Idea regarding D&D Minis

[herald]

The OGL doesn't allow for mini's you can't put a d20 logo on a mini, that much I know. But you can try and get a licence from WOTC. If I was WOTC, I would imagin that adding the chaim mail rules to the OGL would be a good idea. After all, you might want to come back to this game later on, and other companies would keep it alive for you.

 

[kengar]

Apparently, 25mm is on the way out. When I was watching a sculpting demo at Origins, someone (I think Sandra Garrity, but don't quote me...) was saying that there pretty much isn't any more 25mm - it generally ranges from 28-32mm, depending on company. Also, there's apparently no definite standard between companies - some measure from foot to eyes, others measure from foot to top of the head. But, whichever, minis are definitely bigger than they used to be - figs I have from the early to mid-80's could ride on the backs of the current models, Master Blaster-style.

Really? I did not know that. Well, it's not that so much prefer one scale over the other, I just like a bit more consistency of scale.

Oh, and while I'm thinking about it, I'll chime in on the good/bad GW mini question. I think their minis are much more "cartoony" than most other companies'. Not bad, just a lot more exxagerated. It's a matter of taste, I guess.

I agree on the GW-"cartoony" factor. I guess that is so they stand out a bit more in the rank and file of the larger-scale combat games. Personally, I kinda like it. It can be a distraction, though. Especially when you put a Goblin Fanatic on the table during a "serious" combat.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

I agree on the GW-"cartoony" factor.

Salutations,

My biggest problem with many of the GW figures is the size of the weapons. That.. and mohawks.

I will agree with those that said Reaper minis are nice. I also like Fenryll, but they don't have a big selection.

Rackham's Confrontation is cool, but they suffer many of the cartoony problems of GW.

I really want to try out the Foundry miniatures, but I dislike that you have to buy them in sets. Otherwise, they look great in pics.

FD

 

[Jay_Kinnear]

Well they've gotten better the current crop of mini is pretty damn good but personally WotC outsource anything to Games Workshop isn't a good idea, and probably never will happen because I believe theirs quite a bit of bad blood between the two.

 

[Aristotle]

Ditto on Reaper. I use to love Ral Partha figures, but RP is out of the picture for the most part now... I just spent the past two days looking over collections of miniatures. I had no idea there were so many manufacturers for fantasy miniatures out there! And there are quite a few good historical sets out thee if your campaign uses historical-analogue type cultures (mine does to some extent).

Reaper probably has the best all around character selection. You can get monsters from lots of different places, and scale is less of an issue when dealing with monsters (in my opinion).

As far as "best looking" miniatures. My vote would go for Confrontation (gotta love those Wolfen), and second place would probably go to Celtos. I've actually been trying to engineer my homebrew campaign setting so that these minis would fit it...

 

[smetzger]

The OGL doesn't allow for mini's you can't put a d20 logo on a mini, that much I know. But you can try and get a licence from WOTC. If I was WOTC, I would imagin that adding the chaim mail rules to the OGL would be a good idea. After all, you might want to come back to this game later on, and other companies would keep it alive for you.

I'll preclude this by saying that I am not a wargamer. Miniatures are nice but there are plenty of companies and miniatures being produced.

The d20 license would allow a company to create mass warfare rules from D&D, but without an officially sponsored mini line. All I need is the rules I have tons of minis already.

 

[Vaxalon]

Personally, I don't think WotC ought to be in the business of making minis. It's a lot different than making books.

Yes, give us some mass-combat rules, that's needed, but there are plenty of sources of minis out there that do a great job for a great price, and Hasbro/WotC has not shown a lot of commitment to going outside of their core competencies.

 

[Zappo]

I kinda like GW minis. If only they weren't so terribly overpriced...

And yeah, they tend to make a new game every year and stop supporting it within a few months.

 

[Randolpho]

Personally, I don't think WotC ought to be in the business of making minis. It's a lot different than making books.

Yes, give us some mass-combat rules, that's needed, but there are plenty of sources of minis out there that do a great job for a great price, and Hasbro/WotC has not shown a lot of commitment to going outside of their core competencies.

I'm with Vaxalon on this one:

Mass combat rules are 100% necessary, but they don't need to be tied to any particular line of minis. I would much rather see a rulebook that was generic enough that I could use any mini I wanted to represent any unit I wanted. If I wanted to play with different colored dice to represent the units, then I could do that.

That's what we need. Rules. Not rules tied to minis.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Mass combat rules are 100% necessary.

Salutations,

They would be nice, but they are hardly necessary.

I would like to see a serious mass combat system that won't bore my casual players to tears- and from what I understand, two companies are working on them-

Eden Studios
and
Mongoose

It just happens I like both of them- so I will be happy to wait for their offering.

FD