Experimenting with a better token shape

I'm about to create a couple dozen or so tokens as part of my latest Kickstarter project. I'm not happy with round tokens because they don't indicate facing, and also because they leave so much less room for a picture (especially when they also have a big wide frame, which is also common). So, I'm working on a token shape that addresses these concerns. My first experiment is posted on DeviantArt; I'd love to get some feedback! <a href="http://fav.me/d5nipjb" rel="nofollow">http://fav.me/d5nipjb</a>

I like it. The graphic is big enough to see at small zoom, and you can tell which way it's facing, too. Good job! Any way you could make an alphabet set? Just with capital letters for use as generic multipurpose markers?

I just use top down tokens. Of course facing isn't really important at all for D&D 4e or my own game.

Because some tokens don't have a defined front I found it easy to simply add a base, sort of like a mini. Probably a bad example because the dwarf has an obvious front, but you get the picture.

Jeff Dee said, (. . .) I'm not happy with round tokens because they don't indicate facing, Your token design looks good to me. Allow me, however, some comments about this subject: A Facing capability for round portrait-style tokens has been requested many times here in the Roll20 forums. To my mind, finally implementing it is all what is needed for handling these tokens properly. It might be a matter of just waiting a bit more. Of course if you want to try a new approach for tokens that is fine, but I think it's not so good if the necessity for that new approach is due to the lack of a very common VTT feature in Roll20. For instance, this is one of the ways OpenRPG handles it: Ajax's suggestion is good, but the way I see it, is useful for making facing clearer for top-down tokens --it wouldn't work for me for round portrait-style tokens since you still need to rotate them . . . When a VTT is not covering facing here, placing a sort of "facing indicator" (a mark, coloured point or a small arrow) in the very image of the token, in practice more often than not results into a visual mess: Time ago I had to start using top down tokens because the particular VTT that I was using lacked (and lacks) of enough active development, and besides (despite claiming to be more or less system agnostic) it was "married" with the d20 ruleset, which, as Jonathan the Black is saying (even if he's speaking of D&D 4e), is a rule system that don't care about facing at all! :)

Thanks for all the feedback! Grunt: How about if I make a 'blank' of my new tile shape, and then folks can put whatever they want on 'em, including letters? JonathanTheBlack: Facing may not be that important for some games, but it definitely is for others. So the most universally useful token shape will be one that handles facing. Ajax: Good workaround! Axel Castilla: Have the Roll20 team said that they were going to add some kind of facing arrow function? I'm not thrilled with that idea. I'm used to rotating figures on a real tabletop to indicate facing, so that fact that Roll20 already supports that seems exactly right - never mind how some other VTTs do it. What's needed, in my view, are token shapes that take advantage of the way that Roll20 already works. YMMV, of course.

I can say I would never use a token shape like the one you posted, even if facing was important. It just looks silly to me. I'd rather use top down tokens like the ones Devin Night creates.

I love those top down style tokens too, Jonathan - but the availability is still pretty limited, and I keep finding myself forced to resort to tile-type tokens for some creatures. Besides, my project involves creating tokens from illustrations that I'm doing as part of a Kickstarter project, and so top down just isn't an option on these. Do you dislike tile-type tokens in general, or is it *specifically* the shape I'm trying that doesn't work for you? And if that's the case, could you be more specific about where you think they go wrong?

The shape.