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.

I’ve been beating around the bush with this one so to finally get this off my chest I am asking the DakkaDakka community for some much needed feedback and constructive criticism on a project I’ve been working off and on for a few years. I have presented this idea to another forum similar to this one. Suffice it to say I come here for a second opinion because there are many well read people here with a lot of wargaming experiences to share on this subject matter from all walks of life.

Before I go any further I’m not planning to put this on kickstarter or plan on making this official since I haven’t got this project off the ground yet. There is a saying of putting the cart before the horse and I’m just doing one thing at a time until I know for sure if I’m going in the right direction with this or not.

That being said this project is a miniature’s game similar to 40K only it is on a smaller model scale (think Flames of War) and it isn’t dark grim future stuffs. The only thing I like to keep secretive is the fluff which isn’t relevant at this point and time seeing as anything mechanical wise has been done before so no point in harping on keeping that a tightly guarded secret like some folks here have done before.

Some details about what I have thus far in the current design.

Uses 2D6 mechanics (like Warmachine and Battletech)
It’s in 1:125 scale (albeit smaller than Flames of War minis)
Uses alternating activation sequences (not the typical I Go, You Go style game)
Uses action points for movement and attack actions (for balance purposes)
Set in a science fiction style universe a mix between Battletech and StarCraft
“Fast-kill” style gameplay (meaning no loads of hit points or armor to chew through once you’ve hit the model)
Stat cards (similar to Warmachine, Heavy Gear and Dropzone Commander)
Special attack or off-map support power cards (similar to Dust warfare)
Random event cards (optional)

If you want more details just ask away just nothing fluff wise since I’m still hashing that out. My writing skills aren’t what they used to be.

My main question is any of these concepts in mind practical to make the game fun and if not please tell me why and we’ll take my project apart together piece by methodical piece if need be. Concepts such as:

Fog of War – There has been many games (almost all miniature games) giving players an omnipotent presence of seeing everything on the table without a black area covering unexplored parts like seen on video games. Saving myself the frustrations and heartburn from making this game into a gigantic variation of battleship I decided to give more autonomy towards models to take away the god-like control of the situations and the models themselves in certain circumstances. You can see your opponents’ models all day long but do your models know that? In summary there is a spotting mechanic integrated in the turn sequences by rolling the level of detection before shots can be fired.

Alternating Actions – I don’t think I am the only one getting burnt out on this classic miniature game example of one guy moving and attacking all his models in one big swarm while the other guy dies and gets to do nothing until the first guy is done. The day of the “I Go, You Go” massive turn swarm style game is entering its twilight as newer games are going with a version of alternating sequences. What I think will move the game along faster is this style of turn sequences is if I activate a squad then my opponent will activate his squad once my squad is done activating then goes back and forth until all has completed their activations. The only twist to this is order tokens are placed to these squads within their action point allowances so you have no idea what your opponents intentions are until the last second. Not only does this add a dynamic into the game but reinforces the concept of fog of war. I'll confess this was inspired by Wings of Glory in a way.

Game Cards for Special Abilities and Off-map support – I have to be honest I gotten some serious flak over this one in the other forum with some going as far as to say “decide you want a miniatures game or a card game, can’t do both”. Why not? Besides that, I’m not trying to make it both a card game and miniatures game it just happens to be a miniatures games with cards in it. I see this no different than having model cards like from Warmachine with a bit of a utilitarian purpose in mind to keep up with the action. What is the harm in adding a few more cards in play to put special abilities in play as a reference?

That’s all I want to put on the table so far. Discuss and ask for any particular details if you wish.

The fog of war I like that battlegroup kursk rule set uses a spotting table be for you can shoot and it works really well.

I also love games with activations either individual models whole battlegroups or any where between.

As for cards it depends on what you want from them I like dropzone commanders command cards they work for me because they are prebuilt decks with no modifications aloud but im not sure on mini games that have deck building elements. Dont get me wrong I love card games and have a few magic decks but not sure on how they will interact.

I see nothing wrong with cards if they're used appropriately, I.E. as part of the game, not a sub-game.... For example, I've heard people felt the 2nd edition 40k card-based psychic powers rules were considered too separate by many (though I've never played that edition). Spartan Games uses cards as a mostly-optional part of their game lines, and they seem to work as you're rarely dealing with many cards, and they're mainly boosts for on-table stuff.

Otherwise, you've given us a list of features, but no meat, so not much to really comment on. Dakka dakka will be very honest with game design stuff that's posted, so please keep that in mind.

Just as a note, I've got a few game ideas of my own brewing and I find it's very hard to go from the 'idea' or bullet-point stage to something that is even testable without the designer running the game. It seems like that part should be easier (it's just spewing out all the rules that are in your head) but it's the hard part, as you have to make the abstract concrete and make it make sense to some random guy reading the rules,

EDIT: I guess you were looking for compliments rather than opinions. Enjoy your game.

 Absolutionis wrote:

Heavy Metal wrote:
Uses 2D6 mechanics (like Warmachine and Battletech)

A bunch of knee-jerking armchair advice.

Way to crap all over the guy's ideas before really hearing about the details. Also, you don't seem to have a clue about what Warmachine is? A watered-down CCG, really?

carboncopy wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:

Heavy Metal wrote:
Uses 2D6 mechanics (like Warmachine and Battletech)

A bunch of knee-jerking armchair advice.

knee-jerk armchair advice

Thank you for your opinion.

I gave no opinion or advice. Just observations and questions. But you're welcome.

Welsh_Furey wrote:The fog of war I like that battlegroup kursk rule set uses a spotting table be for you can shoot and it works really well.

I also love games with activations either individual models whole battlegroups or any where between.

As for cards it depends on what you want from them I like dropzone commanders command cards they work for me because they are prebuilt decks with no modifications aloud but im not sure on mini games that have deck building elements. Dont get me wrong I love card games and have a few magic decks but not sure on how they will interact.

I was a little vague with the activations but yes it is more or less a “battlegroup” activation rather than each individual model. The cards aren’t mini games they’re more or less conditions set on the field and in play as a bit of a reference. For example a tactical support card will list the bonuses to you and the penalties to your opponent(s) or just give you a run down how this tactical support works when the situation arises in a fashion how warmachine cards explain certain spells or abilities. I’m not trying to create a hybrid miniature/card game.

Balance wrote:I see nothing wrong with cards if they're used appropriately, I.E. as part of the game, not a sub-game.... For example, I've heard people felt the 2nd edition 40k card-based psychic powers rules were considered too separate by many (though I've never played that edition). Spartan Games uses cards as a mostly-optional part of their game lines, and they seem to work as you're rarely dealing with many cards, and they're mainly boosts for on-table stuff.

Otherwise, you've given us a list of features, but no meat, so not much to really comment on. Dakka dakka will be very honest with game design stuff that's posted, so please keep that in mind.

Just as a note, I've got a few game ideas of my own brewing and I find it's very hard to go from the 'idea' or bullet-point stage to something that is even testable without the designer running the game. It seems like that part should be easier (it's just spewing out all the rules that are in your head) but it's the hard part, as you have to make the abstract concrete and make it make sense to some random guy reading the rules,

I take it when you say meat you mean the little tiny details attached? That was bit of a problem when I first posted here. The introductions are always the tricky part for me. What details are you looking for specifically that you need to give an opinion?

Absolutionis wrote: Rolling 2D6 is clunky for large-scale games as you're rolling a hilarious amount of dice. If you're going to bedoing it by-unit, then individuals stop mattering. Dislike.

This is large scale but does not need a hilarious amount of dice to get the results as if you were to roll a bucket of dice like in 40K. Each factor with spotting, combat effectiveness and damage effects are each resolved with a single pair of dice that pans outs in a fashion just as individualized with a bunch of single dice. It’s my own heavy modification to how Battletech and Renegade Legion plays only a bit more efficiently I dare say.

Absolutionis wrote: Don't go for an unconventional scale. It turns away people that have invested in terrain and makes counts-as models for other games a problem. See Dystopian Legions and Wild West Exodus on what not to do.

It’s not unconventional at all. Each miniature manufacturer has its own variation of the scale such as their scale of 15mm is different compared to other manufacturers. I done the measurements myself and Battlefront miniatures have a scale a little under 1:122. Others like GHQ and Ambush alley are anywhere from 1:100 to 1:131 scale. Do not fret 1:25 is probably the closest to “15mm average” which is fully compatible with any other 15mm scale with difference so subtle it probably won’t matter unless people are that anal to measure the difference with a micron meter or what have you.

Absolutionis wrote: Understandable, but this may encourage both players to stay engaged in the game at the cost of slowing everything down. Games will take longer. Plus, there is the added problem of "did I activate this model already" syndrome.

Apparently you don’t play dropzone commander and I have horrid ADD and never did I suffer with “did I activate this model already?” syndrome as you put forth. I should have specifically stated that alternate activations are a group by group basis and not individual models and then what are tokens there for?

Absolutionis wrote: May also cause a bookkeeping nightmare with many units on the field.

No more than a nightmare than keeping up what was activated and not activated yet in games such as Warmachine, Battletech and 40K for models with multiple wounds.

Absolutionis wrote: Good for large-scale games. Bad if you're giving each model/unit action points to care about.

Action points don’t bog it down that bad the last time this was play tested. They’re more or less a balance system so models won’t be doing all kinds of crazy things in a single activation. It’s may way of saying this particular model can’t run and gun like a gun toting ninja on crack.

Absolutionis wrote: With things expected to die so quickly, why dedicate a card to something so disposable?

They don’t die so quickly it is like Neroshima Hex where you’re better off throwing away your models for the meta. I consider 40K a fast-kill game since most models are one shot kill anyway. Cards are there for references like with games mentioned before.

Absolutionis wrote: Usually a good idea, but rarely taken in games. Also hard to balance a temporary one/limited-time effect with just taking another unit. May make things swingy. Consider making it similar to Flames of War where you buy an off-map Artillery support battery and activate it. Or maybe like the close Air Support benefit of buying a plane in Flames of War.

Making things swingy may not be a bad idea as real warfare isn’t as neat and orderly as you may expect in some video games. There are benefits for bringing the artillery onboard but bigger benefits to be called off-map since they’re not easy prey for gunships or raids for example. Still balancing that out but the option is out there for those who take their chances bringing their big guns with them on the field.

Absolutionis wrote: Random is a huge no-no for people. Either make it perfectly symmetric or avoid randomness. Randomness is the lazy way to make something "cinematic".

You didn’t seem to read “optional” after it. Then again random events such as inclement weather will deny everyone air cover or the environment you battle in plays havoc with electronics such as in an ion storm surge. Still hashing this one out but there is a level of “randomness” that effects each player. Still deciding if this should be called a mission maker than a random event feature. Get back to me on this one.

Absolutionis wrote: People have an omnipotent view of the battlefield because people want to show off their models and see their opponent's models. Models look cool. Why hide them? Adding arbitrary sight-rules to models' spotting something a player can clearly see is clunky. It's like playing night-fight all the time in 40k.

You’re not physically hiding the models it is no different than rolling for BS on 40K because that is an arbitrary accuracy to hit rule. When I asked for constructive criticism I did not ask for a curb stomp.

Absolutionis wrote: I-Go-U-Go is the faster way of playing games. Having alternating activations slows the entire game down. Adding tokens to a large-scale game like this slows things down even more. With your action points, the game will slow to s crawl.

I vehemently disagree. It’s not a faster way of playing games to have to go on a short coffee break before one person is done doing all his actions and whatnot. It is no different than having little dice near models as indicators in the many 40K and WHFB games I’ve seen played these days and these were easily 3000+ point battles too.

Absolutionis wrote: I agree with the dissenters. Why does this need to be a miniatures game if much of it will be cards. Warmachine is already a watered-down CCG with miniatures to represent distance.

Warmachine is a watered down CCG with miniatures? Wow okay, you have fun with that theory then.

carboncopy wrote: A bunch of knee-jerking armchair advice. Way to crap all over the guy's ideas before really hearing about the details. Also, you don't seem to have a clue about what Warmachine is? A watered-down CCG, really?

That and a royal curb stomping the new guy syndrome.

I doubt he has ever played Warmachine let alone give it the time of day. Meh,to each to their own on that accord even if it sounds a bit boorish coming from him.

I apologize for mistaking the intention of your post.

I'm glad you enjoy playing Warmachine. It's also good that you're making a game. Enjoy making a game!

 Absolutionis wrote:
I apologize for mistaking the intention of your post.

I'm glad you enjoy playing Warmachine. It's also good that you're making a game. Enjoy making a game!

The intention?

I'm confused.

If you haven't already, you may want to take a look at X-wing.

The maneuver dials that they use are a really elegant solution to keeping track of orders and activations.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
If you haven't already, you may want to take a look at X-wing.

The maneuver dials that they use are a really elegant solution to keeping track of orders and activations.

I've been wanting to play X-Wing and never had the chance. Are they anything at all like from Wings of Glory?

Bolt Action is another rule set you may like to read ( if you haven't already) to generate some ideas. It has an alternating activation system with some reaction functions to get rid of the horrid IGOUGO.

I also think smaller scale is better. You get more battlefield and maneuver space out of your table.

Im always trying to draw up my own rule system so I'm interested in reading other people's ideas....and stealing them.

Heavy Metal wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
If you haven't already, you may want to take a look at X-wing.

The maneuver dials that they use are a really elegant solution to keeping track of orders and activations.

I've been wanting to play X-Wing and never had the chance. Are they anything at all like from Wings of Glory?

This is a good comparison. The author clearly prefers Wings of Glory, but the comparisons are frank, objective, and substantive.

 Strombones wrote:
Bolt Action is another rule set you may like to read ( if you haven't already) to generate some ideas. It has an alternating activation system with some reaction functions to get rid of the horrid IGOUGO.

I also think smaller scale is better. You get more battlefield and maneuver space out of your table.

Im always trying to draw up my own rule system so I'm interested in reading other people's ideas....and stealing them.

Stealing them because you can't think of anything creative on your own? How sad and yet you being in Charleston you're not too far from my base of operations. SO IF YOU STEAL MY IDEAS I WILL STEAL YOUR SOUL! MUAHAHAHAAHAAHAA!!!

-ahem- Anyways.

Reactions are a nice touch however there is so much involved in having to keep track of the action in my concept as it is reactions have bit of a love/hate relationship. The problem is making the rules practical instead of being crushed under its own weight of complexity.

I heard of Bolt Action but never played a game of it. Yet. I'll make a confession that for the longest time (counts on fingers) the better part of 5 years I've been running on an ad-hoc highly modified variation of 40K and Flames of War mix. It has only been recently (last 2 years) I've toyed with different dice mechanics. I finally settled with the reality that nothing I come up with is going to be wholly unique because everything else has been tried before. You cannot reinvent the wheel.

weeble1000 wrote:

Heavy Metal wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:
If you haven't already, you may want to take a look at X-wing.

The maneuver dials that they use are a really elegant solution to keeping track of orders and activations.

I've been wanting to play X-Wing and never had the chance. Are they anything at all like from Wings of Glory?

This is a good comparison. The author clearly prefers Wings of Glory, but the comparisons are frank, objective, and substantive.

I never did appreciate the elitism in boardgame geek forums but I have to admit this piece was a thorough examination between the two. Seems to me X-Wing is taken as arcadey versus Wings of Glory being a little more open ended.

Well this attempt to get some feedback and second opinion just got shot to gak.

I can think of a lot of stuff on my own. Good luck making your game.

I'm sure you do.

This is really a classic example of how failing to properly label a thread can derail a topic before it even gets started.

When you use a generic thread title like 'Dakkanauts Assemble!' then you get anyone who is curious as to what the topic of the thread is looking at your thread (which is probably why you went with that thread title). Unfortunately, there is quite a small subset of individuals who actually like reading other people's homebrew rules ideas and are willing to give constructive criticism on said rules. The vast majority of people wouldn't even bother reading the thread if it was properly titled (as I have now re-edited the thread title to be).

So when you get people reading the thread that aren't actually interested in helping develop somebody else's game rules, then they tend to be overly critical...because let's face it, most everyone who comes to an online gaming forum has some pretty strong opinions on what they think makes a game good or bad and there is literally very little you can write that won't rub somebody the wrong way when they are essentially tricked into reading a thread topic that they don't have interest in reading.

But anywho. With the thread title changed, you should be able to get the conversation back on track if there is actually anyone out there interested in giving you more feedback. The only other advice I would give is that when people give you negative unconstructive criticism, you are far better just reading through it for anything constructive, thanking the person for their opinion and then moving on. Doing anything else only helps to drive the conversation off-topic and makes it even less likely that someone else will want to jump in and give you their feedback.


Good luck!

I remember Warzone had a 'Wait' action where one of the triggers was a target moving into LoS that could allow you to fire after they finished their move and before they fired themselves. It was a great 'cinematic' rule and added to the tactical complexity of the game over a 'you go, I go' blandness.

Not enough detail provided to really get a taste for the rules and all of the mechanics have been done before in other games. That said, there aren't many red flags, the mechanics you've selected have a good track record in other games, and if the elements are combined right, it could be a good game.

However...
Ditch the 1/125 scale. It's silly to jump into a scale that doesn't yet exist and for which terrain isn't produced. Stick with 15mm (aprox 1/100) or 10mm (aprox 1.160). Both of these scales have a small but growing fanbase, and a goodly amount of terrain produced in them. However, as you say, there is some variation in scale out there, so it's best to not use a fractional scale and instead to simply call it 10mm, as that's a designation that wargamers understand. Using a new fractional scale will turn ALOT of gamers off.

 Eilif wrote:
Not enough detail provided to really get a taste for the rules and all of the mechanics have been done before in other games. That said, there aren't many red flags, the mechanics you've selected have a good track record in other games, and if the elements are combined right, it could be a good game.

However...
Ditch the 1/125 scale. It's silly to jump into a scale that doesn't yet exist and for which terrain isn't produced. Stick with 15mm (aprox 1/100) or 10mm (aprox 1.160). Both of these scales have a small but growing fanbase, and a goodly amount of terrain produced in them. However, as you say, there is some variation in scale out there, so it's best to not use a fractional scale and instead to simply call it 10mm, as that's a designation that wargamers understand. Using a new fractional scale will turn ALOT of gamers off.

This game is in 15mm I just think other 15mm scales are too big and they look close to 20mm in my experience. Then again not every game uses battlefront miniautres or khuriasian miniatures. I hate it when a game says its 10mm then compared to other miniatures in my collection it looks closer to 12mm than anything. One of my quirks as it were. I'll keep the miniatures themselves in 1/125 but the fractional scale isn't going to be on the label as you say. No one else has to know, right?

Anyhow thanks to Strombones I'm not privy to be giving out the fine detials at this time. I'm paranoid like that. I don't think anyone can "own" a mechanic design since it is more or less reinventing the die. However one can take credit how a game is executed.

Having said that the mechanics out there already have good track records have been recycled in a way but what about these mechanics that have potential yet don't have a good track record?

The many games I have researched (some I have played, some I have not and some I have yet to know about ) that had their variation of Fog-of-War and in my opinion are poorly done. I think if someone would really put a lot of thought they can make the mechanic work with some marked stability with the other parts of the game? It took H.G. Wells many trial and error to perfect the little wars.

Do you really think that I'm going to steal your home brew rule set that you have piece mealed from other games and race to publish them for a profit?

I was trying to give you some friendly feedback. That is after all why you started a thread. Is it not?

I'm not going to steal anything from you so don't feel you need to keep your rules secret in a thread about your rules.

Sounds 'interesting' but with respect, until I get a copy of the beta-rules and sit down with a few mates and play a few games with it, I can't really say anything more than 'yeah, that sounds nice, but...'

What you're doing us saying 'I have an awesome game. But I can't tell anyone how it actually works'. And until you do, no one can tell you how well it works. Or how badly. Until then it's just nice sourcing words that ultimately do not accomplish anything.

I'm not trying to have a go at you, I do genuinely wish you the best in this

Heavy Metal wrote:


Anyhow thanks to Strombones I'm not privy to be giving out the fine detials at this time. I'm paranoid like that. I don't think anyone can "own" a mechanic design since it is more or less reinventing the die. However one can take credit how a game is executed

Look at your own first post, you have clearly taken inspiration (stolen) from other games. Building on something that exists is how pretty much all innovations happen.

Ridicolous responses such as this also make you seem childish and certainly wont help you get constructive critisism.

That said, rules are nine times out of ten not what sells people on investing in a game, miniatures and setting is what your potential kickstarter will depend on. Most of the very general things you have on your list sounds good or ok, I will add +1 to the scale issue.

In respect to the basic resolution methods and game mechanics .
The only thing I would suggest is dropping action points, and listing actions that can be achieved in a game turn with order counters.
(Similar to Epic SM.)
As this means you can plan your units actions at the start of the turn, (Place the order counter face down next to the units ). And know when the unit has activated, by turning the order counters over as you activate units.

I would question the need for another battle game rule set for 6 to 20mm scale.
As there are quite a few really good well established games already.

As another poster said, it is going to be down to the asthetics , the models and back ground.To make this new idea of yours sell.

If you were making a good Battle game for 28 mm heroic minatures , then you would not have much competition.
(Just WHFB in space V 3.7)

Strombones wrote:Do you really think that I'm going to steal your home brew rule set that you have piece mealed from other games and race to publish them for a profit?

I was trying to give you some friendly feedback. That is after all why you started a thread. Is it not?

I'm not going to steal anything from you so don't feel you need to keep your rules secret in a thread about your rules.

The tinfoil hat tells me so that you would steal my ideas and sell them off to the highest bidder to the evil cabal of GW. I'm thrwarting your evil plans to dominate the world by helping everyone get addicted to overpriced plastic. It is a conspiracy theory of the century.

And I'm sure I have it somewhere on my profile I'm eccentric and that includes my sense of humor...

Deadnight wrote:Sounds 'interesting' but with respect, until I get a copy of the beta-rules and sit down with a few mates and play a few games with it, I can't really say anything more than 'yeah, that sounds nice, but...'

What you're doing us saying 'I have an awesome game. But I can't tell anyone how it actually works'. And until you do, no one can tell you how well it works. Or how badly. Until then it's just nice sourcing words that ultimately do not accomplish anything.

I'm not trying to have a go at you, I do genuinely wish you the best in this

Alright-alright you sold me, I'll get the on the move.

The biggest push I want in this design is to speed up gameplay. I've noticed the average tabletop game takes 2+ hours to play barring a lunch break or cracking wise with folks or like in some situations have a sugar rush and re-inact Curly's floor spin antics. Nyuk-Nyuk

I think the best way to speed things along and most importantly make larger games playable under an afternoon is to keep the game moving with alternating turn sequencing with reactions mixed in with it. The trick is how to keep it fast moving while maintaining some realism without making it too clunky to counteract the purpose of making the game play smoothly.

In summary what I have in place is three phases: Command, Action and Tactical.

The Command phase is getting your groups into command to add a bit of fog-of-war because you have no idea which order your opponent is going to conduct its operations. This is the time to allocate command tokens which act more like extra actions or increase chances to react.

The Action phase is where all activations and reactions take place. Depending on which order groups are activated and how many command tokens they have on them upon their activation they can do an extra action as long as it does not exceed their action limit. Reactions on the other hand are situaitonal and sometimes your group doesn't always get a chance to react.

The Tactical phase is still being hashed out at this time although I'm making it mainly for a phase to bring in tactical aid such as artillery, air strikes or bringing in reinforcements. A work in progress this is.

Each group has up to two actions normally no matter if this group has tanks, infantry or aicraft. Actions include: move, engage (this includes assaulting) deploy and prone. A group can anywhere from two models or units (infantry stands) to 10 models or units barring special rules. A group activated the models within that group have independence some way a unit in Warmachine has independence to move or engage in order they see fit. So one part can move and engage while the other part can move twice or sit back to engage twice for additional firepower. However if your attack isn't enough to suppress or put a damper on your opponent's group he can react with one action.

Note a group reacting isn't considered activated meaning a group activating earlier can still react accordingly to simplify things and for some who have already posted here who think this is too much to keep up then there are markers to help keep track was has activated. A group can react multiple times. I don't want to kill this thread with a wall of text how this balanced but I'll fill you in little by little. Ask questions and I'll give you answers so you can take it apart.

Illumini wrote:
Look at your own first post, you have clearly taken inspiration (stolen) from other games. Building on something that exists is how pretty much all innovations happen.

Ridicolous responses such as this also make you seem childish and certainly wont help you get constructive critisism.

That said, rules are nine times out of ten not what sells people on investing in a game, miniatures and setting is what your potential kickstarter will depend on. Most of the very general things you have on your list sounds good or ok, I will add +1 to the scale issue.

It was ridiculous wasn't it? The secrets are mine. ALL MINE!!!! Anyway.

Innovations is an improvement of the inventions and inventions are those things we happen to stumble upon before someone else. I'm trying to innovate not invent. That being said you have a good point on the scale portion. Again it's one of my quirks.

Profit isn't exactly the MO here. It is a bonus and an incentive to bring something creative into the tabletop market but mostly it is to test the waters for something else in mind.

Come back when you have some beta rules to provide us with.

Seriously, the ideas sound promising but that praise is based of how the mechanics you outline are working with other game systems.

Until you have something tangible your posting is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

The most creative people are willing to put their work out their and not hide it for fear of copycats.

OP is worried about his game mechanic being copied, when his first post has a bullet list of borrowed concepts.

Okay, sure.

----------------------

I've done some professional game design for Privateer Press as one of their Infernals - i worked very heavily on MK2 in particular. My name is published in several of their books as both an infernal and a playtester. I've worked with several aspiring game designers since then, been approached by C'MON to do work with them when Kevin Clark was still with them (approached to work on Wrath of Kings, which i unfortunately had to turn down due to a lack of time at the time - single biggest regret i have in the gaming industry, as that game looks awesome). Turned down an opportunity to be a playtester for Wyrd after Malifaux's maiden voyage (again, time, also huge concern that the game would get too complicated too fast, which pretty much happened).

You are exactly the kind of game designer i can't stand working with. Paranoid, lacking elegance, huge ego, and more worried about things that aren't going to happen rather than if your game is good and fleshed out. You are essentially putting the proverbial cart before the horse, and wha'ts worse, you're doing it in a totally hypocritical way ! You're worried that your super secret mechanic is going to get stolen, so you don't reveal it, but the mechanics you do reveal are almost all - almost freaking all - pilfered from other game designers. I mean, right down to the mechanical mathematical dice systems filched right from other game systems. By your own admission.

I'm speechless. Seriously.


I predict you will never get this game off the ground commercially. Sorry, but just from your posts, all the signs are there that this will never, ever happen.

The level of cognitive dissonance you illustrate is astounding. You are worried about people stealing your work, when you openly admit that you are taking most of your base mechanical systems from other games. Absolutely astounding.


Be worried about people stealing your work when you actually have something to steal and isn't previously stolen or a rehash.