4E, as an anti-4E guy ...

[Raven Crowking]

I'd say that TSR did assume people were using minis, simply because most people did.

WotC's market research prior to the release of 3e must have been really slipshod, then, as this is not what it showed.



RC

 

[Caliber]

To me, saying "4e forces one to use minis" is like saying "4e forces you to breathe while playing."

PS

You better believe I resent their tyrannical respiratory demands too!

Same here. Always minis, all editions. I seem to remember my 2E books having diagrams and such of minis, amid the art. Am I crazy? (Okay, probably. But did such diagrams exist?)

Edit: OT: Good post, I hope you keep enjoying your 4E sessions. I'm interested to see how your thoughts go as you keep it up. As part of a group that mostly bought into 4E from the beginning, I think my group enjoyed KotS quite a bit, although it ended up a meat grinder for us towards the end. Dunno if that is a common experience though.

 

[Cadfan]

I thought the whole "inches" thing demonstrated an assumption of miniatures use. I don't know why you'd ever write "inches" if you didn't expect that there would be something to measure the inches against, that being either a grid or a tabletop with terrain.

I never used miniatures before 4e, but... there are a lot of reasons for that, starting from "I'm cheap" and ending in an edition war.

 

[Scribble]

There are two major knocks against 4E that I carried into the game:


The lack of any injury that lasts longer than six hours.

Again, this bothered me less than I thought I would, and again, that's subject to "not thinking about it." My sense of narrative style would absolutely require me to make a house rule for this, if I were DMing (but I think doing so would be both trivial and elegant), and if the lack of it creeps up on me as I expect it will, over multiple sessions, the failure to house-rule it could be a deal-breaker for me.

I've been thinking on a house rule for this. It doesn't bother me much, but I thought a "lasting injury" idea would be fun.

I think I'm going to use the disease track, and any time someone goes into death saving throw mode, and comes out of it, they need to make an endurance check. Failure to do so gives them a "major" injury, that takes longer to heal. (Maybe various different injuries. like broken limbs and what not.) if they get to the end of the track, the injury becomes permanent- ranging from scars to missing body parts...) Maybe some that would even kill them, or lead to other effects gangrene disease track?

Most of my other dislikes of 4E are "meta-dislikes." Just for example, having separate powers for everybody, when so many of them are so similar. It would have made much more sense to have a system for building powers. (But, of course, it wouldn't sell as many books.) I call this a meta-dislike because it isn't actually the powers I dislike -- not even for martial characters -- but rather the method of presenting them, and the clear reasons for choosing that method.

I'm actually thinking the next game I run I'm going to try to eliminate the actual powers altogether and just use the structure to allow players to choose what they want to do. Ad-hoc style.

Also I have another idea as to why they went with the powers method, over a system for building powers, other then they wanted to sell books of powers...

I think a lot of it had to do with making the game easy to get into, easy to run, and not make the DM have to have loads of experience to know what he's doing is "fair and balanced."

If you just went with a syetm to build powers, it leaves it open to a lot more arguments about what you can and cannot do. So having a good DM (and a good group of players) would be paramount (more so then it already is.) Just one more added hurdle to get into D&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Found the research.

According to WotC,

When asked to describe a variety of past game experiences, the market
provided the following data:

Question: Result

Used detailed tables & charts: 76%
Included Miniatures: 56%
Used ìrules lightî system: 58%
Diceless: 33%
Combat Oriented: 86% (*)
Live Action: 49%
House Rules: 80%

(*) Looked at in reverse, this interesting answer tells us that 14% of the
gamers who play an RPG >have never played< a combat oriented RPG.​

only 56% of gamers have ever used minis. It doesn't say how many use them regularly. This is far less than would be true if everyone used them in every game. Compare, for example, with LARPing. I admit that this was a larger number than I had thought, though. Still, that 44% of gamers have never used minis is a lot more than I expected.

What WotC did learn, which was really important was

Effect of miniatures addition to RPG mix:

Few miniatures owned/used: $139 total RPG spending
Many minis owned/used: $4,413 total RPG spending​

Of course, I didn't remember this difference being quite so large, either.

If you buy minis, you spend over 30 times what you spend if you do not.

Is there really any wonder that WotC's business plan includes making the game more (rather than less) mini-centric?


http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/WotCMarketResearchSummary.html

RC

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Data, please. I almost never saw a group use minis outside of a convention. Still don't, and our group still plays AD&D.

WotC's market research prior to the release of 3e must have been really slipshod, then, as this is not what it showed.



RC

I'm not saying everybody used minis, I'm saying that the majority(might not have been a large majority) used something. Dice, pennies, monpoly pieces, candy, whatever. I played 2E for years, and it was always on a battle grid with some sort of pieces. Usually some ghetto substitute of whatever we could find(usually dice), but occasionally real minis.

What I'm really trying to say is that OD&D and AD&D were not designed to be played without minis. The ability to play without minis in older editions was an emergent feature of a game, not a design feature. I'm not going to deny that those games were easy to play without minis. They were. I'm just saying that feature was more of an accident that something intentionally designed.

One thing people miss is how good of a tactical skirmish game AD&D was. I played almost every non-D&D system during my 2E days at least once, and I was always struck by how much more fun combat always was in AD&D. Despite how simplistic and clunky AD&D could be, it still worked better. Look at the Gold Box PC games for AD&D for proof of this, as those games were a blast and are the definition of a minis skirmish game of AD&D. I'd actually say that only 4E D&D exceeds AD&D in terms of being the best tactical skirmish RPG.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Found the research.

According to WotC,

When asked to describe a variety of past game experiences, the market
provided the following data:

Question: Result

Used detailed tables & charts: 76%
Included Miniatures: 56%
Used ìrules lightî system: 58%
Diceless: 33%
Combat Oriented: 86% (*)
Live Action: 49%
House Rules: 80%

(*) Looked at in reverse, this interesting answer tells us that 14% of the
gamers who play an RPG >have never played< a combat oriented RPG.​

only 56% of gamers have ever used minis. It doesn't say how many use them regularly. This is far less than would be true if everyone used them in every game. Compare, for example, with LARPing. I admit that this was a larger number than I had thought, though. Still, that 44% of gamers have never used minis is a lot more than I expected.

What WotC did learn, which was really important was

Effect of miniatures addition to RPG mix:

Few miniatures owned/used: $139 total RPG spending
Many minis owned/used: $4,413 total RPG spending​

Of course, I didn't remember this difference being quite so large, either.

If you buy minis, you spend over 30 times what you spend if you do not.

Is there really any wonder that WotC's business plan includes making the game more (rather than less) mini-centric?


http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/WotCMarketResearchSummary.html

RC

Would these numbers mean that 56% used real miniatures? How many more people on top of that 56% used a ghetto substitute like pennies, dice or candy?

If that 56% is the number who used actual minis, than I would definitively say that most D&D players use minis when you include those who use cheap substitutes.

 

[Scribble]

For most of my basic and AD&D games we didn't use minis on a regular basis. We only used them when there were really confusing battles. Just wasn't enough rules elements that minis made easier really.

I DID like to collect/paint them though. (No time for that anymore though.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

What I'm really trying to say is that OD&D and AD&D were not designed to be played without minis. The ability to play without minis in older editions was an emergent feature of a game, not a design feature. I'm not going to deny that those games were easy to play without minis. They were. I'm just saying that feature was more of an accident that something intentionally designed.

I am assuming that it doesn't matter to you whether or not the people who actually designed both games agreed with your position or not?

Would these numbers mean that 56% used real miniatures? How many more people on top of that 56% used a ghetto substitute like pennies, dice or candy?

If that 56% is the number who used actual minis, than I would definitively say that most D&D players use minis when you include those who use cheap substitutes.

It's tough to say, based on what WotC released, but the question was not of the "Do you regularly....?" type but of the "Have you ever.....?" type. I guess, if you believe that there is a large contingent of people who regularly used lemondrops, but never used minis, you might be on to something.......but, frankly, that's a bit too big of a leap for me to accept on faith.

In the WotC poll, I would be one of those who has used minis, and I didn't use them regularly. If anything, I would suggest that the number of respondants who has ever done X is obviously greater (and probably far greater) than the number of respondants who regularly do X, almost regardless of what X is. I guess things like eating and breathing are going to be exceptions............

Frankly, if the WotC marketing research results aren't sufficient to make you examine your assumptions, I doubt what would be sufficient.


RC

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I am assuming that it doesn't matter to you whether or not the people who actually designed both games agreed with your position or not?

I've seen enough instances of "Gary did it this way" that contradict most reality that I no longer put any stock in that sort of thing. D&D was adapted from tabletop wargaming, specifically chainmail. Tabletop Wargaming uses some sort of minis. That is stronger evidence than anything people may have said after the game took on a life of its own.

It's tough to say, based on what WotC released, but the question was not of the "Do you regularly....?" type but of the "Have you ever.....?" type.

Actually, the quote makes no such distinction. It only says describe your past gaming experiences. That could be interpreted either way, as "have you ever..." or "have you regularly...". The poll also does not specifically distinguish using minis from using any sort of representation.

Essentially a non-scientific worthless sort of information for both our positions.

I guess, if you believe that there is a large contingent of people who regularly used lemondrops, but never used minis, you might be on to something.......but, frankly, that's a bit too big of a leap for me to accept on faith.

In the WotC poll, I would be one of those who has used minis, and I didn't use them regularly. If anything, I would suggest that the number of respondants who has ever done X is obviously greater (and probably far greater) than the number of respondants who regularly do X, almost regardless of what X is. I guess things like eating and breathing are going to be exceptions............

Frankly, if the WotC marketing research results aren't sufficient to make you examine your assumptions, I doubt what would be sufficient.


RC

I could say the same about your position, based on the evidence you provided. That quote had a distinct lack of specifics and is easily interpreted to support a pre-held position. I don't think your interpretation of things is self evident.