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.

None of the sketches really say 'In space' to me, unless you're going for a full-on Space:1889/Spelljammer/etc-inspired setting where there's atmosphere in space, or it clings to ships, or whatever handwave you want.

Heck, go watch Iron Sky which, while not a good movie, at least tries to acknowledge the 'in space' parts when relevant.

As for scale, it really depends on the game. The big advantage of 15mm is it's easier to make bigger armies, and the 'scale issue' is minimized.

By 'scale issue' I mean that weapon ranges in many, likely most, games are laughable. Most games try to hand-wave this by stating that there's a different ground scale than the figure scale, or that the weapon ranges are just 'effective ranges' or similar.

Using Flames of War as an example (a 15mm WWII game, relevant since you mentioned the idea as 'WWII in space') there's some weirdness. The game rules intentionally dance around this, but there's some weird situations. One I remember hearing about is that glider crews with pistols couldn't shoot the wing-span of their glider!

28mm tends to be worse at this. Look at 40k, where most weapons are really only effective within a couple hundred feet despite being high-tech.

28mm has a couple major advantages. You get cross-compatibility with a lot of other games, and the minis are big enough and detailed enough to make fun stuff like heroic leader models interesting.

Finally, if its WWII in Space... Why create new nations? We know the major players in WWII. It's pretty heavily documented.

The poll doesn't seem to include an option for "please stop creating speculative threads until you actually have a functioning product to discuss".

Wait until he posts his rules, at least he is doing that this time. He's taking steps in the right direction, so ease up. At least until we see them/he changes his mind on something

Why you all keep feeding this delusion I'll never know...

please note that when I say "in space" I don't literally mean outside of a planetary atmosphere, more like on other planets. basically to summarize it I would say it's an alternate history dieselpunk game with the point of divergence being when a spaceship of unknown origin crashed in the middle of no mans land during WW1. using technology reverse engineered with the help of the seemingly human pilots of the craft mankind goes into space with FTL drives and finds that they have been there before in the distant past. now the factions are fighting over what humans always fight over: land, resources, and simple dislike of each other, with the most prized resources being the lost technology of prehistory for reverse engineering.

also I am currently working on the rules PDF, but if you want a single PDF with both the rules and the cards it's going to take a little bit longer, so please be patient.

If you want meaningfull feedback I think you will need at least the basic rules, and a small set of basic cards.
And probably at least have play a few games with it, so you are ready for player feedback.
Right now it doesn't sound like much further along than any player here with a custom rule set, so asking for feedback seems far premature.
:-D

 yeri wrote:
please note that when I say "in space" I don't literally mean outside of a planetary atmosphere, more like on other planets. basically to summarize it I would say it's an alternate history dieselpunk game with the point of divergence being when a spaceship of unknown origin crashed in the middle of no mans land during WW1. using technology reverse engineered with the help of the seemingly human pilots of the craft mankind goes into space with FTL drives and finds that they have been there before in the distant past. now the factions are fighting over what humans always fight over: land, resources, and simple dislike of each other, with the most prized resources being the lost technology of prehistory for reverse engineering.

So, to make this clear: Your 'WW2 in Space' game is neither in space or about World War 2?

 Balance wrote:
So, to make this clear: Your 'WW2 in Space' game is neither in space or about World War 2?

I feel like this goes back to the OP's inability to actually visualize his game beyond Magic the Gathering with miniatures. So many things could be answered if he had a clear vision for his game.

well I call it a game about "WW2 in space!" because that's really the only way I know how to describe it to you in one sentence or less. I could ramble about the games fluff until my fingers turn blue, but it has been previously established that you don't want fluff, so I'm trying to keep the fluff short, sweet, and to the point. basically it's a sort of WW2 game because aside from the crazy reverse engineered tech you're basically left with WW2 era technology, and it's in space because it's most certainly not using earth as a central location. I have a unified vision for this game in my head, my problem is getting it in an image that actually looks professional (which I would need to commission, thus costing me money I don't have allocated towards this project yet) so while it may look like I don't have a unified world built that's because I'm constantly chasing my tail because when I give you guys fluff you want images, when I try to give you images you say you want rules, and when I try to get some rules down on paper you say you want fluff. then you say I'm inconsistent because I try to listen to your feedback. I just don't know what I can show you that will convince you at this point.

I hate to continue to repeat what the thread has been saying, yeri, but right now you are very much putting the cart before the horse by going on about the images and fluff and non-mechanical stuff of your game.

I am a writer, so I get your impulse to work on that, but the realist of me is telling you that the fluff and vision and aesthetic stuff is the easy stuff. Your focus is misplaced currently, and honestly if you are thinking of commissioning art...you are misplacing your funds and energy.

Right now, what you most need to do is sit down and completely separate yourself from anything but the base mechanics and design the GAME. And by that, I mean you need to go over the balance, the rules the systems and everything that is crunch of the game. Fluff and aesthetics are far more easy to change then mechanics, and far far less important to good game design. Setting and story are the easy parts, you need to focus on the hard parts.

This is going to take a lot of time, a lot of research and in the end, a LOT of math. Do not rush this out or think you can cut corners, or you will fall to the same traps and fall apart like so many other games do. Your fluff and lore can wait, that is something you can change at will without doing any major changes to your system. But your mechanics will dictate the entire course of gameplay. To use an analogy, right now you are worrying about what kind of paintings to put in your house when you haven't even put in a foundation or walls yet.

 yeri wrote:
Then you say I'm inconsistent because I try to listen to your feedback. I just don't know what I can show you that will convince you at this point.

Welcome to game design, where you can't listen to the customer or your playtester, because all of them are liars. Technically they're not liars, but their opinion is biased based on what they want. When designing a game you have to do what you want. If you want to create a space game with "Great War" themes in space (kind of like how Firefly was Wild West in Space) then you have to create that. Since you've come up with this game system that is only ever in your head, which I'm going to refer to the Yeri Engine, we've seen 4, count them 4 different 'skins' with which the Yeri Engine can be used in. The first was a generic fantasy game where you were a dragon and you used 'resources' to summon spells, creatures, etc... but you had miniatures. Then we were treated to your "mercs/infinity clean sleek Sci-Fi" or your "Bioshock/Steampunk/Boderlands" world. Now we have WW2 in Space.

What does that exactly mean? Does world war 2 in space mean? What themes of world war 2 are you going to use? Is this a war that is raging on Earth as well as these other planets? Are the Humans on Earth a united government as they fight against these other planets? Is there appeasement to the German country to let them expand to smaller planets/moons? Does Colombia get drawn into the war because the Japanese faction bombs one of their space ports an hour or two before they legally declared war on Colombia? Was all of this tech reverse engineered prior to 1940s? Did it happen after WW1 in our timeline and Hitler used it to travel to space where he could create his perfect society by exterminating the population of that plant?

What makes this WW2?

Based on your posting history it seems that you want to create a game to make money, not to make a game. You've had threads about creating business plans, and questions about the manufacturing process, you've talked about pitching this to a holding company that deals primarily with building supply materials, and you're only pitching it to that company because it's your family's company, which is a beast of a completely different nature than pitching it to a gaming company (like say CoolMiniOrNot). You still haven't really been able to tell the thread why this game needs cards to be a tabletop wargame, or why it needs miniatures to be a trading card game. And it seems you're concerned more with the marketing gimmicks (the pick up and play fashion of TCGs, the 'tactical depth' of miniatures games, I'm sure your Bannet-Anwing FLGS idea isn't gone either) rather than focusing on creating a product that stands on it's own merits.

The most important thing before you even talk to a customer is to work on your game without letting anyone see it. While many of us would still like to see wtf these rules are about, you have a lot to work on before we should be seeing it (but since you're writing up quickstart rules, you could still release them to us).

How about this OP, take a break from asking US about stuff and do some literal homework (not research, I'm talking about legit homework). Here are a few suggestions that you should do before you come back to Dakka with your "hey how should I do x, y, or z?" type thread(s) that you've given us.

Alf's Game Design Suggestions:
1) Write a vision statement for your game. Identify the type of game (TCG, TT wargame, Pen & Paper RPG, etc...), Number of Players, Goal of the game (this is different than specific scenarios), and theme of the game. If suitable, describe the setting and storyline
2) Describe the play value (what makes it fun and engaging).
3) Make a preliminary list of the rules of the game. Define the resources needed to play the game.

Then once you've got those things done, go and find people that you know. Friends, family, significant other(s), etc... and sit down and play the game with them. Ask them to give you honest feedback (i.e. what did they like, did they have fun, what didn't they like, what worked well, what didn't, etc...). Correct unclear rules, holes in the rules, dead ends, and obvious rule exploits. Then try correcting one of those rules that didn't work, and honestly answer yourself if that rules change gave you the desired effect.

When you've done that maybe 10 times THEN you can come back to Dakka and present us with what's called the blind playtest.
To Blind test your game. Do the following:
1) Write an instruction sheet that includes all of the information needed to play the game. Clearly describe how to set up the game, play the game, and end the game. List the game objectives.
2) Share your prototype with a group of players (Dakka) that has not played it or witnessed a previous playtest. Provide us with your instruction sheet(s) and any physical components (in our case good proxies). Ideally you want to do this part in person where you can watch us play the game, but no matter what you do not provide players with instruction. Once we've finished playing the game, we record our experiences and provide you with what worked, what didn't, what we liked, what we didn't, etc... The blind playtest helps you figure out where unclear pieces are in the rules.

It sounds like he's using WW2 as a short-hand for the tech-level. I'd advise against this, as it causes several issues:

First, WW2 tech can be characterized as almost a mini-technological-singularity in a lot of ways. Look at tanks from 1939 to 1945: early tanks were barely better than those of WW1, while end-of-war tanks were much more reliable, capable, and better armored. Or for aircraft, we see everything from biplanes in a few places to early jet aircraft. Radar! Radio going from an expensive and unreliable novelty to standard gear.

Second, as I said in an earlier post, WW2 is extensively documented. It's also got a big impact due to movies, games, and other media. If you're selling a game with WW2 (even 'selling' in the sense of getting random forumites interested enough to comment) people expect a lot of the 'tropes' of WW2 to be represented. You need some of the recognizable bits like the distinctive tanks and aircraft of both sides, If you don't want to do this, it's not impossible, but you're fighting uphill.

 Alfndrate wrote:


Alf's Game Design Suggestions:
1) Write a vision statement for your game. Identify the type of game (TCG, TT wargame, Pen & Paper RPG, etc...), Number of Players, Goal of the game (this is different than specific scenarios), and theme of the game. If suitable, describe the setting and storyline
2) Describe the play value (what makes it fun and engaging).
3) Make a preliminary list of the rules of the game. Define the resources needed to play the game.

Then once you've got those things done, go and find people that you know. Friends, family, significant other(s), etc... and sit down and play the game with them. Ask them to give you honest feedback (i.e. what did they like, did they have fun, what didn't they like, what worked well, what didn't, etc...). Correct unclear rules, holes in the rules, dead ends, and obvious rule exploits. Then try correcting one of those rules that didn't work, and honestly answer yourself if that rules change gave you the desired effect.

When you've done that maybe 10 times THEN you can come back to Dakka and present us with what's called the blind playtest.
To Blind test your game. Do the following:
1) Write an instruction sheet that includes all of the information needed to play the game. Clearly describe how to set up the game, play the game, and end the game. List the game objectives.
2) Share your prototype with a group of players (Dakka) that has not played it or witnessed a previous playtest. Provide us with your instruction sheet(s) and any physical components (in our case good proxies). Ideally you want to do this part in person where you can watch us play the game, but no matter what you do not provide players with instruction. Once we've finished playing the game, we record our experiences and provide you with what worked, what didn't, what we liked, what we didn't, etc... The blind playtest helps you figure out where unclear pieces are in the rules.

^ This, right here, is what anyone designing a game should read and follow.

If you are not following these steps, you're not (99.99%) going to succeed. And not until all of this has been done should you even consider artwork or pitching it to a company to produce it (unless you're willing to do all of that work yourself and/or pay for everything upfront (including the minimum number of copies any production company will require you to have made) and hope beyond hope you get your money back).

The only step I personally would add is to playtest the game entirely solo before introducing friends/family to it for them to playtest with you.

The only step I would personally modify is the first, where you get to describing the setting and storyline - at this point, it only needs to be a brief glimpse. If even that. The mechanics of the game (rules and how things interact within those rules) are the first, and most important part that players need to have in order to understand the game and give any kind of remotely useful feedback. The story is just a bonus that they may or may not even bother reading.

Yeri, creating a decent game (even creating a horrible game for that matter) can take years before it gets shown to anyone outside of your close inner circle. Take that time, do the homework, do the legwork and get it ready before going outside that inner circle. Pitching things so utterly prematurely will lead to ruin.

And another note on playtesting, when you do start playtesting with people, you should not even be in the same room when they are playing. Do not lead them, let your audience figure out the game on their own, as it will help guide you.

 curran12 wrote:
And another note on playtesting, when you do start playtesting with people, you should not even be in the same room when they are playing. Do not lead them, let your audience figure out the game on their own, as it will help guide you.

You're describing the blind playtest, but the pre-blind playtesting you do you want to be in the room with people because this is generally when the rules are rougher and you need to be there to help with unclear rules. The Blind playtest is to see if the rules can stand on their own and if they don't then you definitely know what to fix.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
And another note on playtesting, when you do start playtesting with people, you should not even be in the same room when they are playing. Do not lead them, let your audience figure out the game on their own, as it will help guide you.

You're describing the blind playtest, but the pre-blind playtesting you do you want to be in the room with people because this is generally when the rules are rougher and you need to be there to help with unclear rules. The Blind playtest is to see if the rules can stand on their own and if they don't then you definitely know what to fix.

I'll have to disagree with you on that. Yes, blind playtesting allows you to avoid the rough patches of rules, but at the same time, seeing how players deal with those rough patches of rules can be very telling on what needs to change or what your players are expecting.

 curran12 wrote:
I'll have to disagree with you on that. Yes, blind playtesting allows you to avoid the rough patches of rules, but at the same time, seeing how players deal with those rough patches of rules can be very telling on what needs to change or what your players are expecting.

You're find to disagree with me, but the blind playtest is the second step of playtesting. When you design a game and you're ready to start letting other people see it, you need to be extremely involved at this point. Because your game is still in development. So when you sit down to show people your game you're not looking for the "first experience" test (which is what the blind playtest is), you're looking to play this game with people that wish to play the game instead of working out your rough rules. You need to be very involved in this step; it is a ‘hands on’ operation. This is where you play your own game with others and answer their questions about your design and what they (as players) are expected to do. You’ll hear a lot of “You needed to think this though” and “You left out what happens if this and that and then the other occurs” and all about other leaks that you didn’t catch in the initial drafting steps. This is crucial because you need to consistantly work with people as you tweak the game and get it ready for the blind playtest. Once you and your initial playtest team have tested the game and you eventually get to a point where they are experienced enough or enough things have been tweaked that they can get through a whole game without saying anything. At that point sit on your game and come back.

The Blind playtest is extremely revealing for you as a game designer because up until this point you've been playing with people that have come to learn your game, and now you send it to people to play without your presence. The most critical thing to learn from new testers is their all-important ‘first experience’ with the game. Could they get into it easily? Was it intuitive? Where the general ergonomics friendly and not frustrating? Could they find the answers to their questions quickly and easily within the game’s components? In other words, where their first few minutes (say, up to a half-hour) with the game pleasant and enjoyable? If not, you’ve got a big problem to fix right there!

After they’re used to the game, you’ll get feedback about what’s working and what’s not, both about the big pieces of the game’s design, as well as the minutiae players encounter. It will be difficult to make major changes at this point in the process, so a good designer has to be clever in applying solutions to real problems that are brought to his or her attention. When we as gamers get access to betas, playtest rules, etc... This is usually a form of the blind playtest because the game designer isn't there to hold their hands. This is extremely important, but you can't ignore the co-operative playtesting with a core group of players. To put this in perspective, Through the Breach (the Malifaux RPG) had been in a closed beta for several months, but at GenCon this year Mack Martin basically went back to the first playtest and had a core group of players playing in the game for a whole weekend. While it was marketed as a "canon campaign", this also gave Mack plenty of first hand experience running the game with players that he could interact with that weren't people in Wyrd's office, or his friends/family gave him a different type of insight that the blind playtest couldn't give him because he was there to work on the game and correct issues immediately.

 yeri wrote:
my problem is getting it in an image that actually looks professional (which I would need to commission, thus costing me money I don't have allocated towards this project yet)

Get used to it. Game design costs money. Every time you post MS paint drawings you do a little more damage to your brand image. If you aren't ready to commission legitimate new art then don't post about your game yet.

I'm constantly chasing my tail because when I give you guys fluff you want images, when I try to give you images you say you want rules, and when I try to get some rules down on paper you say you want fluff. then you say I'm inconsistent because I try to listen to your feedback. I just don't know what I can show you that will convince you at this point.

No, you don't understand at all what we want to see. We want to see established work. When we say "show us some pictures" it should take you 30 seconds to post some pictures because you've done the basic concept art before you've even considered making a forum thread. Same for the other stuff. The biggest problem here is that you've rushed to make forum threads as fast as possible without finishing your design concepts, and now you're scrambling to quickly throw something together every time we ask to see it. You shouldn't even be thinking about posting until you have completed the following:

1) The BASIC fluff and aesthetic design for the game. Fluff drives rules, so you want to know what the game is going to look and feel like. For example, "infantry skirmishes in space-WWII" (with some high-quality concept art to sell the idea) is ok, don't bore us to sleep with a long explanation of each faction's history.

2) The BASIC gameplay concepts and experiences. In a single paragraph describe a typical game from beginning to end. How is it set up? What is an average turn like? How do you win? What moments of gameplay are supposed to stand out as strategic "turning points" or "wow that was awesome"?

3) The BASIC reasons to buy the game. The miniature wargaming market is full of options right now, so why should I care about yours? What will you give me that 40k/FoW/etc can't? Are you going to sell the game based on the awesome models? Are you going to provide a competitive tournament game suitable for $10k cash prize events? Are you introducing a brilliant new gameplay mechanic? And if you're selling with a new mechanic (as it seems you are), tell us WHY we should care. What does this card/miniature hybrid offer that neither type of game can provide by itself, and how does that tie into points 1 and 2?

Once you are absolutely sure on these three ideas you are allowed to think about rules and maybe make forum posts. But right now you are not even close to that point because every time you make a new thread you've changed your mind about what you want to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Balance wrote:
First, WW2 tech can be characterized as almost a mini-technological-singularity in a lot of ways. Look at tanks from 1939 to 1945: early tanks were barely better than those of WW1, while end-of-war tanks were much more reliable, capable, and better armored. Or for aircraft, we see everything from biplanes in a few places to early jet aircraft. Radar! Radio going from an expensive and unreliable novelty to standard gear.

To be fair, nobody really cares about that stuff unless it's a real-world historical game. Using the shorthand description of "WWII in space" works just fine for describing the feel of a game where you have all the technology and strategy of modern wars (aircraft, tanks, machine guns, squad-based combat, no trench lines, etc) but without the polish or computers/drones/etc of a 2000s-era game. For example, the Dust games are clearly inspired by WWII but have none of the recognizable units or exact technological development.

Also, remember, this is the very early stages of design, narrowing it down to "inspired by 1939-1945" is enough to work as a foundation for designing the rest. That gives a good starting point to the concept artists who will define the game's specific look, even if "WWII" is never mentioned directly in the final product.

I think 'Dieselpunk' would be a better term to sue than WWII, fi it's not what is known to most people as WWII.