C3G Terrain Makers

[IAmBatman]

My answers:

Spoiler Alert!

1. Interests
A. What terrain features are you interested in seeing the group produce? Which ones, if any, would you specifically consider goals?

I'm interested in buildings in C3G, especially skyscrapers, as well as new types of terrain that allow for new types of comic book battles.

B. What is your interest level in official C3G sanctioned buildings?

This is possibly the biggest item on my C3G bucket list.

C. If you're interested in buildings, how interested are you in exterior play?

The taller the building, the more interested I am in its exterior play. If a building simply acts as an aesthetic feature and a LOS blocker, I don't find it very compelling.
Tall skyscrapers theoretically would be more interactive with rooftops, though.

D. How interested are you in buildings that exist on the map and let you pass through them in addition to letting you play around them?

If buildings exists for exterior play only, this seems like it may be necessary for game balance, but I have almost no interest in it as a player. If there's no strategic advantage to moving through a building, but it's just a way to avoid maps that break things, I'm iffy on whether they're worth pursuing at all. Ruins can't be moved through and they don't break the game any.

E. How interested are you in buildings with interior play?

I'm extremely interested. So far all of our superhero battles have occurred outdoors, which seems like a very limited slice of superhero life.

F. Do you feel it's necessary or useful for buildings to offer both interior and exterior play versions?

If buildings all had interior play, that would not bother me one bit. I'm fine with their having flexibility and offering different modes, but if it's easier for us to move something forward without doing that, I don't really see it as worth the effort to do it. I find buildings with interiors more interesting and dynamic on the whole.

G. Do you prefer building rules be as streamlined as possible, lean towards simple but hit the right theme notes, lean towards thematic but not get too carried away on mechanics, or go all in on theme and use whatever necessary mechanics to do this?

I would prefer there not to be any mechanics that make someone really raise an eyebrow thematically, but I definitely side with "it's a game, not a simulation." I think there's a huge danger in nitpicking thematic aspects to the point where mechanics are overwrought. I know I'm guilty of doing it, so I try to restrain myself and streamline wherever I can. I almost always like the end product better after I cut or trim something.

H. Are you interested in the Small House moving forward and being on your battlefield?

I am literally and figuratively invested in this.

I. Are you interested in the Apartment Complex moving forward and being on your battlefield?

I am literally and figuratively invested in this.

J. Are you interested in the Bookshelf Skyscraper moving forward and being on your battlefield?

100%

K. Are you interested in sky terrain?

Absolutely!

L. Are you interested in outer space/cosmic terrain?

You betcha I am!

2. Process
A. Would you prefer the process here be as much like running a unit LD as possible?

We're absolutely amazing at running unit LDs. We knock them out in two weeks half the time and we've done over 1,000. I don't see any reason to argue with success. I think the more we can follow the processes that have shown they work, the better.

B. Would you prefer it be much different and if so, how so?

Nope.

C. What do you see as your role in advancing the process for terrain features? What do you best contribute to advancing a design?

I'm the singular focus energy guy who's willing to keep pushing things forward. I'm an idea guy, I bring a collaborative spirit willing to listen to all sides but always trying to find a solution, and I'm willing, able, and happy to playtest this stuff.

D. What type of terrain design are you going to be most happy to see move through the process? Are there any types you'd likely try to block?

I'm most interested in buildings that can be purchased near finished with little on the crafting side of things. I wouldn't block anything that requires a high degree of crafting, but nor would I really follow it with much interest or enthusiasm, simply because it's not something I feel I could do myself or obtain.

[A3n]

1. Interests
   • A. What terrain features are you interested in seeing the group produce? Which ones, if any, would you specifically consider goals?
     Urban "scatter" terrain (e.g. bus stops, dumpsters, traffic/street lights, telephone booths, etc). - Definitely a goal.
     Setting terrain (e.g. pieces that make it feel like the interior of the batcave or a space ship/station without actually requiring the need to make a cave or ship.)
   • B. What is your interest level in official C3G sanctioned buildings?
     Pretty high, especially if we can keep the costs & required skill level low.
   • C. If you're interested in buildings, how interested are you in exterior play?
     Probably more than interior.
   • D. How interested are you in buildings that exist on the map and let you pass through them in addition to letting you play around them?
     I think the option is a must.
   • E. How interested are you in buildings with interior play?
     Fairly. If it can be done cheaply & the required skill level is low.
   • F. Do you feel it's necessary or useful for buildings to offer both interior and exterior play versions?
     No. Not at all. It would be convenient but if there is a loss of aesthetics to incorporate the other option then I would probably be less supportive.
   • G. Do you prefer building rules be as streamlined as possible, lean towards simple but hit the right theme
     notes, lean towards thematic but not get too carried away on mechanics, or go all in on theme and use whatever necessary mechanics to do this?
     Streamlined as possible.
   • H. Are you interested in the Small House moving forward and being on your battlefield?
     I am overly excited by the houses as I don't feel they provide the greater Super Hero battlefield archetype that I am after. But they can provide a "burbs" setting which is still valid. So I want them to move forward for the group's sake.
   • I. Are you interested in the Apartment Complex moving forward and being on your battlefield?
     Yes. Absolutely.
   • J. Are you interested in the Bookshelf Skyscraper moving forward and being on your battlefield?
     Meh.
   • K. Are you interested in sky terrain?
     Probably not really.
   • L. Are you interested in outer space/cosmic terrain?
     Yeah. Not as high as urban terrain, but definitely up there.
2. Process
   • A. Would you prefer the process here be as much like running a unit LD as possible?
     I think terrain needs to flow with what feels right for what is being designed. Some are going to required tutorials, some just purchase & playtests & maybe some other thing we haven't of yet but think is appropriate as the case may need.
   • B. Would you prefer it be much different and if so, how so?
     See A. above.
   • C. What do you see as your role in advancing the process for terrain features? What do you best contribute to
     advancing a design?
     I want to participate as much as I possibly can but that is always behind what I really want to do & realistically can do. Designs, tutorials, art discussion participation (although it really turns out to be me catching up on what's transpired since I was on last, drop my opinion, then you guys move 3 steps ahead before I am back on again - p.s. that a my problem not one that needs to be sorted out or addressed within the group).
   • D. What type of terrain design are you going to be most happy to see move through the process? Are there any types you'd likely try to block?
     All the terrain I listed in answers above I will be happy to see move through. At this point in time I cannot see me blocking any piece of terrain. If somebody has a design & wants to put it out there I don't want to be the one in the way of it. I don't have to use it if I don't like it. But I will try to assist anyway I can to make it the best it can be.
     Rules are a different matter. I will always want simple & sensible rules.

[quozl]

1. Interests
A. What terrain features are you interested in seeing the group produce? Which ones, if any, would you specifically consider goals?

Lots.

B. What is your interest level in official C3G sanctioned buildings?

High

C. If you're interested in buildings, how interested are you in exterior play?

Very

D. How interested are you in buildings that exist on the map and let you pass through them in addition to letting you play around them?

Low

E. How interested are you in buildings with interior play?

Low. I'd rather see a whole battlefield for interior building play.

F. Do you feel it's necessary or useful for buildings to offer both interior and exterior play versions?

No

G. Do you prefer building rules be as streamlined as possible, lean towards simple but hit the right theme notes, lean towards thematic but not get too carried away on mechanics, or go all in on theme and use whatever necessary mechanics to do this?

Streamlined, simple, and just enough theme

H. Are you interested in the Small House moving forward and being on your battlefield?

Yes

I. Are you interested in the Apartment Complex moving forward and being on your battlefield?

Yes

J. Are you interested in the Bookshelf Skyscraper moving forward and being on your battlefield?

Yes

K. Are you interested in sky terrain?

Maybe.

L. Are you interested in outer space/cosmic terrain?

Maybe

2. Process
A. Would you prefer the process here be as much like running a unit LD as possible?

More like running a map

B. Would you prefer it be much different and if so, how so?

See above

C. What do you see as your role in advancing the process for terrain features? What do you best contribute to advancing a design?

I want to make sure that if we add rules that they're necessary for increasing fun.

D. What type of terrain design are you going to be most happy to see move through the process? Are there any types you'd likely try to block?

All types. None.

[IAmBatman]

OK since you guys have some different ideas on the design process and LDs in this department have struggled to move forward at times, can you lay out what you see as a correct design process for a unit with its different steps?

I am not sure I have ever run a map through our map department. Do they have an official process listed that we should follow here?

I’m seeing a lot of variation on the exterior/interior questions, which I think may be part of our hiccup. Hopefully with only four of us, we can put our heads together and come up with a consensus approach.

[quozl]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

I am not sure I have ever run a map through our map department. Do they have an official process listed that we should follow here?

The process is here.

[A3n]

I think the biggest hurdle is the fact that it's so hard to get new terrain included on map designs. We really need a programmer that can update VirtualScape to take custom objects & then somebody who can model in 3D to create them.

[IAmBatman]

Hmm, I honestly disagree on that front. We managed to get the Small House through playtesting just fine without ever using Virtualscape with it.

And if it's a matter of people building maps around the completed stuff later, I think you could easily just mark out the base of the thing with colored dots like you do for start zones and then denote that this is where you place the building/terrain piece on the map.

I'm not sure why 3D rendering in VirtualScape would be a necessity at all for terrain usage.

[Tornado]

I know it can be done. Someone had a pic of a building on VS. Maybe they can be added via Photoshop? Not sure.
Perhaps they can be 3D scanned and those images inserted.
Regardless there never was a VS file for the two story Wharehouse I believe.

[A3n]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Hmm, I honestly disagree on that front. We managed to get the Small House through playtesting just fine without ever using Virtualscape with it.

And if it's a matter of people building maps around the completed stuff later, I think you could easily just mark out the base of the thing with colored dots like you do for start zones and then denote that this is where you place the building/terrain piece on the map.

I'm not sure why 3D rendering in VirtualScape would be a necessity at all for terrain usage.

Sorry I don't mean it's issue with getting it through the design phase. I mean it's an issue with keeping this group going & the output being appreciated & used.

[IAmBatman]

Yeah, I could see that, I guess. But the map dept. isn't booming either. I think it's always going to be a bit of a niche area.

I guess I'd love to hear from Tornado in response to my poll here as well, but he expressed frustrated apathy to me elsewhere, so I'm kind of unsure what to do.

[A3n]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Yeah, I could see that, I guess. But the map dept. isn't booming either. I think it's always going to be a bit of a niche area.

I guess I'd love to hear from Tornado in response to my poll here as well, but he expressed frustrated apathy to me elsewhere, so I'm kind of unsure what to do.

True but the map department did flourish for some time & we put out quite a few maps. I think the testing became tiresome &/or we put out what we wanted to & didn't have any inspiration to do anymore. Where as this terrain group was mainly Griff & I making things, people commenting. Some people got motivated enough to make the stuff, but it was never a real movement even to the level of the map dept.

[quozl]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Yeah, I could see that, I guess. But the map dept. isn't booming either. I think it's always going to be a bit of a niche area.

I guess I'd love to hear from Tornado in response to my poll here as well, but he expressed frustrated apathy to me elsewhere, so I'm kind of unsure what to do.

We could propose to make responding to the poll a requirement to being a member.