Dragon #309

[LGodamus]

I like the incursion thingie, and I still think Dragon is a great mag, and usefull to boot ...just my double coppers

 

[GamerMan12]

Re: Re: Dragon #309

I mentioned something about the limited usefulness of battle spells, monsters and tactics in D&D, then

In your specific campaign, maybe, but not in those of others. I've been involved in many campaigns over the years that would've used them all the time.

War was almost always going on the real medieval world, so it would make sense for it to be frequently occurring in a fantasy medieval world. However to have players in command of armies and fighting battles in a D&D campaign has been a rare in my experience.

When it has occurred we have used game rules that are focused on the battlefield, such as Warhammer Fantasy Battle or the fantasy version of DBM, so effectively we weren't playing D&D, although we were resolving an issue in the D&D campaign.

Commanding armies and fighting battlefield wars, just doesn't seem the best use of scarce D&D gaming time. The individual party going up against the forces of darkness, sentient being vs sentient being would seem more desireable.

GamerMan12

 

[GamerMan12]

This troll's fu is weak.

When you say you don't like something without giving reasons that is weak fu, but when you, as I did give reasons, say what the good points are, then that is not weak fu.

GamerMan12

 

[Iron_Chef]

When you say you don't like something without giving reasons that is weak fu, but when you, as I did give reasons, say what the good points are, then that is not weak fu.

GamerMan12

I'll wager the people who say your "fu" is weak will cheer anything on, no matter how horrible.

 

[EricNoah]

Guys, enough with the "you're a troll" business.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Re: Re: Re: Dragon #309

I mentioned something about the limited usefulness of battle spells, monsters and tactics in D&D, then

Yes, I felt it was necessary to mention that I disagreed with your assertion that the usefulness of such material in a D&D game was "slight." Again, in your campaign this may be true. In many others, it may not. One thing I've found over the years I've been on the internet is that the way D&D is played around the world is, in many cases, very much like how I've played over almost 25 years. In many other cases, it was played massively differently. Dragon tries to appeal more than just one person's view of how the game is supposed to be played.

War was almost always going on the real medieval world, so it would make sense for it to be frequently occurring in a fantasy medieval world. However to have players in command of armies and fighting battles in a D&D campaign has been a rare in my experience.

When it has occurred we have used game rules that are focused on the battlefield, such as Warhammer Fantasy Battle or the fantasy version of DBM, so effectively we weren't playing D&D, although we were resolving an issue in the D&D campaign.

Commanding armies and fighting battlefield wars, just doesn't seem the best use of scarce D&D gaming time. The individual party going up against the forces of darkness, sentient being vs sentient being would seem more desireable.

GamerMan12

Maybe not the best use of your playing time. Again, many find it an enjoyable way to game. I've found that many people rankle at blanket assertions of how others should or shouldn't play the game. You specifically may not game that way; that doesn't mean it's a waste of time for others.

 

[El_Gringo]

I thought 309 was mediocre. Not really bad, but nothing outstanding either. I was disappointed with the Art of War article. A lot of examples given had nothing to do with what the Sun Tzu was talking about. Definitely felt a bit empty without Nodwick. I haven't been too excited with Phil and Dixie ever since the whole evil/good alignment thing. I think I enjoyed the Scourge of Worlds dvd more than anything else.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Re: Re: Re: Dragon #309

War was almost always going on the real medieval world, so it would make sense for it to be frequently occurring in a fantasy medieval world. However to have players in command of armies and fighting battles in a D&D campaign has been a rare in my experience.

When it has occurred we have used game rules that are focused on the battlefield, such as Warhammer Fantasy Battle or the fantasy version of DBM, so effectively we weren't playing D&D, although we were resolving an issue in the D&D campaign.

Commanding armies and fighting battlefield wars, just doesn't seem the best use of scarce D&D gaming time. The individual party going up against the forces of darkness, sentient being vs sentient being would seem more desireable.

GamerMan12

I haven't gotten to my FLGS yet to pick up this issue but it seems to me that Dragon has been trying to give some different approaches to D&D over the last few issues. Large battles with the characters commanding armies certainly falls into this. You can, of course, state that 'everyone you know' doesn't use/need/want battlefield tactics in their D&D game but since 'everyone you know' is probably about 20 people that is hardly a significant sample.

ALso not everyone would be willing or able to have WFB available to resolve large scale battles (and conversion would be a nightmare). Having some guidelines to go by in resolving these types of scenarios, for those who liek them, is a good choice for an article. As to the actual implentation of the article I will have to wait until I get the issue before I can comment on that.

 

[GamerMan12]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Dragon #309

Yes, I felt it was necessary to mention that I disagreed with your assertion that the usefulness of such material in a D&D game was "slight." Again, in your campaign this may be true. In many others, it may not.

I can see that D&D battle information could be well used in a campaign, I just don't see it being used very frequently, and I do understand that other people's mileage may vary.

One thing I've found over the years I've been on the internet is that the way D&D is played around the world is, in many cases, very much like how I've played over almost 25 years. In many other cases, it was played massively differently.

I can understand that there are D&D campaigns where players run armies on a regular basis, that is just not my idea of a D&D campaign. A game where clashing armies are part of what is happening, yes that can make for a lot of good adventures.

In my 20 years of D&D gaming, and in the many campaigns I have played in and run in that time, my experience has been of 1 or 2 battlefield situations that required tactical and strategic action on the part of characters. Now I admit, my experience maybe skewed, because I have also played a lot of battlefield games using table top miniatures, and I didn't need that in D&D, so it maybe that I opted for what I think D&D is best at, and wanted and that is character based play.

Dragon tries to appeal more than just one person's view of how the game is supposed to be played.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Dragon, is mostly a very good magazine, I have an airmail subscription to the UK. It was just that I felt this issue was the least useful and had some of the lowest quality of articles since 3rd edition started. I still can't get over that Art of War article.

Maybe not the best use of your playing time. Again, many find it an enjoyable way to game. I've found that many people rankle at blanket assertions of how others should or shouldn't play the game. You specifically may not game that way; that doesn't mean it's a waste of time for others.

I do not think that I made any blanket assertions, nor did I mean to imply that it was a waste of time if people played it differently, and I certainly don't think that.

However, my preference for a battlefield game would be for a ruleset specifically designed for that type of game. If a D&D campaign did require a battlefield command by players, I would suggest adapting such a ruleset to the situation.

GamerMan12

 

[Pielorinho]

Just chiming in to say that I was pretty disappointed in the Sun Tzu article. I thought it was a great idea for an article, and sat down to read it eagerly -- only to find that the ideas in it ranged from the obvious to the absurd.

I'd love to see Shark or Old One or somebody rewrite this article with real live insights instead of flip comments.

Daniel