|
That's a fine system too, though either way I think the piloting skill check and the speed roll should be one and the same. Less rolling = faster game, and it makes sense that the faster you go, the harder it is to control your vehicle.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
You already have a lot of awesome suggestions here (I think that xopods 'single check' system is probably the closest to what you are looking for) -- but I am wondering whether or not you have considered setting static speeds for each 'class' (so no rolling) and keeping your random piloting checks. Without seeing your game in action, I am not sure whether or not anything important would be lost by eliminating the randomness... but it seems to me that static speed presents the players a more clear, consistent strategic choice. This is presuming that there are obstacles and item use to help vary up the playing field though and to make more moderate speeds a better choice for the leader. It should be easy enough to bang out a playtest and see how it goes (each class would presumably just be the average of the dice you originally had them rolling...although you might want to tone down the d20 -- so 2,3,4,5,6,10).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
I think some randomness in the speed is needed, since this is kind of a press-your-luck kind of game. Like Forumla D, the main strategic decision seems to be whether you take N+1 turns to navigate a given bit of track, or try to do it in N and risk overshooting via a bad roll. The piloting check does add another layer of risk-reward, but I don't think it would be enough on its own; the probabilities would be just too easy to calculate so the game would likely be very simple and very dry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions, guys. All kinds of different things to try and consider. The single roll idea is pretty good, though I don't think it will really speed things along too much. Won't it shorten the actual distances moved, leaving players to take extra turns to go the same distance on the track? If you're rolling a D4 you're basically choosing turn or move, yeah? As much as rolling only 1" makes the ship feel slow, not going anywhere could be worse. Also, one of the core requirements I've taken toward this thing thus far is: no math in the core. Maybe that's a massive oversight on my part, I don't know yet. It gives me more room to do stuff in the pilot stats and abilities later. I think emotionally there is a bit of relief when you fail your crucial pilot check and short the distance roll, like you got off easy and can recover, whereas the inverse, rolling high for distance doesn't feel too bad since you already knew you blew it. There is a method of keeping players on the track: checkpoints. It keeps them going in the right direction, though there are points where they have tried and succeeded at skipping portions of the track by off-roading it, like you said, which is fine. Being a mini's game, we've just taken to putting terrain in the way: crash into a building and go back to the last checkpoint you passed. By the time you take into account the maneuvering it takes to get around those at D4 and not miss a checkpoint, it pretty well evens out to those who stayed on the track. The other reason to stick to the checkpoints is they're where you get your weapons. The D20 is, of course, the tricky one, and I have thought of just leaving it out, or even having a max speed cap on different ships (the D20 only being available to one lightly armored ship). It's not terrible, and it only really comes up once or maybe twice per game for a player, and only on the long straights so no pilot check there. It really sucks to roll a 1 on those, but man, moving 15+" down the track really does make the game feel fast and risky when you roll high one turn and have to downshift like mad or intentionally leave the track to power down and brake hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
Fix posted:The single roll idea is pretty good, though I don't think it will really speed things along too much. Won't it shorten the actual distances moved, leaving players to take extra turns to go the same distance on the track? If you're rolling a D4 you're basically choosing turn or move, yeah? As much as rolling only 1" makes the ship feel slow, not going anywhere could be worse. No, that's not what I meant. I mean using the same roll for both, not choosing one or the other. Option 1: Under your current system, let's say you have a Pilot Skill of 5, you're rolling a D10, and you roll a 4. You can either move 4" straight, or turn and move 4". If you roll an 8, you just move 8" straight, no choice. Option 2: With my suggested "speed boost" option, it's the same thing, but if you roll under your Pilot Skill, you have a third option, which is to move straight ahead but with an optional speed boost equal to half the die size. So using the same number as the above example, you roll your D10 and get a 4. You still have the same two options, namely turn and move 4" or move 4" straight, but you also have a third choice, which is to take a 5" boost (10 / 2) and move 9" straight. (You can't take the boost AND turn, but you can choose to do neither and just move the 4") Why I think the latter is a good idea is that it gives the player a lot of control in the lower gears. For instance, if your piloting skill is 4+, then when you're in first gear, you'll always be succeeding, and thus always have the choice of moving d4+2, d4, or turn then d4 (and you get to choose after seeing the die roll, so you've got a huge amount of control, as you should when you're moving slowly). In the high gears, your optimal roll is to hit your piloting skill dead on, while the slowest possible result is to roll one higher. For instance, if you're rolling that D20 and you roll a 5 (with a Piloting skill of 5), you can choose between 5" ahead, 15" ahead, or turn and 5". Again, very high degree of control. But if you just roll a 13" or something, you're speeding ahead out of control, which might be okay or not depending on if you're in a straightaway. EDIT: You can also try making the amount of speed boost at the player's discretion, UP TO half the die size. I.e. if you roll the d20 and get a 5, if you opt not to turn, you can move anywhere between 5" and 15". But that might be too much control, too much incentive to stay in lower gears. SECOND EDIT: You might also think about allowing the player the choice of making the turn before or after the move to set up the next move. So four choices: move straight, move straight + boost, turn and move (no boost) or move and then turn (also no boost). That would make it less of a no brainer whether or not to take the boost on a straightaway... do you blast straight ahead this turn and brake next turn for the curve, or do you make a smaller move, and then adjust your angle so you can try to make it through the curve without gearing down? xopods fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Ah, I see. I misread that. That makes better sense. We'll have to play around with that a bit. Edit: Hmm... I'd begin to worry that given too many choices the turn might slow down again and, like you said, I don't want to give them too much control, or else it's not pressing your luck too much. One thing I wonder about is the turn after you move. Yeah, it's great for setting up the next move, but one of the major risks of the game is accelerating through the curve. If you are rolling a lower die and turn at the end of that move, you don't have any risk as you accelerate because your ship is already facing the right direction. As it stands now, you might want to go up to that D8 or D10, but your chance of missing the curve is that much greater if you go for it. I'm not sure that giving up that risky feeling is worth it for the added control. I guess the way to find out is to playtest playtest playtest!  Thanks! Fix fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
Yeah, it's hard to know without trying it. I think there's still risk, but it's pushed one extra move into the future; if you managed to orient yourself the right way on the previous turn, gearing up doesn't risk flying off the track, but it risks not getting to reorient yourself at the end of this turn, and thus having to gear back down the next turn or else double down and risk flying off the track then. I would guess that it just makes the game more subtle... less about whether you actually fly of the track or not (except when someone is really pushing their luck in the last few corners to try to make a miracle comeback) and more about whether you have to slow down to avoid doing so. From the sounds of it, you want a somewhat chaotic, swingy game, so maybe the move-and-turn option is no good from that perspective.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 19:27
|
|
|
Heh. I do like me some swingy chaos, but I'm partial to having other people enjoy themselves, too. Edit: Derp, I was trying to figure out the downside to boosting, why you wouldn't basically take that couple inches pretty much all the time on the straights, and I just realized: You can't use your power-ups on a turn you choose to boost! Simple. Fix fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
Fix posted:Heh. I do like me some swingy chaos, but I'm partial to having other people enjoy themselves, too. That makes sense. Another possibility is just that you can't gear down the turn after you boost. So if you roll d8 and boost, you can stay in d8 next turn or go up to d10, but you can't drop down to d6. That's a good way of forcing players to gamble some more. A third possibility is that boosting allows people behind you to draft - anyone within say a 30 degree arc behind you and within your boost distance can choose to take a free forward move equal to that same boost distance. I.e. if you're rolling a d12 and boost for 6", anyone who was within 6" behind you (before your move) can take a free move of 6" if they want (after you've moved, obviously, so they're not crashing into your rear end). But of course you also have to roll under your Piloting to be able to use the boost, so people won't be boosting every turn anyway unless they're in low gear... for big enough dice, if you just wanted to go straight, you'd be better off rolling very high than rolling low and boosting. The reason I suggested it was as a way of eliminating the 'rolling 1 on a d20 and only moving 1" despite being in top gear' problem you were complaining about. With 5 piloting, it means your distances (if you choose to boost) for a d20 go: 11,12,13,14,15,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 So it means you have a median and a mean of 13 rather than 10.5, but more importantly your lowest result is just under 1/3 of the maximum, instead of 1/20th. Oh, as an aside, if you find that the boost is too big, another option other than 1/2 the die size is make the boost equal to the gear number. So 1st gear is d4 and your boost is +1, 2nd gear is d6 and your boost is +2, 3rd gear is d8 and your boost is +3, etc. xopods fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
Eh, I like the longer numbers on the boost. Getting around the track faster is the goal after all. The one thing I do note is that there is a 2" advantage per boost for a player with, say, a 7 in their piloting stat versus a 5, so not only is it easier for them to get the boost, but they move further (potentially a full 13" on a D12, whereas a Pilot level 5 could only go 11"). I don't know what the actual overall odds of it affecting the race are, but it's cumulatively important and something I'll have to balance for with the other stats and abilities. On the other hand, it might just have them off the track more often. Anyhow, I'll stop hogging the thread until I've played it out a bit. Thanks for the help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
So I recently found The GameCrafter online as a place to do a quick one off for your board game once you get out of the notecard stage. Anyone use them before? Prices are very reasonable to for one offs. I wonder if it would make due enough to put that example if you ran a Kickstarter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Mr.Trifecta posted:So I recently found The GameCrafter online as a place to do a quick one off for your board game once you get out of the notecard stage. Anyone use them before? Prices are very reasonable to for one offs. I wonder if it would make due enough to put that example if you ran a Kickstarter. Xpods has said it before, but the margins are way too low if you want to do a KS with it. I used it myself for a one-off project a while back and it's pretty danged excessive really. I had 50 cards, 4 mats and a box and it cost me $30.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
Yeah, The Game Crafter's really only good if you've given up on getting published legitimately but want a few copies of your game for you and your friends, or as an alternative to Print-and-Play if you want to allow people to order a copy of your game but don't really care about making any profit. The cost to print a game through them is basically what a similar game would cost at retail. Whereas to be commercially viable you really need your production costs to be around 1/8th of the shelf price.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:Xpods has said it before, but the margins are way too low if you want to do a KS with it. I used it myself for a one-off project a while back and it's pretty danged excessive really. I had 50 cards, 4 mats and a box and it cost me $30. I was thinking more of using that version to display on Kickstarter, then going overseas to do that actual official publishing of it. So I guess what I am trying to say, is the quality nice enough to get the concept across on Kickstarter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
Mr.Trifecta posted:I was thinking more of using that version to display on Kickstarter, then going overseas to do that actual official publishing of it. So I guess what I am trying to say, is the quality nice enough to get the concept across on Kickstarter? Unless you are or know a talented and well set-up photographer, a Photoshop fake using the source artwork will look better and cleaner than a photograph of actual printed materials. If you don't have the technical expertise, you can hire someone pretty cheaply. I can do it for instance, and wouldn't charge much. Here's a digital fake of my upcoming game, for instance. (I know the size and perspective of the cards isn't entirely consistent, but I wanted to give more emphasis to the face-up ones in the foreground... another advantage of faking things, not needing to be constrained by reality. That 1-Gold in the back is really much too big mind you, that's really bugging me now.  ).
xopods fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
xopods posted:Well, there's a self-balancing thing there. If no one thinks it's worth loving with someone else, then there's equally no point in paying two tokens to protect yourself from being hosed with, right? If instead of just placing a card over another players card you swapped cards with them, screwing people over would be a natural side effect of helping yourself. In terms of the earlier time traveling criminal theme, it could be that you go back in time and make it so you pull off whatever heist they had done that era, and they did the heist you had previously done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
So, I've been toying with a card game based on recreating the final fight of a Kung Fu movie. Specifically, several heroes fighting a single big baddie and his minions. Based on the way fights normally flow in the movies, I am envisioning a sort of push your luck mechanic where the aggressor plays a series of attack cards with ever increasing the odds that the defender is able to play a block that forces him out of position (making him more vulnerable to counterattack). Once he stops playing cards, the defender then becomes the aggressor and the pattern repeats. The defender has to decide on how much of their hand to fill with blocks... running the risk of having nothing to attack with. My earliest drafts of this have been a deck drafting game where 20 cards are drawn and displayed each turn and the players, one by one, chooses a hand of five from these cards. There are basically high/medium/low stances and some attacks can be made from all stances, some only from one stance. Blocks work the same way except that some have the ability to modify the stance of the attacker. The idea is that a block played correctly might leave the attacker in a high stance, vulnerable to a low attack by the defender. This works... sort of... but it is way overcomplicated at the moment and it just doesn't have the jazz that I am looking for. Any thoughts on improving this mechanic? I am also interested in any suggestions for any alternate mechanics that might capture the feel. DirkGently fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
I've often thought about doing a martial arts fighting card game where players are playing cards into a queue of moves (a "flurry") and using some sort of mechanic to add, remove and rearrange cards from their queue, until some trigger is hit (could just be someone playing an "Action!" card, though I don't like how that worked in Neuroshima Hex! so maybe something more clever is in order), whereupon the flurries are executed and, unless someone is KOed, a new flurry is begun. Resolution would be a little like my boxing dice game, where if an attack is paired up against an opponent's block or dodge, the damage would either be reduced or prevented, and if it's stopped entirely, the defender gets a "counterattack" bonus to the next card in the queue... if attack is paired against attack, the faster (generally) weaker attack takes priority and goes through. You can borrow that idea if you like, though I may still try it myself somewhere down the line. I feel like it's still missing the catalytic bit of inspiration (probably something to do with how the cards are added and rearranged, and what triggers the resolution phase) to really come together.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
I'm kicking around this dice game idea I just had. It's still in the early stages so thinking aloud here might be a big help. "Rubicon:" The concept is a risk-taking, direct conflict game about the end of the Roman Republic. Players play Roman leaders who are jockeying for power in Rome in order to become its first emperor. I made this a dice game because I like the idea of a "dice-building game" and Romans loved their dice games. This one is like Dominion, but with dice. Build an engine, but rely on the luck inherent in any dice game. The idea is to "mark" other players with some dice, and later attack them with others. Successfully attacking players with any marks is the only way to score points to win the game, but marking other players leaves them open to attack form others, possibly before you can attack them. So, each mark is (or should be) a calculated risk. marks and attacks are different faces on some of the dice. Players can all roll defenses from their dice, which they can use to defend themselves or other players. Denarius is another die face that is currency used to buy more dice, like treasure in Dominion or Quiddity in Quarriors. Other faces are more utility stuff: rerolls, drawing more dice, etc. I'm brainstorming a few possible issues: -How can I keep defense a secret? I thought of players having cups to place defenses under until they're used. I'm not sure how clunky that'll be, not to mention I wanted to make this game as streamlined as possible (other than being a huge pile of dice in the first place). -How can I preseve and make the most of the risk/reward of the marks? I want marking to be a calculated risk, so I want players to have to wade through something - other player's turns, most likely - in order to capitalize on them. Then again, this is a game about Caesar's civil war, so a healthy dose of screwing your neighbor and taking advantage of opportunities placed by others should be a factor. I'm just trying to think of a simple way to preserve and generate that tension. -I'm trying to think of ways to avoid piling on the leader. Quarriors does this easily by making everyone attack everyone else automatically. This game doesn't compare all that closely to Quarriors, and I don't want to take that control away from players, so I have to think of some way for this game to avoid Munchkin's problem (in my opinion): one player gets close to winning and everyone sandbags defensive stuff to foil them, and the game grinds to a halt. -I'm also trying to think of more ways to incorporate the theme of power poltiics, alliances, and betrayal. I want ways for players to help each other and turn around and screw them. Defending other players (because they're marked and you don't want other players to score on those marks) is one way. I'm just trying to think of more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
- Why have defense at all on the dice? You've already got players committing dice + time to attacking. That way there's no defensive stockpiling when somebody is in the lead. At the same time, make winning contingent on accumulating points/resources that can't be taken away once earned, thus making ganging up on the leader pointless. Let's say the value of attacking specific players changes during the game, then it becomes an issue of when instead of who to attack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Hey BG designer folks, please critique my outline for my new design and if possible give me a rating 1-10 on how much you'd like to play it based on this description. The working title is 12 Angry Dice and it's a courtroom drama simulation (abstraction) for 2 players and is intended as a good couple's game. The basic mechanic is a riff on area control, each juror is represented by 1 of 4 colors of 6 sided dice (r,g,y,b) that represents what type of evidence influences them. The dice are placed randomly in 2 rows of 6 to simulate a juror's box and set on 3 or 4 in staggered pattern to start. Defense wants to get all the dice as low as possible to score points, prosecution wants them all as high as possible to score points. Dice are manipulated up or down using cards. The beginner's game has players simply drawing hands and playing them out one at a time. The advanced game has players drawing 8 cards each and drafting their hands each round by keeping a card for themselves and drafting one for their opponent each time the hands are passed, so you will wind up with 4 cards you have chosen for yourself and 4 your opponent has chosen. The cards are then played out one at a time to affect the dice. The cards have effects ranging from "adjust any blue die up or down up to 2 pips", "invert any green die" or "pick up and roll all red dice". Scoring is based on the end results of the dice in addition to hidden "closing argument" cards which award bonus points in various ways such as "Score all blue dice as if they were a 3 or 4 your choice" or "+1 vp for each odd die face showing". Players start the game with 1 closing argument card and get a new one (totally random) each round.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:- Why have defense at all on the dice? You've already got players committing dice + time to attacking. That way there's no defensive stockpiling when somebody is in the lead. At the same time, make winning contingent on accumulating points/resources that can't be taken away once earned, thus making ganging up on the leader pointless. Good point. I'm still early in the concept of this game, so I'm thinking about shifting sands now. I'm not sure if it fits or if it will make the game clunky, but I'll kick around some ideas for changing the value of specific attacks during the game. I have some ideas for why the defenses exist, but they're still evolving: -Defenses allow players to "block" other players' efforts to snipe "victory points" (or whatever they'll be called) from your marks. You play marks, but someone else can capitalize on them if you're not resourceful enough. -Being able to defend oneself prevents other side effects of being attacked, such as adding crappy dice to your bag or losing dice to roll on the next turn. Those are examples of a couple of the ideas that are still forming in my notes. Depending on whether or not some of these ideas are used, defenses may or may not be necessary. Regardless, the "victory points" needed to win can't be taken away, so there is less reason to gang up ont he leader. Still, if I saw someone at, say, 9 out fo the 10 needed to win, I'd throw what I had at stopping that player, even if it only kept them at bay and couldn't push them back. I can't win as long as someone else already has. In the time since my previous post, I changed the game to get more out of the "dice building game" basis. Players will start with crappy dice, like the copper in Dominion, and move on from there. There is also "Barbarian" dice which player add to their bag of dice when they are attacked. Again, not sure of that yet. With both of those, or even one, I've also added a "trashing" mechanic to let players refine their set of dice. I wanted to include that because it fuels the best deck building games and isn't used as much in the weaker ones. Quarriors, in my experience, doesn't make as much use of it simply because of the pace of the game. I want this one to be about building an engine: more like Dominion and less like Quarriors, but with dice nonetheless and with moe direct conflict than Dominion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
Sammyz posted:Hey BG designer folks, please critique my outline for my new design and if possible give me a rating 1-10 on how much you'd like to play it based on this description. I like the drafting mechanic because it adds a bit of control to the otherwise random luck of the draw. It's interesting in a two player game. I also like the base line scoring with a hidden agenda in addition. The combination gives the players enough knowledge to try to stop the other player, but not quite all the information. It's a good split, depending on what the closing arguments are worth compared to the base line. I'd try this out. It sounds quick and fun, and 12 Angry Men is amazing and you've captured the concept pretty well. 6/10, I guess. 7 with the drafting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 17:56
|
|
|
Railing Kill posted:-How can I keep defense a secret? I thought of players having cups to place defenses under until they're used. I'm not sure how clunky that'll be, not to mention I wanted to make this game as streamlined as possible (other than being a huge pile of dice in the first place). You could have defense counters, mixed up face down at the beginning of the game, each with say, 0, 1 or 2 shields on it. Rolling defense results lets you draw defense counters, maybe up to some maximum that you can stockpile at once (to help with the gang-up-on-the-leader problem). Then make attacking a bit of a bluffing game. Attacker commits one or more dice to the attack; defender can then pass or commit one or more defense counters face down, then attacker can commit more dice if he wants and has them available and so on, until someone passes. Then the defense counters are revealed and if the shields are >= the attack dice value, the attack is thwarted. There's a neat advantage to the defender in that he knows the attacker's current strength, but not vice versa. Your zero-value counters aren't totally useless, then, as you can use them to bluff, forcing the opponent to commit more dice to a single attack, thereby denying himself the opportunity for a second attack on someone else. For instance, you attack me with 1 die. I play a counter. If you think I put a zero, you should pass and just win with your one die. If you think I put a 1 in, you should add 1 more die... but if I actually put a two, then if you only add one more die, I can pass and successfully defend myself. You could put two more dice in to be sure you're ahead, but if I put a zero, then I've tricked you into wasting 3 dice on an attack that would have succeeded with just one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
xopods posted:
That is very clever -- for some reason I am picturing the Space Alert action queue except with martial arts. Thanks for the idea. I will play around with an action queue to see whether or not anything cool develops from it (while trying to avoid just "borrowing" your description wholesale *grin*).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
xopods posted:You could have defense counters, mixed up face down at the beginning of the game, each with say, 0, 1 or 2 shields on it. Rolling defense results lets you draw defense counters, maybe up to some maximum that you can stockpile at once (to help with the gang-up-on-the-leader problem). This ought to work. I wasn't thinking outside the dice box yet, but this is a fairly streamlined fix, and the bluffing gets right to the risk/reward basis of the game. Thanks, Xopods! (That ought to be the thread title). On a related note: does anyone have any tips for making custom dice? I'm going to have a ton of dice ot buy and print faces for, so before I get in on that, does anyone have do's and don'ts for making your own die faces?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
DirkGently posted:That is very clever -- for some reason I am picturing the Space Alert action queue except with martial arts. Thanks for the idea. I will play around with an action queue to see whether or not anything cool develops from it (while trying to avoid just "borrowing" your description wholesale *grin*). Yeah. Shamefully, I still haven't played Space Alert, so I don't know exactly how the action queue works, but from what I've heard it sounds like an idea along the same lines... although I wasn't imagining the action queue being established in real-time, but rather by some sort of mechanic for playing and switching around cards within it. Maybe even hiding and revealing them; e.g. on each player's turn they have a certain number of action points to spend, which could be used for: Drawing a card Playing a card into one's action queue face up Playing a card into one's action queue face down (costs more AP) Revealing an opponent's face-down card (costs more AP than the extra cost the opponent had to pay to hide it) Peeking at the opponent's hand Switching two adjacent cards in one's action queue Moving a card from the front to the back of the queue or vice versa Etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Railing Kill posted:On a related note: does anyone have any tips for making custom dice? I'm going to have a ton of dice ot buy and print faces for, so before I get in on that, does anyone have do's and don'ts for making your own die faces? I bought 200 blank dice from a bulk game components distributor. The dice themselves only cost like $20, but shipping was like $45 for some reason... but still, $65 for 200 dice isn't bad, and now I have more than I'll probably ever need. I also use them as generic markers/counters/game pieces sometimes. I laser print my die faces on cardstock, cut them out and affix them with two-coat rubber cement, and then spray the dice with a fine art fixative so the toner doesn't wear off on people's fingers. The results are pretty durable. You can also just draw directly on them. Don't use a normal permanent marker, though, as it will smudge. What you want are the special markers for labeling CDs and DVDs; those are designed not to smudge when used on a plastic surface. xopods fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
xopods posted:I bought 200 blank dice from a bulk game components distributor. The dice themselves only cost like $20, but shipping was like $45 for some reason... but still, $65 for 200 dice isn't bad, and now I have more than I'll probably ever need. I also use them as generic markers/counters/game pieces sometimes. Luckily, my wife is an artist so our apartment is full of crafty stuff. We have some of that fixative, but I may not have thought of that myself. I'm going to have about 100 dice to make, so printing is going to be the way to go. I found a brick of 100 dice online for about $12, so knowing that price isn't too steep is helpful. Thanks again!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
Railing Kill posted:I'm going to have about 100 dice to make, so printing is going to be the way to go. Cutting and rubber cementing faces on 100 dice is going to take foreeeeeever. Keep in mind that to make a strong bond you need to coat both surfaces and allow them both to dry before pressing them together. Which is a pain because you need to coat the die on all 6 sides, and you can't do them all at once since it has to be sitting on one side and obviously that side can't be wet. Fastest order to do things is probably this:
I don't envy you at all. Just doing the 18 dice for my boxing game was a pain. Drawing on them with a marker would be a lot faster, as long as you keep your icons simple, but of course the printed ones look a lot nicer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
Alternatively, if you have an iDevice: http://www.machwerx.com/apps/machdice/ For an extra couple bucks you get the ability to create custom faced dice, as many as you want. It's really quite nice and not terribly hard to do. Here's an example where I made a set of virtual Descent 2nd Edition dice:  Seems like it'd be really handy especially if you're prototyping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
I'm guessing it doesn't have the feature set required to support a dice-building game though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
xopods posted:I'm guessing it doesn't have the feature set required to support a dice-building game though. Programming rules and such, no. But you actually do up to 100 dice on screen at once, and lock down dice individually from rerolls, etc. It might not be pretty but you could rapid prototype something and do a few playtests with an ipad pretty quick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
I've never played Quarriors or its ilk, but don't you start each turn by pulling some dice from a bag and then rolling them? If you're rolling all your dice each turn, that app would work fine, but if it's two-stage randomization where you take some random dice and then roll them, you'd still need something like a physical deck of cards to decide which dice to roll using the app. At which point you might as well just make dice. Still a cool app though and useful for other sorts of games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
quote:Cutting and rubber cementing faces on 100 dice is going to take foreeeeeever. My normal process for dice has been to print on "full page sticky label" paper, stick those on, then apply Mod Podge Puzzle Saver. After being Puzzle Saved, the dice have kind of a plastic shell that feels nice (and the stickers aren't going to come off once that stuffs on). Not saying this is better, but something someone might want to try. I'll need to go the fixative route (thanks for tip) for my next thing, which involves transparencies (and the transparent stickers are curly hell-garbage).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
That sounds like a pretty sensible approach too. Didn't think about puzzle saver.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
jmzero posted:My normal process for dice has been to print on "full page sticky label" paper, stick those on, then apply Mod Podge Puzzle Saver. After being Puzzle Saved, the dice have kind of a plastic shell that feels nice (and the stickers aren't going to come off once that stuffs on). Not saying this is better, but something someone might want to try. Hmm. I might try this. I just ordered 200 blank white dice from a site I found: https://www.gameparts.net. They do a lot of custom stuff in huge quantities, but I was able to get 200 blank d6's for $18 + $18 shipping. Not too shabby. I may just get a labeling marker and do that for the prototype. I'm at least going to try the other two methods, though, just to see how much of a pain in the rear end it is. The icons I need on the dice aren't so intricate that I can't marker them on myself, but I have a tendency to fuss over prototype components. Might have to set that aside for a game that is essentially a huge pile of dice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Yeah, I think that's exactly the same company I ordered for, except their shipping charges to Canada were considerably less reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 06:17
|
|
|
Just finished up the card files for the Alpha playtest of 12 Angry Dice. Anybody interested in playtesting? All you'd need are 12 d6 (3 each in red, green, blue and yellow, or some way to proxy that) and a way to mock up cards. I have the card file ready to go and the rules ready to go. I don't have plat so please just post here or hit me up at my username@gmail.com to volunteer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
Now that the November design contest is over, I'm hoping we get a bunch of new posters looking for help with their designs  I'm writing up my Sellsheet to send off today. Anyone mind if I post it in here for feedback? Nemesis Of Moles fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 16:05
|
|