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

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, the meaning of 1" varied depending upon whether you were indoors or outdoors, and therefore had a different meaning than just saying X feet.

Right, but that variable meaning is irrelevant to the point. In either case, its giving you a scale to translate RW ranges into tabletop ranges.

This is an artifact of designing from a wargame basis, just as some modern designs unintentionally keep baggage (including spelling errors, etc.) from the 3e SRD.

It is an artifact of wargaming- one that implies that you're measuring distances between tiny physical objects that represent structures and beings.

So, if you're not using minis (or other physical placeholders on a grid) (or even if you are), that 1" is referring to a base number that must be translated to tens of feet or tens of yards, depending upon the situation.

Again, the differing scales between 1' = 10" indoors or 10 yards outdoors is irrelevant for the underlying point- in either case, they're giving you a scale to approximate RW distances for the minis on your tabletop.

 

[Cadfan]

Wow.

RC, I know that the inch was a unit of measurement that varied in what it represented based on indoor or outdoor contexts. But do you honestly believe that it wasn't chosen on the assumption that you'd be able to actually measure things (tabletops, miniatures, the relationships of the former to the latter) in inches and then apply the game's rules to the measurement?

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is an artifact of wargaming- one that implies that you're measuring distances between tiny physical objects that represent structures and beings.

But do you honestly believe that it wasn't chosen on the assumption that you'd be able to actually measure things (tabletops, miniatures, the relationships of the former to the latter) in inches and then apply the game's rules to the measurement?

I honestly believe that it was chosen on the assumption that you would be familiar with the concept of measuring on a tabletop, as in Chainmail, and that this transfer of knowledge on the part of the players would help them understand action occurring in an imaginary space.

This is no different, say, that borrowing an understood term from theology to discuss understanding game design goals, without intending to make a theological claim about gaming. Some folks will think that the use of the term implies theology, whereas the intent is only to convey information without having to invent a new lexicon to do so.

Gary et al were describing things to people used to thinking in a particular way. Nothing more, nothing less.

If one examines the DMing advice in, say, Keep on the Borderlands, it becomes difficult to imagine an assumption of the use of minis and a tabletop map with the admonition to the DM not to draw a map for the players (for instance).


RC

 

[thecasualoblivion]

OD&D was an evolution of a tabletop minis wargame. I'm not familiar with the system, but every review of it makes quite clear that books assume the reader is familiar with tabletop wargaming and defines the game in those terms. Saying that the original game was designed to be played without minis is a reach.

In 1E AD&D, distance was defined by the game system in inches. If the game was not intended to be played on some sort of table with pieces representing objects in the game world, defining game world distance in inches on the table is ludicrous to the point of insanity.

I do not deny that old school D&D is easily played without minis, and I do not deny that many people did just that. I also don't deny that TSR embraced playing without minis, though at the same time as they embraced playing with them.

As I said before, I believe playing D&D without minis was a part of the game that emerged from the rules, and was not designed into them. I would speculate that when the designers found that people were playing the game both with and without minis just as well, they embraced this flexibility and encouraged both.

I think you are looking at things through rose colored glasses if you believe that D&D originally was specifically designed to be played without minis.

 

[Obryn]

I'm going to guess that a lot of times when you see this discussion prop up, there are some fairly complex realities.

(1) AD&D, as-written, implied use of miniatures regularly in the rules, regardless of how Gary Gygax did or did not play.
(2) A great many players used minis for AD&D.
(3) Not everyone did.
(4) They weren't as integral to gameplay as they became in 3e, and particularly 3.5 and 4e.
(5) Likely, the preponderance of people still playing AD&D today don't want to play with minis. If they resisted 3e/4e, or played 3e/4e and returned to AD&D, reliance on miniatures may be one of the reasons for their dissatisfaction with the WotC editions.
(6) Possibly - but not as definitely - people playing 1e or 2e who used minis for their games may have found the transition to 3.0 easier and more welcome. So, the population of "holdouts" (so to speak) might be stacked with the non-minis crowd.

My guess is that people who play AD&D now might see minis usage as being something they're avoiding in their own games, so the implication they're necessary flies in the face of their personal experience. I think it's pretty undeniable that it's easier to ignore 1e's miniatures rules than it is 3e's, 3.5e's, or 4e's. I don't use minis in my 1e game, though at times I wish I did and think they'd be helpful. (Darkness spells, hallways, formation fighting.... yeah.)

As a side note, I think discussions of how Gary did or didn't play is a smokescreen. He wrote the rules, but millions played the game, and while his gameplay experiences are fascinating, he's still just one player. I also don't know how it matters whether or not people used minis in the 70's and 80's - clearly, they were an available game aid and a revenue stream of some sort for TSR. And clearly, some tables used them, and some didn't.

-O

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I honestly believe that it was chosen on the assumption that you would be familiar with the concept of measuring on a tabletop, as in Chainmail, and that this transfer of knowledge on the part of the players would help them understand action occurring in an imaginary space.

This is no different, say, that borrowing an understood term from theology to discuss understanding game design goals, without intending to make a theological claim about gaming. Some folks will think that the use of the term implies theology, whereas the intent is only to convey information without having to invent a new lexicon to do so.

Gary et al were describing things to people used to thinking in a particular way. Nothing more, nothing less.

If one examines the DMing advice in, say, Keep on the Borderlands, it becomes difficult to imagine an assumption of the use of minis and a tabletop map with the admonition to the DM not to draw a map for the players (for instance).


RC

This sounds really far-fetched to me. It makes more sense to say that they defined things this way because they assumed people would be playing on a table with some sort of pieces representing things.

 

[Scribble]

Gary et al were describing things to people used to thinking in a particular way. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think you might be stretching this one a bit Raven... It seems like they designed it to work like chainmail and other wargames- IE with minis. That you could also do so without relatively easy, seems like it was a positive unexpected outcome.

If one examines the DMing advice in, say, Keep on the Borderlands, it becomes difficult to imagine an assumption of the use of minis and a tabletop map with the admonition to the DM not to draw a map for the players (for instance).


RC

Where? All I can find is the part where it says not to become the default mapper basically. Let the players keep track of the map, and if they mess up, it's their fault.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

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?)

I remember Player's Option: Combat & Tactics having a lot of those. Not sure about earlier 2E books though.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I honestly believe that it was chosen on the assumption that you would be familiar with the concept of measuring on a tabletop, as in Chainmail, and that this transfer of knowledge on the part of the players would help them understand action occurring in an imaginary space.

You don't see people looking at sports stats, reading about a 50yard TD pass or 400' home run and wondering what that would be in inches to help them understand it. They can easily imagine the dimensions of a gridiron or diamond and visualize that action.

People are familiar with feet & yards (or their metric equivalents) in the RW, so wouldn't need a scale in inches to help visualize the action except in relation to actual miniatures of some kind.

 

[LostSoul]

I started using minis in AD&D only after Pool of Radiance came out. Before that we just took note of marching order.