In RuneQuest-land, the divide on 3rd versus 1st/2nd edition game mechanics paled in my experience next to the gulf between those who were primarily RQ fans (seeing Glorantha as secondary, although some might consider a separation of the two unthinkable) and those who were primarily Glorantha fans (seeing RQ as secondary). I think the latter probably number more among adopters of Hero Quest (formerly Hero Wars).
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Forked Thread: all about the minis!
- Thread starter MadMaligor
- Start date
MadMaligor
First Post
As Ariosto said, this has become something of a verbal contortion hasn't it ... 
The problem I think stems from some peoples definition, or specified value of the word "meant". You could say my hackles go up at times when definative statements and conclusions are made using such general and unquantifiable terms like "meant".
Just because you mean to do something, doesn't mean you will do it, you have to do it, you must do it, or you won't do it. It just means that you are saying the action of doing whatever it is you mean to do will occur if it is possible and you actually choose to do it.
Now you could say "the game designers didn't mean for miniatures to be used". That would be an accurate statement if both Arneson and Gygax envisioned a game that moved away from the use of miniatures, and then went out and with each revision of the rule sets, eventually did away with miniature rules completely. At that point you could then say "Dungeons and Dragons is meant to be played without miniatures." You still could play it with miniatures, but the game designers now would have a game framed with rule sets that did not include miniatures. Players wishing to do so would have to change, or disregard rules to accomodate their use. Because of the designers intention, and specified actions to bring about that end result, that statement is now true.
That I think is where people are getting confused. Like I said, people draw some sort of requirement from the word "meant" that doesn't exist. For example, if you asked someone "If I tell you I meant to clean the kitchen sink, does that say I was more likely to do it than not?" If they give you an answer with regards to the likelyhood of your cleaning, then they are not understanding the question. Because you cannot draw a conclusion from the statement other than "you meant to do it". Its an intention, not a requirement. Nor does it have a greater than/less than value.
Btw...anyone want to guess now what it is that I do for a living? Hehehehe.
The problem I think stems from some peoples definition, or specified value of the word "meant". You could say my hackles go up at times when definative statements and conclusions are made using such general and unquantifiable terms like "meant".
Just because you mean to do something, doesn't mean you will do it, you have to do it, you must do it, or you won't do it. It just means that you are saying the action of doing whatever it is you mean to do will occur if it is possible and you actually choose to do it.
Now you could say "the game designers didn't mean for miniatures to be used". That would be an accurate statement if both Arneson and Gygax envisioned a game that moved away from the use of miniatures, and then went out and with each revision of the rule sets, eventually did away with miniature rules completely. At that point you could then say "Dungeons and Dragons is meant to be played without miniatures." You still could play it with miniatures, but the game designers now would have a game framed with rule sets that did not include miniatures. Players wishing to do so would have to change, or disregard rules to accomodate their use. Because of the designers intention, and specified actions to bring about that end result, that statement is now true.
That I think is where people are getting confused. Like I said, people draw some sort of requirement from the word "meant" that doesn't exist. For example, if you asked someone "If I tell you I meant to clean the kitchen sink, does that say I was more likely to do it than not?" If they give you an answer with regards to the likelyhood of your cleaning, then they are not understanding the question. Because you cannot draw a conclusion from the statement other than "you meant to do it". Its an intention, not a requirement. Nor does it have a greater than/less than value.
Btw...anyone want to guess now what it is that I do for a living? Hehehehe.
Raven Crowking
First Post
As Ariosto said, this has become something of a verbal contortion hasn't it ...
Indeed it has.
Indeed it does not.
The problem stems from some people attempting to conflate "TSR did not assume players used minis" with "TSR did not mean for players to use minis".
AFAICT, no one is arguing the straw man you are arguing against.
RC
Last edited:
MadMaligor
First Post
Indeed, looking back I got zelous and appologize.
I guess I will just say TSR did assume both (as I said before), and leave it at that.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Indeed, looking back I got zelous and appologize.
I guess I will just say TSR did assume both (as I said before), and leave it at that.
If you mean that TSR assumed that some folks played with minis, and that some folks did not, that is the same as saying that TSR did not assume that any given group was using minis. Which I said before.
That's just a matter of logic and useage. I'm not sure what you were alluding to as your job a few posts back, but I assume that it has nothing to do with formal logic or language.
Out of curiosity, what is it?RC
I did not think that to agree with someone's observation that there's a two-way street would be considered going for his throat -- but perhaps the statement was misunderstood.
Anyhow, game design can make use of markers or a grid more or less important. Tunnels & Trolls has very little built in to make use of such assets, missile fire being the main thing, and the consistent tenor of the text is one emphasizing "fast and loose" play. The Fantasy Trip, on the other hand, originated as a pair of board games and makes great use of the hexagonal grid.
In old D&D, everyone within a 10' x 10' room is "in melee" with everyone else, and the one-minute combat turn assumes much movement within that space. Sometimes, one can, as a "close enough" practical matter, consider the affair to have a center and to engage all within a 10' radius (or a circle 20' in diameter). Sometimes, it may be important to distinguish who is nearer one edge or the other, as the scope may be enlarged on that front (perhaps creating multiple melees, either overlapping or separate).
A melee as a whole can move some distance (e.g., across a larger chamber) without any concern for internal relationships at the default level of resolution. First edition AD&D (at DMG page 70) suggests that "it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee", and that applies as well to missile fire into it from outside.
The treatment of "closing to striking range", "charging" and "breaking off from melee" furthers the abstraction, as does initiative by group rather than by individual.
In general, what is most important is the group's stance of advancing, falling back or standing. Identification of which group is fighting which other is key, the disposition of members not so much.
Anyhow, game design can make use of markers or a grid more or less important. Tunnels & Trolls has very little built in to make use of such assets, missile fire being the main thing, and the consistent tenor of the text is one emphasizing "fast and loose" play. The Fantasy Trip, on the other hand, originated as a pair of board games and makes great use of the hexagonal grid.
In old D&D, everyone within a 10' x 10' room is "in melee" with everyone else, and the one-minute combat turn assumes much movement within that space. Sometimes, one can, as a "close enough" practical matter, consider the affair to have a center and to engage all within a 10' radius (or a circle 20' in diameter). Sometimes, it may be important to distinguish who is nearer one edge or the other, as the scope may be enlarged on that front (perhaps creating multiple melees, either overlapping or separate).
A melee as a whole can move some distance (e.g., across a larger chamber) without any concern for internal relationships at the default level of resolution. First edition AD&D (at DMG page 70) suggests that "it is generally not possible to select a specific opponent in a mass melee", and that applies as well to missile fire into it from outside.
The treatment of "closing to striking range", "charging" and "breaking off from melee" furthers the abstraction, as does initiative by group rather than by individual.
In general, what is most important is the group's stance of advancing, falling back or standing. Identification of which group is fighting which other is key, the disposition of members not so much.
Last edited:
MadMaligor
First Post
If you mean that TSR assumed that some folks played with minis, and that some folks did not, that is the same as saying that TSR did not assume that any given group was using minis. Which I said before.
That's just a matter of logic and useage. I'm not sure what you were alluding to as your job a few posts back, but I assume that it has nothing to do with formal logic or language.
RC
No logic, harumph! Baiting me like that RC, FO SHAME! hehehehe
You were the one that said that editions prior to 3.0 did not assume the use of miniatures, that in no edition prior to 3.0 were mini's strongly encouraged, and prior to 3.0 you would be hard pressed to find a use of them outside battle system.
I said that editions did indeed assume the use of mini's, that the rules assumed both. I wasn't neccessarily disagreeing with you, just clarifying that it was a mischaractarization to just cite one side of the debate.
Myself and others disagreed with you and cited products pre 3.0 outside of Battle systems that were specifically made for use with miniatures.
I then provided you with text from the AD&D DMG that cited that in some games miniatures would be a requirement (a pretty strong statement if you ask me). I also was willing to quote more text from a number of sources talking about the use of miniatures prior to that. Other evidence I mentioned that suggests a strong tie to miniatures are their commercials, print, and pictures used of miniatures in play.
You then went on to talk about mini's and 4E which I completely agreed with.
Then for some reason I got attacked (not by you but others) stating that I was proven wrong. Which I have yet to be (though I admitted it was possible I was/am, and as a big boy if shown, I would admit as much).You said when I forked the thread that "So rare was the useage of minis in AD&D 1e, that the language of minis was expunged in 2e." How is the first part of that true without any specific backing by numbers, studies, or data? Which is why I asked for such. In fact later on there was discusion regarding how much minis were used that rebutted that position. The only thing you pointed too was TK's play with Gygax as some sort of definative that miniatures were somehow not a part of D&D (or at least not meant to be) because Gygax and Co played without them.
Which, as I pointed out, is interesting conversation. But it doesn't mean miniature use wasn't assumed, or meant to be a part of D&D.
So I would ask. Are you saying miniature use in OD&D, AD&D, and 2ED&D was less likely at each gaming table? If so where do you get that from? Even if it was, and could be proven, how does that refute the two statements..."Miniatures were meant to be used with Dungeons and Dragons." or "Miniatures use is assumed while playing Dungeons and Dragons."
I eagerly await any logical position
you may have to show that I was wrong. I may be old, the knees are shot, but I can take it. Oh...btw...the thing about my job was kind of a trick question hehehe. I was interested to see your guess, but you are correct. It has little to do with logic and linguistics. Well I shouldn't say little...but rather my job is in Operations at a very large Wastewater treatment Plant in California, and centered on the function of the plant. Though I do a fair bit of novice writing as a hobby.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Which, apparently, you now acknowledge? Or am I misreading your previous post.
Still true.
Um, that's not exactly what I said.
You can find a use of minis easily enough, but you cannot find regular useage within the rules outside of Battlesystem. Of course, as has been noted, I forgot about Combat & Tactics, which also makes use of minis on a regular basis (to the same degree, I admit, as 3.0).
City System and Waterdeep allow you to make models of buildings, as did a few other modules (Flames of Falcon), but those props were generally out of scale to D&D minis.
It has been demonstrated that some prestige boxed modules made specific use of counters and mini-scale maps, but even the text on these products, as noted above, marks them as unusual.
So, again, "hard pressed" stands.
This is an error in logic, or an error in language. I am not sure which.
If one is unsure that a person does X or not, one does not assume that the person does X. One does not both assume that the person does X and assume that the person does not do X.
If your argument relies upon the idea that "TSR knew some folks were using minis, so TSR assumed that players were using minis and players were not using minis", then one must be aware that, perforce, TSR did not assume that any given set of players was using minis. IOW, conflating the "players using minis" above (subset of group) with "players" (as the whole group) creates the problem you are experiencing.
TSR knew well that some players were using minis, but did not assume that any given group was using minis, or that most players were using minis, or that all players were using minis.
Yes. You did well. Still, "hard pressed" doesn't mean "impossible".
Again,
If one is unsure that a person does X or not, one does not assume that the person does X. One does not both assume that the person does X and assume that the person does not do X.
If your argument relies upon the idea that "TSR knew some folks were using minis, so TSR assumed that players were using minis and players were not using minis", then one must be aware that, perforce, TSR did not assume that any given set of players was using minis. IOW, conflating the "players using minis" above (subset of group) with "players" (as the whole group) creates the problem you are experiencing.
TSR knew well that some players were using minis, but did not assume that any given group was using minis, or that most players were using minis, or that all players were using minis.
You then went on to talk about mini's and 4E which I completely agreed with.
Although WotC's Scott Rouse, who is presumably in a better position to know than you, is the source of the quote.
If one is unsure that a person does X or not, one does not assume that the person does X. One does not both assume that the person does X and assume that the person does not do X.
If your argument relies upon the idea that "TSR knew some folks were using minis, so TSR assumed that players were using minis and players were not using minis", then one must be aware that, perforce, TSR did not assume that any given set of players was using minis. IOW, conflating the "players using minis" above (subset of group) with "players" (as the whole group) creates the problem you are experiencing.
TSR knew well that some players were using minis, but did not assume that any given group was using minis, or that most players were using minis, or that all players were using minis.
If one includes Combat & Tactics, I am in error there. In Combat & Tactics, the language of minis is certainly used (in keeping with 2e Battlesystem and Battlesystem Skirmishes).
The data is available by simply reading the 2e books.
Well, for one thing, there is WotC's marketing survey prior to the release of 3.0, which demonstrated that over 40% of respondents polled claimed to have never used minis at all. From there one can follow the trends in miniatures sales, where WotC has thoroughly cleaned the clocks of their competitors. Finally, I suppose, you could take Scott Rouse's word for it that WotC intentionally tied minis more firmly into 3e and 4e as part of their business plan. (And, again, if you look at the survey, there is very good cause for them to do so.)
I am not sure that anyone is attempting to refute the statement "Miniatures were meant to be used with Dungeons and Dragons," or even the statement "Dungeons and Dragons was meant to include optional miniatures use" (which isn't exactly the same thing). If you mean to imply that each group of gamers was meant to use miniatures, well then, since every book of every TSR edition claims they are optional (if they mention them at all, again excepting Battlesystem)......
"Miniatures use is assumed while playing Dungeons and Dragons" OTOH, I would answer like this:
If one is unsure that a person does X or not, one does not assume that the person does X. One does not both assume that the person does X and assume that the person does not do X.
If your argument relies upon the idea that "TSR knew some folks were using minis, so TSR assumed that players were using minis and players were not using minis", then one must be aware that, perforce, TSR did not assume that any given set of players was using minis. IOW, conflating the "players using minis" above (subset of group) with "players" (as the whole group) creates the problem you are experiencing.
TSR knew well that some players were using minis, but did not assume that any given group was using minis, or that most players were using minis, or that all players were using minis.
In contrast, WotC assumes that any given group playing 4e is using minis, and that most players of 4e are using minis. The rules were written to that end, and they have made this part of their business plan.
RC
avin
First Post
Didn't followed the whole thread so I'm basing what I'm going to say in what I captured since 3.0.
D&D started with a miniature wargame but it really started to focus on minis when Hasbro, a toy manufacturer, get in the wagon. Now there's a business reason to sell the idea of the game needing minis. 4E pushes to it, tying the game to minis.
Even so, you can play it with poker chips, beans, etc.
D&D started with a miniature wargame but it really started to focus on minis when Hasbro, a toy manufacturer, get in the wagon. Now there's a business reason to sell the idea of the game needing minis. 4E pushes to it, tying the game to minis.
Even so, you can play it with poker chips, beans, etc.
Similar Threads
