A question of scale

[chicagowiz]

One of the things I learned while making my first Moathouse model for GaryCon was the issue of scale.

In the scenario/rules that I crafted, 1" = 10'. I did that because that's how the map was laid out and my figures are based on 1" bases.

In my rules:
- a figure can represent 10 soldiers, which goes well w/ 1"=10' approach I took (assuming 3 soldiers abreast, standard D&D stuff)
- a figure can represent 1 person, like a PC or NPC.

Now this all works pretty well on the outside, with the mix of types of representation, and the scale, since it's mostly a wargame scenario.  

Now I'm considering building (using 3d printed assemblies) the dungeon under the moathouse. Since this is likely to be played at 1:1 scale, I have to figure out how to scale things so that proportions are correct.

I could go to 1"=5' scale, but that goes against my rules which says 3 men abreast, and tbh, I don't want to go that route. 

I could:

- scale the dungeon so that my 10' space is represented by a 3" tall/wide square, which would allow me to use the figures I got. That's a huge footprint and a lot of printing...

- keep to the 1"=10' and use ~15mm figures - most 15mm bases are small enough I could make this work. That represents additional figures to buy/print and paint, as I don't have individual 15mm monsters. My 15mm are based for DBA/HOTT.

- keep to the 1"=10' and just have a single figure represent the "party". I already have that party figure, it's an 18mm "group" on a 1" base.

- dump the idea of modeling the dungeon and just go with doing it by theater of the mind.

Is there another solution I'm not thinking of?

[tedopon]

All my humans and demis are 20mm 1/72 1/76 and I use standard 25mm for monsters. Scale is off but no one cares. 10 to 25 is a bigger stretch, but the stuff on the board is really just for placement, I think it would be fine.

[Desparil]

You could get some 8mm figures, they should fit three across on 1" squares. It is additional figures to buy, but 8mm are generally extremely cheap. They're also so small that if you want to paint them, there's no need to fuss over fine details. Otherwise, my go-to would be to keep using 28mm figures and scale 3" = 10' and just don't have the entire moathouse on the table at once, only put out the room that the PCs are in plus adjacent rooms.

[bobjester0e]

I love a scaled diorama! So, you are using 3D printed walls & such, which will look fantastic when you paint them.

If you're worried about space, I feel you, but I feel that anything less than 10 feet to 1 inch is too small, space taken in the man-cave be d**ned!

I have the base board built for the Keep on the Borderlands, but it's been propped up behind the dresser in the bedroom since I moved. It is scaled to 10 feet per inch, and the base just fits on 4 poster-board sized foam core boards.

Actual modeling the keep walls and towers out of foam core is holding me back creatively* but setting up the space to plop the Keep down on a pair of dining room sized tables placed side-by-side is the largest hurdle.

I do know a guy with a 3D printer, and he's into nu-D&D games, so after printing everyday items for the home and farm, he'd probably take on printing 3D terrain & walls, but that project is on the backburner.

*Well, that and spending way too much time online on forums.

[chicagowiz]

The more I dig into this, the more I'm considering switching the scenario to 15mm after GaryCon.

It fits easily with 1"=10' and ironically, it's the scale that fits best with 1"=10' - if 15mm = 6' individual, what is 6/10 of 1" in mm? 15.24mm.

I've also gone through my 15mm figures and it will be some purchases, but some monsters, I can 3d-print.

[Desparil]

Yeah, 15mm would be the right height to fit with that ground scale if that's a concern of yours. I wasn't considering that above because 99% of the time people only care about the "footprint" of the figures' basing and use the largest scale miniatures that can fit within that footprint, since bigger minis are more detailed and thin bits like spears are less likely to break off. If you do go with 15mm figures, though, see if the sculpts will fit onto 10mm washers as bases - that would allow five across in a 2" space, which is only one short of your three-abreast goal. Could even be totally sufficient if people are using weapons that need a wider berth rather than packing in at maximum density with spears or short swords.

[chicagowiz]

Mar 13, 2023 15:41:52 GMT -6 Desparil said:

Yeah, 15mm would be the right height to fit with that ground scale if that's a concern of yours. I wasn't considering that above because 99% of the time people only care about the "footprint" of the figures' basing and use the largest scale miniatures that can fit within that footprint, since bigger minis are more detailed and thin bits like spears are less likely to break off. If you do go with 15mm figures, though, see if the sculpts will fit onto 10mm washers as bases - that would allow five across in a 2" space, which is only one short of your three-abreast goal. Could even be totally sufficient if people are using weapons that need a wider berth rather than packing in at maximum density with spears or short swords.

That was my trap, I got caught up with the 1" for bases, but because my figures could represent both multiple troops or single characters at the same time, well... anyway. Lesson learned! When modeling, consider the scale of all things!

And after sketching this dungeon out today, I'm 99% convinced of going 15mm and 3d printing the dungeon from Fat Dragon Game tiles... a project for GaryCon 2024, I guess!

I'm probably going to go with ~8mm individual bases. I can easily print those off on the 3d printer. I've been looking at the figures that I do have and this wouldn't be a problem.

[Desparil]

Mar 13, 2023 16:44:51 GMT -6 chicagowiz said:

I'm probably going to go with ~8mm individual bases. I can easily print those off on the 3d printer. I've been looking at the figures that I do have and this wouldn't be a problem.

If the miniature sculpts will fit on 8mm bases, then go for it! I suggested 10mm because I was skeptical about fitting 15mm figures on anything less than that.

[skars]

For basing, I generally use pennies for 15mm individually based models and a penny is a smidge over 19mm in diameter

[chicagowiz]

Mar 13, 2023 22:56:42 GMT -6 skars said:

For basing, I generally use pennies for 15mm individually based models and a penny is a smidge over 19mm in diameter

19mm would be too big for 3 figures abreast in a 1" corridor, which is why I'll go w/8mm, or "ha' a penny!"

[skars]

Mar 14, 2023 7:17:05 GMT -6 chicagowiz said:

Mar 13, 2023 22:56:42 GMT -6 skars said:

For basing, I generally use pennies for 15mm individually based models and a penny is a smidge over 19mm in diameter

19mm would be too big for 3 figures abreast in a 1" corridor, which is why I'll go w/8mm, or "ha' a penny!"

True, but they make a great wedge. You must have more detailed combat considerations you are trying to achieve in miniature than I do and that is totally cool, not trying to say "bad fun, no donut".

I'd say go with the 1" base of multiple models and then just base individuals on a penny or smaller washer if you don't like pennies. Then you can represent groups of monster or the party on 1" bases and have the flexibility should an individual PC break away from the group.

[skars]

P.S. with all the games I am running at GaryCon this year I should get a free pass for next year (2024). Count me in on this game if possible. I have some suitable 15mm essex and chariot fantasy minis I'd love to bring along to represent my PC

[skars]

The wizkids Warlock tiles are pretty darn great if you don't have the materials/time to print the tiles and walls yourself.

[chicagowiz]

Mar 14, 2023 22:30:21 GMT -6 skars said:

Mar 14, 2023 7:17:05 GMT -6 chicagowiz said:

19mm would be too big for 3 figures abreast in a 1" corridor, which is why I'll go w/8mm, or "ha' a penny!"

True, but they make a great wedge. You must have more detailed combat considerations you are trying to achieve in miniature than I do and that is totally cool, not trying to say "bad fun, no donut".

I'd say go with the 1" base of multiple models and then just base individuals on a penny or smaller washer if you don't like pennies. Then you can represent groups of monster or the party on 1" bases and have the flexibility should an individual PC break away from the group.

Since I already have a ton of multiple figures on 40mm frontage bases, for HOTT/DBA, I'll probably end up using them for the 10:1 scale representations. So visually, it'll look like a "group" versus the single figures. Now, agreed that in a hallway, they'll have to be sideways, but.. :shrug: I'm not rebasing my wargame figures! The individual monsters will definitely be scaled to fit in the corridors and passages, unless it just doesn't make sense.

Really, this is more of a visual "can I make it work" thing. A wedge or even a single 3/4" ~18mm stand with multiple figures to represent "the party" would ultimately work, but I like climbing mountains.

I just participated in the Fat Dragon Games Kickstarter, so I'm all set for tiles. Was even up late last night hacking a few of them in Tinkercad to produce half wall versions of some of the tiles. I'm starting to go "all in" on the 15mm approach for this particular game.

The "Rescue of Hommlet" for this year is 4 hours, but that's not enough time to finish both the aboveground and underground games - so I might split it up next year to two separate sessions - one above ground, and one below. The belowground/dungeon session would be influenced by the outcome/results of the previous session.

Or just run a daylong thing. I don't know...

[chicagowiz]

PS. Re: "15mm essex and chariot fantasy minis"

Hmm, I might have to keep my eye out of those. I just sent a bit of money towards Alternative Armies and about to do same to Splintered Light to get the figures I've found so far. Individual character figures in 15mm are hard to come by, not like 25/28s!

[skars]

Mar 15, 2023 7:31:30 GMT -6 chicagowiz said:

PS. Re: "15mm essex and chariot fantasy minis"

Hmm, I might have to keep my eye out of those. I just sent a bit of money towards Alternative Armies and about to do same to Splintered Light to get the figures I've found so far. Individual character figures in 15mm are hard to come by, not like 25/28s!

Agreed, they are mostly intended for basing as hordes and such and not so much individual character models.

This is the essex line - www.essexminiatures.co.uk/collections/15mm-fantasy
This is the chariot line I have the cultists - www.keepwargaming.co.uk/chariot-miniatures-107-c.asp

[greentongue]

I convert 2D maps into 3D virtual layouts and I have found that the biggest catch is the stairs.
Quite often the stairs are too steep when converting as they were not functional as drawn on the 2D map.

[Desparil]

Mar 19, 2023 17:32:08 GMT -6 greentongue said:

I convert 2D maps into 3D virtual layouts and I have found that the biggest catch is the stairs.
Quite often the stairs are too steep when converting as they were not functional as drawn on the 2D map.

I don't know exactly how steep they were ending up in your mapping, but real stairs in historic buildings are often quite steep. As an extreme example, the steps going from the top of the Statue of Liberty's pedestal up to the crown are 9 inches high and only 8 inches long per stair, organized as a double spiral so that visitors going up and down use different stairways. Of course, stairs in places that people actually lived in wouldn't be nearly so narrow, but just an example of how steep stairs can really be while still being functional.

[greentongue]

Well, even if you assume that the next level up is 10 feet, a single 10 foot square is often all that is given for the stairs.
Even worse on the maps that use 5 foot squares.

[tdenmark]

Mar 19, 2023 17:32:08 GMT -6 greentongue said:

I convert 2D maps into 3D virtual layouts and I have found that the biggest catch is the stairs.
Quite often the stairs are too steep when converting as they were not functional as drawn on the 2D map.

Ever walk up a Mayan temple? The steps are ridiculously steep!

[Desparil]

Mar 20, 2023 12:05:03 GMT -6 greentongue said:

Well, even if you assume that the next level up is 10 feet, a single 10 foot square is often all that is given for the stairs.
Even worse on the maps that use 5 foot squares.

The 5 feet might be a little excessive, but the first was kind of my point - if you straightened out the Statue of Liberty stairs so they weren't a spiral, they would actually rise 11.25 feet over a 10 foot horizontal distance.

[tdenmark]

Mar 20, 2023 12:05:03 GMT -6 greentongue said:

Well, even if you assume that the next level up is 10 feet, a single 10 foot square is often all that is given for the stairs.
Even worse on the maps that use 5 foot squares.

I think of the stairs graphic as a symbol or icon for stairs, not literally the dimensions of the stairs.

But, if you want to see some really crazy stairs, look at some maps in the Dragonlance Atlas. They go up steeply hundreds and hundreds of feet, completely out of whack with any semblance of practicality or believability.

[Malchor]

Tossing out there for consideration that Palace of the Vampire Queen is 1 square = 6'. This is suppered by EW's segments system to some extent, and direction Gygax and Blume and seems to like as it showed up in Boot Hill and Warriors of Mars, both assuming 25mm scale and 10 second combat rounds (I forget what they called them). 

Not advocating for this, just tossing it out there.

[Desparil]

Mar 21, 2023 5:37:38 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Tossing out there for consideration that Palace of the Vampire Queen is 1 square = 6'. This is suppered by EW's segments system to some extent, and direction Gygax and Blume and seems to like as it showed up in Boot Hill and Warriors of Mars, both assuming 25mm scale and 10 second combat rounds (I forget what they called them). 

Not advocating for this, just tossing it out there.

Ground scale and figure scale aren't inherently connected, however. Any wargame with an explicit men-per-figure scale (10:1 or whatever) has this feature inherently, but even miniatures skirmish games where one figure represents one man, such as Warhammer 40k, have divorced the ground scale from the figure scale in the interest of having bigger, more detailed miniatures because that makes for better eye candy. Even within the same game, over the years GW has gone from making 28mm minis to 32mm, but the movement rates and weapon ranges have remained more-or-less the same throughout that time.

[greentongue]

Mar 20, 2023 21:33:54 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Mar 20, 2023 12:05:03 GMT -6 greentongue said:

Well, even if you assume that the next level up is 10 feet, a single 10 foot square is often all that is given for the stairs.
Even worse on the maps that use 5 foot squares.

I think of the stairs graphic as a symbol or icon for stairs, not literally the dimensions of the stairs.

But, if you want to see some really crazy stairs, look at some maps in the Dragonlance Atlas. They go up steeply hundreds and hundreds of feet, completely out of whack with any semblance of practicality or believability.

More a ladder than stairs.

While that might be fine for defense it makes life difficult for people trying to actually live in such a place.

"The stairs graphic as a symbol or icon for stairs" is not so compatible with using miniatures for gaming.
Yeah, you can say the miniature "represents" a character and is not "them as shown". Certainly need to keep making that distinction during play.

[derv]

It seems the typical assumption with stairs drawn on graph paper is that each square represents 10 feet by 10 feet. When forming a cube that would mean 10 feet of total run and 10 feet of total rise. There are plenty of calculators online for figuring out the construction of stairs based on this information. Again, it is my assumption you would maximize the use of the space available. Doing so would give you a set of 11 steps with 10 inches of rise and run per step at 45 degrees. By modern standards, steep, not preferable, but not unrealistic.

[Malchor]

Mar 21, 2023 7:26:07 GMT -6 Desparil said:

Mar 21, 2023 5:37:38 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Tossing out there for consideration that Palace of the Vampire Queen is 1 square = 6'. This is suppered by EW's segments system to some extent, and direction Gygax and Blume and seems to like as it showed up in Boot Hill and Warriors of Mars, both assuming 25mm scale and 10 second combat rounds (I forget what they called them). 

Not advocating for this, just tossing it out there.

Ground scale and figure scale aren't inherently connected, however. Any wargame with an explicit men-per-figure scale (10:1 or whatever) has this feature inherently, but even miniatures skirmish games where one figure represents one man, such as Warhammer 40k, have divorced the ground scale from the figure scale in the interest of having bigger, more detailed miniatures because that makes for better eye candy. Even within the same game, over the years GW has gone from making 28mm minis to 32mm, but the movement rates and weapon ranges have remained more-or-less the same throughout that time.

Gary and Brian specify in Boot Hill, "Distance: 1 inch = 6 feet (assuming 25mm scale)."

GW and Warhammer 40k are irrelevant to the above.

[Desparil]

Mar 22, 2023 5:56:17 GMT -6 Malchor said:

Mar 21, 2023 7:26:07 GMT -6 Desparil said:

Ground scale and figure scale aren't inherently connected, however. Any wargame with an explicit men-per-figure scale (10:1 or whatever) has this feature inherently, but even miniatures skirmish games where one figure represents one man, such as Warhammer 40k, have divorced the ground scale from the figure scale in the interest of having bigger, more detailed miniatures because that makes for better eye candy. Even within the same game, over the years GW has gone from making 28mm minis to 32mm, but the movement rates and weapon ranges have remained more-or-less the same throughout that time.

Gary and Brian specify in Boot Hill, "Distance: 1 inch = 6 feet (assuming 25mm scale)."

GW and Warhammer 40k are irrelevant to the above.

I was using GW as an example, but lots of rules don't worry about figure scale vs. ground scale. But also I was discussing more generally, I didn't pick up that you were concerned specifically and solely with BH and WoM - I figured you were also using them simply as examples.

[greentongue]

Mar 21, 2023 19:00:24 GMT -6 derv said:

It seems the typical assumption with stairs drawn on graph paper is that each square represents 10 feet by 10 feet. When forming a cube that would mean 10 feet of total run and 10 feet of total rise. There are plenty of calculators online for figuring out the construction of stairs based on this information. Again, it is my assumption you would maximize the use of the space available. Doing so would give you a set of 11 steps with 10 inches of rise and run per step at 45 degrees. By modern standards, steep, not preferable, but not unrealistic.

Yes, those work but now wrap that stair in a cylinder and try to climb it. Unless you are very short you will have headroom issues.
I've also seen where the assumption was 5 foot square and they followed the same pattern of one space for a stair.

[derv]

Mar 22, 2023 12:00:04 GMT -6 greentongue said:

Yes, those work but now wrap that stair in a cylinder and try to climb it. Unless you are very short you will have headroom issues.
I've also seen where the assumption was 5 foot square and they followed the same pattern of one space for a stair.

Yeah, it really boils down to certain assumptions. When it comes to spiral stairs, the question becomes angle of rotation. For example, spiral stairs are fairly common in old farm houses where I live. But, they typically do not exceed 270 degrees of rotation and more likely only have 180 degrees of rotation. In such a case, total rise, number of steps, rise of each step would be the same as my example for the straight stairs. The main difference would be the outside depth of the tread would be quite a bit deeper (somewhere between 16-25") and the inside depth would be extremely narrow (couple inches). The width of the stairwell would also be narrower (about half) if represented by a 10 x 10 foot square.

Spiral stairwells using only one 5 foot square would not be realistic.