I am working on a universal set of minis battle and adventure rules. Something along the lines of GURPS for miniatures. I have two working titles and need some help as to what best resonates--or if both suck.

Monster Rules (where Monster refers to the scope of the rules--like a monster car).

MOD Forces (Modified as in custom miniatures--since the game doesn't require a player to use a specific range of minis).

Thoughts, ideas, likes, dislikes...

thanks.

My guess is this ACTUALLY belongs in Publishing, because you are talking about how to market your completed game.

Neither Monster Rules nor MOD Forces is a good name. Neither tells me anything about your game.

"Monster Rules" might be about monsters, but I'm not 100% sure.
MOD Forces would assumedly be about these british secret agents who ride mopeds.

Those are the impressions those titles give.
Think about this:
-What is your game about?
-What does you game have on all the other games of the type?
-What will grab people?

I've read a bunch of AP reports on Monster Rules/MOD Forces...
and from what I can tell the game is:
-super, super flexible
-a miniatures battle game - but one that allows you to put the "win condition" on something OTHER THAN straight out slaughter.
-although setup time seems like it'd take a while, play seems fast and deadly. This seems like a strength.
-Tons of flexibility.

Now... you need a name that says: "totally customizable, snappy play, small model count, awesomeness".

You also want to factor in one final thing: Is this a book, or are you going to market a boxed set with some models in it and stuff?
If it's just a book, stress the fact that it's flexible and customizable.
If it comes with models, stress the fact that it's fun and fast.

Maybe incorporate the word "skirmish" in the title.
-Skirmish Grounds
-Skirmish Heroes

I think Joe's on the right track

If you want to keep the tone light, you can also get a little playful with the name.

Like:

Universal Skirmish Unlimited Conflict.

Descriptive, and fun with the handy smack talking acronym USUC.

as in "Hey, lets play some USUC!"

Yeah...maybe its a stretch.  But the key is pick something memorable.  All of the cool bad ass sounding names blend together into an undifferentiated blur.

miniMAX

minimen

Skirmini

Infini-minis

I vote against an acronym. I'm not sure if that was a serious suggestion or not, but I strongly vote against it.
I also vote against "miniMAX", although "skirmini" has this AWESOME ring to it.

minipunk?

yeah, i'm against the acronyms too.

actually, i like something that joe said so much that i think you should name your game it.
"win condition".
since i'm drawn to the not-total-slaughter situation (and i usually end up ad hoc-ing games
to be more in line with that anyway) that name would be something i'd certainly pick off the
shelf. it's punchy, it speaks to an immediate conflict and infers quick resolution. to me.

or, if you wanted a more coffee-themed game, you could have "battle grounds". or "the mini grinder"
or "cup o' destruction" or "bean grenediers must defeat cap' chino."

...and the fact that i'm quoting joe, i promise, didn't figure into this foolishness at all.

yay! first post!

cripes, and BOTH potential racial slurs were VERY unintentional.
giant apologies.
what a doozy of a first post.

mini battle overdrive

Infiniminis is neat because it's fun to say.  This is actually something that you should always try with your titles: say them aloud.

Minipunk would be a very cool name if and only if you are really planning on pushing this balls-to-the-wall to the point where you're establishing an entire genre of play.  If you are, this would be a very useful, effective title for a game line rather than a single product.

And don't overlook the power of the title-subtitle one-two punch.

Infiniminis
Minipunk Madness

I really appreciate everyone's feedback. It has confirmed a few things for me.

Fist of all, is that tryting to name a system that is all things to all people is, well, impossible (unless you have tons and tons of money with which to market said name).

So I was considering focusing the system on a single genre. That would help me focus the name and then I could offer setting/name extensions later. So which one do I start with? Here are a couple of the names I have been kicking around to possible use as the setting for the initial book:

Skulltower (Fantasy)
Black Hole (Modern Horrror & Sci Fi)
Big City Heroes (Super Heroes)
Dawn of the Apocalypse (Post Apocalyptic Desolation)
Dominant Species (Dark Future Space Battle (a la 40k))

Thoughts, ideas, criticisms?

Thanks.

MrAtomek

Fist of all, is that tryting to name a system that is all things to all people is, well, impossible (unless you have tons and tons of money with which to market said name).

If the system is universal, I should think it the height of folly to cram it into a genre just because you can't think of a good generic name. Talk about lack of marketing plan!

As I see it, you absolutely have to identify your target audience as the first thing, so here's short descriptions of the main ones:

1) Go for the grognard market and use a descriptive name with a reasonable acronym. Serious, none of that f**** humour people insist on when they want to be backhandedly "cool" about playing with toy soldiers. This is a serious business with it's own aesthetic, and you're competing with games like De Bellis Multitudinis (affectionately known as "DBM" by it's players), a generic system for fighting historical, pre-gunpowder era battles. These guys won't go for something "cute", they want professionality and are quite happy with a bw ashcan copy of the rules as long as you don't mix up your skirmishers and hoplites.

2) Go for the teenager market and use a colorful, punchy name. Like Warhammer or Heroclix. For this market you need production values, and have to decide whether you're a gateway product yourself or riding on the coattails of those larger games. In the latter case make sure your rules are compatible with their minis. In any case your name and packaging needs to be themeful, even if universal.

3) Go for the generic gamer market and use a humorous name. Realize that your target audience generally isn't interested in investing serious time in the game, so design accordingly. I'm thinking of games like Fairy Meat or Mechaton here, something that you might pick up for the premise and play like it were a boardgame, instead of spending a month painting your army.

My point is, most of the names suggested or bandied about thus far are IMO horrible for any except the generic gamer market. A cute pun might be okay for the occasional hobbyist buying into a time commitment of a couple of hours, but I wouldn't touch something called "Skirmini" or "Mini Battle Overdrive" with a long stick if I was looking for a serious rules system I'd be willing to build an army for. Is your game one of those where we're supposed to build an army of two dozen + figures out of an army list and paint them? If so, you need a name that says the effort will be worth the payoff, not something that screams triviality. If your game really isn't the SJG card game of the minis market, then don't market it as such.

(You'll note that I don't actually know anything about your game, it's just that the "GURPS of miniatures gaming" doesn't sound like a small and cute game to me, considering the amount of money and time hobbyists generally invest in their minis gaming.)

I could give you a number of suggestions for names, but it'd be a bit pointless without knowing more about the product, target audience and the marketing plan, which are all crucial if you want the name to actually make sense. Going with the GURPS reference I'd suggest considering something with words like "tactical", "strategic" or "wargame" in it, because those are usually associated with heavy and serious combat simulation wargames. Consider the classics: you might have heard of Tactical Studies Rules, a wargame company from the '70s. That name screams commitment to wargaming. Or Squad Leader, which is punchy and to the point.

So my suggestion: instead of polling here for random suggestions, develop your publishing plan and write to us about it. Then it'll be much easier to suggest appropriate names.

(For the record, Skulltower is a great name for anything that's trying to go for a '80s overblown sword & sorcery feel. It could be the name of a Fighting Fantasy adventure book, easily. So if that's your angle, then it'd be reasonable. I'd expect to get a plastic skull prop in the package, though, and chainmail bikinis on the cover.)

Something I've noticed is that (in RPGs at least) games tend to benefit from doing just exactly what they say on the cover.  What do you get in D&D?  Why, yes, as a matter of fact, you do go into dungeons fairly often and are quite likely to conflict with dragons.  Vampire the Masquerade?  By golly, you're vampires, but see, you're trying to keep your identity secret.

Unknown Armies, on the other hand, could be about anything.  We came up with that name because it sounded cool before I'd noticed how useful it was to have a name that says what the product does.  Ditto EVERWAY.  GODLIKE is a bit better.  Abyss was, by all accounts, a poor game, but you sure knew what you were getting into when you bought it. 

You want something that's accurate but evocative.  That's why I went with REIGN for a game of fantasy leadership.

-G.

joepub wrote:

Fist of all, is that tryting to name a system that is all things to all people is, well, impossible (unless you have tons and tons of money with which to market said name).

Dude, we totally gave you some universal awesomeness:
-Mini Battle Overdrive
-Skirmini
-Skirmish
-Win Condition

But...
As far as genre names... I don't like any of those except dominant species.
The fantasy one is totally a Bad Fantasy Name Syndrome-afflicted title.

Let me ask you a question here: What are you trying to pitch with this name?
We've all given suggestions for cool names for your game, and then you told us "well, I guess my original request isn't really possible."

Children of the Sprue

Paul

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

Paul wrote:
Children of the Sprue

Paul

Ron wrote:
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

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.

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

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.

Eero wrote:
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? "

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

Eero wrote:
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?

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

Eero wrote:
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.

Eero wrote: 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?

Eero wrote:
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.

Eero wrote: - 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.

Eero wrote: 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.

Eero wrote:
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.

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).

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...

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.

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'.

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!