[Molotov]

Ferran suggested a 'Tale of Four Warbands' in an earlier thread, and I wanted to start a thread to discuss it.

I think the idea has a lot of potential, providing as it does a steady stream of articles for Dark Magenta. But beyond that, it provides readers with an insight into the approach taken by four different people to create their models and to craft characters. It could prove highly informative for those who're new to (or daunted by) Inquisitor.

I guess what we ought to do is discuss the perameters of any such project. What would we want to get from it? Some people have mentioned the idea of the completed warbands participating in a battle report, but that precludes Americans from participating. How long would the project run for? The original White Dwarf Tale of Four Gamers had them updating monthly with the progress on their armies. Would we produce a monthly status update? It's possible that doing so would help people form an attachment to the project, and perhaps for the hobbyists writing - they would feel somewhat more included in the project.

I guess I'm rambling a little, and other peoples' opinions are needed to stimulate the discussion.

[Kresten]

I think this idea is a really good one and I agree it has a lot of potential.

In terms of the title, would it be a case of four inter-woven warbands, as in their story including each other in a major way? Or separate characters who then just end up in a battle somehow?

I think it would be best to go with a monthly installment, going through all of the p+m, background etc in one would be a bit big for one issue.

[MarcoSkoll]

Well, I'd be interested, either reading or contributing.

The obvious problem with me contributing would be that the differences of opinion between Ferran and I (which will not be discussed here, thank you) would probably prevent both of us being part of the same project - and I'm assuming that as he proposed it, he'll be contributing.

It's unfortunate, as showcasing different approaches to development and production is half the point of To4G, but there are practical restraints to work around.

~~~~~

Even if I'm out for those reasons, I am still tempted to write a piece on my methods of character generation - by which I probably mean "How to create a background so long almost no-one will read it".
But to that, I'd argue that I don't write long backgrounds for other people - I write them for me, because I want to feel I really know this character.

I know there are people who like the same approach - there being one such example immediately above me. (Yes, I did notice that you pilfered the framework* for Kresten's background from my Jax Lynn thread. )

*Although I have to admit I originally stole the basics from Koval, back when I was involved in an RP on the last 'Clave. The fact the version you used had certain additions/alterations which I've made since to suit my specific tastes however... that was a bit of a give away.
Don't get me wrong though - if it works for you, feel free to use it

[Charax]

"4" Warbands seems a little restrictive, so how about this:

 - we pick a start month.
 - pick a monthly budget (this'll be where international participation becomes an issue, perhaps seperate £, $ and Euro budgets?).
 - anyone who wants to participate starts a thread tagged [To4W] or something like that - one thread per person, so things are easy to follow.

Not sure what forum would be most appropriate. P&M maybe.

4 models per warband, running until...no idea, suppose that depends on the budget.

[Molotov]

In terms of the title, would it be a case of four inter-woven warbands, as in their story including each other in a major way? Or separate characters who then just end up in a battle somehow?

I don't think the warbands would need to be 'interwoven', no more than any of the warbands were in White Dwarf battle reports. And that only becomes an issue if we're actually going to have a battle report at the end of the project.

Well, I'd be interested, either reading or contributing.

The obvious problem with me contributing would be that the differences of opinion between Ferran and I (which will not be discussed here, thank you) would probably prevent both of us being part of the same project - and I'm assuming that as he proposed it, he'll be contributing.

It's unfortunate, as showcasing different approaches to development and production is half the point of To4G, but there are practical restraints to work around.

I wouldn't think that personal differences would preclude participation in the project. That is, unless there would be a final battle report. In the main, Hobbyist A would write his piece, then Hobbyist B would write his, and the two would not be in actual contact. If anything, differences between posters would benefit the project - your recent miniatures have been entirely sculpted, and that illustrates one approach of creating Inquisitor models in an age where the 54mm GW range has diminished drastically.

Even if I'm out for those reasons, I am still tempted to write a piece on my methods of character generation - by which I probably mean "How to create a background so long almost no-one will read it". Roll Eyes
But to that, I'd argue that I don't write long backgrounds for other people - I write them for me, because I want to feel I really know this character.

Could be an interesting article!

"4" Warbands seems a little restrictive, so how about this:

 - we pick a start month.
 - pick a monthly budget (this'll be where international participation becomes an issue, perhaps seperate £, $ and Euro budgets?).
 - anyone who wants to participate starts a thread tagged [To4W] or something like that - one thread per person, so things are easy to follow.

Not sure what forum would be most appropriate. P&M maybe.

4 models per warband, running until...no idea, suppose that depends on the budget.

Interesting points, though I'm inclined to disagree with you somewhat. Forums like Warseer have threads called "The Tale of X Gamers" - but what I'm suggesting is that we have four users who are able to write at length and to provide high-quality photographs. That immediately narrows down the selection. This project is intended to benefit Dark Magenta, not the Conclave. We can't have twenty people in the project - not if we want to create coherent articles.

The thread Macabre started here seems like something that benefits the Conclave and would allow everybody to participate. But if we can get a "Tale of 4 Warbands" going, it's something that can get touted around other forums, such as Warseer, and can get publicity. It's not just a "Hey, come and join in on The Conclave!"

[Kresten]

(Yes, I did notice that you pilfered the framework* for Kresten's background from my Jax Lynn thread. )
[/i][/size]

  indeed I did, I did write a bit of a disclaimer and thankyou! I think the headings work well and after all, imitation is the best form of flattery.

Seen as i'm fairly far into a new war band im going to start having a go at some article writing, then Ill email it or whatever to whoever.

This is going to be really good i think, DM could use more p+m and background stuff I think.

[MarcoSkoll]

I wouldn't think that personal differences would preclude participation in the project.

I'm not sure you realise exactly how bad things ended up between us. It has been a while now, so perhaps there's a chance to recover things, but I don't know.

That is, unless there would be a final battle report.

Well, I think that we should try to, as far as possible - after all, most To4G do include battle reports along the way. Obviously, the trouble of getting several people from all over the country to meet up to play games would however make more than one battle report quite a lot of work.

If anything, differences between posters would benefit the project - your recent miniatures have been entirely sculpted, and that illustrates one approach of creating Inquisitor models in an age where the 54mm GW range has diminished drastically.

That was something I was thinking. I know I'm not the only sculptor on this forum - but then again, on the:

model<---------->character

sliding scale, I'm almost always right up at the right end, making the model to fit whatever character I've envisioned with minimal compromise (even if a lot of the time I nick the appearance of that character from a piece of artwork...)

Obviously, it would be good to showcase a wide range of character creation methods, so it would be great to at least have someone of that kind of mindset in the project, even if it's not me...

Could be an interesting article!

Actually, that reminds me. There's something I've half written on a "Character Motivations" method I use.

It's similar in basic principle to 3rd Ed D&D's "Alignment system", but more intricate and designed to better get the measure of a character's core morals (although it is just a roleplay aid - it's not actually part of the rules in the same way as it is in D&D). I mean to finish it and offer it to DM, but I keep forgetting.

[Molotov]

I'm not sure you realise exactly how bad things ended up between us.

I remember the thread - but again, unless the project does actually end up with the participants meeting in person, it really doesn't matter how much you like, love, or hate the other members. There would be almost no reason to communicate, as the participants would simply be sending their writing and pictures to a single person who would collate it into an article.

Well, I think that we should try to, as far as possible - after all, most To4G do include battle reports along the way. Obviously, the trouble of getting several people from all over the country to meet up to play games would however make more than one battle report quite a lot of work.

That's the thing. Also, as mentioned earlier, it precludes the non-British from participating. Whilst I'd assume the majority of the forum's members are British, it seems somewhat unfair to exclude others on that basis. One option is that we set a timescale (say, six months, allowing us six articles) and then if possible, some of the TO4W members can meet up for a battle report after that time to give us a fitting "coda".

I mean, this is still in the discussion phase, so the more people comment, the better-flesh out this can get!

[Heroka Vendile]

Of course, people can still be from around the world participating in this, and a big final meet-up isn't essential.

If a target is set to try and finish one character each per article, then the Gamers can give additional reports within the article as to how their new creations have faired in any games so far, as these games provide further character to the model and my in some cases provoke a remodelling if the owner wishes to be faithful to a games result.

Also each of the four participants can be aiming for different targets:

• A & B want new warbands to take to the next INQ GT / Spring Conclave meet,
• C wants to create new warbands in time for a long campaign arc that has been planned for their respective gaming group,
• D just wants to use it as an opportunity to motivate them into creating a warband that's a bit different to their normal choice.

On another note - I would seriously suggest you have a months leading time minimum. As in, the four participants are agreed upon, the format is finalised, you get to work, finish the first article, get well into or complete the second months article and only then start publishing them monthly - effectively giving a months delay, this allows for any hold-ups or issues to be dealt with easily in the months breathing space between "month 1" being completed and "article about month 1" being put online. This should also help ensure a dependable monthly release.

[MarcoSkoll]

I remember the thread...

There was rather more than one thread it derailed. But for fear of setting things off again (we're currently under a tentative agreement where we don't talk to one another), I'm not going to discuss it any further.

That's the thing. Also, as mentioned earlier, it precludes the non-British from participating.

Regrettably yes - but it really would be good if we could get all four people together for a game day, because then you could cover scenario design as part of it. Each person pens and GMs a scenario for the other three - which would also give DM a very healthy four battle reports.

That would demand four willing British participants, but if anyone elsewhere in the world wants to get involved, perhaps a "Fifth Gamer" series can be run at the same time, which could cover such things as gathering a gaming group if you're not lucky enough to be able to attend WHW events.

That said, my experience of trying to play four games in a day at WHW is that they're pretty short games. Perhaps if we hunt for three British players and a foreigner. That way we can cover gaming in the UK, gaming elsewhere, and then have a three game day at WHW with the British players, each player GMing a game for the other two.
Longer games with only two players would be considerably less hectic than shorter three player games.

[Molotov]

Also each of the four participants can be aiming for different targets:

    * A & B want new warbands to take to the next INQ GT / Spring Conclave meet,
    * C wants to create new warbands in time for a long campaign arc that has been planned for their respective gaming group,
    * D just wants to use it as an opportunity to motivate them into creating a warband that's a bit different to their normal choice.

I actually really like this in the sense that it gives an interesting focus to the piece.

On another note - I would seriously suggest you have a months leading time minimum. As in, the four participants are agreed upon, the format is finalised, you get to work, finish the first article, get well into or complete the second months article and only then start publishing them monthly - effectively giving a months delay, this allows for any hold-ups or issues to be dealt with easily in the months breathing space between "month 1" being completed and "article about month 1" being put online. This should also help ensure a dependable monthly release.

This is definitely something I'd given some thought to. I agree with a leading time, as it provides people with the breathing room necessary to put out a finished article. Whoever's collating the four hobbyists' writing into a readable article would also have time to do their work.

Regrettably yes - but it really would be good if we could get all four people together for a game day, because then you could cover scenario design as part of it. Each person pens and GMs a scenario for the other three - which would also give DM a very healthy four battle reports.

That would demand four willing British participants, but if anyone elsewhere in the world wants to get involved, perhaps a "Fifth Gamer" series can be run at the same time, which could cover such things as gathering a gaming group if you're not lucky enough to be able to attend WHW events.

That said, my experience of trying to play four games in a day at WHW is that they're pretty short games. Perhaps if we hunt for three British players and a foreigner. That way we can cover gaming in the UK, gaming elsewhere, and then have a three game day at WHW with the British players, each player GMing a game for the other two.
Longer games with only two players would be considerably less hectic than shorter three player games.

I like the idea of the "Fifth Gamer", a what-to-do article for those without gaming groups seems interesting.

I was concerned by the idea of trying to play four games in one day - would it perhaps be better to play a single game, like the four-player game from White Dwarf? I see your argument regarding having four battle reports for Dark Magenta, but we could perhaps compensate with additional content somehow...

[Shannow]

I had a thought that after these people have presented there models in DM with background etc, it might be interesting (if people were interested) to do another article on other peoples models of that character sort of like a kaede mack situation, the idea being they could practise the tips and such in the article on a specific model. Maybe a prize for the one votest the best?

Just an idea

Rob

[Macabre]

How about a Tale of Six Warbands, that way you could have one to represent each of the major philosophies.

[Heroka Vendile]

How about a Tale of Six Warbands, that way you could have one to represent each of the major philosophies.

Possibly restrictive in getting people who actually want to make s specific philosophy (i.e. could end up struggling to fill the last "left over" option). However it could work well and ensures additional variety in the warbands. Although even just applying a rule that none of the 4 warbands can be the same philosophy may be enough for this and leaves "wiggle room".

[greenstuff_gav]

actually, this works well from an article point of view; can help explain the factions, gives room to research "average" kit and look at specific sample miniatures