General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I wouldn't read too much into it. I think they're acknowledging that they've got a fairly generic product but can't find the intestinal fortitude to advertise something as being suitable for RPGs other than D&D. That's my take on it. They still can't market a product as being truly generic. It's always got to be "D&D this" and "D&D that".
__________________ Bill D
"There's a fine line between a superpower and a chronic medical condition."
- Doctor Impossible
--Today, Wizards of the Coast announces a new product line of mechanical pencils bearing the D&D logo. A company spokesman stated "these will be ideal for all RPGs, really."
On a 2nd edition product referring to 1st edition?
Yeah, that's all I remember too. Just on two FR books (Hall of Heroes and Cities of Mystery), which had 2e logos (but Hall of Heroes was had entirely 1e rules). None at all otherwise during 2e or 3e.
The statement was "terrain is terrain". But the tiles are not terrain, but more than a game board. Just one that happens to be modular.
Take one of those people that made Drow Outpost, or some of those other maps in 3D and there you have some terrain.
2D isn't terrain to a player. The green blob may suppose to be a bush or tree, but you have to ask. Terrain would be something that tells you right away even if it is a Lego tree. It needs depth beyond the tiles flat images to be terrain.
The tiles are good visual aids, but not quite terrain. Those fold-up models WotC has archived somewhere are good examples of terrain.
Now, if you have a pull-out tap like a pop-up book on the tiles to pop up the trees or something I will call them more akin to terrain.
Otherwise, they are just a modular map that indicate what terrain would exist in 3D just like a surveyors map, but without the contour lines.
Are you using the "This is not a pipe" argument or do you honestly think that people who use tiles are unable to determine what represents a tree?
I think the idea that WoTC would think, or even just try to imply, that they have 100% of D&D players converted to 4e is strange...
I'm sure they know full well that there are gamers out there who play D&D but aren't switching, or just haven't switched yet. Those people still have gaming dollars, and WoTC wants those dollars.
So if they have a product that can be used by anyone... Well they can put a little blurb on there at very little cost in an attempt to get those dollars.
You know, I thought we were getting silly when the hundredth "Well, I know it's been six months, but here are the things I dislike about 4e. You may recognize them from every other topic, ever" thread came around and reached 20 pages. Again.
But this? This is a whole new level of slap-myself-in-the-head, punch-myself-in-the-crotch silly.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
On a 2nd edition product referring to 1st edition?
I remember some Spelljammer products referring to the stuff from Oriental Adventures - notably a "ki helm" whose speed was based on class and level, listing a number of OA classes. There were probably some 2e FR books/boxes referring to 1e books as well.
But there was a whole lot more continuity between 1e and 2e than with 2e to 3e and then 3e to 4e. For example, the FR sourcebook series started with FR1 Waterdeep and the North in '87, and switched over to 2e with FR7, 8, or 9 (I can't check 7 or 8, but they were released the same year as 2e - FR9 The Bloodstone Lands has the 2e logo on it, anyway), and kept going until FR16 The Shining South. They didn't even release an updated FR box set until 1993 - until then, you were expected to get the 1987 box and the Forgotten Realms Adventures hardback updating things.
A picture of a pipe is not a pipe. A picture of a tree, is not a tree.
Try playing any 3d game and tell me line of sight with a 2d surface.
How do I know if I can see through your tree or not as a flat 2d image.
Look there is a window on that building draw on the tile. Which characters can see through it at eye level.
This is what separates tiles from terrain.
Do you think companies that make terrain sell flat 2d images?
Terrain is 3d. Pictures are 2d.
Tiles are not terrain. They may be pictures of terrain features, but they are not terrain.
Put your artist rendering of your landscape on your lawn and tell me how good it looks there versus planting the trees and shrubbery.
If there is anyone that thinks of these tiles as terrain, I would love to know so I don't play games with those people.
Considering how piss poor the scaling is on most fantasy minis, using actual LOS for gameplay is a BAD idea. I know Rackham's minis games are trying to do this (or at least that's what I understand) and it's being very strongly resisted by a number of fans. Unless your minis are perfectly to scale, then they are just as abstract as a 2d image.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Considering how piss poor the scaling is on most fantasy minis, using actual LOS for gameplay is a BAD idea. I know Rackham's minis games are trying to do this (or at least that's what I understand) and it's being very strongly resisted by a number of fans. Unless your minis are perfectly to scale, then they are just as abstract as a 2d image.
I have never seen anything other the railway sets to be of any proper scale. That is a gripe I have had for decades, and nobody seems to want to address it because they don't want to get organized and have their sculptors follow standards of heights and such. Aside from that, a floorplan still is not terrain.
I think the only thing that has to-scale minis for gaming is Warhammer miniatures, because they actual require LOS, and are made to work with it and actual terrain in mind.
I mean thinking about D&D specifically, I wouldn't want a DM that considers the tiles as terrain, because what other things could he be describing wrong during the game as far as other visuals or anything else.
They are good visual aids, just not terrain. Just look at mini wargames that bored Gary enough to co-create D&D and you will find what terrain is.
I wonder if the new minis form WotC, in light of all the things happening to minis lately, will be to scale since they are using CAD on them and can see a proper scale on the screen to tell if something is too big to stretch or squash it to the proper size.
And keep your arms in your own grid square and stop grabbing your neighbor's butt!
A picture of a pipe is not a pipe. A picture of a tree, is not a tree.
A small piece of plastic or wire shaped to look like a tree isn't a tree either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanobody
Try playing any 3d game and tell me line of sight with a 2d surface.
Fortunately, we are talking about a product for playing D&D which has rules for determining LoS using 2d terrain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanobody
How do I know if I can see through your tree or not as a flat 2d image.
Look there is a window on that building draw on the tile. Which characters can see through it at eye level.
The rules are in the PHB. I play all kinds of miniatures games and don't know one that doesn't handle windows/building interiors without some level of abstraction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanobody
This is what separates tiles from terrain.
Do you think companies that make terrain sell flat 2d images?
Terrain is 3d. Pictures are 2d.
Tiles are not terrain. They may be pictures of terrain features, but they are not terrain.
Put your artist rendering of your landscape on your lawn and tell me how good it looks there versus planting the trees and shrubbery.
You are correct that tiles aren't actually terrain, but neither are the miniature hills, buildings, and trees people use to play tabletop games. They are just a 3d abstraction compared to the tiles which are a 2d abstraction. I can understand some people would prefer the 3d over the 2d versions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanobody
If there is anyone that thinks of these tiles as terrain, I would love to know so I don't play games with those people.
I would love to have the space, time, and money to have the perfect 3d representation of everything I could want for my RPGs, but I don't. I also don't want to stop the game for 15 to 20 minutes to put together a diorama every time the scene changes. I'm perfectly happy using 2d terrain in games designed for it.
If there is anyone that thinks of these tiles as terrain, I would love to know so I don't play games with those people.
Well, considering that RPGNow (and I think YourGamesNow) have a category called 2d Buildings/Terrain I think that list could include anyone who has ever bought one of these, as well as the publishers that create them.
__________________ Game on, gang! Ptolus #16 (with customized, personalized sig from Monte. Awesomesauce.), Rappan Athuk Reloaded #37 (Another Awesomesauce, the Necromancer way.)
Try to not let failure to use technical language properly get in the way of getting to the real point under discussion. - Umbran
Characters & Games
Books currently in play: Dungeon & Dragon Magazine (*Scales of War AP*), WOTC 4e Core and Supplemental books
Current Campaign: Scales of War - Lost Mines of Karak -- Kodirgo, Minotaur Barbarian 6; Vondal, Dwarf Cleric 6; Karithul, Gnome Bard 6; Marshaun, Elf Druid 6
Last edited by catsclaw227; 11th November 2008 at 05:21 PM..
Reason: Removed snark
Well, considering that RPGNow (and I think YourGamesNow) have a category called 2d Buildings/Terrain I think that would be anyone who has ever bought one of these, as well as the publishers that create them.
It isn't my fault they don't understand the language well enough to be able to tell what terrain is and what maps and floorplans are.
I despise trying to redesign a language in order to sell something. The oxymoron in the name is quite funny, so thanks for sharing it.
It isn't my fault they don't understand the language well enough to be able to tell what terrain is and what maps and floorplans are.
I despise trying to redesign a language in order to sell something. The oxymoron in the name is quite funny, so thanks for sharing it.
It seems that they understand the language just fine. They use a common language (English), and utilize it to define another common, well understood name for something. I would say that "2D terrain" is an acceptable phrase and is part of a common tabletop RPG lexicon.
A computer "mouse" wasn't a real mouse. But the terminology was acceptable to become part of computer lexicon, and then eventually it was made "official". Merriam-Webster has it as definition 4 for "mouse".
__________________ Game on, gang! Ptolus #16 (with customized, personalized sig from Monte. Awesomesauce.), Rappan Athuk Reloaded #37 (Another Awesomesauce, the Necromancer way.)
Try to not let failure to use technical language properly get in the way of getting to the real point under discussion. - Umbran
Characters & Games
Books currently in play: Dungeon & Dragon Magazine (*Scales of War AP*), WOTC 4e Core and Supplemental books
Current Campaign: Scales of War - Lost Mines of Karak -- Kodirgo, Minotaur Barbarian 6; Vondal, Dwarf Cleric 6; Karithul, Gnome Bard 6; Marshaun, Elf Druid 6
It does seem like a perfectly cromulent use of the word.
__________________ Brain: Come Pinky! We must prepare for tomorrow night.
Pinky: Why? What are we going to do tomorrow night?
Brain: The same thing we do every night....TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!
It isn't my fault they don't understand the language well enough to be able to tell what terrain is and what maps and floorplans are.
I despise trying to redesign a language in order to sell something. The oxymoron in the name is quite funny, so thanks for sharing it.
*Pedant mode on* They are using 2d terrain as a way to describe what is probably most precisely called a terrain map. What you have described as terrain is actually model terrain. One form uses maps, the other models. Both are abstract ways to represent terrain. Neither is a form of actual terrain. *Pedant mode off*
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
