|
Post by onethatwas on Aug 19, 2014 23:48:44 GMT
So, first of all, I should preface this by saying that the 2.5D methodology for creating gaming tiles is a godsend, awesome, and very inspiring, regardless of the rendition used. DM Scotty has definately made an impact on gaming, IMHO, and has made plenty of believers based on what I can see here.
This post is to kind of look at the 3-5 (Now, considering DM Scotty's 2.5D NEXT series up and coming) versions of 2.5D and give my take on them. Each style has it's strengths, and some weaknesses, and I am hoping to not only catalog them but spark some discussion about what others think. SO, without further ado, my reviews:
2.5D Original So, when I saw DM Scotty's video's for the first time, my jaw dropped, and I was itching to make some of the tiles he described. "How can it be so easy?" I asked. Then I made my first tile, and I said, "Ah, that's how!" There is a definite elegance that the original 2.5D tiles have in their simplicity.
Pros: Cheap, easy to make, very attractive, and playability is awesome. Set up for games is a snap, and the reaction from players is priceless. Cons: In light of more recent methods, the detail (Using the basic method) is lacking. Easily fixed with some buffing up of detail in design. However, in order to make a full dungeon, a large binful of tiles must be made, which requires alot of crafting and space consumption. Many pieces have limited usefulness past the specific adventure it was crafted for, modularity is somewhat of an issue without some thought and planning (Which can be done, it must be noted).
While wonderful in the fact that it is an original design, there was certainly room for improvement, which is not a bad thing! It allows for each person to take this method, and make it your own. While the cons exist, the 2.5D Original method deserves applause.
Foam & FoamCore Expansion The next evolution of the Craft, in my opinion, is the implementation of Foam and Foam Core as crafting materials. The use of this material can add a degree of professionalism, though at the expense of cheap materials and ease of crafting.
Pros: Keeps most of the wonder of 2.5D Original, while adding texture detail and professional quality production. Tiles can be enhanced by this method and made to look like they were crafted by GamesWorkshop experts with very little extra effort. The results almost always look universally wonderful. Cons: Expense and Time Consumption. This method is more expensive in purchase of tools and materials, and working with the materials can be frustrating, tedious, difficult, and in some cases dangerous (What with toxic fumes). There are ways around the danger however (Carving texture into FoamCore is a great technique, if a bit time consuming). And the issue of the tiles taking up space is still an issue.
The DMG Method
DMG brought us an alternative look into how the 2.5D method could be implemented. While not too different from DM Scotty's method, it is different enough to merit being counted as a wholly separate evolution of the Craft.
Pros: Modularity! DMG's method boasts incredible modularity, which is the main quality that separates it from DM Scotty's method. The faux painted on stonework tiles also add character to the layout of a dungeon. Otherwise, it also keeps true to DM Scotty's original tiles in many ways. Always a pro. Lastly, the tiles can be crafted in a multitude of very flexible ways, which makes their usefulness in play great. Cons: As with the Foam Core/Foam method of crafting, it is time consuming. However, it makes up for this by being cheap as dirt to make. Like DM Scotty's Original Method, it does take up space to have the tiles, BUT they can be compacted pretty decently. An improvement here, despite it still being a con (IMO).
The Wall-Less Method
One that has not gotten as much attention, but bears mentioning is the wall-less method, which in essence is the same as the previously mentioned methods, except the walls are not crafted onto the tiles.
Pros: The Wall-less method saves a step or two in tile creation, and any of the previously mentioned methods can be used. Because the walls do not add that third dimension (even the very small amount that it is) that comes from the raised walls, there is some space saving. These tiles can also be, in some ways, more modular than the DMG's tiles, if done correctly. Cons: Arguably this isn't even 2.5D crafting, because it doesn't have the hinted 3rd dimension portrayed in the walls. Similarly, the tiles tend to look odd or bland without that piece. You also can't place two tiles next to one another and have them represent different rooms unless you paint on a 2D wall representation or use other methods to portray the walls. Confusion can occur because of this.
2.5D NEXT This is the most recent rendition of the 2.5D method, devised again by DM Scotty (That clever rogue...). It is a vastly different approach from the other methods, but is (Strangely) mostly similar to the Wall-Less method, because, like the Wall-Less method, it is missing a component: The floor.
For those behind on the vids, this is how it works: DM Scotty appears to have made some mats that he lays out on the table to represent the floor of the dungeon, all with a similar or uniform pattern. Alternately (As seen in his Cavern Modular method) you could lay down a sheet with your desired pattern. Then, you place some pre-constructed walls only these mats/patterned sheet to conform to the design of your dungeon.
In essence it's like the 3D version of drawing a map on graph paper, except it looks much cooler. Watch the Vid(s) for more info (I can't wait to see more of them myself).
Pros: SPACE SAVING!!! The amount of space needed for this particular method is miniscule compared to other methods, even the most efficiently space saving method by DMG. There is also alot of modularity provided by these sets, if you display some creative thinking (Well, we should all be easily capable of that, evidenced by the Craft Wars...). It also is a very attractive set, and (finally!) the walls themselves get a really great amount of character from what I've seen. Cons: There is a bit of lacking in original character in the room design...odd shapes can be accomplished (In some cases more easily than before), but round rooms, for instance...Unless DM Scotty has a trick up his sleeve he hasn't shown us (Which is often the case), I can't figure that one out. There is alos a loss in 2.5D texture from the floors, as you can't gouge into the floor to create sewage canals (As a direct example I observed). Also, DM Scotty hints that it is a more expensive up-front cost (But argues that the cost diminishes due to flexibility of design, where-as you would need to craft a ton of individual tiles to get the same flexibility with regular tiles. Point taken).
Overall, the new method has some very big strengths, but at some expenses. I am very much looking forward to new vids on the 2.5D NEXT method, and am anxious to see how DM Scotty works out (And hopefully demonstrates the process for) how to deal with various crafting problems, such as how this method may portray pits (As an example).
So, thar is my current take (in brief) of the various methods that tend to have had the most impact on the 2.5D craft. However, that is not to say that other methods don't exist, which can be equally awesome. In any case, I am kinda curious to see how others see the different types of methods, and (especially) what some people think of Scotty's new method, 2.5D NEXT.
|
|
|
Post by SpielMeisterKev! on Aug 20, 2014 2:13:40 GMT
Howdy,
I feel that a mix of modular tiles and set piece rooms is the best. The modular tiles can be used on the fly for wandering encounters and the trip between the sessions key encounters on the set pieces. The creativity and master craftsmanship of a set piece can add volumes to the enjoyment. I don't feel that the medium, cardboard vs foam core should be a consideration. whatever you use to craft, kudos to you. Just make it your own. 2.5d is easy and awesome, but just replacing the cardboard edges of a tunnel tile with wood chips painted like stone makes the wow factor even better. I have seen so many great Ideas, tweaked to even more levels of awesomeness.
Keep up the great work everyone!
Kev!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 4:27:04 GMT
Would you say that the method I use for making 2.5D tiles, the paintless or Papercraft Method, is sufficiently different from DM Scotty and DMG to warrant a space on the list? The PaperCraft Method.Enlisting the aid of professional printed terrain artist Joe Bilton of Heroic Maps, AJ helped with the creation of a series of printable PDF files which feature modular tile pieces, based on DMG's modular method, using DMScotty's 2.5D design philosophy ( and he is credited in each 2.5D PDF file sold at DriveThruRPG by Heroic Maps) the files are simply printed out, cut and pasted to the material you want to use, eliminating the need to measure each cut, or paint the tiles yourself. Currently there is the Modular Dungeon set, a Sewer Set and Large Sewer Rooms set, and the Caverns set will be released in late Sept/Early Oct. Pros: Lightning fast build time, doesn't require hot glue or the effort of measuring each cut carefully, renders a consistent and professional look, not reliant on your ability to paint, they are supported by professional artistic texture packs and come in a variety of themes (Dungeon, Sewer, Caverns coming soon). Cons: Requires the use of a printer, still needs a craft knife, so not completely kid safe, the tiles lack an individual artistic signature that painting your own tiles provides, though they can be modified with flock and other dressing just like any other method. They are just as bulky, storage wise, as the original method, though they have modularity.
|
|
|
Post by DMScotty on Aug 20, 2014 4:41:11 GMT
A very nice rundown for those looking at different methods. 2.5D NEXT is great for portability and you can kiss cardboard tile warping goodbye.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Aug 20, 2014 4:57:49 GMT
Certainly AJ! There are so many nuanced variations of the original method I could scarcely name all of them. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that many others deserve mention here. I have seen some great stuff from DM Nate, Wilmanric, and many others, each who have contributed to the awesomeness that DM Scotty started.
That being said, if others want to note their own unique 2.5D methods, I would only ask that they list honest pros and cons, so that anypne looking can use this as a resource to make their own craft.
Thanks for the input!
|
|
dmzane
Paint Manipulator
Posts: 150
|
Post by dmzane on Aug 20, 2014 12:17:01 GMT
Space is my biggest issue at the moment. So with that said I think the 2.5 next will be my go to method. I've already got a few ideas in my head on how to customize individual rooms and it's not like I can't find use for all the dmg and dm scotty 2.5 d stuff I've already made.
|
|
|
Post by ashrothedm on Aug 20, 2014 15:23:59 GMT
Great rundown. Just for the sake of brevity, I'm going to list my preferences on each, rather than a full rundown, so hopefully it comes across as positive criticism:
What I Use and Why: Listed as "The DMG Method", I'm making regularly sized tiles at 6.5cm intervals. The principal reasons are: modular shapes can be aligned in an aesthetically pleasing way, and you don't need to worry about rooms or walls not lining up. Another strong benefit is that with the base tile set, I can run a significant number of encounters without special tiles. With severely limited crafting time, it is critical for me that the tiles hit the table more than once, and I don't want tiles partially fitting. (which was the side effect of the original 2.5D, where my cavern corridors didn't quite line up with other sections.) It's very playable, and very immersive. Probably not lastly, but lastly for this post, the 2.5D tile allows for a lot of special art to land onto the special tiles. Water and pits sinking into them. Stairs that seem to sink into the surface. The pseudo-3D is a major plus.
As for other features, like doors and columns, I try to keep them minimal, and I treat them like full set pieces. Columns and doors sometimes get in the way, and I never make tall trees. (I think my version was posted on the other forum) By set pieces, I mean that I try to have full purpose to furniture so that it outfits a room. I had tables and chairs that were separate. I hated them. Small, getting in the way, troublesome to set up. Now, all furniture sets get a base, much like a terrain piece would on a wargaming table. As an example, which I have yet to post, I have a desk with books and paper on it, that has a chair pulled up to it (where a chair should be) Rather than having this separate chair, it's just based with the desk. The entire thing is a piece of terrain. With tables and chairs, you can get a piece roughly to scale that is "difficult terrain" or whatever it needs to be. The weighting is a massive benefit.
2.5D Original
I like the art on the tile (like bloodstains and flocking) and the fact that it does not impede play. I think the biggest problem that evolved, is that all of the other features needed for a room quickly became 3D to augment the 2.5D, which as a result, starts to impede play much like having walls would have. Cardboard, paint, dirt. Very cheap, and the result is much more engaging than a printed battlemat, or whiteboard, or virtual tabletop image.
Foam & FoamCore Expansion
Spending money, even a little, does not really make me happy with this. The detail is a plus, but I very much prefer the cardboard as a base. I get much more, for much less.
The DMG Method
I don't paint the tiles the same way, I prefer to just blast it with the stone texture paint, although I might convert at some point, or combine the two. Modular tiles are great, they do not leave a lot of negative space, and the shapes are limitless. Too often it is considered that these only result in square shapes. I can only illustrate that is not the way that it needs to be by pointing out that every letter you've read here is made of square shapes, but I doubt that it crossed your mind that you were looking at squares. The art stays on the tile, and the depth and scale is captured nicely just like in the original 2.5D.
The Wall-Less Method
My only comment here is that I like walls.
2.5D NEXT It's great that it fits into a small space, and fits the criteria of reduced craft time, but I do not prefer it overall. There are a lot of pros and cons here, and I'm just going to list my impressions as they pop into my head.
The biggest positive factor for me, is using the mats to move slide the pieces around. I may adopt this, or have it as a supporting option, since I usually play on a high quality gaming surface as it is. It's great that a small amount of crafting time can result in a compact system. Overall, however, it's just not for me.
The largest negative factor for me is the negative space that it creates. I like the tiles clearly delineating one floor from another, and that is sort of lost as well. The art on the tile is completely lost, and seems to require supporting pieces to bring it out. Personally, I like water and stairs to have the depth of going into a tile, rather than the look you see on a wargaming table when a river is really just a lump placed on top of it. Sure they are nice looking pieces, but I just prefer sinking them into the tile, which you can't do the same way into reusable mats. If I need to have a lot of supporting pieces, or 3D pieces to support the layout, then I am sacrificing the number one (in my opinion) benefit of 2.5D; playability.
Papercraft Method I enjoy the creation of the entire piece, so papercrafting is just not for me. I'm relying on someone else to supply a texture, or I'm using someone else's. To me, it feels less "mine." that's not particularly a problem, but I just don't get the same satisfaction out of making the piece as I do from making the entire thing myself. Also, since I'm not in direct contact collaborating with the artist that makes the texture, it doesn't feel like a collaborative work, which would be very different. I would collaborate on tiles. It's just a very different feel to me. For others, though, that might be the way to go. Not painting would be considered a pro by some crafters, but for me, it's a con.
Other Considerations: My general rule of design at the table, is that if I can't put a fan directly on the table at high speed without messing up the pieces, then I have a design flaw. It's not that I regularly play with a fan, but if the pieces can withstand a strong push of a fan, then they can withstand the incidental movement of air from players. I don't want to chase down bedrolls, scrolls, chairs, and road sections, just because I needed to keep them small/thin enough to overlay the game area.
As I mentioned above, supporting features and furniture are combined into a single piece that is both versatile and capable of withstanding incidental movement at the table. I've been meaning to post one of these, but I have not gotten around to formatting the image.
So, that was much longer than I initially intended. Hopefully everyone keeps in mind that I enjoy all of your work, even if I mentioned something as a negative that you might do. Critiques are rough, where you try to remain objective, while offering subjective impressions.
|
|
|
Post by gnomezrule on Aug 20, 2014 16:09:57 GMT
Here is my 2 coppers.
I think that rigid evaluation of system hampers and segments the process rather than allow cross pollination and innovation.
The biggest thing I got from DMScotty is that minimal depth is all that is needed. Pure 3d looks great but at times in in the way but even with 3d the imagination fills in details like the ceiling. With 2.5d there is maximum playability with the suggestion of depth that the imagination fills in. Rather immediately people add height to the walls, but unlike 2d tiles that wall has a texture and feel and is not just an imagined barrier.
The reason I think a rigid separation does not help is because some of the best work we have seen has been blending and mixing of these methods into a new thing. AJ took 2.5 and his vast collection of printed tiles and married the two. After seeing this I put down a printed floor and edged it with low not quite 3d styro foam walls.
There are plenty of people who have made a modular set like DMG and then throw in the gray with a special boss room or puzzle room made in the original 2.5d method.
I have been thinking a lot about 2.5d next. The biggest thing was mats. Why not cardboard with movable walls. This means a set of 4 to 6 generic mats could be painted and then the walls could be positioned on them just like the mats. For special rooms like sewers and stairs and so on just throw in the extra piece. But if I think oh no I can't do that this is a 2.5d next project it requires a different approach. My point is that one of the cons listed is fixed by adjusting the design to incorporate the older technique.
|
|
|
Post by lebaron on Aug 20, 2014 16:56:13 GMT
Hi there! DMScotty showed us a method that, strangely, was my very first craft before any tiles. I am a DM as well as a player and when I talked to my DM about all this, he did not want to do all the crafts, so told me that if I would have modular walls only, he might be able to use them. As I wanted to play in a more 3D environment, I did just that. After doing them, I never used them. They tip over easily, are not always suited for all kind of room and I thought it lacked at lot of the creativty/beauty of the first 2.5D crafts. I decided to put them aside after that. BUT! Now that DMScotty showed me he is better then me at doing walls ( ), I must say I am intrigued. Monday evening, my DM used my own walls and I tought it was ugly, but with the walls I say, there might be a way that I will go back to making only walls. Also, it is true that a single hand-crafted boss tile will have its moment and the players will be astonished, but I think that if the 2.5D Next way of doing tiles inspired a lot of us, we might just find a way to do a lot of add-ons that can be place on the table that would represent lava, pits, and all that jazz. For the depths or height, I'm pretty sure we can figure something out, especially for the height (the depth might be a little harder). Anyway, nothing prevents us from mixing both ways, even if it might be a little uglier.
|
|
|
Post by lebaron on Aug 20, 2014 16:58:45 GMT
Btw, even if I think I'll stick with the first 2.5D way of doing tiles, I want to see more of those craft Mr DMScotty! It took me a while and a lot of your videos to convince me to start crafting at all, so watching a lot of new content might convert me.
Go with the Yololo, my dear DM.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Aug 20, 2014 17:15:38 GMT
Each of the methods listed here seems like an evolution of the original, possibly taking cues from other methods (mentioned or unmentioned). Gnomerulez' point is meaningful in that just because I have sorted the various Craft methods into definably different styles, that doesn't mean someone can't mix and mash, change and alter, improve and evolve.
Lonh before DM Scotty showed us how to make fully 3D trees out of TP rolls, I had already adapted his method of creating stalagmite columns into trees by adding some actual tree twigs and Hot Glue texture to make a forest (I was not comfortable with the 2.5D trees Scotty had demonstrated at the time). The inspiration is important more than following a method or style religiously.
That being said, for some people it helps to see the distinctions made between the methods. It's a matter of left-brain/right-brain computing. I tend to think in a more codified fashion, which affects and influences my creativity (I must have some semblance of symetry in viryually everything I do).
|
|
|
Post by ashrothedm on Aug 20, 2014 20:59:01 GMT
I disagree slightly gnomezrule, but I understand your points. I think it is rigid evaluation that helps new crafters identify the pitfalls that experienced crafters have already endured, while innovation will continue in the hands of the imaginative, despite arbitrary definition. It is after some analysis and reflection that helps to identify the pain points and problems to which the innovators will apply their focus. While I would love to find some unified-crafting theory, I don't suspect that it is out there, because of the subjective nature of the content. Pain points to me are often centerpieces for others. It's difficult to identify the features and reflect on their merit without stepping away and taking an honest look at what is there. I don't think that borrowing one technique from one style where it works will automatically fix a problem either, and it is likely to look very out of place and detract from the overall construction. That's not to say that these things are mutually exclusive, but that until the shortcomings are addressed, they will continue to be pain points. A solution for one person will not always be acceptable for another. Priorities are not the same in all games and with all crafters. Certainly, there are more styles of craft than the few groupings above, and crafting is not a "one size fits all" situation. In the end, however, the groupings help to identify the challenges of the technique, while the hybrids often attempt to address them. For me, I would not have used my own method for trees and forests had it not been for the shortcomings that I felt existed in nearly all other tree methods. 2D were too flat, and 3D were too 3D. I found a 2.5D solution that works for me, but I would not claim that it will fix all of your forest woes. In the end, though, it was reflection that led to innovation in my own style. Taking an academic look, or reflecting on crafting, is what leads to innovation.
|
|
|
Post by DMScotty on Aug 20, 2014 21:15:51 GMT
Great discussion keep it going...
|
|
|
Post by DMScotty on Aug 20, 2014 21:26:28 GMT
In my first experiments with 2.5D I made almost everything 2.5D except the miniatures. So everything from furniture to doors were 2.5D. As I evolved a bit I found it gave more flavor to have 3D objects but use the 2.5D tiles for the buildings and dungeons. Many people have their own take on it and some use more 3D or detail in their games than I do. All ways are valid and what works at someones table aesthetically, mechanically and time management wise is a choice each GM must make for their group.
|
|
sotf
Advice Guru
Posts: 1,084
|
Post by sotf on Aug 20, 2014 21:50:14 GMT
I've largely been using a variant of the Foamcore mixed with chunks of the Next version. It doesn't really cost me anything more as I have access to a decent amount of it for free, though I do occasionally buy a few pieces for things...and it works for other crafting projects.
For the basic tiles, it normally keeps the basic 2 layers of foamcore. My big difference is that I only actually paint the upper rim, my secret is that in between the walls layer and the bottom layer is paper with a printout of what I want the interior to be for flooring. There's enough free textures available that it's rather simple to find it and then glue it to the base time and then glue the other over top. I then cover the exposed foam on the sides and along the inside of the wall, with a coat of hot glue.
The end result doesn't really warp if you seal it, and you can add other things on top of it while having a more varied look inside with a few simple things even to the base image. It also provides a more consistent appearance for tiles...meaning that shifts in paint won't do much. And since I'm normally still using a grid, well, it's dead simple to put the grid on them by simply opening the PDF graph paper I have and running it through the printer again.
|
|
|
Post by thedmg on Aug 20, 2014 23:09:03 GMT
I originally did a variant of 2.5d next for a while with pebbles glued onto popsicle sticks, i did not use mats though I just used the table. I made some doors and furniture. My issue was one of time. The time it took to reconfigure everything while playing. Granted I never had to transport anything so that issue never came into my thinking.
When I saw Scotty's videos I loved it, but I also liked the way Dwarven Forge stuff fitted together and I have been programming roguelikes with isometric sprites for years for fun. So I applied that logic to the original 2.5D.
I have my tile set now, minus about 20 tiles that have been given away. Now I just focus on set pieces and furniture.
I have not really made any more than what you see in my videos. When I do make set pieces I try to make them modular and reusable.
|
|
|
Post by gnomezrule on Aug 20, 2014 23:31:54 GMT
I see your point Ashrothedm. That makes good sense.
Onethatwas I know you were posting things to classify and identify the strengths and challenges. I think my point was cautionary rather than rebuttal. Gamers can be an opinionated lot and often form sub-groups, style distinctives, and genre wars. I think its funny in the early days people tried to set DMScotty and his methods against DMG. Gosh you should hear how we are talked about on other forums you would think we were a cult sacrificing kids to our gridless masters. Gamers are also human, who knew right, which means we very easily have an all or nothing reaction to things. The baby goes out with the bath water.
In short thank you for breaking the techniques themselves down. Though I would hate to see hard and fast lines between approaches developed too strongly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 23:54:04 GMT
One of my objectives on the forum is to continually encourage inclusiveness.. all gamers sharing all crafts in an open and creative environment.. so, anyone who has a reaction of "That is not what we do at DM's Craft" is taking the wrong approach.. I would prefer an environment like a huge hall full of artists and hobbyists all creating their own stuff, and every now and then, we get up, wander around, peer over each other's shoulders and say "Huh, I would not of thought to do that, that's awesome!". Its the chaos of a really good creative environment, that attitude of wide eyed wonder, and that feeling of finding a group where you can feel free to share your efforts to a truly appreciative audience. So yes, while we promote gridless, we do so because we want people to at least try it, and see for themselves.. if they don't like it, we accept that as well, just as we accept that sliding ratio of 2D and 3D inclusion in the way people use 2.5D. I am very much about "Anything that works" in my Game-Fu, so hopefully you can feel that presence on the forum, sending out the vibe across the internet.. "come show me your stuff!". In that light, I think the job of making a comprehensive list of all possible style options is a herculean task.. I will use cast plaster, recycled plastic, cardboard, printed paper, sculpted plasticine, found objects, broken motor parts, store bought pieces, gaming miniatures, balls of lint, you name it.. if I need it at the table, its part of the DM's Crafting arsenal.
|
|
daveb
Paint Manipulator
Member is Online!
Posts: 139
|
Post by daveb on Aug 21, 2014 0:00:10 GMT
I love to BBQ. I have 6 different grills. Six! And I use five of them, three on a regular basis.
Same idea with D&D tiles. I have made custom 2.5D cardboard tiles and I'm planning to make a set of DMG style modular tiles. I can see a niche for 2.5 Next (probably more for irregular cavern type dungeons than rectangular castles/dungeons).
|
|
|
Post by ashrothedm on Aug 21, 2014 0:06:45 GMT
I agree @aj, that there are a lot of style options, but I also think that there is a broad range of groups that can be categorized by features, just like jazz, impressionism, or animal species. How to slice it up and categorize it is, I think, a very useful exercise for crafters. At the least, I can say that it would have been useful in my early attempts to see the other options out there by style. So, inclusiveness is definitely a must, and I am very pro-style discussion.
|
|