Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GamerMan12" data-source="post: 943406" data-attributes="member: 1384">Re: Re: Re: Re: Dragon #309I 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.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.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.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</blockquote>

Verification