Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 7747889" data-attributes="member: 6667921">There is no denying that 5e is hugely successful, and it is one of the best iterations of the game system since it's original inception almost half a century ago. And while one could argue that less emphasis, or reliance, on costly, and often time-consuming supplemental components could attribute to that overall success, I daresay it is not. With the exception of 4e, which I'll get into in a minute, no other edition has ever really embraced the idea that miniatures and grids were required to play. This article even says as much. So if that is the case, why weren't those other editions reaching these epic proportions of wealth and prosperity as this edition?Obviously, there are other factors involved. Coming off the heels of a less popular edition and a splintered community, 5e is the "classic Coke" to 4e's "new Coke". Old fans who may have lapsed during the short tenure of the new product returned in droves to see the old formula reinstated and better than ever. Coupled with the advantage of technology, streaming and social culture, slower product release, and a dozen other minor points, it is the "perfect storm" for the "perfect" edition. The point is, however, that minis are as irrelevant (or relevant) as they ever were. They are not a feature of the game, but an indulgence for collectors, enthusiasts, and many who crave that visual stimulus and instant gratification. Let's face it, some of us don't have the luxury or talent to dream everything we say. Blockbuster special effects movies will always draw more audiences than less visually stimulating films, or the books they're based on. That said, was the opposite true for 4e? Did the reliance of minis cause it to fail? Again, there are always more factors involved. But let me direct your attention somewhere that seems to be completely ignored in this discussin: Paizo, Pathfinder, and Pawns.Many consider Paizo to be the underdog, but Pathfinder is as relevant to any discussion of D&D as D&D itself. Based on 3/3.5e rules, which began leaning towards a bigger push for miniature usage later in it's run, Paizo eventually came up with an affordable solution with heavy cardboard stock punch out "minis", Pawns. Visually less appealing than fully painted 3D models of every monster, the cardboard solution gave players a practical solution for acquiring all the various figures needed for a typical encounter without having to spend hundreds of dollars attempting to acquire the precise figures found in randomized sets. And what better way to support their own line of products, like their popular Adventure Paths, than with a full set of figures available in one purchase? And then there's the Battlemaps... you can see where this going.In this case, I don't see removing miniatures as the saving grace for this edition. Miniatures and grids are as relevant and irrelevant at the table as they always were. 4e appealed mostly to those who enjoyed a more tactical style of game, and Pathfinder 2e appears to be heading in that direction. But PF2 may succeed where 4e failed because of how they market their miniature/grid-based accessories--a lower cost point for a quality product, and access to the components you need for an entire product rather than a randomized model to force consumers to spend constantly on acquisition instead of enjoyment.</blockquote>

Verification