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

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
I think fundamental changes, the kind you use to fix up a system or get it to evoke (force) a specific style, feel, or theme.

Exactly, as opposed to the themes that WotC built into the design, such as the genre emulation that you noted was a lot of 4E's design choices.


IMHO, you can generally get what you want out of 4e that way without hacking the system, per se, just being selective about what you allow in and what you use when you design adventures.

Magic items could be harder to design if you tried to stay inside the lines.

From all this discussion I wonder If much of my issue really came down to the fact that things like the CB and the general intricacies of the rules such as the long list of powers for every class, the long list of feats, etc., just made me feel a lot of pressure to stay in the lines and/or increase the burden of coloring outside the lines.

In retrospect I think that you're right---I could have just dumped whole classes or whatever, but that just didn't feel like a live option to me. I'm pretty sure I would have had a player revolt on my hands if I did.


4e magic items were designed as relatively minor character build resources, you weren't meant to be defined by an item, they weren't meant to too significantly power you up.

A DM of mine at the time put it this way: "4E magic items were both utterly boring and totally necessary." (This was pre-Inherent Bonuses, but to make those work you really needed to get rid of essentially all items.)

The "milestone" daily item use limit was... ugh. I know this is so last week, but that was one of the worst examples of a gamist/dissociated/whatever you want to call it I've literally ever seen. I totally get why they did it from a game balance perspective, but it just felt wrong. It's one reason I dislike both concentration and attunement as they are implemented in 5E. They "work" mechanically but fail to reinforce a theme. Instead they're blatantly about game balance. Clearly I have a delicate tolerance for such things....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Tony Vargas

Legend
Exactly, as opposed to the themes that WotC built into the design, such as the genre emulation that you noted was a lot of 4E's design choices.
Fantasy can be a fairly broad genre, D&D traditionally did it's own oddball take on the genre, more or less by accident, and people really expect it to evoke that very strongly, since it has done so consistently for decades. 4e left that unique sub-genre for dead in a field of slaughtered sacred cows that would have given alien cattle mutilators pause. Instead, it embraced the broader fantasy genre, particularly the pop-culture 'action' side of it - to the point of being almost more an action-genre RPG focused on fantasy as the default example than a fantasy genre RPG leaning toward action.

It was a disconcerting change.

From all this discussion I wonder If much of my issue really came down to things like the CB and the general intricacies of the rules such as the long list of powers for every class, the long list of feats, etc., just made me feel a lot of pressure to stay in the lines ....
I was way more into 4e than you, and I felt that way, too. The design didn't beg to be fixed up and re-built in its details the way classic D&D/OSR and 5e do. Customizing 4e to a campaign/theme/feel was more a matter of taking away what didn't fit than re-designing.

In retrospect I think that you're right---I could have just dumped whole classes or whatever, but that just didn't feel like a live option to me. I'm pretty sure I would have had a player revolt on my hands if I did.
It depends on the player, I guess. I've run or played in games where everyone just happened to play certain sorts of characters. All-martial, happened a couple of times, with barely an issue (in one case, out of the 13-wk encounters season, our all-martial party flubbed one skill challenge for want of any rituals or arcana skill, for instance - so the following battle was harder, but, hey, all-martial party, we could handle a tough battle).
In other editions, that can easily crash and burn if the DM doesn't take measures to compensate, so the impetus is very much there to hack the system if you do want to do something like that. Essentials would also ask everyone to play characters from the latest supplement, which, amazingly, also worked fine most of the time. The campaign I decided to go ahead and finish out (still! 30 is a lotta levels, y'know) is still all Heroes of the Feywild tied-in characters.
Skalds & Thieves have a little trouble keeping up with Epic but it still works...


A DM of mine at the time put it this way: "4E magic items were both utterly boring and totally necessary." (This was pre-Inherent Bonuses, but to make those work you really needed to get rid of essentially all items.)
Inherent bonuses came in w/in, I think it was, 9 months, though the idea is an obvious one (it had been floated much later in 3.x, too, IIRC). Only three items types of items were assumed in the math, if you clicked on inherent bonuses, you could still use items, you just didn't need to cycle those three critical ones about twice a Tier. You could find a +1 flaming sword, say, and use it your whole career, your inherent bonuses would just replace the +1. No need to get rid of any other sorts of items, though it was a low-magic option and it wouldn't make a lot of sense to turn it on buy still allow profligate make/buy assumptions...

The "milestone" daily item use limit was... ugh. I know this is so last week, but that was one of the worst examples of a gamist/dissociated/whatever you want to call it I've literally ever seen. I totally get why they did it from a game balance perspective, but it just felt wrong. It's one reason I dislike both concentration and attunement as they are implemented in 5E. They "work" mechanically but fail to reinforce a theme. Instead they're blatantly about game balance. Clearly I have a delicate tolerance for such things....
I really like attunement (concentration is kinda bowdlerized 'easy mode' from 4e sustain takin actions or old-school concentration requirements to cast anything, but its still a good idea to have something like it). I've liked it since I first saw it ('81?) in RuneQuest(c1978), though, so it has that familiarity thing going for me, and, in fact, added a similar mechanic in one 4e campaign (it was a re-boot of an old AD&D one, in which I'd adopted RQ attunement). Likewise, I feel like Essentials getting rid of the item daily limit and replacing it with lame/arbitrary 'rarity' was a big mistake. The item daily limit kept the focus on the character. Like surges only being triggered by healing powers, item needing the character to provide the power/will/whatever to activate their better powers was a nice, genre-appropriate take. Maybe not s'much as 'destined wielders' and the like but still gave a solid heroic feel.

Of course, it also, and probably primarily, prevented the make/buy/hording of low-level items to spam their dailies, /and/ incentivized longer adventuring days.
Just another case of good design dovetailing mechanical necessities with genre tropes.
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
Fantasy can be a fairly broad genre, D&D traditionally did it's own oddball take on the genre, more or less by accident, and people really expect it to evoke that very strongly, since it has done so consistently for decades.

Yes, that's true.


4e left that unique sub-genre for dead in a field of slaughtered sacred cows that would have given alien cattle mutilators pause. Instead, it embraced the broader fantasy genre, particularly the pop-culture 'action' side of it - to the point of being almost more an action-genre RPG focused on fantasy as the default example than a fantasy genre RPG leaning toward action.

"Action-genre RPG" is what I think I felt when I've said "minis game" in the past. The encounters as written generally seemed to be set-piece scenarios. A lot of this is driven by the impetus of having a board but many of the early modules really felt very much like "here's my cool setup" regardless of how illogical it was.


I was way more into 4e than you, and I felt that way, too. The design didn't beg to be fixed up and re-built in its details the way classic D&D/OSR and 5e do. Customizing 4e to a campaign/theme/feel was more a matter of taking away what didn't fit than re-designing.

OK, so it wasn't just me.


In other editions, that can easily crash and burn if the DM doesn't take measures to compensate, so the impetus is very much there to hack the system if you do want to do something like that.

That makes sense.


Inherent bonuses came in w/in, I think it was, 9 months, though the idea is an obvious one (it had been floated much later in 3.x, too, IIRC).

I thought it was in the Dark Sun book, which was a few years on, but I'm not sure.


Only three items types of items were assumed in the math, if you clicked on inherent bonuses, you could still use items, you just didn't need to cycle those three critical ones about twice a Tier. You could find a +1 flaming sword, say, and use it your whole career, your inherent bonuses would just replace the +1. No need to get rid of any other sorts of items, though it was a low-magic option and it wouldn't make a lot of sense to turn it on buy still allow profligate make/buy assumptions...

I liked Inherent Bonuses quite a bit, actually.


I really like attunement (concentration is kinda bowdlerized 'easy mode' from 4e sustain takin actions or old-school concentration requirements to cast anything, but its still a good idea to have something like it). I've liked it since I first saw it ('81?) in RuneQuest(c1978), though, so it has that familiarity thing going for me, and, in fact, added a similar mechanic in one 4e campaign (it was a re-boot of an old AD&D one, in which I'd adopted RQ attunement).

Don't misunderstand me: I don't mind the idea of either. What I dislike is the implementation. 4E's implementation of concentration was IMO much better than 5E's. Some spells cost you your minor action. Others cost you your action. If you had two things that worked on minor actions, well, goodbye to your action. It depended on what you were doing and wasn't just some kind of hard "because I said so!" limit.


Likewise, I feel like Essentials getting rid of the item daily limit and replacing it with lame/arbitrary 'rarity' was a big mistake.

Yes, I agree, and the fact that rarity was next to illogical with little rhyme or reason didn't help.


The item daily limit kept the focus on the character. Like surges only being triggered by healing powers, item needing the character to provide the power/will/whatever to activate their better powers was a nice, genre-appropriate take. Maybe not s'much as 'destined wielders' and the like but still gave a solid heroic feel.

See for me I'd have accomplished it in a way that reinforced themes via imposing a cost rather than by a hard game mechanical limit. For instance, if you want to attune, have it start costing you healing surges or hit dice (or something). That keeps it inside the world.

Another would be to have the item do one thing with attunement and do less without it. I'm writing up some items to post to DMsguild and put in a bunch that had that kind of thing. If you use it it does X but if you attune it does X+Y. (In some cases it activates curses, so attuning isn't necessarily so nice.)

Milestone was just... weird. It's much the same reason I don't like the "escalation die" from 13A, even though I totally get the genre effect it simulates. It does it in a fashion that feels like it breaks the fourth wall to me.


Of course, it also, and probably primarily, prevented the make/buy/hording of low-level items to spam their dailies, /and/ incentivized longer adventuring days.
Just another case of good design dovetailing mechanical necessities with genre tropes.

I know why they did it and I support the reasoning, but as I said, it was done in a crassly game mechanical way that really throws me out of the secondary reality of the game world. It had a goal of reinforcing something but didn't do it in a way that was inherent to the character in the world. So for me, it's not good design. I totally get the fact that things like spell slots and the general action economy fall into that territory too, but for some reason those don't bug me nearly as much as "oh well, the universe just says you can only attune three items and that's it."

I really don't like my face rubbed in game mechanics regardless of whether they have a good effect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tony Vargas

Legend
"Action-genre RPG" is what I think I felt when I've said "minis game" in the past. The encounters as written generally seemed to be set-piece scenarios. A lot of this is driven by the impetus of having a board but many of the early modules really felt very much like "here's my cool setup" regardless of how illogical it was.
I can see that. ;) Though, 'regardless of how illogical it was' is, I think, one way in which 4e was evocative of the classic game, since old-school dungeons were notorious for quite crazy layouts and bizarro mixes of monsters & the like.

I thought it was in the Dark Sun book, which was a few years on, but I'm not sure.
I thought it was PH2.... (which was 8 months in, not 9, my mistake)... looks like it may have been DMG2, so 2009, better'n a year, but I seem to remember using the idea in 3.5... I just can't find where it was introduced into 3.5, since 'Inherent bonus" was just one of the 18 or so named bonuses in that edition, and included the stat bonuses from manuals & the like, as well as, I'm sure, being used for magic-item-less games to fill in the lack of expected enhancement bonuses.

I liked Inherent Bonuses quite a bit, actually.
Don't misunderstand me: I don't mind the idea of either. What I dislike is the implementation. 4E's implementation of concentration was IMO much better than 5E's. Some spells cost you your minor action. Others cost you your action. If you had two things that worked on minor actions, well, goodbye to your action. It depended on what you were doing and wasn't just some kind of hard "because I said so!" limit.
Yes, I agree, and the fact that rarity was next to illogical with little rhyme or reason didn't help.
See for me I'd have accomplished it in a way that reinforced themes via imposing a cost rather than by a hard game mechanical limit. For instance, if you want to attune, have it start costing you healing surges or hit dice (or something). That keeps it inside the world. [/quote] Ooh, I like that. You attune an item, and part of your 'life force' is merged with it, no longer available for healing or other uses. Creates a strong sense of attunement really being this potent metaphysical link, and is a very real mechanical price.

Milestone was just... weird. It's much the same reason I don't like the "escalation die" from 13A, even though I totally get the genre effect it simulates. It does it in a fashion that feels like it breaks the fourth wall to me.
The fourth wall has it comin', IMHO. ;) Seriously, RPGs are something of a 4th-wall breaking hobby, to begin with, since players fill the roles of both the characters in a story interacting with the three walls, /and/ of the audience watching from behind the 4th wall.
And, yeah, I liked milestones & like the escalation die (and icon relationships). They all help capturing the flow of stories in genre, vs the more pragmatic way games will tend flow if you leave them with only simulation-style rules (modeling setting, being de-facto laws of physics) rather than also having narrative-enabling rules (modeling genre conventions and storytelling) and keeping all of those functional as rules, of a game, meant to actually be played by the rules, for fun ('gamist').

for some reason those don't bug me nearly as much as "oh well, the universe just says you can only attune three items and that's it."
But, three is a mystically significant number!
 

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
I can see that. ;) Though, 'regardless of how illogical it was' is, I think, one way in which 4e was evocative of the classic game, since old-school dungeons were notorious for quite crazy layouts and bizarro mixes of monsters & the like.

Yeah they were definitely that way. Interestingly enough, the classic of bizarro world dungeons, White Plume Mountain, was originally written as a joke. Evidently Lawrence Schick never thought it would be published as-is!


Ooh, I like that. You attune an item, and part of your 'life force' is merged with it, no longer available for healing or other uses. Creates a strong sense of attunement really being this potent metaphysical link, and is a very real mechanical price.

Right, and that's why I really like 4E's approach to concentration better than 5E's. It has a cost built into the system. 5E does, too, but it's essentially an off or on cost, not one that seems like it obeys effects being proportional to cause.

Having attunement cost life is similar to how item attunement works in Exalted, although there it works on your essence (aka mana points). The more items you have and want to control the more of your own personal mojo you have to lock up to do that.


The fourth wall has it comin', IMHO. ;) Seriously, RPGs are something of a 4th-wall breaking hobby, to begin with, since players fill the roles of both the characters in a story interacting with the three walls, /and/ of the audience watching from behind the 4th wall.
And, yeah, I liked milestones & like the escalation die (and icon relationships).

IMO the 13A icons are great. They have a game mechanical consequence that's also part of the game world and reinforces the flavor of the world. It's even possible you'll become an Icon at the end of your adventuring days! That's cool.

The escalation die could be a fantastic way to manifest the dynamics of genre combat without having it just "be there". I'll have to check 13A to see if there is a rationale---it may have one. I'm not sure what that rationale would be exactly, but making it a part of the world helps get the game mechanical effects as well as reinforcing the theme.


They all help capturing the flow of stories in genre, vs the more pragmatic way games will tend flow if you leave them with only simulation-style rules (modeling setting, being de-facto laws of physics) rather than also having narrative-enabling rules (modeling genre conventions and storytelling) and keeping all of those functional as rules, of a game, meant to actually be played by the rules, for fun ('gamist').

Like my point of attune at a cost of life, these don't have to be in conflict but WotC seems to miss opportunities to use rules that work game mechanically to reinforce themes.

For example, in Pillars of Eternity (aka "what 4E would be if it had a computer managing all the bookkeeping") there are some classes who have a core mechanic that builds in a delay. Three examples are the chanter, cipher, and monk. The chanter is the Pillars bard. They chant to buff the party while fighting. After chanting enough, they can cast spells. The more chanting they do, the more powerful the spells they can cast. This reinforces the fact that their spells take some time to build up. The cipher works similarly but they need to inflict damage before casting spells---their mana pool is filled up by the damage they deal to enemies. Monks have their abilities fueled by the damage they take. In this case the game mechanics are clever but they work harmoniously to reinforce the themes of the characters in question. All three get nastier over time and thus can't just nova right at the start. In other cases Pillars fails on making the game rules align with the world itself, such as hard disallowing summons outside of combat.


But, three is a mystically significant number!

Yeah that was Jeremy Crawford's "explanation" for it. Bah. What a lazy rationalization. He annoys me so much that if I see a video of him I know not to watch it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tony Vargas

Legend
Like my point of attune at a cost of life, these don't have to be in conflict but WotC seems to miss opportunities to use rules that work game mechanically to reinforce themes.
It's like any signal, encoding and decoding both matter. Game designers should try to model the genre & the setting & make a good, functional game all three. We should cut them some slack, and make the effort of imagination to accommodate near (or not so near) misses - the community has not been too consistent with that.

Yeah that was Jeremy Crawford's "explanation" for it. Bah. What a lazy rationalization. He annoys me so much that if I see a video of him I know not to watch it.
But it's maaaaagic! ;)

...what? nobody remembers Doug Henning?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] - [MENTION=6873517]Jay Verkuilen[/MENTION] - first off, xp to both of you for a really interesting and civil discussion this last 20 posts or so.

And then, a question: am I reading both of you correctly, when you're talking about how easy/hard it is/was to change or kitbash 4e, that it's relatively easy to drop things out you don't like but much harder to add things in you do like?

For example, hit points and effects - if I'm reading you right you'll both say it would be way easier to drop or ignore the 'bloodied' mechanic than it would be to introduce a wound-vitality or body-fatigue system.

Just curious...

Lanefan
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
And then, a question: am I reading both of you correctly, when you're talking about how easy/hard it is/was to change or kitbash 4e, that it's relatively easy to drop things out you don't like but much harder to add things in you do like?
Yes. It's easier to drop elements - ban a class or source or race or not use magic items - than to add them (though monsters were particularly easy to re-skin or create), but that's really broadly true, it's always easier to pick what you want than to create it from scratch! Since most options in 4e were reasonably balanced, dropping or re-skinning some for flavor/theme/whatever was relatively painless, while creating a new one, you'd feel obliged to make it as balanced as the existing options, which was a fairly high bar by D&D standards. Creating a full class, with the attendant Paths, features, and most of all, scores of powers, for instance, was a daunting undertaking - one, in fact that MM never undertook from Essentials on.

My personal reaction was, well - kitbashing a balanced system is like trying to keep your jenga tower from falling, while kitbashing an already-broken one is, well, everything's already fallen over, stack it up however you like. When you might be tempted (oh, I'm going to run steampunk, let's see if I can kit-bash something from 4e...) I often found that re-skinning, alone, covered it. Because all those little italic text blocks on every power (and thus every spell, item, etc) could just be changed willy-nilly without impacting mechanics, re-skinning was just very easy compared to re-designing rules.

For example, hit points and effects - if I'm reading you right you'll both say it would be way easier to drop or ignore the 'bloodied' mechanic than it would be to introduce a wound-vitality or body-fatigue system.
Oddly, it'd've been pretty easy to re-skin the disease track to add lasting wounds & complications to the game. I'm not sure what would be accomplished by dropping 'bloodied' - it's just a keyword that means "1/2 hps," in essence, if you dropped it, anything that keyed off bloodied would just say "... reduced to half it's maximum hps..." instead of "...bloodied..."
(...just like 5e, actually)

There were very few commonly-used, or even commonly-discussed-hypothetical variants for 4e, but one I recall was to increase the time it took to recover surges (like 1 surge/long rest, say), and remove overnight healing, so you always used surges to heal, and could run out of surges over a longer time frame than the usual day. I suppose that's adding (tweaking, really), something a bit like wounds-vitality, and it was pretty straightforward to do, and would only have impacted pacing, something 4e was fairly robust to, anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
It's like any signal, encoding and decoding both matter. Game designers should try to model the genre & the setting & make a good, functional game all three. We should cut them some slack, and make the effort of imagination to accommodate near (or not so near) misses - the community has not been too consistent with that.

I'm willing to cut slack of course, but IMO these are pretty core mechanics to the game and were reasonably big misses. As I said, if one is going down the modern game route, I dislike mechanics that don't reinforce a character's theme and also dislike hard limits that don't feel like they grow with the caracter. The fact that they didn't put in any alternatives in the DMG to these two rules means to me they didn't think too much about them.

All that said, number issues (e.g., the messed up math in saves) bug me more.


But it's maaaaagic! ;)

...what? nobody remembers Doug Henning?

I remember Doug Henning but obviously didn't recall it was one of his lines!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jay Verkuilen

Grand Master of Artificial Flowers
@Tony Vargas - @Jay Verkuilen - first off, xp to both of you for a really interesting and civil discussion this last 20 posts or so.

Thanks.

And then, a question: am I reading both of you correctly, when you're talking about how easy/hard it is/was to change or kitbash 4e, that it's relatively easy to drop things out you don't like but much harder to add things in you do like?

Yes, I think that's basically correct. If you want to rule out particular classes or power sources, for instance, that's not super difficult.

For example, hit points and effects - if I'm reading you right you'll both say it would be way easier to drop or ignore the 'bloodied' mechanic than it would be to introduce a wound-vitality or body-fatigue system.

Bloodied isn't really a big deal in general, though there were some monsters that had things that triggered and there were a few powers that got worse at bloodied.

A wounds-vitality system would be more challenging but the general idea is that in that circumstance you can't come back really easily. I think the way to do that would be to have no mundane healing overnight and require the use of surges to heal. If you want a 5E version of that sort of thing, look at Cubicle 7's Adventures in Middle Earth, where during the course of the standard adventure you can only take Short Rests, not Long.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top