are the 'Resin Master' products sold be Hasslefree Miniatures. HF masters sculpts in resin prior to pewter production, which incidentally makes damn good sense. While metal production is pending, HF makes available a limited run of resin masters for a premium price. Once the mold is dead, no more resin masters.

This gives HF a product with the high fidelity of a resin master, the value perception attached to resin, exclusivity, and early availability. All without doing much more than HF was already doing in order to create its traditional metal miniature. It allows HF to tap a broader market with minimal expense.

Again, I think one must strive to appreciate what customers are looking for, and then figure out how to provide that within the means at your disposal. That said, it is also my personal goal to give customers something that they are not expecting, and that's what I think makes a really great product.

I am really interested in what games are you designing?

From a boardgmaes perspective the pewter miniatures will affect weight, but only if there are a ton of models.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Talking about uniformity for traditionally sculpted stuff, one of the most jarring things to see is weapons & other kit that you'd expect to be uniform not looking quite the same between figures,

We started going back to concept art and artists for this reason. Originally with the small group I was working with, we were skipping the concept art step and going straight to modeling. With ships it was easier and since the team had an idea of what was being made, they started to create it. The issue is some of the designs were too generic, some of that was lack of experience, most of them are good at sculpting but requiring something to go from. They weren't use to creating it from scratch. The idea was to skip that initial step temporarily to get miniatures to sell, then start revisiting it. That was unfortunately a mistake to some degree but solved when we shifted to creating miniatures that weren't ships.

We started to go through the Lore, start setting out certain attributes, quirks to factions and started to really identify the factions as individuals. The artwork became important to give more visual as well as to help direct the sculpting. We're regoing through the weapon systems from the ships to the infantry, setting up how we want them to look and then we'll get those created. That way we can ensure to keep that uniformity, but then rely on other attributes from colors, clothing, enhancements to individually the factions. For most parts we want the weapons based on similar modern weapons but there might be some small different variants.

weeble1000 wrote:
Kickstarter can be a major help to a startup business, but it can also put a few nails in your coffin, even after a successful campaign. For me, Kickstarter is a big gamble, and it is a high stakes game for a brand new company. Kickstarter provides a great potential for success, but also tends to maximize the risk of catastrophic harm. I don't like to gamble.

Rather than the 'go big or go home' philosophy of crowdfunding, we have chosen to build a strong foundation, start small, focus on developing a modest core of high value customers, and then grow slowly.

Kickstarter definitely is not for everyone. I am not sure how it would be considered a gamble though, properly done right there aren't any high stakes for it. It unfortunately has grown to where people think you have to make it big to or one shot to be successful however it can be done with smaller, focused campaigns set on certain objectives. If you enter into as a philosophy of go big or go home, then I could see how it could be considered a negative. There is no reason though someone do small kickstarters centered on foundation, creating a core of value customers and growing slowly either.

Spincasting was definitely the first route we considered for some of the similar reasons you stated. The only issue was we didn't have the money at the time for one or access. That is still something we want to eventually get. From the prop and cosplay work that I did I already had the setup for resin casting. It took longer from our initial run of metal miniatures from our first test run than I would have liked. Ideally we wanted to get a run of metal miniatures then use the money from those sales to purchase a spin caster to do our own. I'm not sure if it was because metal prices went up, it was above our initial estimate, or because of who we were working with at the time in the US. After getting the quotes for the second run we found it was 50% cheaper for us to go with overseas to EU and resin casting. The added advantage since we are already setup for casting, we can cast additional and future items when needed.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I am really interested in what games are you designing?

From a boardgmaes perspective the pewter miniatures will affect weight, but only if there are a ton of models.

You will be able to find out all about it pretty soon. Our social media launches in a few weeks .

Model count is really low in the game, and product format is closer to X-Wing or Descent.

The game is a Miniatures Role-playing Game. Players only need one model, and the GM usually only needs around 5-8 models.

Our two primary product types are essentially 'class' packs and 'modules' sets. If you want to play a particular character type, you buy a set with two models representing iconic characters of that type and all of the cards, tokens, and materials for that type of character. Campaign sets give you a set of bad guy models, cards and materials, and a set of narrative scenarios featuring the bad guys.

There's more to it than that, but model count is really low. We are actually using wooden boxes, which is a win/win/win scenario. Wooden boxes are not much more expensive than printed boxes, fungible, and provide great value to the customer because you don't just throw it away. Your character can live in the box and there's plenty of extra room for new cards, extra tokens, and such.

We mill the product details into the box, so a pallet of 1,000 boxes can be packaging for any product in a given set of categories. We don't have to pay for 250 boxes for character type A and hope we sell that many. We also get to lump units expected for a dozen different products into a single bulk order, rather than bumping into MOQs for each product. Plus, a wooden box feels more spendy than a cardboard box, and we can even customize boxes to customer specs if somebody wants something special or unique.

With all of those advantages, I could give a crap about weight, honestly.

Creating Conflict and Faction Backgrounds

Ultimately wargames and miniatures games are about conflict, battles and war. All conflicts to make them more engaging should have a good story to accompany them. Ultimately we wanted the struggle to be humanity's dark struggle not only with themselves, barbaric nature but a the time same time have that light of perseverance and overcoming difficult choices. Eventually there will probably be space dwarves and elves but we didn't want to go down that route. We knew we'd need to introduce a couple alien races to throw a mix of different type of models, abilities into the game but for now we were skipping the typical types.

The timeline starts during our current time because it is easy to see our current world affairs in a darker shade without too much hyperbole. The actual game though will take place thousands of years later but today's world would be the building blocks.

Although we are starting on Earth, in our solar system and galaxy, it isn't Earth so the name is Terra so we can differentiate an alternate universe. One reason was as we started talking about planets, the galaxy, we found there is always someone who will bring hard science into the discussion. We realize that planet M388 isn't suitable for a colony or isn't even a planet but that was where Outpost ABC. I know that is funny since we're creating a science fiction universe but it is always the first comments when you start naming planets, locations someone will start going into hard science. That in itself is fine too but we're not hard scientists or engineers, so it gave us a bigger creative license. We could have redone the whole galaxy, not have it based in ours and it is still a possibility but for now Earth is Terra.

In the current timeline that the game takes place in the year 5318, Terra is gone but the basic foundation for the factions still starts from there. There are seven continents: Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Europe, Australia and Antarctica. We settled on starting out with 3-4 factions with a possible 5th faction being Mercenary, ragtag remnants so we needed to do some rearranging. Utilizing a unique science system and process of elimination (we rolled dice) we eliminated a few places due to natural and unnatural disasters.

To further destabilize the world there would have been a World War III, which resulted in South America and parts of Africa to be become wastelands, declaring them disaster and certain areas quarantine zones. There also needed another event which could cause hate/distrust to shift from countries and racism to a new target. Psions started to appear, those humans who had psionic abilities. They aren't Marvel/DC superpowers type abilities, but the usual psionic abilities from telepathy, empathy, telekinesis and a few others. Paranoia and hate shifted from typical racism/hate of humans towards humans hate towards those that are different Psions. Some countries looking for registration, others forbidding them in their borders. Financial crisis, pollution, distrust, hate, racism and a world that could not longer sustain a population is what served as the foundation to drive people to space.

It started with the rich and corporations, first with a moon base and space station for the privileged away from the riff raft of the world. With prisons over crowded, there was a need to switch to them being managed by private corporations. One Corporation pioneering the industry by moving operations to space to mine asteroids, they utilized a work force of prisoners. Security was easier since there wasn't many places for them to run to in space but let them mine needed and discover new minerals and resources. This led to breakthroughs in science and engineering, development of the Mars colony and deeper space exploration, starting with finding a new Terra type planet for colonization.

United Republic
Mostly started with America and Russia, becoming the first corporate nation. Police forces were overtasked, private security become the norm. It was easier and more efficient to build corporate communities and towers, where workers would live, work and have recreations all safely guarded by security. Hard work was rewarded with priveledges, citizenship requiring working and productive members of society while those who didn't became second class citzens. They become the embodiment of humanity. Altered humans, psionics, cyborgs, those that were different weren't exactly welcomed. As long as you looked human, contributed then it was a very good life with great benefits for you and on your family. It is rumored they do have psionics working for them but they value themselves as the last of the true humans.

EuroAsain Coalition
Mostly comprised of Europe and Asia. With psionics emerging more the Church took a unique stance by welcoming those with gifts, they considered them a sign of progression. Most religions combined in favor of focusing on what their similarities were instead of differences. There is some speculation on the reasons but nothing conclusive. Europe became a beacon for the gifted who were in-scripted to work for the Church. Similar to how the Corporations backed and saved the economy for the United Republic, they saved EuroAsia's economy. This was also the start of what would cause a civil war, fracturing them in later years. A portion of Asia was on the cutting edge of cybernetics, which had a negative effect on those who had psionic abilities, the enhancements suppressing or removing the abilities. They were close to developing a process to fully transfer the consciousness to a cyberframe. While they were at war with the United Republic, keeping them at bay and from taking the majority of the better planets, they were quite powerful.

Europa Confederation: EuroAsian Coalition hundreds of years later ends up having a civil war splintering them. No longer at war with the United Republic, factions and views became more centralized as well as opinions. The church believed that psionics was the next step to human evolution and cybernization stunted that growth, while others believed that shedding a frail body for a more rugged cyberframe was the next step. The royal family being Psions along with the Church, from the ashes of the civil war, created the Europa Confederation.

Shingen Empire
Those believing that cybernization is the next step for humanity created the Shingen Empire. By that time they developed a process to fully transfer the consciousness to a cyberframe. There are surprisingly quite a few non-cybernized humans in the empire, some partial cybernetics or almost pure human. There are a few duties that it is better to have a human around. Rumor has it some of them have psioinic abilities since the cybernization process destroys all psionic abilities. Humans are grown or born and taken care of until they are 16 when they make a choice to become cyberized or have a different path, it is always a choice. The trauma of the process can unfortunately cause some psychological side effects. This can be from complete personality changes to increased aggression but for the most part they remain unchanged. A backup is created so if they died, they could be recreated, providing the storage matrix aren't destroyed.

Federated Commonwealth
Australia for the most part was by itself and left alone. They didn't quite have the technological advances or economy as the other nations, but their country was the least effected by the effects of prolonged war. During the space race they were able to stay under the radar moving deeper into space to founded six planets.

Anazi Dynasty
Large parts of Africa was considered quarantined zones due to radiation and effects of new weapons in the war. The conditions and environment were the harshest and they didn't have the resources or technology to deal with them. They did have a strong scientific and medically advanced technology thanks to the Anasazi Corporation. They were outlawed from many countries since their techniques were considered inhumane but they didn't lack in volunteers anymore, since many would have done anything for a better life. This allowed them to lead to breakthroughs in genesplicing, genetic manipulation and bioware. They were able to make modifications which made surviving in the conditions they lived easier. Those gentic maniuplations would have far reaching effects hundreds of years later. At the time of implementation they were able to control what genes and aspects were spliced into a human. Generations of births, when a child was conceived it started to pull from this genetic pool because once integrated, those genes were part of them and passed to their offspring. Some mutations were small cat ears, tail, while others were more known antlike eyes, hardened skin, and even extra limbs.

We didn't make the choice to start with the United Republic, despite them being the largest and most powerful faction. They were future humans and we hope the designs we have chosen will help them be unique, but overall they are still generic human soldiers. There are two alien races that get introduced the Char'iza (lizard, alligator, crocodile humanoid race) and Faenril (humanoid mammillion and avian races, catlike people, bird, ferrets, etc) that are sprinkled through the factions, some more heavily than others. The choice was to start with the Anazi Dynasty because to make up for the weaker tech, they had some interesting mechanics and abilities. They contained muntants, humans but due to distrust other factions don't have a lot of information on them. They don't live on planets that other factions would find pleasant. They do have a 'human' looking representative that does importing, exporting for them but for the most part they play up the fact they are monsters and mutants. Even those who are human have masks with horns or optics to create glowing eyes to feed and play on the fact they aren't normal.

The main scouts are light armored soldiers. There was some experiments with Egyptian styles with a mix of Arabic. We settled with the pants from F, upper body part of D, head from C.


The second pass went through more refinement. There were also some widely different designs thrown in to push the boundaries. Settling on a style similar to I.


Then we started to experiment with color pallette. They were mostly desert and rocky environments, so earth tones for blending into terrain.


We tried to create a set of armor that would allow legs/arms to be used for both male and female. Although we got close, ultimately there is a slight difference in builds, shapes so we decied to go with seperate models for them. We did want to provide alternate head as an option as well.



Faction Play Styles

There is a slight rock, paper, scissors style between the different factions. The idea is that you can't be equipped for every situation and battle. You have the option to equip yourself to handle most situations and being dynamic, or focusing on your strengths. It isn't simply about beating a force, so although being rock against paper works in favor for rock, it isn't an autowin. Game play is objective base, there are 1-2 public objectives to create areas that battle tends to center around. There are also a couple private objectives which your opponents do not know, which can be used to generate victory points. You also get points for defeating opponents but the most points come from achieving your objectives. Even though paper is at a disadvantage against rock, achieving the objectives could be more in favor of papers abilities. There are also Heroes and Mercenaries which are used augment weaknesses and possibly altering the play style of a faction. Troops have a base cost and weapons kit, for increased points you can modify their weapons.

United Republic (scissors) being the strongest and largest force have better weapons, better trained troops and are more accurate. They are a mostly human faction but considered a jack of trades, the basic sci-fi modern military force with access to power armor. They set the average when it comes to cost, their weapons upgrades being cheaper in points compared to other factions. Their basic troops and fireteams do not have access to psionic upgrades. They do have access to some heroes who can have access psionic abilities at a higher point cost.

Europa Confederation (paper) being second largest have access to similar weapons at a slight increased cost but they also have access to troops with psionic abilities. This changes the ability for movement making it easier to traverse terrain or climb to higher places, allowing possible rerolls for their own bad rolls or forcing the opponent to reroll a success but that comes at a cost of points and risk. The risk gambling on rerolls or being on a play field with terrain to take advantage of properly. Their fireteams have access to psionic upgrades which can help fill in the gaps and weaknesses.

Shingen Empire (rock) have access to more defensive units, their rail guns can be devastating but requires them to spend extra action to dig in for stability. Some units have auto repair ability which can get them back in the fight, if they aren't completely taken down. Their basic troops have access to heavy weapons, not requiring the need of heavy support troops to utilize them like the other factions. They do not have access to psionic abilities which can cause issues for their soldiers.

Federated Commonwealth utilizes cavalry to strike fast, capture objectives and fade away. Unlike the other factions which have a larger ship fleet, they have a smaller one and because of that don't usually go toe to toe with ships. They utilize a large air force of fighters and drones to harass and engage while staying long range. That allows them to call in possible air strikes or drop troops behind enemy lines for increased army point cost. They have access to some psionic upgrades but utilize them differently than other factions, allowing their fireteams easier coordination and dual activation.

Anazi Dynasty are close quarters combat experts. Unfortunately their weapons selection is more limited than the other factions, having to rely on projectile over laser weapons. They have access to Char'iza soldiers which are tough skinned lizard warriors. They do have some regenerative abilities, agility and height senses which can allow them to avoid ambushes or deploy behind enemy lines. Other factions have troops that allow them to traverse terrain, either go around obstacles, climb and even super jump up and over but the Anazi developed Rift Generators. Utilizing a special interface available to scout troops, this allows them to 'blink' which essentially opens a small hole so they can pass through. Great for moving from outside a building into one or to the other side of something, without needing to spend extra activation or movement to go up, over or around they instead go through.

There is still a lot of testing going on as we simultaneous testing two different action/reaction systems. Game play style for the space game was very different than ground combat, which made us go back to try to marry them together better. We wanted the transition from one game to the other, since they are part of the same universe to be similar and not as drastically different. Currently each faction has Light Trooper fireteam, Heavy Trooper fireteam, Specialized fireteam, 2 heroes which access what upgrades they have access to. There are also 1 mercenary fireteam and 2 heroes that everyone has access too. Basic game play consists of alternating activation so players don't have to wait for someone to move everything, but also action/reaction type response to keep both players engaged.

Method A utilizes an orders generating system, heroes generate 1 order, fireteams (2-5 miniature group) generated 2 orders. You activate and move 1-2 heroes or fireteams, your opponent being able to react if their units have line of sight. Then the opponent activates 1-2 heroes or fireteams. You can activate the same one multiple times or all your units just once. You can also choose to activate more than 2 but this generates fatigue which could get you into a better position, but gives a penalty to shooting/defense.

Method B also utilizes an order generating system. It is very similar where you can activate and move 1-2 heroes or fireteams. However you can only activate one group once, not multiple times, unless you want them to generate fatigue. And unlike the other method if your units cross line of sight of an opponents unit, they can only respond/react if they have not activated that unit yet unless they are in overwatch. You are trying to outmaneuver, get their units to activate so you can move or act more freely.

Working on Other Games

Every person and company will vary slightly on how they work on their projects and games. Since I'm wearing multiple hats, there are periods of time that I have nothing to do. At quite a few points I was waiting for artwork, graphic design, 3D sculpting and rules testing from multiple people. There is nothing that I can do to contribute further to the game because it could be a day or a couple weeks. At this point I need to feel like I'm contributing to something so that is when we start working on other game designs. Some of the designs will end up being shelved for later development and others will start to develop more or be the next step afterwards.

You should always have a backup plan either as an alternate or something to become the next project. Just in case we need to put Interstellar Crisis on hold temporarily or was ready to move forward with another game, we wanted a backup. There are also some games that we would want to develop to be picked up by another game company vs us self publishing it. As a project ends or you slowly grow it, you will want development on a new project to continue to bring revenue. I will use CMoN and Mantic as examples mainly because most of us are very familiar with them. Just as one project is about to wrap up, deliver and go retail they announce another soon going live. They didn't just start working on it, it has been planned and in some cases probably worked on at the same time as the main project was. Obviously with a larger team this is easier but if you are only a couple people, you need to take advantage of downtime. It takes almost 1-2 years from start to finish to really develop a good game. I don't mean manufacturer, sculpting but time to actually develop the nuances of game play and test some mechanics. It may not be fully balanced as working with smaller teams doesn't necessarily prove that things will not get through the cracks. We are all human and even though we believe we've accounted for every angle, there is always someone who will use a skill or ability in a non-intended method.

Black Box and White Box Testing

Testing games mechanics, balance and rules is important. You shouldn't simply just test with a group of friends or internally, but you should reach out and utilize people who aren't familiar with the game. When you work on a project and become intimate with it, there are things that seem like common or make sense to you because you have played it. For someone who has never seen or played it, they might not find it as intuitive. This is especially important when wanting to make sure instructions are clear and not overly complicated to new people.

Coming from software programming these terms are widely known. Black Box refers to testing functionality of the software without looking at the internal code. White Box testing is when the box is clear, we can test the software functionality and the internal structure of the software as well. How can we apply that when testing board games? These aren't commonly done or utilized with Board Games but it is a method that I utilize to identify my test groups.

Black Box Testing: We are testing the functionality or specific aspects of the game. These are done in demo or pre-setup games. I don't want players to worry about setup, reading the instructions or learning the game. I want them to test that the game functions and performs in the manner we expect. These tests could be short segment tests or full game sessions. You want to know what you want to test and maybe have a small questionnaire of a few questions already written down. This helps gives the tester a direction for what you are focusing on. For Sinister Reflections I wanted players to test game play. When they played the game, did the turn flow well, was it initiative, did they feel they should have been able to respond or do something they couldn't and why and of course did they have fun. Usually I try to have game already setup, then have players sit down, give a brief run down of mechanics. I stay available to answer questions but want them to see if it plays well without having to be prompted or reminded to do certain things. If it is a group that has played the game previously this becomes easier for larger tests, in smaller settings for first time players it may simply be about player movement or responding to NPC actions. Then rest the situation and test it again. I tend to rotate players through different playable characters so they aren't in control of the same person, each person may play a character differently than another even if a character is designed to play a certain way. Some players will play a ranged character aggressively, getting in closer than they need too while someone else would use it maximizing its skills.

White Box Testing: This is also known as clear box testing, not only are we testing functionality or mechanics but we're looking at the rules. These are tests that I like to give the tester a white blank box with the game inside. I will preface it by letting them know that perhaps I'm having them test setups, based on them reading the instructions and setting it up. How quickly was it? Was it intuitive? Did they feel something should have been done differently? Other game tests may be testing a fresh group who have never seen the game from start to finish. Can they set it up following the directions, were their questions, how long did the game take? Then after playing awhile, another week I may have them retest it again after they are more familiar, did they remember things, was setup faster now.

No matter what method you use to do your testing, don't simply just give them a game and have someone test it. You always want to give the person and/or group a direction for what you are testing in each aspect. Some tests may simply be about fun, was the game fun. Another aspect might be testing rules. You don't want to simply ask them, was the game fun? Was the game easy to understand? You will want to be more specific with your questions to ensure you don't get simple yes and no answers. You are going to want answers that have depth, what they enjoyed and found fun and what they didn't. Did they find an aspect tedious, what was it and why?

Don't just simply ask friends to test, even if you are a small company. There are people locally at game stores that do this, there are groups on reddit and other forums that has people who game test. No matter who you get, provide some incentive for the favor that testers will be doing for you. These are also potential people who may help build your customer base later. Even if you are just providing pizza and beer, offer something for the time they are investing in helping you out. You may not be able to pay them cash but there are other ways to motivate them to assist you.


Maids vs Butlers

Maids vs Butlers was actually conceived years before Interstellar Crisis. It was during my World of Warcraft TCG and Magic days that we started up with the idea because I was trying to get my wife interested into playing TCGs. There was a lot of TCGs out there but she couldn't find something that she felt the characters were good looking... I'm talking male good looking characters, there are millions of female characters targeted toward a male audience, but she wanted something targeted more to a female audience. It started a joke, we'd develope art cards where I could collect hot maids and she would collect good looking butlers. Then we wanted to figure out a way to make a deck building game or card game out of it, around building your 'team'. If someone wanted to collect just maids they could. If someone wanted to collect just butlers they could. If someone wanted a mix, there should be a mechanic that uses that as well. At the heart it was going to be modular so it could interact with other variations, Pirates vs Ninjas, Angels vs Demons, Elves vs Dwarves, etc.

We already decided against doing a TCG, there isn't a lot of money in that, unless you have a huge IP to rally behind and a good marketing to keep pushing it. The amount of cost that goes into creating random card packs, printing, artwork doesn't justify the profit without a large force behind it. That left us with a couple options. We could do a Deck Building Game, which were starting to become more popular or something similar to a Living Card Game (although we can't use that name because it is trademarked by Fantasy Flight).

Deck Building Game
This is the prefered method and we started development with this initially. There would be an initial box with everything needed to play. There may also be 1-2 small expansions for those games. Any new games would be self contained games or ones that could be combined with the previous deck builder. There would be either one or two types of currency which you would be utilizing them to purchase maids or butlers. Those cards are worth favor points but they are also used in various ways to complete objectives which can gain you favor points. There are two different types of objectives, public and private. There is a mini-draft at the beginning to determine what your private objectives are. When you want to complete one of the private objectives you would play the cards, reveal the objective but there are cards that can allow an opposing player from blocking that objective as well. You have to plan when to strike with them, unlike public objectives which everyone can see. At the end the favor points are added up to determine who the winner is. The advantage was this is designed for 2-6 player games.

Card Dice Battle
This was designed around 2-8 starter boxes of smaller 30 card sets. Unlike the DBG which could work with 2-6 players, this is basically designed around 2 players in a versus battle. You could take the dice and cards and play vs another player who has a starter. You can also take the starters apart and create your own custom deck. They would also be setup to be able to use in a drafting format. The battles are a series of 2 out of 3 quick matches, dice are rolled to activate powers of the cards. You get up to 3 rerolls, choosing to keep what you want to trigger the powers. There is an attacker and a defender, which also determines the order of activations for some powers. Your opponent doesn't know what champion you will be playing. After playing the battle, discard, redraw champions and play again. There are also objective cards which can gain additional favor, victory of the fight also gains favor and the one with the most favor in 2 matches win, if tied, play a third game and then winner gets a soul stone. Gaining 2-5 soul stones, depending on game type, wins the game.

At the heart of it they are simple, fairly short games from 15-60 minutes depending on which version, fun but ultimately centered around collecting your favorite looking cards. Since we were also getting artwork done for it, we also wanted to recylce some of it and take it further expanding by using the same characters to create a board game. Similar to cards there are no real miniatures that she finds good looking or attractive to her. We don't know if it would simply use stands and character board characters like Dead of Winter does or if it would be miniatures. It may end up being both base game coming with complete set of characters, while creating resin miniatures for those that want to replace their standee's with something else.

Manor Mayhem
The board game is a tiled based game. One set of tiles in the initial Mansion setup, while the other side can be used for a modular setup to create different campaigns. The main objective is to earn favor points and make their opponents lose favor through a series of player vs player fights and completing objectives, called House Challenges. Players would control 1-3 different characters and there are random token locations that contain equipment that you can search for. The weapons for Maids vs Butlers at least are centered around things in the house, wine bottles, fire poker, umbrella, silverware, etc. There is a rock, papers, scisors type of mechanic that grants bonus dice for characters fighting against certain types. Characters have a base attack, dice are rolled, they get bonus if they are vs someone

There is an objective deck that is used to move gameplay towards certain events. Some objectives are about defeating a certain character, others could be racing to a location, and there are some that require a task to be completed allowing them to be scored. There are also some ongoing objectives that continue to effect gameplay until a goal is met or another ongoing replaces it.

The Manor has the 'Master' which is moved after every player has done their moves and actions. He moves to different locations in the house and can effect what happens along with objective cards. When he is in a room where characters are located, no PvP can actually occur. Some objectives may also be effected and not able to be completed until he is moved to a different room.

These are fairly brief and quick run downs of the game play but it didn't start out a complete game in a day or two. We didn't simply just come up with an idea and immediately decide the direction to go, there was a lot of testing and changing of mechanics throughout the process. The whole process is a dynamic process until you finally publish the game. Even after published you will still be working on enhancing, correcting and making the 2.0 version better. I'll work on a post to outline how how we start to develop and work on ideas, from identifying the project, what you want to accomplish and sometimes making the hard choice of when to shelve it.

Its an interesting discussion, I am more intrigued with the black box testing (and white box).

Looks like you really like the RPS ideology and try to experiment with it a lot.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Its an interesting discussion, I am more intrigued with the black box testing (and white box).

Looks like you really like the RPS ideology and try to experiment with it a lot.

I will see about digging up our earlier tests we did and going into more detail on the testing. The trouble with the earlier documents was before I started doing everything in the cloud, so a lot of the paperwork, tests and answers are in files from questionnaires that were filled out during cons and other tests.

Rock / Paper / Scissors

When looking at game balancing there are a couple philosophies and methods to use. Most games will strive to reach a balance but there will always be aspects that do not balance out, these tend to create the Meta for the games. There really isn't a game that is perfectly balanced but there are games that are well balanced. You actually don't really want a perfectly balanced game because it can lead to repetition and predictability, there has to be something that causes it to be unbalanced to tip the scale. Dice are method to throw in some percentage of luck or randomness but by itself it usually isn't enough. I come from a TCG background and that is typically how the meta for them is created but the randomness/luck is based on deck building and card draw.

At the heart of almost every game, the core of them can be broken down into a rock, paper scissors mechanic. For the most part it breeds healthy competitive play, creating a basis for players to adapt, learn and grow. If the game is perfectly balanced and each player skill level is equal, then it should result in a draw. Draws in themselves are never good, no one likes to get a draw and there is no sense of accomplishment. RPS also doesn't mean that rock always beats scissors, after all that is where luck and other factors can come into play. There is also no guarantee that a player with the rock knows how to properly utilize it as well. Providing both players are equally skilled though rock does have an edge and there is a reason that is healthy.

No one can ever plan for every contingency or be prepared to face any situation. You don't typically want one army, squad or team to be able to plan for every contingency. Part of gaming is creating your team, trying to predict what others will bring but since you don't know your match-ups, you can't be set to defeat each one. In Chess there is only white and black, essentially the same thing with a slight lead going to white. However I also find Chess to be boring, that is why I don't play chess and I play board and miniatures games because although we are moving pieces, similar to chess, the game isn't chess.

RPS provides three options, so it isn't just white vs black. There is one side usually better equipped to face one of the situations but not both. You can choose to be really effective against the one option, then do your best against what you are weaker against. You could also reduce your effectiveness by trying to handle both sides, which can work but does require a lot more work. Simply playing rock doesn't mean it will always beat scissors and that is where balancing comes into effect. The trick is to balance so that skill leads to the majority of whether you will win or lose, with a pinch of luck thrown in to keep everyone on their toes. You can create the focus on skill on understanding how to create a list, plan and utilize that list or you can have skill focus more on understanding timing, game mechanics.

Another way to look at it is like this, you can pick two sides that your force can be effective against but not all three.:


Rock can choose to be the best to always beat scissors and hold its own against other rocks, however they will paper can be a much tougher battle. Rock could also choose to shore up their force, allowing them to hold their own against other rocks and go against paper effectively, however this means they are now susceptible to lose to scissors.

Funny enough now that I think about it I experimented with RPS in a game I have stopped developing giving light medium and heavy armour and Anti infantry, light AT and heavy AT weapons
the premise was the weapon paired with the proper armour had the best chance of penetrating while a bad pair would give the worse.

It had potential, but was too complicated for a boardgame at least in my current mindset.

Things have been busy but I did want to make a post. I am going to circle back around to Kickstarters, pricing and distribution.

Kickstarters - Part Deux

If you spend time on Kickstarter going through things, in the 'Creator FAQ' questions area you will find an interesting little blurb, buried in all the other information.

Can I run more than one project at once?

We rarely permit running multiple projects at the same time, or launching a second project before fulfilling your first one. Having multiple live projects can confuse backers and split support. Running a project is a lot of work, and more than one live project will likely dilute your attention and energy.

If you're a first-time creator and have multiple project ideas, we recommend selecting the one that's most developed and trying that first.

Unfortunately that is not located within the Terms of Use so it proably never gets seen. It also shows that Kickstarter's team when looking to approve projects, do not investigate if a company has completed an existing Kickstarter. Although it says you shouldn't and it is a rare, the truth is it isn't rare and it isn't a true rule because it isn't defined in the Terms of Use.

I do bring it up because there is a recourse that backers can attempt. If only one or two or a few complain when they see this, I doubt Kickstarter would care or blink. A lot of people tend to complain on forums, facebook and even in the comments but they don't actually report and that is what allows it to continue to happen more.

I don't think it is a bad thing if another Kickstarter campaign is started by someone, while they are delivering an existing one. I do believe it is about timing. Once they have a proven track record then running multiple ones would not be so bad, providing they are delivering. However that does identify something of a red flag. More and more creators are mis-managing the initial project, running out of funds and then start another Kickstarter to generate funds to deliver the first project. That is dangerous and should never happen. If they mis-managed an existing project, then the second project would also run into an issue.

Living Kickstarter to Kickstarter

When I refer living Kickstarter to Kickstarter I refer to game companies that generate their revenue almost solely by Kickstarter. These are aren't mismanaged ones like I've talked about above, but ones that properly do their projects delivering, launching another and so forth. The issue is they've developed a product, started a fan base but didn't expand or grow it, they didn't work with a distributor or get it into retail stores.

How do you plan to deliver future and existing product to customers?

How do you drive new customers who missed the Kickstarter to you?

How are you going to fund or start the next big project/game?

Pricing

Pricing is very important. You want the pricing to be good for a Kickstarter but you should also have a retail price in mind. There are too many people who haven't decided on a retail price or are afraid to finalize it during the Kickstarter and that can be dangerous. You don't want pricing to be higher than retail for Kickstarter otherwise people will wait for retail next time, despite the fact that the game may never reach retail without a successful campaign. You also don't want the price so low that once you hit retail, distribution channels you end up losing money. That is one reason we tend to see some games never fully hit real distribution channels, they are priced at a point that means they lose money going that route so stick to online or direct sales.

To start with you should know what your manufacturing costs are going to be or have a general idea. Once you have final costs, add 10-15% for 'emergency' situations that always seem to pop up. Then take that cost, divide by the number of games you got created and that should give you the individual cost per game. Remember what your minimum order requirement is because at the very least, you will want to make at least that much money, otherwise you will never be able to do a second run. Take that base cost of your game, multiply it by four or five and that is the start retail cost. I say start because there are things that will lower or raise that, like do you have actual employee's that you pay that effect how much you need to make?

Example: Artwork $400; 3D modeling 5 models $1250; Cuts, sockets for the models (1 head, 1 torso, 1 pelvis with legs posed, 1 alternate head, 4 arms (interchangeable)) $750; 3D master print for 5 models $500; Resin casting per $2; To create a fireteam of 5 multipiece miniatures, with different poses before manufacturing, initial investment is $2900. To cast 200 miniatures a piece to create 200 fireteams will cost $2000, I rounded up to make the examples easier.

Now it depends on how you plan to sell that miniature. Do you want to sell them seperately, or will they sold as a squad? Resin miniatures, 5 of them at 32mm prices vary from as low as $16 to as high as $75. There is some added utility because there are alternate heads, arms to make them more unique. You can offset those extra by making torsos that are also sold individually, but we'll stick with just a squad.

The manufacturing cost comes down to $10 for a fireteam of 5. After you've paid back or broken even, the eventual flat manufacturing cost for them will be $10. Let's say we simply priced them at $40 and they sold at that. Even though they only cost $10 to make, the $30 isn't profit yet. You need to sell at least 96 to get your initial investment of $2900 back, then you can technically start creating a profit. We'll say the first 100 fireteams goes to pay back your initial investment. Depending on the minimum order the next 25-50 sold, the money be set aside to start a 2nd manufacture run. Another 25-50 would be profit and the left over would go towards developing another set of miniatures.

That would be in a perfect world but it doesn't always end up like that. If you sell them online for $40, then a distributor will want to pay $16 for them. They would probably sell them to a retailer for $20-25, then the retailer would put them at $40, online wholesalers would sell them for $32. That means you really only make $6 per set now, much different than the $30 you were making when they ordered directly. You don't see any of the profit that local game store or wholesaler makes, but you hopefully get the added bonus of greater exposure, higher order numbers which will offset the amount being made. There is also nothing stopping you from also selling directly and running sales to be competitive against online wholesalers. Obviously it is harder to do this with miniatures than it is with board games. Board games can do this easier because of the cost of manufacturing vs retail price point is much different. It could take the same $10 to make, but it could retail for $50-100.

Retailer Terms

When you talk to retailers you might be asked, "what are your retailer terms?". The buyer or store is going to want to know the wholesale price, how many they have to order to get that price, shipping cost and if they have to pay immediately or in 30 days (net 30). They are going to want to double the wholesale price, also known as keystoning, in order to make a profit on your game. They are not going to want to get stuck with too many if the game does not sell. If it is a card deck under $5, they could probably order 12. If it is a $25 wholesale game, they may be reluctant to order 4. Idealy board games want to stay in the $40 range, miniature gamers are used to paying $75-100 but board gamers don't like to spend over $50 retail.

Distributor Terms

If you are talking to a game and hobby distributor then you will want to ask them, "What are your distributor terms?". Distribution is one the main methods to get your games in stores and retailers generally prefer to order from distribution rather than direct from publishers, but that isn't always the case. When you are a large retailer managing inventory, it makes sense to place a single order with a distributor for everything. It is much easier than making multiple orders with several publishers. This is how distributors make their money is by providing lots of products, getting larger orders. When an order is large enough, the stores could receive reduced or free shipping from the distributor.

Distributors will usually require 60-65% off retail price plus free shipping to their warehouses. Keep this in mind when you set your retail price. A good rule of thumb is to set retail price at your total unit cost multiply by 5. If the unit price is too high, you are pricing yourself out of sales. If it is too low, you can't afford distribution terms. Cut costs if necessary to reduce components but only if the design will not suffer and only to include what is necessary in each game box to play. Every penny counts.

For an example when a shipment of "Gut Bustin' Games" comes into port from China, typically 25% of the order goes to a Portland, Oregon warehouse and 75% goes to Alliance Game Distribution. Alliance is one of about 10 game distributors and they are the largest. They are a fulfillment service for Gut Bustin; Games as well. When they get an order from another distributor or a retail store, they would email Alliance and they ship it out. If it is a large enough order, they arrange trucking and the games are sent on pallets. Smaller orders ship case by case and they pass on a UPS discount. The warehouse in Portland will send pallets, but is not cost effective to use them for sending cases.

OK, I just love the references, esp for boxes - thank you!

Thanks for the read, useful information, some really worth repeating.

I would like to add a discussion point, in a recent interview Andy Chambers pointed out something I suspected and encouraged a lot in the industry, that with the current plethora of means to get a game going and the ease of manufacturing (and how cheap it is to make a game in comparison to the 90's) the quality of the game is not as important as the IP behind it.

His main point and I am glad he phrased it this way is how to keep the player engaged when he is not playing.

Given that, how much more the developing of an IP should take precedence over the rules and physical parts of the game?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Thanks for the read, useful information, some really worth repeating.

I would like to add a discussion point, in a recent interview Andy Chambers pointed out something I suspected and encouraged a lot in the industry, that with the current plethora of means to get a game going and the ease of manufacturing (and how cheap it is to make a game in comparison to the 90's) the quality of the game is not as important as the IP behind it.

His main point and I am glad he phrased it this way is how to keep the player engaged when he is not playing.

Given that, how much more the developing of an IP should take precedence over the rules and physical parts of the game?

Personally, I agree with Andy. As I have often said, art sells miniatures. Rules sell miniatures too, but you only really need adequate rules. I expect that it is much harder to get a project off of the ground with so-so artwork.

Keeping customers engaged between games is key, and the rules are (ironically) a large part of that. How much time have people spent designing 40K army lists, for example? But fluff is also a critical part of that 'between games' experience. A fictional universe provides much needed context. You need to give people reasons to start new projects, whether it is a new unit, converting a model, planning out a campaign, writing custom scenarios, blogging, whatever.

The fictional universe behind a product can be a big driver of those sorts of activities. You want to inspire customers to engage with your products as much as possible, and providing a rich and engaging narrative context goes a long way towards that. I don't think that you want to make customers work too hard to engage with your products, but you need to leave them some room in which to make it their own. You need to inspire without being overbearing.

This was always a big strength of the Eberron campaign setting for D&D. Eberron gave you a whole lot to work with, but closed very few doors. Lots of table top wargames used to be the same way, and I think the recent upsurge in narrative gaming is an indication that this is what customers are looking for.

I don't think it has much to do with how crowded the market is though, or with developments in manufacturing and production. I think it is what people have always really wanted. But right now, there are so many options out there that we are seeing plenty of failures as well as successes. This was always the case, of course, but I think it is fair to say that the pace is increasing, which allows us to more easily identify trends.

Oh I agree with Andy that is what I was preaching years now.

I would argue in GWs case that it proves that bad rules can be sustained by great fluff.

A simple yet strong idea behind a story can make wonders, Rainor and Kerrigan the divided lovers, for example from SC2 or the Protos clinging into existence and the ways of old when everything around them is collapsing, Horus Heresy, brothers fighting brothers, the fluff of the Imperium itself is the fall of the Byzantine empire, a simple strong theme can captivate an audience more than an elaborate plot.

I think I will Agree with Andy on the crowded environment, we have seen the first big merges in our little niche Asmodee buying FFG is a huge merge that has rippled in our small pond and set many in motion, in such a state the small studios will need to keep their audience captivated, a fictional world one can easily understand and be captivated in it, were one can wonder and think of "cool stories" in it especially after they stopped playing will be a huge asset.

Again I'll preface this as some of it is experience, mixed in with opinion. Your mileage may vary and is effected by environment and other factors. I am in no means an expert.


Intellectual Property

IP which means Intellectual Property when applied to gaming tends to refer to the big picture, in terms of a product line which does includes art, lore and more (ie: Halo, Star Wars, Harry Potter, WH40K are all IPs). When talking about board and miniatures game IP tends to represent lore/art, the universe a game takes place in. However IP in business terms is much more than that, it is very broad category which also includes trademarks, copyrights, trade dress just to name a few. Star Wars isn't just an IP because of Jedi, the force and lore of the galaxy but because it has unique and has distinct features. If you showed someone somewhat exposed to Star Wars, one of their ship designs by itself, it could probably be easily say it was from Star Wars by looking at the ship itself. There are certain unique designs and features that are known for Star Wars. Just like there are certain design aspects to ships that are Star Trek.

For this discussion though I will not be covering trademarks, trade dress, copyrights because I believe we are talking about background, lore, history, art, etc. Correct me if I am wrong in assuming that, but I took it to mean discussing the things around the game, not just rules or physical pieces.

There really isn't a right or wrong answer to what should come first, the chicken or the egg. The first question to ask and answer would be to first identify what the target or end goal for creating a game is for you. That is important because there are many people who just want to design, sell a game and are happy with it not being the next WH40K. Then there are those that want it to be bigger, become it's own thing and not just be considered 'generic game'. They want it to stand out and continue to grow.

In the game design path there are a couple directions to travel as everything needs to have a start point. It really depends on the person/group developing the game on where to start and the direction to go. There are those that start with the rules. They have set a few things they want to accomplish, outlined the rules and then from there they will develop the IP, lore, art, story and shape it around the lore. There are others that start with a physical game piece, then build up from there. Then there those that build the universe, lore, art first and from there start to create rules for the game.

I think it is important to note that you really want to marry both rules and IP. If you focus so much on making great rules and the IP suffers, then in the long term your game suffers in terms of longevity. If you focus so much on the IP that the rules suffer, then the game will suffer in terms of growth and can stunt itself.

World of Warcraft Example

World of Warcraft is a fairly well known IP that is based and built upon Warcraft. Back when I was associated with Blizzard there is basically a saying that "Lore > All". I'm not sure how things are done anymore but I doubt it has changed much. For most cases in Warcraft that is ultimately correct, Lore dictates abilities, powers, rules for players, characters and environment. There are often cases when rules or tweaks are done specifically to deal or create things based on the Lore.

However that is not always the case, IP does not always beat the rules. There are times that you will have to make adjustments to marry the two of them for balancing or game play reasons.

In Warcraft the Alliance have Priests that use Holy talents, while the Horde have Priests that use Shadow talents. When World of Warcraft came out, there was a balancing issue as well as simply a game play issue with keeping that idea. As such lore was modified to allow the Horde Priest class have access to Holy and/or Shadow and vice versa with Alliance. Without those changes there would have been no way for some raids and games to happen. The IP itself would have hurt the rules and essentially the game as a whole.

Applying Intellectual Property to Game Design

Personally I believe that you shouldn't cut corners. If you are making a board game, then make a great board game with good rules and a good game. Do not simply use great rules and then create mediocre lore.

IP doesn't have a bearing on the crowded market, the lower cost to develop games and more accessible manufacturing for the average person is why the market is flooded. That isn't necessarily a bad thing though. However there are many examples of why you can't simply take rules from a game, then expect it to be big even when you use great rules. I think many people have this big dream and then either fail to deliver or don't fully understand why it didn't do well, especially if Product XYZ they based it from does equally as well.

I'll use the World of Warcraft MMO clones for example, since there are many new games that come out and get accused of being WoW clones. Although WoW is a clone of EverQuest and Ultimate Online, currently WoW is the more known so everything gets compared to it. They all share a very similar rules and game play but the IP themselves are different. Many board games and even miniatures games are like this, similar rules but different lore and IP. They share many similar commonalities, but new games even based on the same rules fair poorly because they didn't build up the IP. Great rules but without building up their IP they tend to fall to the side of the giant known as WoW.

There weren't enough to things to make them stand-out and be identifiable as their own things to create their own identities. It takes time to build up that lore, background and universe and doesn't just fill itself overnight. When you look at how many books, games, novels are out for Warcraft and even if you look at a miniatures game like WH40K... there isn't any company that can come close to touching that in the beginning, unless its established like Star Wars or Halo. Even look at Alien vs Predators, a great IP, great looking miniatures but the execution of its release is hurting it.

On the flipside, Star Wars the Old Republic MMO is an example of a huge IP, however utilizing poor rules implementation. The IP drew people in, there is a lot to build on and grow with but the rules didn't fully take advantage of that. They didn't give enough developed content to keep people going and have the good rules to keep it engaging.

Board Games tend to suffer more from good rules but bad IP. There isn't technically anything wrong with that as it is hard to truly develop an IP for a board game environment but it has limits. For example Zombicide is a fun, simple game that can be considered fairly big and popular. The IP itself is recognized as zombies, zone, co-operative game but beyond that not much. It is zombies and although characters have stories, the game has a background none of that is brought to the forefront. It is just a game nothing engaging beyond the game mechanics itself.

Artwork and great looking miniatures can draw people in with the 'oohhh shiny'. Lore will keep them interested, interacting while they wait to play or in-between games. Great rules will give you a home run but it can't win the ballgame solely by itself.

What should be developed, grown and when do you work on the IP? That answer tends to ultimately come down to business decisions but in the end they need to be developed together. IP is the broad spectrum and big picture that should be outlined and planned out, essentially it is the recipe. The rules, good looking miniatures are like the ingredients for the recipe. The recipe by itself can be useless, and when it is made with bad ingredients it isn't very good. But if you take that same great recipe and add in some good ingredients, then you have a winning combination.


Small Game Companies and IP

Designing an IP can be harder for smaller game companies without real finance backing and support. On one side of the fence a person can write lore and stories for free, filling a universe but it is another thing to refine that. I have enough lore on one of my games to fill a book larger than the Dragon Age RPG. However that is just the equivalent as a raw diamond. I tend to type like I talk, my grammar could use some work, nor am I an English major and I do not have access to staffing that larger companies have. Yes, you can hire a freelancer to ghost write, check grammar and even spell check but that is different than finding someone who has the passion to take time to understand the universe, vision and enhance the weak points.

Beyond the lore, I don't have the budget for extra concept art. The budget calls for artwork that is going to be used to model and develop the game pieces and miniatures, not enhance the lore. Simply having a few pieces will dramatically increase the appeal to the IP. For that reason we've been slowly redirecting funds to get some artwork done but that takes some time.

Time is where game companies end up making the hard decisions. They need capital to help grow, but they also don't want to release something that isn't fully complete. With Kickstarter games they tend to build them around rules, less focus on the IP with a hint of focus on art. The main idea is for them to manufacturer the game. The ultimate game plan is to then start to develop and grow it more from there. In most cases that isn't entirely how it works out.

I'll use Megacon Games as an example, although this is mostly guess work and opinion as I am not involved with them. There is a big potential for a rich universe IP with Mercs and Myth. They are a small company and the priorities really went to create miniatures and developing a retail product. Beyond that unfortunately they haven't done much with expanding it. I have the 1st Merc book from the miniatures game. It is mostly rules with a small section of Lore, but beyond that there is no other information to fill from that. When you compare it to Infinity, Infinity's lore and artwork blows it out of the water. They are both decent rule systems and fairly good miniatures, but there is nothing to keep a person enchanted with Merc compared to plenty of things in Infinity. They don't need to have a novel to develop it, but they do need to provide information and set the background which the does none of that. A lot of the background, lore and story should be there but it is missing. It looks like instead they are relying or hoping that players make that push but that can't happen because there isn't a lot available. This is where they are failing to grow the product though, there is nothing to draw a player in to the universe.


Kickstarter Design and Implementation

I actually was trying to avoid talking about Kickstarter a bit but the above IP discussion along with another topic on General Discussion does have a valid tie-in. Kickstarter creates an avenue that does let smaller game companies create a game, but also get funding to fill in the spaces to games they couldn't otherwise create. In most aspects this is applied in terms of manufacturing, with a side of artwork and writing. In my opinion where game companies tend to fall short is that many try to embrace the "Go big or go home" attitude. Their goal is to make a good game, but really it is about creating an idea and a huge project that hopefully funds in the thousands of $$$. This unfortunately has had a side effect of making projects take longer to conceive and deliver. What used to be a 8-10 month project from start to finish has started to become 1-2 years as a normal timeline.The heart and idea of Kickstarter, it actually is a great thing. The flaw with it tends to be the design and implementation of utilizing Kickstarter and it is my opinion that it is being done wrong.

Kickstarter toutes about backers being part of the creation experience and process but in reality, it can be labeled a glorified pre-order and marketing system. To be fair that doesn't mean I think of it entirely as a pre-order but pre-order is the closest as a word to explain what I mean. Backers aren't part of the creation process in reality, they just give funds and that is it. Yes there is community communication, feedback but the game isn't going to be redesigned because people think it should be. Backers don't really contribute to choosing or creating what part and aspects a game or IP get created. Those decisions are already made for them by the creator, they get to weigh in. There have been a few KS that have made minor changes to products due to feedback but not many. That is what I mean by pre-order, because ultimately that is what you are doing when you give money, wait for a product that isn't created yet. That isn't necessarily a bad thing either, I still believe it can be a good tool.

How does IP creation factor into Kickstarter? What I plan to do though and hope that others start to do is change the dynamic, at least for me as a game creator. As a game designer I am human and although there are certain aspects of my games I love, I know not everyone have the same interests. There are certain lore and aspects I love but someone else and it could be the majority wants to hear about the other faction. With that in mind instead of creating a one big, giant KS... I want to deliver small, concise, shorter Kickstarters.

For example for one of the miniatures games we've been working on. It is something that I don't just want to dump out there, attract people and expect it to be big. I want to grow is smaller, enhance it, develop it and foster a real relationship with backers into a growing community. How I would envision this being done (still an idea in process so bear in mind, it is rough) is releasing say a small faction or miniature line. This would start a faction of miniatures, it is a small funded goal with goals meant to unlock more in that faction. Sure it would be great to have it be big and unlock everything, but I don't want to do that for multiple reasons.

Running a smaller, concise campaign means I can deliver a product in 6-9 months vs 1-2 years. During that time rules are released free in an Alpha format, so they can be played but also enhanced letting the community truly contribute. It also means as a smaller campaign, there will be a lot less complications and delays. It is much easier to manage long term. Now that doesn't mean simply changing A, because person B doesn't like it. There is a process and not everything is changed. But for example Stretch Goals, the order of what is unlocked and even what the next campaign will be can be chosen by backers. This lets us build a strong, good product line with an even greater rule system and build the IP and lore as needed, instead of just dumping it all out at once.

The nice advantage of running a small concise campaign. Funding, creating, developing, listening and planning for the next campaign after delivery ends up in the same amount of time when you think about it. Once a campaign is streamlined, you can create and deliver. Then launch the next campaign to create the next faction or fill out missing places based on what the backers want to see. In 2-3 years you would have developed and created just as much from 4-5 small Kickstarters that you could have done with 1 big Kickstarter. The difference though is that backers have access to rewards faster, can use them, build up that player base, lore, build the IP instead of just talking about it for 2 1/2 years and then finally getting the product. By then interests tend to change, people have moved on to the next big shiny or they have become disenchanted.

At least that is how we have planned the next project that I'll be part of. It accomplishes the same thing as 'one campaign' but I believe in the end can develop and create a better product. I think many KS games lack building the IP beyond the Kickstarter, which has contributed to having a flooded game market. You can't just rely on Kickstarter to build your IP for you. During most KS that I have backed, they haven't really developed the IP during that time either. They've just developed a product instead and focused on it, then move on to the next one.

"Running a smaller, concise campaign means I can deliver a product in 6-9 months vs 1-2 years."

More established companies should do this, BTW. The overbloated, overdelayed projects don't really work out so well due to bottlenecks when one person has to funnel everything. *cough* Kingdom Death *cough*

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
"More established companies should do this, BTW. The overbloated, overdelayed projects don't really work out so well due to bottlenecks when one person has to funnel everything. *cough* Kingdom Death *cough*

Unfortunately more established companies will not nor do they want to do this. Large projects are why most new Kickstarters do two waves of shipping which has become a norm. Wave 1 the main game and whatever we can get done by then and Wave 2 everything else.

I am interested to see how Antenocitis Workshop future Kickstarters turn out after they complete Forward Base. They said their plan is for small run Kickstarters targeted at introducing one or two items vs one large Kickstarter.

80/20 Rule

The 80/20 Rule, also known as the Pareto Priniciple, was originally was established in 1896 by an Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto. He created a mathematical formula describing the unequal distribution of wealth that was observed and measured in his country. He showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. The principle was further developed by observing that 20% of the peapods in his garden contained 80% of the peas.

In short the rule basically says roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. When applied to business it tends to state, "80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients". Since then it has become an integral part of business philosophies. There are quite a few different variations and methods that this concept have been applied. It doesn't have to be applied to just business either, almost everything from relationships, interactions with customers to productivity can apply this rule.

80% of a company's profits come from 20% of its customers.

80% of a company's complaints come from 20% of its customers.

80% of a company's sales come from 20% of its products.

80% of a company sales are made by 20% of its sales staff.

In a healthy relationship a person only gets 80% of what they really want out of it.

80% of a company's employee's are trivial, 20% are vital.

There are also a few misunderstandings to this rule based on the misundertanding of the concept. For example 80% + 20% does not equal 100%.

You will never be able to please everyone, there is no 100% of the market. In terms of the 'vocal minority' and complaints about games. You can only satisify 80% of the people who have brought your product. 80% of the people will be satisified, while 20% may be negative. The same can be said that if 80% of your business comes from 20% of the customers, then do you focus more on that 20%? Although a good portion of the business comes from that 20%, you can get more volume by working on the other 80%.

It’s not just important to work hard and work smart, but also to work smart on the right things.

20/60/20 Rule

That brings us to the 20/60/20 Rule. This is a more refined version of the 80/20 rule designed to help save time, money and resources to get better results. Just like the 80/20 there are different variants and versions of it. In most of the variations and examples it basically breaks things down into three categories: Negative, Positive, Middle.

20% Positive: This is group of people understand what you are saying, they agree with your point of view. You don't have to give them a sales pitch, they already get it. This could be a customer who is ready to buy or even an employee who agrees with your new vision. This is a great group, you basically want to leave them alone. If you focus on them, you can risk over communicating. You can also waste time trying to influence or persuade them when they already have it, there isn't anything you need to do.

20% Negative: Before anything is said, before you've even started to communicate or open your mouth, this group is against whatever you want to say or sell. This can be a toxic few or even a vocal miniority. The typical responses from people within this group are, "I'm too busy for this", "it will never work", "it doesn't make sense", "this is a waste of time". And no matter what you do, you will never be able to convince this group that your idea is good. You will never convince them that your product/service is great. It is best to completely leave this group alone. If you waste time on this group then all your efforts in persuading this group will be for nothing. It will only have an outcome that will leave you frustrated and lots of wasted effort. That is wasted effort that could have and should have been applied to the next group.

That doesn't mean just completely ignore this group, but the time focused on it should be very limited. This group are often very smart people. Previously they may have been a positive but, over time, their bad experiences made them cynical and negative. They will prey on other people's fears by bringing up past grievances and idetifying all the reasons why new ideas just won't work. If we focus too much time on negative, it will suck the energy and rarely makes a difference. Some people believe that if they listen to all the complaining and invest time with them, they will come around and be more positive... however the reality is it rarely makes a difference. For the time spent on turning 1 negative positive, you could have gotten 10 people from the middle moved to positive.

60% Middle, Workable: This is the most important group because it is malleable. There is where you want to apply your focus and can make a difference. This middle group can be influenced one way or the other depending on your interactiosn with them. This is the group that depending on further communications can grow to become positive or negative. Properly identifying people in this group can be hard but those are the people you want to identify, then spend the majority of the time finding out why they are on the fence. With focused attention and genuine interest, this group should be able to get the majority of the 60% to move over to the positive category.

With respect to the 20/60/20 rule you mentioned, I think it also makes sense to identify individuals in the positive 20% who are willing and able to be brand ambassadors, and help do some of the work converting the 60%.

I guess you could say that 20% of the positive people might be good brand ambassadors. So I would think it makes sense devoting some special attention to identifying and engaging with this sub-group.

weeble1000 wrote:
With respect to the 20/60/20 rule you mentioned, I think it also makes sense to identify individuals in the positive 20% who are willing and able to be brand ambassadors, and help do some of the work converting the 60%.

I guess you could say that 20% of the positive people might be good brand ambassadors. So I would think it makes sense devoting some special attention to identifying and engaging with this sub-group.

Absolutely! They are the people you do want as your ambassadors because they are the ones who can also help influence the 60% middle.

When I say you don't have to do anything with this group, I mean in relation to trying to please them by answering their whims or catering specifically to them. Just because they are the 20% Gung-Ho positive doesn't mean the majority of your time should be devoted to them, even if you apply the 80/20 to that group and consider them 80% of your sales. You want to increase the influence from beyond the 20%. In terms of time, focus and effort though that amount of time is very little compared to what you need to devote to the 60%.

At the same time you shouldn't completely ignore the 20% negative. You should always listen but don't waste the time and effort trying to debate or convince them that you are right or resolved their issues. They already made up their mind. The reason you do address some of the concerns isn't necessarily for the benefit of the 20% negative. You listen and address them because those answers influence the 60% middle. If you simply ignore it, then those sitting on the fence start to give in the fear that they might be right. It creates a toxic environment which spreads suddenly increasing your negative.

Game Mechanics

We all like to think and believe that when we come up with an idea, it is an original idea. Chances are however that idea is most likely not as original as you think or believe. In most situations given similar environments and conditions, other people will come to the same conclusions. Games are no exception to this rule. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to create something unique and new. Game Designers in a way are like storytellers, although we are telling the same story we tell them in different ways from different perspectives.

That doesn't mean something new can't be created. Every once and awhile a game designer does come up with a unique mechanic. Gravwell from Renegade Games is an example of something that is unique (at least I haven't seen it used but I haven't played every game in existence yet). It only utilizes 26 cards and the alphabet to determine player order and resolution, everything else is based on the position of the ships around your own. It is ok, if your idea isn't unique so don't try to force something to be different, because you want something different especially if it effects the flow of game play. If it feels awkward or clunky, don't keep using it because you want to be different, it should feel natural. In the end no matter what you design or how unique you think it may be, it will always end up being compared to something else. That isn't necessarily a bad or a good thing but it is something you should prepare yourself for.

Almost every board game at the core can be broken down based by their mechanics into similar categories. The most common ones known are worker placement, co-operative play, area/territory control, dice rolling, etc. You can find more information about the various mechanics and games that use them here and here. A game could have multiple mechanics associated with it so it doesn't just fit into one category, but don't make it too complex. Remember to K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid).

Just like board games, miniatures gaming all share commonalities that can break them down their mechanics into IGO.UGO, alternating turns, action/reaction games, and hidden movement to name a few. The heart, the base core of each of these games are all the same. They all contain miniatures, that we play on a table with terrain and utilize some device to measure distances like a tape measure or ruler. We create armies or have unit lists based on stat cards and/or profile sheets. Each player takes turns activating, moving their units. We then roll dice to determine successes of those actions. Some games have variations but still the same mechanics like using cards to determine success, instead of dice rolling. Movement/Actions may vary from IGU.UGO, to alternating turns or alternating model activation. The results are all the same. There is even grid or zone type of mechanic as well.


Why doesn't someone simply take Game A, replace the miniatures and have instant success? It is a simple and yet complicated process. If you look at the majority of games, a good portion of simply just this. However the rules aren't what will completely make a game successful. There are also minor changes that need to change in terms of terminology because of trademarks. All game rules have their pros and cons. Great games aren't just determine by good rules or good miniatures or great lore. Good games are a combination of them all, married together and built with a good community. There is no one rules system that is better than everything, it is just that there are rule systems that are better depending on players preferences. In other words some game systems players will think are the best, even if they are flaws related to the system.


Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents

When you are creating a game, don't be afraid to share mechanics of how a game works because you are afraid someone will steal your idea. It is better to know ahead of time what people think, before investing a lot of time and effort into what you may have identified as an issue.

The game industry itself is a small industry, a multi-million dollar market but overall the players involved are well known. When attending conventions like GenCon or Origins many publishers and designers meet up, get together and talk. One example was when someone approached Renegade Games to publish a game. When looking over it, it was discussed with another publisher on what they thought and discovered that it was also being pitched to them as well. Not only was it being pitched, they had asked them to not show it to other publishers as they considering a legitimate offer. Although not completely common, both parties did agree to it, so the designer was violating the agreement. In the end neither party picked it up. Often over meals or after hours game sessions, multiple publishers get together to play and talk. It really is a small world, at least with board games.

I won't go into a lot of detail talking about Copyright, Trademarks and Patents because it isn't a simple issue even for lawyers. For the most part you don't have to worry about a patent, nor should you really worry about copyrights or trademarks. There is one thing you should check on trademarks, make sure a term isn't used. A lot of games use generic definitions and terms, you can't trademark or copyright many common definitions and terms like strength, agility, action, reaction, etc. Some terms are trademarked and you should make sure you aren't in violation or it can cause problems elsewhere. One example is when Upper Deck started to re-release Vs calling it a Living Card Game. That term is trademarked by Fantasy Flight Games. Although many types of games are similar to what a LCG is, they hold the trademark so avoid using that in your title.

I'll summarize Copyrights by quoting Lisa Steenson from Gut Bustin' Games. She said during a panel at a convention, "Although it can be difficult to protect a game design, most publishers are not in the business of stealing designs - their reputation is on the line. If you are self-publishing, consider registering the copyright on your rules and game components. You have copyright on your intellectual property upon the moment of creation, but registering that copyright allows you greater protection in a court of law in cases of infringement. Typically registration requires 1 copy of the game to be sent to the Library of Congress if published, along with an application fee of about $45. This has inherent advantages and does not cost an unreasonable amount - just the fee and the cost of sending off a single game. For more information, read about copyrighting games in the US on the official government copyright office website. Don't bother with seeking a patent. The short answer is that game designs cannot be patented and it is a very expensive and complex process."


The Beginning

When you start with a game design you have to typically start somewhere. Either you start writing lore and develop a rule system that goes along with the story. Or you create a rule system and then later write lore, weaving it into your game based on the rules. Either way you have to make a plan on what you want your game actually do. You may not need to fully flesh out the rules or how to accomplish certain things, but you do need to figure out what you want the game to entail. After you determine the list of what you want it to do, you will need to order them in terms of priority. The more detailed your list, the better and easier it becomes to flesh things out and make sure you stay on track. That doesn't mean you can't change your mind on a design, it is just an outline to help guide the process.

Code Zero started development years ago, at least when it comes to the world creation, lore, history and background. It was originally created and written as part of a Cyberpunk world. It was generic in terms that it wasn't tied particularly to a rule system either RPG or miniatures, but was able to be a setting for almost any future scifi game. It was futuristic scifi setting with a dark future focusing on greed and corruption. Humans nearly destroyed their home planet, spread to the galaxy in search of new worlds, planets, resources. Humans violent, greedy, emotional, creatures of habit, considered the cockroaches of the universe to many. There was a degree of racism weaved into the story. You had the pure almost Aryan faction, the most human. The was the religious faction, who took in the psionics, which many people feared and were racist too. There was the mutants, diseased, forgotten, considered monsters. The cybernetic faction, almost fully cyberized, birthed in pods, schooled at a young age until indoctrination into a cybernetic body. The pirate faction, rebels, pirates and mercenaries.

Since we had the developed story. It was time to determine what we wanted from the actual game. What did we ultimately want to accomplish with game play.

Futuristic Scifi Skirmish Game

Utilizes a small amount of miniatures.

Scaleable games, can utilize 5 models but can handle up to 30 models, creating multiple squads.

Utilizes D10

Squad Based Combat.

A Squad is made up of 1-3 fireteams which consist of 3-5 models per fireteam.

Squad is commanded by a Lieutenant, typically a hero, single model commander.

For every squad you can have up to 2 Lieutenants or Sergeants (single models).

Activation Point System

Activation Points generated based on unit type.

Single Lieutenants or Sergeants generate 1 AP.

Fireteams (3-5 models) generate 2 AP.

Activation Limit

You can't use all activations on just one or two units only, but you aren't limited to just one activation.

Lieutenants usually can be activated 2-3, depends on model. Fireteams usually can be activated once. Some units or Lieutenants can increase this amount.

Player could activate a unit beyond the AP Limit, but until will gain Fatigue status, which can effect them.

Alternate Activations

Players alternate activations, until no more remaining AP or both pass.

Player activates 1-2 hero or fireteams, then next player does the same.

Shot/Long Action

Basic activations consist of 2 short actions or 1 long action.

Shoot + Move or Move + Shoot

Move + Move or Shoot + Shoot

Basic attacks, ranged, close quarters combat, suppression fire, grenades.

Action/Reaction System

Active player takes actions.

Opposing player can react if LoS with opposing active player unit.

Normal and opposed dice rolls for actions

Overwatch (long action), reaction with access to full dice pool.

Other Equipment, Powers and Vehicles - Psionic Powers, Mutations, Vehicles, Cybernetic and Bioware Enhancements
Alternate Movement Methods

Different Movement. Not just simply flight, mechanized or foot moving around, up and over obstacles.

Jump Packs, Acrobatics, Flight Packs, Teleport Units, Wall Busters, Drop and Camouflage Troops

Utilizes Terrain

Utilizes terrain, preferably city, street fighting and interiors of building.

Rules should allow other terrain fighting like jungle, swap, etc.

Campaign / Scenario System

Missions are about achieving objectives, not simply wiping out the other player.

Scenario is a basic one shot game that most game systems use.

Campaign is a set of 3-5 scenarios.

Game play should have a cinematic feel to combat and movement.

Warfare simply isn’t just about outmaneuvering, having better firepower or luck with rolling. There are unexpected situations that happen to create interesting encounters. That was why we wanted game play to be objective based, with their being varying objectives between players (maybe?). We can also increase this by having command cards which may call in extra military assets or change things. For example call an off-board artillery strike or maybe another player boosts his troops (at a cost).

We want the game play and turns to be fluid and make sense. There shouldn’t be a need to lookup rules in the rule book. Everything should be easy to understand and referenced on the player cards for ease. There are elements that are similar from other games but combined together with everything else, it should create a unique game play experience.

Ultimately I think if we can recreate the feel of a real time strategy game with a miniatures game, with a bit of twist we should on track. History and lore should be rich with information, leaving plenty of maneuvering to change with future expansion. Rules should be able to be used for tournament structure, scale upwards and down. It should have the ability to expand into more (vehicles, weapons, equipment, etc), without limiting what is already available.

We spent almost a month going over this. We wanted the games to be quick, but not too quick at one point it was complete abstract with nothing but checkers on a board that had a grid. Parts were removed, added and removed again for the outline until we roughly had the example above as a final version. At this point we were ready to move to the next step.


Creating the Stats

Now that we have a basic outline, have a general idea of the background and lore behind the game we move on to the core. Starting with the basics before we start play testing, we need to establish a baseline for the units involved. That means we have to determine what stats the units will have and how much they would have. We needed to determine a base understanding of what the numbers could mean.

2 - Untrained: Never picked up a weapon, used one, would at least succeed sometimes. Basically they should succeed roughly 20% against a non-moving, non-shooting target.
3 - Green: They understand the basics of a weapon, but never had real training.
4 - Regular: They have had basic training, but have not really applied it in the field with extended use. 5-6 - Veteran: They have survived basic training and actual combat, have a love more experience in the field.
6-7 - Elite: They've survived many more encounters, becoming the best of the best, best training and equipment.
7-8 - Hero: Hero and almost legendary levels, the leaders of most units.

The numbers need to be applied to some stat to mean something. All units will need to have movement, hit points, mental (perception, intelligence, wits) and physical attributes (strength, dexterity, stamina). These attributes determine the dice pool that is used. There are normal dice rolls, when there is no opposing reaction. There are opposing rolls when there is a opposing reaction, with successes canceling each other out. Physical covered close combat, melee, shooting and constant use drained stamina (dice pool). Mental covered leadership, fear, and psionics. Quick and simple to use.

We then had to ask ourselves do we want situations that a physical attribute doesn't cover all physical actions, should all physical actions basically be equal? Is there going to be a situation where we would want someone to be able to shoot better, but not be as good with melee or vice versa. Is there a situation that someone should be able to throw something better than shooting or fighting? Was it too simple in the current format and need more to create more diversity to characters? The answer was yes.

Movement, Hit Points were staying constant but now we needed to add more. We added Ranged Combat, Close Quarters Combat attributes. Ranged covered everything dealing with ranged weapons. Close Quarters Combat dealt with melee, hand to hand, throwing weapons. Physical now covered feats of strength or stamina. Mental dealt with courage, fear and/or resolve in combat. We also added an armor attribute, since some units were unarmored or more armored than others. The armor effected whether they could or would take a wound.

This process was only about a week. Not as long as the initial part because a lot of the discussions had already happened previously.

Playing with Mechanics

Now we had the basics, more or less equivalent to what many games have. Some have more attributes, saves, others have kept a more simplified version closer to what we started with as well. It was a start that would let us start to flesh out the game mechanics. With basic units created and on a spreadsheet, that let us see how everyone matched up to each other. A game is more than just stats and attributes so before we could properly determine a value, working out point costs for everything, we had to develop the mechanics with the game more. We had basic units with a rough stat line, we had some basic weapons (assault rifle, pistol, knife, sword) and now we needed to figure how modifiers and how units relate to things.

To start we started with two forces consisting of a Lieutenant, 2 fireteams of 3 models for a total of 7 miniatures. We set up a table, deployed, and played without dice. We would play multiple games taking notes, playing out in a storyteller, almost rpg fashion. We would move units, declare intentions of what we were doing, shooting and discuss based on individual model placements, what a rough outcome would be. It wasn't meant to be exact or determine a winner or loser. We wanted to determine just what options or actions we would available for our units. Then we would randomize players again, retest the gauntlet. This took quite a bit as we discussed different things from destroying walls, climbing, peeking around corners, cover, mines, grenades, locking doors, opening doors, jumping through windows, etc.

With each new test we would ask and answer several questions which would help fine tune what would eventually become available during activations. Some examples of the questions we would ask would be:

Is there a situation where one model could have LoS and shoot, but the target couldn't have LoS with the shooter?
If cautiously moving, would they have access to full movement range?
If cautiously moving, could they peek around a corner to shoot one model only when there was a fireteam of three?
If shooting an assault rifle in close quarters range, was it less effective?
Does a unactivated model have access to more dice pool to return fire vs a model previously activated?
Can you set traps on objectives?
Do models have a 360 degree of line of fire or does it just have 180 or less?
Can models choose to switch weapons or have access to different ammo types?
What are the advantages of an active unit, fighting against a reactive unit?
Does attack position effect the outcome, if a unit is forward facing, does attacking from the side factor in?
Is flanking simply considered attacking from the side of another unit or does flanking only come involved if multiple units attacking one from different directions?
What does suppressive fire do (lower dice pool, can't react, something else)?
How is camoflauge different than stealth?
When a fireteam reacts, does everyone get to respond?
Are fireteam actions/reactions grouped together or handled individually?
How does one determine who dies when a fireteam is fired on?

When we determined quick fashion who won encounters, it sometimes was as simple as more power vs less. In some cases it was easier. A unit with 0 armor, 1 hit point is more likely to die vs someone who has 0 armor and 2 hit points. The guy with 2hp is almost twice as effective. If he had 1 armor and 1 hit point vs a 0 armor, 2 hit points then he was fairly even. The unit with armor being able to negate damage part of the time, but not all the time.

We spent another month on this part.


Finalize Initial Mechanics

After all the testing we have a pretty good idea what each action can do. We also have a basic idea of what we want each action to entail or possibilities for units. That let's us start to finally create an initial point system to measure the strength of weapons, equipment, units and their relation to each other. We also take this opportunity to look at attributes again, are there any we want to remove, add or modify?

Don't be afraid to experiment.

One discussion that happened was 'lethality of modern/future weapons' vs defensive equipment like armor. In a future world of lasers, plasma, caseless ammo and varying ammo types, is armor effective. If you were going against lightly or medium armored infantry, aren't armor piercing rounds still lethal and aren't they just as lethal against no armor? For a time we did abstract armor saves, reducing a step, by removing them and having the contested roll determine survival. The contested roll basically covered who shot first, who hit who and if it was lethal enough to cause a wound.

This abstraction worked out fine when we were only dealing with infantry. It wasn't until we started to add vehicle armor, power armor, mecha, and robots that this started to not make sense. Larger armored vehicles had increased survival rate, not so much because of armor but because of what it took to disable it. There was also the cyberized faction to consider as they are basically fully armored people, not just an armor outer shell. Armor as a value ended up being added back in.

Game testing for this has been proceeding for months. Factions were essentially the same, some had access to better units than others. Each step in the process we added more, psionics, special weapon and support upgrades, command points for certain actions, and healing. Now we've been making changes to what factions have access too, adding in certain strengths and weaknesses to make them more unique, effecting the access to tactics and how they were utilized.

With board games we go through a similar design process. Start with what we want to accomplish, create a guide, discuss the story and actions, create a necessary attribute/stat line. Rinse and repeat multiple times, polishing each part, until you the vote comes back that it is near complete.

The art seems nice so I guess we'll see how the final sculpts come out. Not certain about the chunky Tali expy, it just doesn't fit together in my head.

The 80/20 rule is called the 90/10 rule in programming. 90% of the program will be taken up by things that only happen 10% of the time. Although this is mainly an optimisation thing.

Works for rules though, most rules clutter is made by exceptions.

It is nice that we have a new section. There has definitely been a lot of parallel discussions on game designs, preferences, etc that have been going on that it is nice to have a section dedicated strictly to game design.

I have laxed on updates, part of that is real life issues but the rest is we've been doing some game reworking so have been busy. It has definitely been an interesting few weeks. It all started with a heavy dose of rainfall in the northwest which led to quite a bit of flooding around the city. Then the sump pump in the crawl space went out, so we've had to pump out about 4 feet of water. The good news is nothing was seriously damaged or destroyed but we will need to get a new sump pump. That has kept me busy so I've been falling behind on updates and posts.

With one of our board games we made some major changes to give the game a bit of a face-lift. Although it has similar features to Zombicide mainly that it utilized zones, spawn locations and a monster AI, but that was where the differences stopped. The overall look and feel still felt a reskin and that isn't entirely what we wanted. For that reason we reworked a couple mechanics which has given the game a different look and feel. By the beginning of the year I had wanted to release alpha rules as a preliminary introduction but we have had to rewrite and redo some of the basic prototype cards and pieces because of the changes.

This is just an example of why layout/artwork should be near the final stages of the production and isn't technically final until it has been sent to print.

With one of our miniatures skirmish games, we have also been hard at work to get an alpha rules release as well. We want to start getting feedback early on with it just to have more eyes on it, in case something was missed that could be a game stopper. It will also be good to get early feedback outside of the current test groups with a fresh perspective. We're hoping to have a few miniatures produced in a small run that we'll also be using as rewards to send out to some people or maybe a contest, haven't fully decided that yet.


Making the Cut

Once you have been working on game design, you've started to get your concept art together and finally getting close to finishing the modeling either digitally or classically sculpted. Now that you are close to finishing the poses and details, it is time to determine how many pieces the miniatures will be cut and where. The main reason to break the miniature into smaller pieces is for easier casting and production of the miniature. The other reason is depending on where it is cut, it can be modified to change out weapons/arms or other pieces to get the most uses out of a single model.

When we started to create miniatures, we wanted to them to be versatile and provide multiple options. Even though a fireteam could consist of 3-5 miniatures, we didn't want them all to be the same. We also didn't want someone who would use 2 fireteams of the same group to simply have 2 groups of miniatures that were exactly alike. That meant we would need to at the very least have the miniature cut up into multiple pieces. At bare minimum the arms needed to be separate but it would be nice if the legs and head were separate. Some people may like to have an alternate head while others will just go with the basic. There are people that will simply snip the head and swap on their own, but we wanted the options to be available so that everyone could get the most.

Here are 5 different designs for a fireteam of light armored scouts that are nearing the final stages. Once we start the cuts with the poses, you can't really make changes to the miniature. Well you can but it usually isn't the best or preferred time to do it. It can mess with consistency, scale and cause other issues. Other than paying for the sculpting to be done, usually there are some costs depending on the cuts being done as well.
If you know you will be having the model cut into multiple pieces and for example you know you want the head to be separated, you should communicate that as early as possible with the modeler. I had thought it was communicated but it is one of the issues that can happen when dealing with a freelancer vs someone who has been part of a project since the beginning. Some of it can be lost in translation as well. Having examples, multiple examples when trying to communicate makes sure that everyone is on the same page. You don't want to have a project get deep into work and then find out something didn't happen as you expected.

We knew we wanted have the head separately because we wanted to be able to swap out the basic head with something covered or helmeted. One reason was to give an option for those painters that don't necessarily like to paint faces. The other was to provide optional or more choices to show a diversity of miniatures without necessarily completely a new model, being able to rotate the head to look a different direction, etc.

Here are the proposed places initially of where we can do some of the cuts to separate the miniature into different pieces for production.
Unfortunately the head part involves cutting part of the upper part of the backup and upper torso. There isn't enough room between the objects of the armor, neck, head area to separate the head without reworking that piece. That is in part the fault of a few things, one the concept art which doesn't clearly show a separation. Most of the model was a fairly straight modeling based on the artwork. They were trying to match it as closely to the artwork as possible. Part is on the modeler who should have considered the design differences. Artwork especially concept art is a concept, not necessarily what will be the direct translation as a model but a fair representation of the direction it should go. The final fault falls on myself for not asking, catching it sooner and making it more clear.

That is unfortunate because it sets the ground work and basis for the whole line. I don't want to have some miniatures that will be designed too differently than the other. I would like them to be fairly the same but still provide flexibility. Now I have to make the choice of redoing the upper portion completely which can increase costs or live with it. If we choose not to rework the design, then most likely the piece will be cut into 4 separate pieces. The head/torso, legs and arms (2) will all be separate pieces. We may end up doing an alternate body part which is the head/torso section with a different head. Since there are also another set of arms/weapons being designed we could essentially use them to create two separate fireteams of 5 miniatures each as well. In the end we still provide multiple miniatures based off the same two designs that have different poses or styles.

I did not know that this existed! Need to move KOG light over!