(3.5E) Aw, crap...

[kingpaul]

From my personal standpoint, I give this revision a big thumbs down.

And how can you do that without even seeing the revision in its entirety?

 

[jdavis]

We use miniatures in our games regularly. In fact, so does everyone I’ve ever played with in the last 20 years. Though some DMs might disagree, I think they add to the depth of combat. You also never have the problem of a player arguing that he wasn’t close enough to be in the radius of an area of effect attack. With miniatures it is all laid out for you.


Now, I’m not saying that you couldn’t adjudicate while not using minis.. but to me it makes things a lot easier. There are no questions about who is where.

Playing with miniatures doesn’t really affect role-play or the speed of combat resolution. In my game at least...

Ren

I think where the difference comes in is that some people view adding depth as adding complication. You are adding a extra level to combat that not everybody needs to enjoy the game. I could get a good enough discription of what was going on in the combat you described without needing the mini's. THe only real difference is that you are looking at a map with mini's on it and we are just relying on the DM's judgement, if you have a problem with players questioning the DM's judgement constantly then I can see where the mini's are a positive but If you have a person who constantly questions the DM's judgement then you have a problem whether you have mini's or not. I think a lot of it is what you are used too, I can't see how the mini's would help as I have never even seen them used, and by the discriptions given I see no difference at all between how mini combat works vs how non mini combat works except for the fact that you are not counting the squares you are just saying I move over here. We never have worried about wheter the orc was 6 feet away or 8 feet away, whether he had 1/3 cover or if you moved two squares over to the side if he had no cover. We just wing it and rely on the fact that we all know what we are doing and let the DM make the judgement calls on wheter something was possible or not. We never have a problem with things like area of attack spells or who is where, we trust our DM.

 

[Monte At Home]

Do you think it's possible for them to do such a thing without defeating the purpose of making them collectible in the first place (i.e. driving sales using the MTG rarity model)? I can't think of how they can manage that.

I have no idea. I suspect we don't have all the facts.

By the way, I just realized that I was planning on putting a column about, ironically, "how to run 3E well without miniatures" on my site in the next week or two.

Oh well. I still will.

 

[Renshai]

Its not really a matter of trust nor does it really have anything to do with the skill of a Dungeon Master (in a story telling perspective, not a rules oriented scenario). Its a matter of knowing where things are and how this affects the outcome of certain actions in the game. Some DMs prefer to makes these judgements for themselves, some prefer to show the players exactly where things stand by using minatures. I don't really think trust comes into play here.

As far as counting squares go... it really doesn't take any thought or add an extra step of complication. When you have played with minatures for as long as we have it is second nature. It also helps when the entire gaming group is very familiar with the rules and can make judgements on their own. However, I can see where miniature gaming could slow down a new group that is not familiar with the rules as they pertain to miniatures.

In the end, its a matter of taste really, not one of complication or an effect on role-play. IMO, of course.

I *just* read the part about the mini packs being random and I must say that I am VERY against that. If it is released in that form expect me to stick with my metal minatures. I might not have time to paint them, but at least I can buy what I need when I need it.

Ren

 

[kenjib]

I have no idea. I suspect we don't have all the facts.

By the way, I just realized that I was planning on putting a column about, ironically, "how to run 3E well without miniatures" on my site in the next week or two.

Oh well. I still will.

Cool. I really look forward to that.

 

[JeffB]

By the way, I just realized that I was planning on putting a column about, ironically, "how to run 3E well without miniatures" on my site in the next week or two.

Oh well. I still will.

Monte,

Please, please do!

 

[Dark Psion]

Re: HEY LOOK OVER HERE!

Really, do you think WotC is so dumb as to alienate everyone that buys their products?

Aaron.

Do you really want me to answer that question??

 

[Paradoxish]

In the end, its a matter of taste really, not one of complication or an effect on role-play. IMO, of course.

I agree. I really wish people would stop justifying their choice by claiming it adds or takes away from the roleplaying aspect of the game. If you find that you enjoy the game more and you're better able to come up with evocative combat descriptions when not using miniatures than so be it. On the other hand, if you think combat provides you with more possibilities and allows you to gloss over the tiny details like distances between combatants that's okay to.

Personally, I use miniatures because it allows me to focus on actions and not the minute details of combat. Players can glance at the miniatures board for answers and I can focus on making the combat exciting and interesting.

In response to the people who say using miniatures turns the game into a wargame or makes it more akin to chess, this is my only response: players who are only interested in "counting squares" and tactically planning every single move are going to do it whether you use counters or not.

 

[jdavis]

I agree. I really wish people would stop justifying their choice by claiming it adds or takes away from the roleplaying aspect of the game. If you find that you enjoy the game more and you're better able to come up with evocative combat descriptions when not using miniatures than so be it. On the other hand, if you think combat provides you with more possibilities and allows you to gloss over the tiny details like distances between combatants that's okay to.

Personally, I use miniatures because it allows me to focus on actions and not the minute details of combat. Players can glance at the miniatures board for answers and I can focus on making the combat exciting and interesting.

In response to the people who say using miniatures turns the game into a wargame or makes it more akin to chess, this is my only response: players who are only interested in "counting squares" and tactically planning every single move are going to do it whether you use counters or not.

Yes it's a 100% flavor thing. I'm sure if I had always played that way I'd be more understanding of it, that's why I have enjoyed reading this thread (talk about a eye opener, I never knew mini's were such a big deal). It's sort of funny but the arguements for and against it are exactly the same, both sides claim the way they like is easier and the other way takes to long. The issue isn't which method is better (they are both exactly the same according to which one you are used to), but the fact that it looks like the new rules books are going to be taking sides in this arguement.

 

[Snoweel]

Re: Re: Re: It's an age-old tradition

Seriously, I totally agree with you in the superiority of mathematics and the metric system; however, I make the same claim with feet and inches, that you do in metric. It's because it's what we were raised using from Grade school onward. I can eyeball pretty well to feet and inches; however, I cannot for the life of me eyeball how many meters and centimeters are in a given length.

Conversely, I can make much better measurements with a metric tape ruler than I can with an english standard one. I have an easier time figuring something to be 5.2 centimeters than I can to be 2 & 7/16 of an inch, or what have you.

It's all in what we use for the majority of our adult lives; you are more comfortable with metric because it's what you see every single day, and vice versa.

Totally.

I use the metric system with only one exception - for some reason I measure the heights of people better in feet and inches, even though I can guess nearly anybody's weight in kilograms.

I guess I'm just used to it, like you claim.