Flipping the Table: Did Removing Miniatures Save D&D?

Dungeons & Dragons is doing better than ever, thanks to a wave of nostalgia-fueled shows like Stranger Things and the Old School Renaissance, the rise of actual play video streams, and a broader player base that includes women. The reasons for this vary, but one possibility is that D&D no longer requires miniatures. Did it ever? Picture courtesy of Pixabay Wait, What? When Vivian Kane at...

Dungeons & Dragons is doing better than ever, thanks to a wave of nostalgia-fueled shows like Stranger Things and the Old School Renaissance, the rise of actual play video streams, and a broader player base that includes women. The reasons for this vary, but one possibility is that D&D no longer requires miniatures. Did it ever?

bird-5537142_960_720.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay

Wait, What?​

When Vivian Kane at TheMarySue interviewed lead rules designer for D&D, Jeremy Crawford, about the increased popularity of D&D, here’s what he had to say:
It’s a really simple thing, but in 5th, that decision to not require miniatures was huge. Us doing that suddenly basically unlocked everyone from the dining room table and, in many ways, made it possible for the boom in streaming that we’re seeing now.
In short, Crawford positioned miniatures as something of a barrier of entry to getting into playing D&D. But when exactly did miniatures become a requirement?

D&D Was a Miniatures Game First (or Was It?)​

Co-cocreator of D&D Gary Gygax labeled the original boxed set of Dungeons & Dragons as “Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures.” Gygax was a wargamer himself, which used miniature games to wage tabletop battles. His target audience for D&D were these wargamers, and so use of miniatures – leveraging Chainmail, a supplement he created for miniature wargaming – was assumed. Miniature wargaming was more than a little daunting for a new player to join. Jon Peterson explains in Playing at the World:
Whether fought on a sand table, a floor or a yard outdoors, miniature wargames eschewed boards and the resulting ease of quantifying movements between squares (or hexagons) in favor of irregular scale-model terrain and rulers to measure movement distance. Various sorts of toy soldiers— traditionally made of wood, lead or tin, but by the mid-twentieth century constructed from a variety of alloys and composites— peopled these diminutive landscapes, in various attitudes of assault and movement. While Avalon Hill sold everything you needed to play their board wargames in a handy box, miniature wargamers had the responsibility and the freedom to provide all of the components of a game: maps, game pieces and the system. Consider that even the most complicated boardgame is easily retrieved from a shelf or closet, its board unfolded and lain across a table top, its pieces sorted and arranged in a starting configuration, all within a span of some minutes— in a pinch the game could be stowed away in seconds. Not so for the miniature wargamer. Weeks might be spent in constructing the battleground alone, in which trees, manmade structures, gravel roads and so on are often selected for maximum verisimilitude. Researching a historical battle or period to determine the lay of the land, as well as the positions and equipment of the combatants, is a task which can exhaust any investment of time and energy. Determining how to model the effects of various weapons, or the relative movement rates of different vehicles, requires similar diligent investigations, especially to prevent an imbalanced and unfair game. Wargaming with miniatures consequently is not something undertaken lightly.
D&D offered human-scale combat, something that made the precision required for miniature wargaming much less of a barrier. Indeed, many of the monsters we know today were actually dollar store toys converted for that purpose. It’s clear that accurately representing fantasy on the battlefield was not a primary concern for Gygax. Peterson goes into further detail on that claim:
Despite the proclamation on the cover of Dungeons & Dragons that it is “playable with paper and pencil and miniature figures,” the role of miniature figures in Dungeons & Dragons is downplayed throughout the text. Even in the foreword, Gygax confesses that “in fact you will not even need miniature figures,” albeit he tacks onto this “although their occasional employment is recommended for real spectacle when battles are fought.” These spectacular battles defer entirely to the Chainmail rules, and thus there is no further mention of miniatures in any of the three books of Dungeons & Dragons other than a reiteration of the assertion that their use is not required. The presence of the term “miniature figures” on the cover of the woodgrain box is, consequently, a tad misleading.
James Maliszewski states that this trend continued through Advanced Dungeons & Dragons:
Even so, it's worth noting that, despite the game's subtitle, miniature figures are not listed under D&D's "recommended equipment," while "Imagination" and "1 Patient Referee" are! Elsewhere, it is stated that "miniature figures can be added if the players have them available and so desire, but miniatures are not required, only esthetically pleasing." The rulebook goes on to state that "varied and brightly painted miniature figures" add "eye-appeal." The AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, though published five years later in 1979, evinces essentially the same attitude, saying "Miniature figures used to represent characters and monsters add color and life to the game. They also make the task of refereeing action, particularly combat, easier too!"
Gygax himself confirmed that miniatures weren’t required in a Q&A session on ENWorld:
I don't usually employ miniatures in my RPG play. We ceased that when we moved from CHAINMAIL Fantasy to D&D. I have nothing against the use of miniatures, but they are generally impractical for long and free-wheeling campaign play where the scene and opponents can vary wildly in the course of but an hour. The GW folks use them a lot, but they are fighting set-piece battles as is usual with miniatures gaming. I don't believe that fantasy miniatures are good or bad for FRPGs in general. If the GM sets up gaming sessions based on their use, the resulting play is great from my standpoint. It is mainly a matter of having the painted figures and a big tabletop to play on.
So if the game didn’t actually require miniatures and Gygax didn’t use them, where did the idea of miniatures as a requirement happen? For that, we have to look to later editions.

Pleading the Fifth​

Jennifer Grouling Cover explains the complicated relationship gamers had with miniatures &D in The Creation of Narrative in Tabletop Role-Playing Games:
The lack of a visual element may make spatial immersion more difficult to achieve in D&D than in more visually oriented games; however, this type of immersion is still important to the game. Without the visual component to TRPGs, players may have difficulty picturing the exact setting that the DM lays out. Wizards of the Coast's market survey shows that in 2000, 56 percent of gaming groups used miniatures to solve this dilemma…Because D& D combat rules often offer suggestions as to what you can or cannot do at certain distances, these battle maps help players visualize the scene and decide on their actions…Even though some gamers may get more interested in the visual representation of space by painting and designing scenery such as miniature castles, these tools exist more for showing spatial relationships than for immersing players visually.
In essence, Third Edition rules that involved distances seemed to encourage grid-based combat and miniature use. But the rise of Fourth Edition formalized grid-based combat, which in turn required some sort of miniature representation. Joshua Aslan Smith summed it up on StackRPGExchange:
The whole of 4th edition ruleset by and large is devoted to the balance and intricacies of tactical, grid-based combat. There are exceptions, such as rules for skill challenges and other Role Play aspects of the game (vs. roll play). To both maximize the benefits of 4th edition and actually run it correctly you need to run combats on a grid of 1" squares. Every single player attack and ability is based around this precept.
This meant players were looking at the table instead of each other, as per Crawford’s comment:
Part of that is possible because you can now play D&D and look at people’s faces. It’s people looking at each other, laughing together, storytelling together, and that’s really what we were striving for.
It wasn’t until Fifth Edition that “theater of the mind” play was reintroduced, where grids, miniatures, and terrain are unnecessary. This style of play never truly went away, but had the least emphasis and support in Fourth Edition.

Did the removal of miniatures as a requirement truly allow D&D to flourish online? Charlie Hall on Polygon explains that the ingredients for D&D to be fun to watch as well as to play have always been there:
Turns out, the latest edition of Dungeons & Dragons was designed to be extremely light and easy to play. Several Polygon staff have spent time with the system, and in our experience it's been a breeze to teach, even to newbies. That's because D&D's 5th edition is all about giving control back to the Dungeon Master. If you want to play a game of D&D that doesn't require a map, that is all theater of the mind, you can do that with Skype. Or with Curse. Or with Google Hangout. Or with Facetime. Basically, if you can hear the voice of another human being you can play D&D. You don't even need dice. That's because Dungeons & Dragons, and other role-playing games that came after it, are all about storytelling. The rules are a fun way to arbitrate disputes, the maps and miniatures are awful pretty and the books are filled with amazing art and delicious lore. But Wizards of the Coast just wants you to play, that's why the latest version of the starter rules is available for free.
D&D’s always been about telling a good story. The difference is that now that our attention – and the camera or microphone – can be focused on each other instead of the table.
“What 5th edition has done the best,” according to game designer Kate Welch, “is that idea of it being the theatre of the mind and the imagination, and to put the emphasis on the story and the world that is being created by the players.” That’s the kind of “drama people want to see,” both in their own adventures and on their screens.
If the numbers are any indication, that makes D&D a lot more fun to watch.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Of course if it's the level of abstraction that is the issue with SC's for a few/some/many... a better explanation wouldn't have really helped. Some people just want finer granularity and tighter action association in their task resolution and mechanics.

I definitely have some sympathy for this position (not because I hold it personally). Players like yourself and @Nagol have been very consistent on this point throughout many conversations over the years.

If a gamer has strident Sim priorities and/or they have Sim priorities localized to their D&D play, then 4e's genre-logic and scene-based considerations/techniques (dramatic arc, escalation, narrative causality, fail forward) are going to be problematic, no doubt. And if you try to eschew all of these fundamental components to 4e scene-based play and smuggle in Sim priorities/approaches in their stead, the game is going to push back very hard.

You're likely going to end up with boring, stale Skill Challenges where the situation doesn't change dynamically (or much at all), no dramatic arc arises, and it looks/feels like "an exercise in dice rolling."

Our conversation many years ago (it was a good one) regarding "the gorge" is probably the benchmark for the dissonance you're ascribing to the game experience for you (and others like you). When your mental framework is predicated upon one very particular paradigm and your decision-points (and their outcomes) are anchored to a very different paradigm, its going to be "jarring." 4e's designers could have done a better job illuminating this in the first DMG.

Eh, I'm not so sure I agree seeing as how their most recent console videogame... Neverwinter... actually uses the 4e mechanics and plays like a pretty traditional MMOrpg. It's been a while since I've played but if I recall correctly... Basically they've converted the at-will/encounter/daily divide into tiered cool down times for your various 4e powers in the videogame... This is exactly what I think most people are relating them too when they make the videogame comparison...the standard structure implemented for every class, categorization of power levels, and standard recharge times of 4e powers while not an exact 1 for 1 copy, it's not a stretch to see why they reminding many people of modern/prevalent mmorpg mechanics.

Here are my thoughts on this. There are various components that made people decry 4e for MMORPG mechanics. Top of the heap was:

Defender Control/Marking

The problem with this position is that the Marking//Defender Control mechanics in 4e work precisely zero like MMORPG mechanics.

1) Mechanically, MMORPG tanks are afforded target control by two distinctive means; (a) Extremely high Threat generation that allows them to gain top position (and stay there) of a creature's Threat List and (b) various Taunts that temporarily rearrange that Threat List to place the tank at the top of the Threat List.

2) Mechanically, 4e Defenders are afforded target control by way of a catch-22; attack me or suffer a very bad penalty (-2 to hit and I attack you). That looks exactly like a host of M;tG cards/keywords/play combos. One of the fundamentals of that game is managing and deploying the pervasive catch-22 decision-points.

Rationing (you've mentioned)

While there is some superficial overlap here, my sense is that it is this way because SO MANY games (MMOs, CRPGs, card games, board games, TTRPGs, even sports) have time/unit-centered rationing of deployable resources. On account of that, the position of "MMORPGs have rationing too" doesn't do enough heavy lifting to convince me. Further, while they have cooldowns on various schedules, MMORPGs aren't scene-based games (in the way TTRPGs are). You don't find 1/scene mechanics in there. You do find 1/scene mechanics in scene-based TTRPGs, in sports (eg Challenges per half) and in some card games (but sub "hand" for "scene"). Cooldown refresh in MMORPGs isn't centered around fictional positioning (because the fiction isn't relevant) whereas in 4e and other TTRPGs, it is.

Genre

This one is unmistakable (as I mentioned above). 4e's genre and themes has a ton of overlap with DIablo and God of War in particular and surely plenty with WoW (which is difficult not to do given its a massive "world on fire-ey" trope).




But, to your point, there is enough shallow evidence (which shouldn't be particularly convincing when the collective evidence is examined forensically) for someone to come to the false positive of "4e is/was a tabletop MMORPG" if they aren't particularly rigorous in their examination (or if they were part of a smear campaign).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There's also a strong ethos that says the DM's job includes tweaking or kitbashing the rules system to suit her own game/self/players; and 4e (and 3e for all that) was not a very kitbash-friendly system - too many knock-on effects where changing something here broke things there, there, and probably there as well.

And this was intentional on the part of the designers, as their definition of DM-proofing included kitbash-proofing. Compare this with 5e, where the specific design intention is to make it modular and thus kitbash-friendly.

See, on this I don't particularly agree (surprise!). I think the problem is how deeply you've internalized the wheels/knobs/levers of AD&D (and the like). So you look at 4e and you don't see the wheels/knobs/levers. Meanwhile, there is an enormous range of play available in 4e if you do see those wheels/knobs/levers and know how to deploy them. To name a trivial few; deploy the Disease/Condition Track (for all manner of things including environmental exposure/injuries/lighting/rations & water), change Short Rest and/or Long Rest dynamics (can't gain one until you've achieved some different fictional positioning than the default), change Healing Surge Recovery, upscale/downscale Encounter Budget, halve Monster HPs but increase damage proportionately, on and on and on. There are dozens of ways to easily change the tone/pacing/oppressiveness/boldness of the game.

Same thing goes for games like Cortex+ and Powered By the Apocalypse (hell, even a hyper-focused game like Dogs in the Vineyard) . There are plenty of wheels/knobs/levers to manipulate to create subtle or dramatic difference in play experience or genre/theme/premise.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
As one who never participated in organized play (in any of the 5 editions) I canony ask: why not give this stuff to the rest of us to use? Which, given that the setting itself had been set up as somewhat unique, comes as something of a disappointment.

Exactly.

That said, I've got the 4e DMG and don't remember any of that being in it, though it's a decade or so since I looked closely at it. Better give it another once-over, I guess. :)

There is a bit about the Nentir Vale, which is supposed to be in the far north of Nerath, essentially a border march of some sort. Sadly, there's no information about what's to the south except vague implications.

Do they provde a map of where those empires used to be, or notes/info on what they did or were known for?
No, they didn't. They mentioned three empires: Arkhosia, Bael Turath, and Nerath. They tell you Arkhosia and Bael Turath were in a war and had fell to bits, leaving dragonborn and tieflings, respectively. Nerath had more recently fallen to a horde of gnolls after their last king did something really stupid. So the Nentir Vale is implied as being a northern march of what was once Nerath but is now abandoned. Nothing about what's to the north of it, south of it, etc., and its walled off by mountains. Who do they trade with? No clue.

As I recall at the time the argument was that they wanted to leave room for the DM to make their own Nerath unique, but I'm totally with [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] that sketching out the world is why I pay a game designer; I can then fill in the details. And that's why I said "self-serving laziness" upthread. It's like when someone says "he adds a nice synergy to the company" but really means "I hired my nephew because he's my sister's son." But of course, this also is just a matter of different priorities.

Fallen empires is pretty far from unique, too: That's pretty much World of Greyhawk to a T. On that point with @pemerton, I agree, what was unique about 4E was the more cosmological stuff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Imaro

Legend
Because I just ignored it. I've never run a game set in Fallcrest or the Nentir Vale.

(1) There's clutter that has to be disregarded. (2) There's communication issues among the group as to what's in and what's out. (3) The authors don't simply do their best work, but subordinate their ideas to the demands of the already established history and geography.

So you know exactly what to do to avoid those constraints (and honestly it doesn't seem like that big of a hassle or much effort on your part) so wouldn't it be better to include it for those whose playstyles are catered to by it vs. leaving it out? This just seems again like a narrowing of playstyle as opposed to a braod or inclusive one where the specific DM determines what he does or doesn't need for his playstyle and campaign.

OAN... you may not like paying for material you won't use but if the alternative is your favored edition being replaced it seems an extra $2 would be worth staving that off... I mean I don't like or use everything that's published for 5e but I'm glad its catering to a wide range of tastes (even at a small expense to me) because it will keep this edition of the game going for a longer time... IMHO of course.

EDIT: Just to be clear... I'm not saying don't advocate for more of what you want in the game... but I think you have to be willing to subsidize some cost for things that don't appeal to you if you want the game as a published product with a large player base to be sustainable. I personally have no desire for a warlord, would rather see numerous things before that class in 5e but if they publish a book with a warlord in it and say 75%-99% of the book is still interesting or useful to me I'm going to buy it... and maybe the 5e version of a warlord would win me over, who knows...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Nagol

Unimportant
I think the Skill Challenge is a microcosm of a lot of 4e's problems with the D&D player-base. We've seen it for years and years in the past and you see it again in this thread; people decrying the SC mechanic as an arbitrary practice in (mostly) fiction-irrelevant dicing. Which is not what it is. At all (which we've covered a jillion times over).

I wonder if in DMG 1's initial explanation of SCs if they would have just pointed to indie, scene-based predecessors (say Dogs in the Vineyard or Fate), how much more success there would have been in staving off the "Skill Challenges are just stale dice rolling." Just 9 months later, DMG2 did a fantastic job of better relaying the fundamental principles of closed scene resolution for non-combat challenges/conflicts. Then the RC in '11 or '12 put it all together succinctly (yet still didn't mention any indie games).

Certainly, had the DMG1 had better explanation of when to use/ how to use / why to use AND had actually proofed the math so that the mechanic gave the results advertised then I think they'd have gone over more smoothly.

Now, anyone who has played/run modern indie scene-based games like Cortex+ (any of them) or Blades in the Dark (competing Clocks), will understand precisely what a 4e Skill Challenge is architecturally (dramatic arm, pacing, locked-in resolution by way of system machinery) and they'll understand the principles/techniques that guide its resolution (eg "Establish Goal/Stakes", "Fiction First", "Task and Intent", "Change the Situation", "Fail Forward").

But folks smuggling in 3.x or AD&D serial exploration expectations into 4e's scene resolution mechanics are invariably going to be very :confused: , :-S , and perhaps :mad:

Even if you're a GM who can and has run more scene-based / narrative-based games, it doesn't mean you want all RPGs you run to operate that way. That's why I choose different games after all, to change the feel at the table.




As an aside, I still don't understand the video game stuff. 4e's combat machinery is quite clearly inspired much more by Magic the Gathering (each Role as a Magic deck archetypes; eg Control, Aggro, Mid-Range)...which is, of course, WotC...so it seems the intuitive extrapolation.

I'm sure they were thinking something like "wow, if we could get the massive amount of Magic players (which dwarfs D&D players), D&D players, some modern video game players (sure WoW but especially God of War and the Diablo player-base as the "World on Fire" PoL mythology/setting is a match), and entice the indie RPG community (due to its tightness of design, narrativism, and scene-based paradigm)...holy cow that would be THE BIGGEST THING EVER."

But that didn't work out because there is less overlap than they thought when it came to a lot of D&D players and those other games (or at least a large segment of D&D players that want their D&D gated from those other influences).

I think the video game stuff came from some superficial similarities with WoW (and other MMO) power/recharge mechanics. Looking at 4e, I didn't see that I saw an attempt for tying resource constraint to narrative arc more than anything.
 

aramis erak

Legend
I think that the 4e desginers didn't have the courage of their convictions, and in their presentation of skill challenges tried to speak out of both sides of their mouths. It's clear in the DMG, and even moreso the DMG2, that skill challenges are envisaged as a system comparable to the sort of complex scene resolution one sees in many, many other contemporary RPGs.

But they also presented skill challenges - and the modules doubled down on this - as fiction-free "dice rolling exercises". Presumably this was meant to appeal to people who like rolling dice and aren't interested in the fiction of the RPG. But many people seemed to approach SCs this way even while complaining about it!

Anyway, I find the whole thing very strange. In combat, no one thinks you need an arbitrary rule to get the wizard involved - the wizard fights because s/he is under attack. In a social scene, the way you get the fighter's player to make a check is to frame the situation so that the player will miss out on something s/he wants unless s/he succeeds at a check. In my experience it's not that hard.

This is another thing that I find pretty strange. The idea that choosing what move to make, or what tactic to use, equals choosing what spell to cast, seems like the tail wagging the dog: it's taking an artefact of one particular RPG design (classsic D&D) and projecting it back onto the fiction as if that's just how things are in the world of the fantasy RPG.

If you read the FR or Greyhawk novels, they DO treat the game mechanics as generally descriptive of the "realities" of those settings.

SC's as a mechanic are euro-like. They are mechanically intrusive into the fiction, and totally divorced from the setting mechanically - unless the GM enforces a "To do it, say it" for any social challenges, and a "To do it, narrate it" for non-social... but then, the fiction often is mishandled in such action chains.

They compare favorably to Burning Wheel's duel of wits... but BW's DoW has one thing going for it that skill challenges don't ... the steps and stages are tactical decisions with impacts, and with narrative (at a minimalist level) built into the names of the actions, and the actions having mechanics reflective of that name. Range & Cover, and Fight both do similar for different kinds of combats. Invasion metamechanics (in Jyhad for BWR) and, (Mass) Conflict and Infection (in Burning Empires) both strongly tie as well, in the same ways. But all BW systems feel flat if the players and GM are doing cool narrations; they work, and tell a pretty clear story just on the mechanics, but their best face is when everyone knows how to set up for a narration with implied resolution, but still allowing for the choice of fail-forward or simple failure.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
If you read the FR or Greyhawk novels, they DO treat the game mechanics as generally descriptive of the "realities" of those settings.

To the extent I've read game fiction (i.e., a bit, but mostly not) they do, but just as often break from it.


SC's as a mechanic are euro-like. They are mechanically intrusive into the fiction, and totally divorced from the setting mechanically - unless the GM enforces a "To do it, say it" for any social challenges, and a "To do it, narrate it" for non-social... but then, the fiction often is mishandled in such action chains.

Hmmm... euro-like. I suppose. I think they're a fairly clear extension of "let's make a system with some detail like combat for non-combat situations", which I guess is euro-game.

The big problem I had with SCs was, as someone noted, the original math was goofy, but beyond that they were often really reaching for skills. The problem I often got when participating in them was that they often felt very forced. Part of that was that I think the way the DMs often used them wasn't really great. They didn't integrate them into narration but instead went around the table very combat-like, with people fishing for skills to see if those were written into the SC, as an encounter that was largely scripted by the writing of the SC. The goal was to ensure participation but only in the most gamist "hear the dice a rollin'" kind of way. Most 4E adventures were written as a series of narratively connected set pieces, either combats or SCs. Of course, one did not actually have to run 4E this way, but that's how much of my experience with it was.
 

While there is some superficial overlap here, my sense is that it is this way because SO MANY games (MMOs, CRPGs, card games, board games, TTRPGs, even sports) have time/unit-centered rationing of deployable resources. On account of that, the position of "MMORPGs have rationing too" doesn't do enough heavy lifting to convince me. Further, while they have cooldowns on various schedules, MMORPGs aren't scene-based games (in the way TTRPGs are). You don't find 1/scene mechanics in there.
A lot of WoW, for a lot of players, comes down to raid-boss encounters. (Presumably it's also a feature in WoW-clones, but I haven't played any of those to end-game, so I can't say for certain.) The way that they integrate once-per-encounter powers in WoW is to give them a re-charge time around ten minutes, since that's about how long it takes to attempt a raid-boss and then re-group if you failed (or fight your way through the trash, if you succeed).

More generally speaking, when I started playing 4E (well before I had done any raiding), encounter powers seemed directly analogous to the two-minute cooldown powers that you could use about once per fight while questing, and daily powers seemed like one-hour cooldown powers that you had to save unless you absolutely needed them. They didn't seem analogous to CRPGs or card games in any way, because I'd never played a CRPG that had once-per-encounter abilities (unless you count FF7, where spell usage per combat was limited by materia growth), and turns in a card game just didn't seem analogous to individual combat encounters in any way.

I'm not saying that the AED system was copied from World of Warcraft, or that it couldn't have been influenced by any number of other sources. I am saying that, if someone had been tasked with directly converting the WoW style of class abilities where everything had a different length of cooldown, then they probably would have ended up with something very similar to AED. And given the probability of ending up with the AED system if they had intentionally taken that approach, compared to the probability of ending up with the AED system if they'd looked at any number of CRPGs (most of which still resembled the classic D&D model, with daily-only resources) and card games, it's statistically meaningful evidence for the former over the latter.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
I'm not saying that the AED system was copied from World of Warcraft, or that it couldn't have been influenced by any number of other sources. I am saying that, if someone had been tasked with directly converting the WoW style of class abilities where everything had a different length of cooldown, then they probably would have ended up with something very similar to AED.

IMO that was a very good analysis. The AED system is pretty solidly like a lot of MMOs and CRPGs of the time. Obviously MMOs don't run on pure dramatic time but I think your call on the mapping of IRL time for cooldown to IG time is about right. Even earlier than 4E, White Wolf's games back to the old World of Darkness also used more dramatic "scene" time and many abilities had durations of "one scene." However, many abilities were powered by some kind of more absolute cost resource, such as blood, willpower, gnosis, quantum, etc.
 

IMO that was a very good analysis. The AED system is pretty solidly like a lot of MMOs and CRPGs of the time. Obviously MMOs don't run on pure dramatic time but I think your call on the mapping of IRL time for cooldown to IG time is about right. Even earlier than 4E, White Wolf's games back to the old World of Darkness also used more dramatic "scene" time and many abilities had durations of "one scene." However, many abilities were powered by some kind of more absolute cost resource, such as blood, willpower, gnosis, quantum, etc.
I have heard about the White Wolf system, but I still don't understand it. What exactly is a "scene" in the context of how the world is supposed to work?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top