|
Post by dm1scotty on Nov 15, 2012 16:14:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by danielc on Nov 15, 2012 18:18:26 GMT -5
To be fair one said he liked what you did but disagreed because he was the owner of a 3D wall system.
|
|
|
Post by madladdesigns on Nov 15, 2012 18:35:22 GMT -5
Ok, I'm gonna own up here and say, yes, I am Nickydude, the originator of that thread. I've been building 3D stuff for a while and I still like having 3D walls, especially in places like castles & dungeons as walls can display a number of things on them. But that was back in April and I'm warming to the flat wall method.
|
|
|
Post by hasbinbad on Nov 15, 2012 22:19:09 GMT -5
lol busted
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Nov 15, 2012 23:43:30 GMT -5
I have to agree with DM Scotty that 3D for roleplaying is a bit unwieldly (Disclaimer: Obviously my opinion, despite being one shared by alot here) because it isn't always easy to move minis around in 3D structures. That ^^ particular picture uses a very innovative style of 3D paper craft that is easy to dissemble (sometimes), but it still doesn't allow full access to the "board" as it were without reaching in or taking moments to remove the walls. Not to mention construction is a pain for that particular type of paper construction. And, as should be noted in any case, also a bit expensive in printer ink. Still cool to have though. In my personal experience, treating this craft as being more or less the same as far as tabletop wargaming terrain design is more to my liking. When making wargaming terrain, several things need to be kept in mind: Portability. Check, DM Crafting is uber portable Aesthetic. Check, most tiles can be crafted to look excellent (Albeit not necessarily as ungodly awesome as some terrain pieces for general wargaming). Functional. Here is where tabletop wargaming defers somewhat to DM Scotty's concept, because in most wargaming, things like height/vertical level/what-have-you can be strategic and useful, and therefore crafting a 3D piece can have it's awesome benefits. But, as a for instance, look at Warhammer 40K ruins terrain. Ultimately, if you ignore the embellishments and fine detail (as well as the sometimes difficult to work with resin molding...god I hate putting together large resin models), you have what amounts to a cut out of a building...something DM Crafting can easily accomplish. Ultimately DM Crafting gets a check here, because it is highly functional, but for different reasons. BUT, that being said, I actually do design some of my models to have a *vague* "cut out" style to structure. If, for instance, the PC's are approaching a cave system, I may design a facade piece...something to put in front of the actual tile they will traverse through, that is no more difficult to place (or remove) on the table than a DM screen...similar to fake old western movie sets, with the buildings being portrayed by a single wall. Once they pass that "facade," then they are in the structure, and the 2.5D piece reigns again. And if I ever do need to have a situation where mutliple levels may be necessary, I will (and have) likely design a cut out of two walls with the levels represented much the same way tabletop wargaming ruins are done...simple concept, used to great effect. And all the while not fully subscribing to 3D structures....call it perhaps a quarter past 2.5D So, just my opinion...since I happened to be strolling along
|
|
|
Post by danielc on Nov 16, 2012 10:12:29 GMT -5
Ok, I'm gonna own up here and say, yes, I am Nickydude, the originator of that thread. I've been building 3D stuff for a while and I still like having 3D walls, especially in places like castles & dungeons as walls can display a number of things on them. I do not think there is any shame in owning 3D stuff. I myself bought several of the 3D digital packages that are out there. And I have verious levels of success with them. I just fell in love with DM Scotty's simple system that does what I wanted. I also like his return to gridless as well. Daniel
|
|
|
Post by dm1scotty on Nov 16, 2012 10:14:11 GMT -5
nice discussion, I have been a table top wargamer and many of the points that onethatwas mentions were ones I considered when doing this method.
|
|
|
Post by hideousprime on Nov 16, 2012 17:00:42 GMT -5
I have bought the terraclips 3d dungeon!!!!! Didn't know you had to buy clips separate..... imagine me throwing tantrum ...... bought the clips. punched out a portal room with for walls and a fireplace, took them apart, put them back in the box and left them alone for the past 4 months!!!!!
No second chance with that and they are not even close to being as fun to put together. Creating your own tiles that look cool, make you feel accomplished in life, that makes dm scotty a saint filling people with purpose. Saint scotty the DM humanicraftarian!!!!!!!(aka: Bob Ross) ha!
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Nov 16, 2012 23:53:37 GMT -5
I dunno about sainthood. Usually a saint has to be at least a year in the grave before getting sainted (And not working the graveyard shift digging up bodies...)
I think DM Scotty is perfectly fine on the living side of life. I'm sure he'll thank me for sticking up for him someday. Stay breathing DM Scotty. Cool as Black Sabbath is, don't follow in Ozzy's footsteps. Well preserved Lichdom has not been kind to his brain...
|
|
|
Post by matakishi on Nov 19, 2012 12:31:39 GMT -5
I think everybody tries walls for D&D games at least once, same for Space Hulk. Personally I loathe them, which is why I like DM Scotty's approach, they are the single most unhelpful play aid ever. Cardboard scenery is a close second, useless fragile stuff except for floorplans (and yes, I made loads of my own back in the seventies and none of it's survived ) I go for the flat room tile (no printed decoration except the floor texture) and solid models (metal, plastic, wood, resin etc) of furniture, pillars, doors, whatever to aid positioning and visualisation. DM Scotty's way gives the same versatility but with just a little extra oomph, get's my vote.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Nov 19, 2012 12:53:37 GMT -5
Cardboard makes for a very useful basis for crafting. It's semi rigid, but still flexible enough to work with. It can be cut easily. It can hold up to painting (provided you don't overdo it). It works. Carboard scenery *can* be made to look spectacular, but it does have the problem of appearing too flat if you have a harder time suspending your disbelief. Most gamers fall into two categories. Either they want terrain to look really good and therefore help them visualize the game as if they're really watching a movie....or they would rather just rely on the theatre of the mind. It's hard to find a middle ground in alot of ways for gamers.
DM Scotty's cardboard tile concept is a really good middle ground, because it is in alot of respects on the "cheap" side of terrain pieces (Which is a good thing. Seriously, cardboard usually costs nothing). But they look really good when all is said and done, and with little effort. However, they don't take on the third dimension...using DM Scotty's method for anything besides floor tiles and doors (Say for instance actual 3D trees) can turn into a disaster, as it won't fulfill the visual requirement most gamers have. Abstracting them in the 2D plane of the game table is one thing that gamers can accept. Making a 3D structure from cardboard (or rather, card stock)would be impractical because most gamers will look at it and say "I'm looking at a cardboard cut out of a tree."
On the one hand. On the other, I'm sure that DM Scotty could (if he tried) take cardboard alone and make it into a really good looking 3D tree, with very little asssistance with other mediums (Flocking or fluffy stuff might be needed for the leaves I'm sure). Look at Hollywood. Yes, some of it looked really tacky in earlier days, but simple cardboard or wooden "flats" are still used today to assist in the visual of what you see on screen. Most people don't realize they exist. So I would argue that cardboard scenery can't be both an effective and good substitute for representing 3D elements. I mean, look at DM Scotty's wagon!
So, just another 2 cents from me
|
|
|
Post by m3talslime on Dec 3, 2012 16:01:01 GMT -5
After watching Scotty's early videos, my first ever attempt at crafting was a mausoleum. I couldn't wrap my head around having a raised up 3d section for bodies, and not having raised up walls. What I experienced, although the players were gasping at the actual tile, was a great deal of difficulty with play. This was with 2 inch high walls.
Just for the heck of it, I went back and remodeled that original creation with "DMScotty walls" and it looks as good as it ever did imo. Every creation since has used the Scotty-style walls and the players are 100% onboard with this style now. I think everyone should strive for their own style as long as the functionality is there. When your players start to get frustrated, then it is time for a change. For my players it proved to be too cumbersome. Everyone is going to be different in that respect.
|
|
luciano
Paint Manipulator
Posts: 202
|
Post by luciano on Jul 17, 2013 18:51:49 GMT -5
I love the DM's Craft method, miniatures will never stay tightened against the walls and I can carry the set with ease!
|
|
Malachi
Cardboard Collector
Make it fun! Make it memorable!!
Posts: 7
|
Post by Malachi on Jul 23, 2013 8:40:11 GMT -5
I agree with you guys wholeheartedly. I always knew there was a better way to do terrain and as soon as I saw Scotty's first vid I was hooked. I'm going to be building my first set piece this week and I'm looking forward to sharing it with you guys when I have it done.
|
|
|
Post by skunkape on Jul 23, 2013 11:30:29 GMT -5
I actually prefer something a little between DM Scotty's method and WWG's method. Basically I like my walls to be about 1/2 to 1 inch in height, not 2 or more inches. That way, you get some wall features, but the walls are so tall that they get in the way of the players viewing the dungeon and their characters. I've actually mentioned this before on the forums.
Forgot I posted in that thread! Obviously, my opinion has changed somewhat since that post.
|
|
Neil
Paint Manipulator
Posts: 160
|
Post by Neil on Jul 23, 2013 23:27:44 GMT -5
Cool DM Scotty has haters, you have not really made it until you have some haters. I like the guy that was said something like - given the cost of paint I would rather buy a PDF and print it out All things have positive and negative aspects - 2.5 takes some time and effort - the cost of the 2.5 method is kind of hard to beat.
|
|
AJ
Room Planner
Posts: 315
|
Post by AJ on Jul 24, 2013 2:37:57 GMT -5
This is despite someone who crafts 2.5D tiles (Scotty-style) being able to print a surface just as easily as paint one... a method already seen on this forum (such as creations by Giuliano).
Scotty-style is more than just the minimal walls, glue gun and cardboard.. its also about using found materials, whatever is on hand, innovative thinking and being able to point at something and say "I made that from scratch, and it is a hunk of shit.. but my players LOVE it, and that makes it all worth it".
|
|
Neil
Paint Manipulator
Posts: 160
|
Post by Neil on Jul 25, 2013 1:14:46 GMT -5
Well said AJ
|
|
|
Post by nubaumpalemoon on Jul 25, 2013 11:16:47 GMT -5
I think the perfect blend is the 2.5D wall systems augmented with 3d terrain (chests, doors, etc.)
|
|