Peter Lee talks about Modrons miniatures

[avin]

Peter talked a bit more on another topic:

This always goes on. I have a list of about 120 miniatures taken from various discussions and forum threads from here, maxminis, hordelings, enworld, etc.

If the idea is a good idea, we'll make it. If there are problems with the figure, it probably won't make the list.

For example: let's dissect the rogue modron. (Considering the current desire for this figure, I suspect that this would be one of the contenders.) It's unlikely that I'll be able to do it:

1) The 1st ed concept won't work. The art in the MM2 are horrible line drawings that won't translate well to miniature form.
2) The 2e/3e clockwork modrons are a little better, but they have a fundamental structural issue: the limbs are not only too thin to support the body, the limbs are too thin to be successfully cast!
3) I need to do miniatures that support 4th edition, so I'm unwilling to do a modron until it fits this criteria.
4) Modron concept potentially could be redesigned to allow it to be produced, but I don't really have the budget to do experimental concepting with miniatures -- these experiments often produce unpopular miniatures.

I wouldn't want to be agree to this process and then be saddled with a figure that is frankly doomed to fail. What would happen if the agreed upon miniature had an error in the sketch or sculpting phase that rendered it useless? Would you guys feel cheated when the chosen figure didn't end up getting made?

That doesn't mean I'm unreceptive to miniature suggestions; go ahead and make all the suggestions you wish! I just can't promise that I'll be able to act on any one idea.

Suggestion: D&D feedback for minis - Wizards Community

 

[RavinRay]

Hmmm, what if modrons got moved to the far realm in this edition? It could make the modron march a lot scarier.

Why not? Not everything from the Far Realm has to writhe with tentacles or drip with slime or be otherwise icky to a Material Plane denizen. They can be inscrutably lawful and be awesome and terrifying in their own right. A secundus using quivering palm has got to be a tough opponent.

 

[avin]

Mechanus bureaucracy have a touch of horror anyway...

ABOUT LIMBS: modron's appearance has been change over editions. They can work properly on 4E if their bodies change to something like the Hammerer miniature, using different chests and faces for each modron.

 

[qstor]

I think I'd like 4e if it had modrons in the 4e MotP.

Mike

 

[avin]

I think I'd like 4e if it had modrons in the 4e MotP.

Isn't in... =/

Still hoping an appearance revamp and a 2009 Dragon article tho...

 

[justanobody]

Peter talked a bit more on another topic:

This always goes on. I have a list of about 120 miniatures taken from various discussions and forum threads from here, maxminis, hordelings, enworld, etc.

If the idea is a good idea, we'll make it. If there are problems with the figure, it probably won't make the list.

For example: let's dissect the rogue modron. (Considering the current desire for this figure, I suspect that this would be one of the contenders.) It's unlikely that I'll be able to do it:

1) The 1st ed concept won't work. The art in the MM2 are horrible line drawings that won't translate well to miniature form.
2) The 2e/3e clockwork modrons are a little better, but they have a fundamental structural issue: the limbs are not only too thin to support the body, the limbs are too thin to be successfully cast!
3) I need to do miniatures that support 4th edition, so I'm unwilling to do a modron until it fits this criteria.
4) Modron concept potentially could be redesigned to allow it to be produced, but I don't really have the budget to do experimental concepting with miniatures -- these experiments often produce unpopular miniatures.

I wouldn't want to be agree to this process and then be saddled with a figure that is frankly doomed to fail. What would happen if the agreed upon miniature had an error in the sketch or sculpting phase that rendered it useless? Would you guys feel cheated when the chosen figure didn't end up getting made?

That doesn't mean I'm unreceptive to miniature suggestions; go ahead and make all the suggestions you wish! I just can't promise that I'll be able to act on any one idea.

Suggestion: D&D feedback for minis - Wizards Community

1.

How will these not translate to minis? You can't make a d4 or d6?

I would hope these simple shapes would be really easy to sculpt, and just stick eyes on all sides and a few arms like the Xorn.

Also David Sutherland artwork is not "horrible line drawings".

2. I find it odd things like a bat familiar that fly as well as Stirge, etc are minis and they should have nothing supporting them at all. Ever tried placing something in a seated position? Don't have to worry about thin legs supporting them.

3. I think there are plenty of people who play older editions and not just 4th edition that may purchase minis for those they need for those editions. Minis collectors and users for "RPG purposes" are NOT limited to only those people that play 4th edition. This is an accessory to a product line, and everything does not need to fall in line with that product line in its current form. Minis are a fickle market as well currently known, and the buyers buy what they want, not what you tell them they want. You need to make minis that wil interest the consumer and D&D players. That means for the greatest profit you need to target all editions of D&D, not just limited to the few available and already saturated creature types that existed in DDM.

Who here needs another 5000 goblins?

4. They don't need to be redesigned in an line with #1 and #2, you are aware that there are more than polyhedral modrons in the MMII that you quoted correct?

Pages 86 - 91 include pictures of nearly a dozen modrons. Some nothing more than simple bodies with near Maui heads on them. It is not like it would be something requiring massive amounts of R&D to do. The pictures exist and can be made from existing body types that the modron specific parts could be added to.

Take for example the Quarton, Tertian, Primus! The Nonaton is also simple to make and would not take that much sculpting and the molding simple.

It would not be that hard to take one and put it in, or in spare time to make one of these and try to get it in. I would prefer to see interesting minis that have henceforth never existed rather than more of the same crap with new clothes that is already flooding peoples closets and waste bins.

There are plenty of the common crap type monsters unless they are going to be made theme packed, and some more irregular monsters need to be had for ALL D&D players as a D&D accessory that has been waited for for 20+ years.

There is little excuse for anyone to "need" to tie the minis to 4th edition since there is no DDM. Make minis for RPG use and try to capture a broader market than just the 4th edition D&D players, and you stand a chance of getting other RPG players, and minis collectors to get the new line. Otherwise you risk having lower sales of product than the latest from DM that caused that line to end.

That first statement in there calling the artowrk horrible line drawings as compared to the stale crap in the 4th edition books has nearly put me off from ANY purchase of the new miniature, cause Lord knows I don't need more than the 10k+ minis I already own. Especially if its the same crap that has been being put out for 3 decades, or uninspiring crap that looks like WoW or Warhammer minis.

 

[avin]

With a lot of old good bugbears around on Ebay who would use Demonweb's Bugbear Strangler?

Poor concept, horrible sculpture in my opinion...

The older Girallon vs Demonweb's? It's not what I want so I guess that maybe there's a disconnection between what Wotc thinks we want and what we really want. I'm not even talking about modrons anymore...

I've preordered Demonweb on Amazon but will spend my money buying War Drums and War of the Dragon Queen miniatures on Ebay, except for the drow and that awesome Rakshasa Assassin and a few other really nice sculpts.

I have my hopes high on 2009 minis, from what I see, most of Demonweb is wasted.

If 2009 minis goes in this "attached to body arms" direction I'll only buy singles on Ebay...

PS. I'm under impression that, so far, CAD reduce a lot of mini's details... am I wrong?

 

[Nebulous]

I don't see any conceptual reason why they couldn't make cool looking modrons. Skinny arms and legs? That's crap. When i look back over the past 5 years worth of minis and how many stinkers are in the sets, i'd love to replace some of them with modrons.

And the line art is awesome IMHO.

 

[Erik Mona]

Up modrons!

I can understand the resistance to them, but the multiverse (4e or otherwise) is big enough to handle just about anything, methinks.

Mearls, why no love for the 1e MM2? I'm with you on the FF, but I try to love all of them equally.

--Erik

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I can see the problems the minis guy is talking about. Try to make them with those ultra-thin limbs = difficult. Reimagine them = "nooooo, the destroyed Modrons!"
Me, i´d rather let them rest. They are too tightly tied into the "planes = aligments" concept to be that useful in 4e. I´d rather see something fresh in MotP.