D&D 4E 4e, minis... and some of my thoughts

[WhatGravitas]

It certainly is possible to play without miniatures. But the full range of combat rules and combat-centric feats can only be properly used with miniatures. (Shrug) Don't get mad at me; I didn't design D&D. Just tellin' it like it is.

Sure, without minis, you definitely lose some tactics and/or have to rely more on DM fiat or ruling (like: "Can I Cleave?" DM: "Sure!" or "Not really!").

Point is: Can you do the reverse? Make it non-mini-centric, and them try to use the full range of tactics, that minis offer?

As is, you can play without minis with minor annoyance. If it's designed without minis in mind, can you play it with minis without having to rely on houseruling that much, that the "playing with more tactics" becomes absurd, due to the needed amount of handwaving?

Cheers, LT.

 

[teitan]

Battles with numerous opponents as opposed to singular or small groups...How much harder will it be to keep track of the position, cover, concealment, etc. of 20 goblins plus five PC's. The new game makes this the norm as opposed to the exceptional battle.

Have you seen the encounter numbers in 1e or 2e? 30-300 Goblins per encounter I believe according to the MM.

 

[Agamon]

I play roughly a dozen different RPGs in a year. D&D is the only one that we play using minis.

Perhaps by coincidence, D&D is the only one that grinds to a screeching halt every time a fight happens.

(I know I know. We're doing it wrong.)

This is key. D&D is has tactical combat. A lot of other games do not. Whining that D&D has a tactical combat aspect to it isn't going to change anything. I know that won't stop people though, this is the interweb, after all.

 

[Zamkaizer]

Mount Sinai? Nope, just the Player's Handbook.

Strict adherence to the rules isn't a particularily defensible position. Portraying combat verbally has been a valid and common method since roleplaying games' inception.

To Simia, I don't believe Shortman's references to idiot-savants is particularily offensive or inappropriate. For many people, mentally keeping track of a dozen combatants would be a herculean task akin to counting straws before they hit the ground or calculating pi to however many digits. I also wonder if your not using minis leads to a conservative style of combat, where there are fewer opponents and movement is scarce. And you're sure you've never slipped up at least once?

Personally, I don't bother with a battle grid in small combat versus one or two opponents, but for epic battles against multiple opponents, my tiles come out. I use tokens in both cases, to represent who's fighting and their estimated position in the former, and for full-on miniature warfare in the latter.

 

[megamania]

Battles with numerous opponents as opposed to singular or small groups...How much harder will it be to keep track of the position, cover, concealment, etc. of 20 goblins plus five PC's. The new game makes this the norm as opposed to the exceptional battle.

More to come...but what are others thoughts on this matter?

When I'm using a true army I have printed out on heavy stock paper 1x1 colored pieces of paper. In the four corners are numbers. DDM and many other figures use round disks/bases so these small numbers remain exposed. I track damage and spells according to these numbers. Easy fix.

Its a bummer that they are "forcing" the use of certain figures. Reaper will can more of a foothold with their new figures this way I suspect.

 

[Imaro]

This is key. D&D is has tactical combat. A lot of other games do not. Whining that D&D has a tactical combat aspect to it isn't going to change anything. I know that won't stop people though, this is the interweb, after all.

Hey, how about not characterizing any comment that doesn't go with the status quo as whinning. It's usually statements like these that deginerate a thread into flames. I think there's a fair view of "for minis" and "against minis" in this thread so far...why don't we try to keep it that way (you know an actual discussion) rather than toss out comments that don't contribute anything.

 

[Wormwood]

I doubt you're doing it wrong. In fact, I think most people who use the full combat rules would agree that the game slows down considerably once combat begins, even if only due to the time needed to set up the grid, place miniatures, trace distance and location, etc.

Whether that is a bad thing or not is another question.

And that really is the point.

I'm in two D&D games a week where minis are used, and I really do enjoy using them. So minis aren't 'wrong' AFAIAC.

But I've found that I'm enjoying my Modvay Basic D&D game more than my 3.5 game. We use minis in both, but in Basic the minis are more of a general 'marching order' and 'where are you in the room' kinda thing.

The 3.5 emphasis on a grid seems to be my main point of contention, not miniatures in general.

 

[BryonD]

This is key. D&D is has tactical combat. A lot of other games do not. Whining that D&D has a tactical combat aspect to it isn't going to change anything. I know that won't stop people though, this is the interweb, after all.

Ya know, Basketball would be so much better if they got rid of the dribbling and the hoops.

 

[Wormwood]

Whining that D&D has a tactical combat aspect to it isn't going to change anything. I know that won't stop people though, this is the interweb, after all.

Sadly, you're probably right. I guess theres something about the interweb that encourages passive-aggressive behavior.

Odd, that.

 

[Imaro]

...
The 3.5 emphasis on a grid seems to be my main point of contention, not miniatures in general.

This is a good point and a fine distinction between actual usage of minis and actual usage of a grid. I'll definitely be thinking about the distinction some more.

On another note, what worries me about D&D 4e (as far as this discussion is concerned) is that WotC has certainly seen great profit in both their Mini sales and Dungeon Tiles sales...I would even argue these are probably more of a money maker than the actual splat books. I just don't want to see the roleplaying game become a device to promote these sales as opposed to the actual game. This was actually how I felt about the two 3.5 basic sets. They were, IMHO, more about getting people hooked on minis and tiles than actually giving them a good play experience.

The things like rare ogres and trolls in the new set reinforce this concern in my mind. And yes, I know you don't have to buy actual minis, but that's not something I see a new player...without actual advice in the book (which was woefully lacking in the Star Wars saga book.) just figuring out from his/her first read through. I'm just a little wary about how far WotC is willing to go (either subtly or blatantly) to promote their minis and tiles through the medium of the D&D rpg.