Best Name for Game?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I've only seen one "name my game" discussion work well, here or at any other site. It yielded "Violence Future" for a game by Dav Harnish.

All other such discussions have failed - either they generate one or two guesses until the author comes up with one of his own, or 100 guesses with the author primarily telling everyone why they're wrong, but never coming up with a name himself.

This discussion is starting to look like the latter. I think you need to consider Eero's advice and then come up with the name of the game by yourself. "You propose, I choose" isn't going to work.

So this thread needs to be closed. I suggest those who'd like to keep going can take it to private email or to a website better suited for it.

Best, Ron

[mratomek]

Children of the Sprue

Paul

That's is a quite witty. Hmmm...

[mratomek]

Hi there,

I've only seen one "name my game" discussion work well, here or at any other site. It yielded "Violence Future" for a game by Dav Harnish.

All other such discussions have failed - either they generate one or two guesses until the author comes up with one of his own, or 100 guesses with the author primarily telling everyone why they're wrong, but never coming up with a name himself.

This discussion is starting to look like the latter. I think you need to consider Eero's advice and then come up with the name of the game by yourself. "You propose, I choose" isn't going to work.

So this thread needs to be closed. I suggest those who'd like to keep going can take it to private email or to a website better suited for it.

Best, Ron

Oh, I disagree. The open dialogue--good, bad or otherwise--is always invaluable. And the "you propose, I choose" short-coming could be applied to any discussion occurring on this board.

Every post brings something. Even if it is to identify a point that is so far out there, that even though you would never consider it, it creates a point of reference and context for all other points.

[mratomek]

Some more information about the game, if Ron will endulge a few more posts (please):


"The Game", previously known as Monster Rules or MOD Forces, is a hybrid of an RPG and miniatures wargame. It uses a universal point-based system for both character creation and scenario building. A player would field a team of characters that might be as few as 1 miniature or as many as 30-40. You can use any mini, toy, model, action figure or scratch-built creation to represent your characters.

At game time, a scenario might allow you to use only 3 of the characters on your team. You need to choose which characters would best fulfill the mission (sometimes selection is random).

The system can be used to create any character and situation: a party of adventurers skulking about in a dungeon (vs. the dungeon's denizens), a team of super heroes protecting Big City form the latest maniacal madman and his villainous crew, space rangers exploring a derelict spaceship (vs. the horde of aliens inside), etc.

The game can be played head to head, in groups or with a GM. Just depends on what you want to do, whose playing and how much time you have.

Individual adventures could be generic one-shot battles, or more structured stories combining shorter battles and non-combative tasks that lead up to a mother of all battles. For example, a party of thieves could attempt to break into a wizard's tower to steal an ancient relic. One player plays the thieves while the other player has all sorts of tricks, traps, puzzles and monsters to try and take out his adversary.

I see this game targeting a few groups:

Bob: Bob is a big wargaming enthusiast who might be interested in the creative aspect of the game—specifically along the lines of the Dominant Species setting. He finally gets to create his own Insectoid army to fight with.

Sam: Sam enjoys painting miniatures and gaming. The idea of a game that lets him create a character around a miniature and play interests him.

Will: Will is a minis fanatic—Heroclix, Mage Knight, D&D Miniatures, etc. He likes them all, but wishes the game were a bit more flexible and creative. He enjoys the flexibility the game offers.

James: James wants to get into wargaming, but the cost is fairly prohibitive. The idea of only needing a handful of miniatures—any miniatures, appeals to him.

Harris: Harris is a big gamer with little time. The head-to-head and episodic aspects of the game appeal to him.

Tim: Tim is looking for a game that allows him to vent his creative side, but that is not so time intensive. The creative nature of the game appeals to him.

[Ron Edwards]

Sure, go on ahead. I'm in a good mood today.

I hope you understand that I'm cutting you slack. When I say closed, it's closed, and you can PM me to ask why or to ask for a reversal, but you can't just disagree and keep posting.

But enough of that. You said "please," I'm happy, and it stays open. Titles, commence!

Best, Ron

[Eero Tuovinen]

With Ron's kind permission, let's look into this a bit further:

Your list of gamer types the game is targeted to is interesting, but opens up more questions than it answers. Specifically, how do you picture the social context to work out? Are all these guys playing together, or are they all representatives of their own play groups? Who is going to buy the product? Everybody interested in playing (like Warhammer) or a gateway person who invests emotionally in the game (like most roleplaying)? Will people gather to play with one guy's minis, or will everybody have his own? Is this the kind of game you play with a particular group, or will you play pick-up games at the game store? Replying that "all is possible" isn't really very good, because that means that you aren't tailoring the physical product and the rules text to support any particular situation.

I'm not just asking out of curiousity, I feel that this stuff is important for marketing your game efficiently. From what you've written so far it seems that the game is best targeted at the light-weight generic gamer market. Pretty much the Heroclix people and the like, hardcore gamers who spend most of their money on hobby products and don't mind getting a new game to use with their minis. Not exactly miniatures gamers, but rather all-around hobbyists who can appreciate the game being in an intersection between competitive roleplaying and pure miniature skirmishing. The kind of people who go into the game store and buy into a new game for $40 as an impulse. Does that sound like a fair characterization of your target audience?

Keeping the above in mind and looking at your description of the game, these are the factors that caught my eye in a positive manner:
- Having a team of miniatures and having to pick the right ones for a given scenario. Like M.A.S.K. This could be fun in a certain kind of campaign format, perhaps with a GM. My instinct says that this is a feature that's best utilized in a non-universal context with definite color and setting, though. Heck, if you did this with a balls-to-the-wall D&D aesthetic and robust campaign rules, it'd be all I ever wanted from D&D.
- Explicitly allowing different miniatures. On the one hand this means that you're shitting on the traditional aesthetic focus of miniatures painting and collecting, but as I'm not a mini-head myself, I like the idea of playing an elaborate minis game with paper dolls or something. Seems to torpedo the idea of pick-up gaming, though, as you're not that likely to have a team that looks good next to the other guy's minis.

Now, as I see it, those two selling points are rather problematic in that as far as I can see they imply rather different products. The first is all about definite play context, campaign rules and a well-though, finished game. The latter is more of a toolbox element, indeed resembling GURPS, not really caring whether the customer gets a game going as long as the product is chock-full of ideas and options. Perhaps the first idea can be something you have in the "scenario ideas" chapter of a product dedicated to the latter philosophy, but equal they are not.

By the way: Children of the Sprue is genius! Shame it doesn't seem like fitting this game so much.

[mratomek]

Your list of gamer types the game is targeted to is interesting, but opens up more questions than it answers. Specifically, how do you picture the social context to work out? "

It could be with a group of friends or a pick up game on a game night at a local hobby shop.

Are all these guys playing together, or are they all representatives of their own play groups?

You could play 1 vs. 1, 1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3, 5 vs. GM. But to help organize play, there will be settings books that focus on the player vs. player aspect of the game--and less player/s vs. GM.

Who is going to buy the product? Everybody interested in playing (like Warhammer) or a gateway person who invests emotionally in the game (like most roleplaying)? Will people gather to play with one guy's minis, or will everybody have his own?

Only one person needs the book. The game itself is fairly simple wtih characters stat cards being specific developed to minimize the need for multiple manuals. I would imagine as people become more interested in the game and want to develop their own characters, they will buy in.

Is this the kind of game you play with a particular group, or will you play pick-up games at the game store?

Both. If you play with regulars, you could develop longer story arcs that are ultimately more rewarding. But one-shots can be fun, and you could still develop a long-running story.

Replying that "all is possible" isn't really very good, because that means that you aren't tailoring the physical product and the rules text to support any particular situation.

I appreciate that a lot and have crunched-down the game a lot.

From what you've written so far it seems that the game is best targeted at the light-weight generic gamer market. Pretty much the Heroclix people and the like, hardcore gamers who spend most of their money on hobby products and don't mind getting a new game to use with their minis. Not exactly miniatures gamers, but rather all-around hobbyists who can appreciate the game being in an intersection between competitive roleplaying and pure miniature skirmishing. The kind of people who go into the game store and buy into a new game for $40 as an impulse. Does that sound like a fair characterization of your target audience?

Yes. I think it will appeal to miniature gamers as well, who are mostly hesitant to jump games due to costs. But, besides the manual, chances are they already have miniatures to use.

Keeping the above in mind and looking at your description of the game, these are the factors that caught my eye in a positive manner:
- Having a team of miniatures and having to pick the right ones for a given scenario. Like M.A.S.K. This could be fun in a certain kind of campaign format, perhaps with a GM. My instinct says that this is a feature that's best utilized in a non-universal context with definite color and setting, though. Heck, if you did this with a balls-to-the-wall D&D aesthetic and robust campaign rules, it'd be all I ever wanted from D&D.

You are right. The game, proper, is universal. But I am immediately planning on releasing settings (Skulltower (fantasy), Black Hole (Modern Horror), Big City Heroes (super heroes), etc.) that help a player define what his characters are, how to build a team, and what to expect out of a scenario.

- Explicitly allowing different miniatures. On the one hand this means that you're shitting on the traditional aesthetic focus of miniatures painting and collecting, but as I'm not a mini-head myself, I like the idea of playing an elaborate minis game with paper dolls or something.

Yes and no. I played a great game with Heroclix X-Men vs. a 16" Sentinel action figure. Aestheticaly fun. I have also played against someone who used dime-store army men. Not so aesthetic. Having said that. I have seen a lot of 40k / Warmachine games played with unpainted and poorly painted minis as well.

Ultimately, it depends on the crowd you run with. Playing with people who appreciate the aesthetic of minis is always a boost for the game.

Seems to torpedo the idea of pick-up gaming, though, as you're not that likely to have a team that looks good next to the other guy's minis.

Not so much, because you could provide both teams, or maybe the hobby shop focuses on just one setting for a while. It would be as much of a mismatch as any gaming group that looks at all the different game they want to play and then ultimately picks one; or a hobby shop that could host lots of different games but only has Magic and Warmachine going on.

If someone were interested in being the catalyst for a specific game at a local shop, that would be the game and setting that people would prepare for and come to play.

Now, as I see it, those two selling points are rather problematic in that as far as I can see they imply rather different products. The first is all about definite play context, campaign rules and a well-though, finished game. The latter is more of a toolbox element, indeed resembling GURPS, not really caring whether the customer gets a game going as long as the product is chock-full of ideas and options. Perhaps the first idea can be something you have in the "scenario ideas" chapter of a product dedicated to the latter philosophy, but equal they are not.

Yea. The game engine is the toolbox and the settings would be the finished games. You are on the right track.

Here's an example of a simple adventure I am putting together for a super heroes game:


Scene 1. The heroes get a chance to track down a lead concerning a nuclear warhead being smuggled into the US. They have further learned that a criminal is going to steal the warhead and use it himself to blackmail differnet countries.

This part of the game is more verbal and simply allows the player playing the heroes to pick one of his heroes to make several action rolls to determine how much information he is able to gather. The more successes he scores, the greater his advantage in scene 2. The fewer successes, the great the advantage of the villains.

The idea of this scene is to quickly build the story and premise for the next scene so that the game does not always boil down to a deathmatch.

Scene 2. The villains arrive on a cargo ship and begin searching for the warhead. The heroes arrive earlier or later based on how well they did in Scene 1. The villains must quickly find the bomb and move it to their ship as fast as possibly--of course, the heroes must attempt to intercept the heroes and the bomb. Finding the bomb involves moving to certain locations on the map or terrain and making action rolls versus a target number with some type of Search or Sense power.

The character used in Scene 1 must be one of the heroes used in Scene 2. As soon as either the heroes or villains move the bomb to their ship, Scene 2 will end at the end of that round.


Scene 3a. If the villains escape with the bomb, there is one more smaller battle inside the ship including 1 hero who was on the ship + 1 new hero who snuck aboard vs. 1 new villain + any villains who were on the ship at the end of the last Round of Scene 2. The heroes must take down everyone aboard and seize control of the ship to win.

Scene 3b. If the heroes escape with the bomb, there is one more smaller battle inside the heroes jet including 1 new hero and any heroes who were on the jet at the end of the last round of scene 2 vs. 1 villain that was in play during Scene 2. The game starts with the villain activating the bomb. The hereos must deactivate the bomb by the end of Round 5 or else it blows up the ship and everyone on it.

Disarming the bomb requires a character to make a number of action rolls versus a target number.


Here's a sample of a character:


Iron Goliath
Hero (250)

Actions: 3
Default: 1
Size: 0
Life: 6
Spirit: Good
Max Lift: 100 Tons

Attack 8 Strength (Dam) Melee Skill: Equipment, Ultimate, Hardened, Indestructible

Special 6 Move Self Skill: Equipment, Charge
Special 6 Sense (Life) Ranged Skill: Equipment

+2 Cybernetic
+1 Prodigy
Construct
Bodyguard
Defy Death
Heroic Effort
Resist


He's a big hunk of iron that can pound the crap out of people.

The people who I have taught the basics of the game, pick it up in minutes. Of course knowing all the possiblities of powers, feats and special abilities takes time, but not comprehending new rules.

I really appreciate your analysis.

[Eero Tuovinen]

Seems good to me overall, I think I'm getting a handle here. I could get into the kind of rpg adventure you're describing. Now, back to the topic of names...

If you're going to have one basic (cheap?) rules set and different genre books separately, what examples are we looking up to... I'm reminded of GURPS, of course as already mentioned, and Warhammer with it's army books. The latter is perhaps a bit more dynamic concept as several army books can be utilized at the same time in the game. Then again, GURPS players have proved that if you want to sell ten different genres, a significant percentage of your audience will buy them all just because they like the basic system and want to mix and match the components. Still, perhaps looking into making the supplements more personalized and cross-usable would be a good idea - I think it's a pretty well known factoid that expressing your individual identity by choosing your fictional clique is a major selling point for Warhammer and Vampire, two games that separate their supplements into splatbooks. We haven't discussed your marketing plans, but I could see you selling half a dozen 10-page pdf titles with the formula Skulltower: splat instead of a 100-page Skulltower: fantasy minis book, now that modern technology has made it easy and profitable to sell small and customized snippets of content.

Anyway, an idea that came to me concerning the basic game and setting supplements: how about having a simple yet punchy name for the basic system and then varying that name from supplement to supplement? Like Hero System, which has a supplement called Fantasy Hero if memory serves. That kind of thing. Running with that, your basic system could be called Skirmish System (reasonable, as the system is universal/general/vague, but solidly focused on skirmish battles), while the supplements could be XXX Skirmish or Skirmish XXX. Something like Skulltower Skirmish or Fantasy Skirmish, depending on how strong you'd want to layer on the setting (I'd pick the former and build that setting in there, but that's just me).

To take this further yet: you mentioned the possibility of not publishing the generic system, but rather focusing on different genre books. With modern publishing technology you could do many interesting things on this front. This is mainly interesting for the name thing because different names work for flagship products and regular customer products. If your flagship product was Skulltower or whatever its name, a book of fantasy skirmish battles, and that included the basic rules system, there would be much less pressure to make the basic rule book sexy. In that context I could easily see the basic book having a quite dry and technical name, because anybody wanting to get it would already be hitched via Skulltower. Something like Skirmish System would go right in line with other gaming classics like Basic Roleplaying System; even if nobody would publish something that dry as a flagship product it's quite possible to use it as the name of the system.

By the way: the above stuff about supplement branding is only applicable if your supplements are currently already within your project event horizon in a serious manner. If they're just a vague idea, it's probably not a good idea to waste time coordinating matters for them. The game will have to stand on it's own, after all.

Another angle of attack would be to give a more "roleplayerly" name, perhaps focusing on the feel of skirmish battle. This depends largely on the flavor of your rules and display, but let's say for the sake of argument that you had a bur in your ass about pussy-ass low-lethality roleplaying games, and your game was a vehicle for showing how real men play. If your game was like this, it'd be quite reasonable to call it Last Man Standing, to coin a cliche somebody probably already uses. The point is that while the game is universal genre-wise, it might have some genre-independent feel or color that could become the cornerstone of it's presentation. Continuing with the example (I have no idea how you or your game takes to character death, mind; just an example), Last Man Standing could have a violent-looking cover of wounded fighters gritting their teeth, and it could have internet buzz singling it out as a system that allows roleplayers to deal with character death functionally. In that manner the game would find it's niche and create a concrete hook for customers without ever having to actually have a fictional genre to back it up.

Looking at it from this angle, do you find your system to have any design principles, fictional focus or color that, while not genre-specific, still separates it fiction-wise from other similar games? No game is really and truly universal in the sense of not having any flavor of it's own, so it's possible that there'd be something there to build an identity from. The fact that the game focuses on skirmishes is an easy one in this regard, and should probably come in there somewhere, but it's also something that can be said about many, many miniatures games, so it's not really a distinguishing feature in that market. Perhaps the roleplaying aspect could be focused on to provide distinction from other miniatures rules? If you'd call your game something like Little Heroes or Band of Heroes (again, using a cliched example), it would give some indication of the fact that the game supports more characterization and role-play than your average skirmish miniature game (say, Necromunda).

[Call Me Curly]

Stray thoughts for your consideration:

*The entire rpg hobby began with wargamers trying to 'do more' with their minis: add personality, stories, identify with a particular figure.
Is there a a name that can evoke how close your concept is to the roots of the hobby?


*Many rpgs describe themselves as "let's pretend", but with rules-- to prevent I Shot You!/ No You Didn't! disputes.
Playing with toy characters-- whether Star Wars Action Figures or LIttle Green Army Men or whatever, is a specific form of 'let's pretend'; and all mini rules are specifically intended to prevent I Shot You/No You Didn't disputes for this specific form of pretend.
Is there a name that can evoke the fundamental toys+rules aspect of your game? --and is this a more basic thing to first establish, than your desire to also say that your rules can do -more- than just resolve combat?


*Some words:  Crossover, Unite, Traverse, Resolve, Connect, Ground Rules, Decree, Dictate, Directive, Edict, Tradition, Way, Blueprint, Canon, Standard, Regulation
(Near anonyms: Disperse, Detatchment)

*Many of those words have military connotations or double-meanings

*Does the absence of the hardcore grognard from the 'people this game might to reach' list-- mean that we can ignore trying to appeal to them.  I hope so.

*Here's a list of every product ever reviewed on rpg.net: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/list-review.phtml
That's a lot of names.  "Four Bastards" is probably the grabbiest name I saw there.  Howabout "Little Bastards" :)
Skulltower Bastards, Space Bastards, WW2 Bastards...

[mratomek]

Thanks for the feedback.

I am looking at some how branding a more generic title around Skirmish--because, at the end of the day, that is what the game is. A fun, skirmish-level game.

I like the suggestion of Skirmish System, but. I also like the idea of altering the spelling a bit to Skirmash (like skirmish + smash). Fun and more defendible as a trademark.

With a good descriptive, but unique name, it could then be branded with extension books as Skirmash: Fantasy, Skirmash: Supers, Skirmash: Dark Apocalypes, etc.

Thanks for all your ideas.

And thanks Ron for your indulgence. I will make sure to follow your lead the next time you close a thread.

[joepub]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of mashing together words, very often.
Skirmash looks kind of childish.

I'd rather buy Skirmish in the Wasteland than Skirmash: Dark Apocalypse
I'd rather buy Skirmish at Skulltower than Skirmash: Fantasy.
I'd rather buy Skirmish Heroes Unite! than Skirmash: Supers.

Just sayin'.

[dindenver]

Hi!
   I'm more of a casual minis gamers (I only ever "bought in" to Star Wars minis and Blood Bowl). But I knew what a Mod was right away.
  I think that there is a huge niche of minis gamers who love to mod their minis, but never get to play them because tourney rules forbid it.
  A name like Mod Forces, might appeal to gamers like that. But I do agree that you could (and probably should) punch it up a bit.
Like maybe call it "Minis Or Detritus" (M.O.D. for short) and it would tell people what your game is about.
  Anyways, I think its great that you are developing rules for all those people with minis that aren't allowed in the rules anymore (I know a couple wh40k and clix players with obsolete minis). So, keep up the good work!