Forked Thread: all about the minis!

My opinion is that Dungeons and Dragons is a game that was meant to be played using miniatures, but you weren't forced too.

That pretty much sums up my position.

The fact that AD&D used inches for distance and movement indicates to me that minis were at least planned for if expected. Sure, you can argue that it's roots in chainmail just carried over, but do you think it wouldn't have been a lot easier to just say 10 feet as opposed to 1 inch?

That's pretty much my position from the last thread. People already understand RW dimensions well enough to visualize feet & yards (and their metric analogs)- there's absolutely no reason for AD&D's inclusion 1" scale conversions unless they are in regards to minis on a tabletop, battlemap, or sand table of some kind.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Come on shemmie, don't be so bitter, I've already ordered your book and I'll use it with minis hehehe :P

Oh, my personal preference on the issue doesn't matter a bit for what you think works best for your own game. :)

Dude, I'm flattered regardless of you using minis with something of mine or not. Heck, I don't even much care what system you use. D&D of some flavor, GURPS, Synnibarr, whatever. Except for FATAL. That would seriously creep me out, even if it might open up the option for Rule 34 on Szuriel in a game, it'd still creep me out. ;)
 

Except for FATAL. That would seriously creep me out, even if it might open up the option for Rule 34 on Szuriel in a game, it'd still creep me out. ;)

I don't think they make minis for FATAL...though they do make things that would add to the fantasy aspect of the game.
 

Been using minis for a while and combats are more fun this side of the table.

The freedom of things in battle resides on GURPS, not D&D. GURPS allows you to do all sort of tricks. D&D is very limited, no matter what edition. You can insert some tricks but you can't pretend it's free enough that a mini would hinder the fun.

Another quote from that same essay (really, it's a valuable look at how at least one key person viewed AD&D at that timeframe, and how different it was from the philosophies that informed 3E):

[A]t its core, the AD&D game is very simple. A character has only three key attributes to worry about: class, race, and level. Most of the other characteristics are window dressing, designed to help visualize the player character and make role-playing easier. Combat is resolved with a few quick dice rolls. Magic spells are self-contained units involving no more record-keeping than a simple list. A few special abilities let characters and monsters break the rules now and then in interesting ways.
The companion to simplicity is flexibility. Because the rules (or "systems" as we often call them) are simple, they can be bent in numerous ways without breaking.
Consider, for example, a player who announces that his PC is scooping up some dirt to fling in his opponent's face, hoping to blind him. The DM has several options on how to handle this. He might rule that the attack is a called shot and impose the standard -1 initiative penalty and -4 attack penalty to the action. Or he might allow a normal attack roll but give the victim a saving throw vs. breath weapon to shut or shield his eyes before the dirt blinds him. Either approach is valid; the choice is primarily one of personal preference. And the game can easily accommodate either, or both.
These two features combine to create an outstanding atmosphere for heroic fantasy. The action is fast-paced and anything is possible--two prime qualifications for epic adventure. The characters have clearly defined roles in the struggle between good and evil.

It's a very late 2E product, but Gates of Firestorm Peak comes with several poster-sized tactical maps (like the ones in 4E adventures) and a sheet of cardboard tokens to cut apart and use.

Gates of Firestorm Peak was specifically designed to showcase the Player's Option rules, including Combat & Tactics minis-centered combat system.
 

The AD&D Dragon Mountain Box Set included maps with grids and, and I thought, cardstock monsters with plastic stands.

Here's a link to one of those maps in action -

Flickr Photo Download: A Festival of Murder! battlebaord (D&D)

Iti s a part of a village and you can see "Dragon Mountain" printed (upside down from this perspective) where the two maps meet.


Dragon Mountain is from 1993 and the Player's Option: Combat & Tactics wasn't out until 1995, IIRC.
 

Dragon Mountain is from 1993 and the Player's Option: Combat & Tactics wasn't out until 1995, IIRC.

Out of curiosity, I looked up Dragon Mountain in the 1993 catalog and found this part of the blurb:

This boxed set not only contains the features that make TSR products so popular, it offers items TSR has never done before: large, full-color maps which create an enormous playing surface for miniature figures or the included cardstock stand-ups; high-quality handouts; and two complete, challenging adventures that link into one super-campaign.
(emphasis added)

So it appears that minis-focused combat maps were a bit of a novelty, and given that they reportedly showed up in Dragon Mountain, Night Below and Gates of Firestorm Peak, they may have been thought of as 'prestige items' rather than a fundamental part of the game. Player response to them and to PO:C&T may have been positive enough to push 3E in its more minis-oriented direction.
 

Out of curiosity, I looked up Dragon Mountain in the 1993 catalog and found this part of the blurb.


Good find. Thanks.


So it appears that minis-focused combat maps were a bit of a novelty, and given that they reportedly showed up in Dragon Mountain, Night Below and Gates of Firestorm Peak, they may have been thought of as 'prestige items' rather than a fundamental part of the game. Player response to them and to PO:C&T may have been positive enough to push 3E in its more minis-oriented direction.


It does show that the maps were a new addition but also that minis were in common enough use that maps were worth adding into boxed set products.


Note some info on the Chessex site -

Mats

Battlemat™ & Megamat™ Single-Sided Mats

These mats, first made available in 1981, have become the standard for vinyl game mats.


I know gaming groups I played in even earlier than that used minis and utilized battlemats when they came on the scene.
 

Wait a second. Many designers, Arneson included, used minis (thats why I brought it up earlier RC, you noted a couple of examples and I wondered if you left him out on purpose). Minis have been used in play at GenCon for how long now? *cough* since the first one *cough*

Yes, some designers didn't use them, yes 2E was much more centered on current gaming trends of the time (ie...playing without minis), yes many many games played at home or at Cons are played without them.

But at no time, and during no edition, were mini's not produced (or crafted by player/manufacturer) for use with Dungeons and Dragons. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe all those Ral Partha minis I have are figments of my imagination. Maybe the boxes of official licensed miniatures I used for OD&D, 1E, and 2E games were really meant for some other game. So show me where it says that in the rules.

I am still waiting for the quote where Gygax says "We didn't intend for miniatures to be used, we just tossed that in just in case." Gygax was a proponent (like other designers) of the "mental visual" for lack of a better description, when playing D&D (not so much so at the start of D&D btw...the use of mini's was flat out implied if not described outright).

Just because some designers, gamers, and gaming trends shifted to a non mini attitude does not mean the game was not designed for their use. I still am waiting for the statement that says that.

4E is just much more blatant about its ties to mini's and the system is designed to specifically encourage their use. But saying that not using minis in 4E is extremely difficult is misleading at best. You can still use graph paper, and a pencil and be just as effective if not more so in certain situations.

Thats why I always get a giggle out of the "mini's are the devil!" point of view. Not that you (RC) or others here are saying that, just that this thread ties into the pre 4E hyper reaction to the whole miniature debate.

Miniatures have always been a part of D&D, rules have always existed for their use, people have been using them (as was noted earlier) in over 50% of games (probably since day one), and tactical combat on a grid has probably been used to a much greater degree.

Just think about how many games over the years have started out as conversation only, right up until some mage learned the fireball spell. Then it was graph paper, pencil (and those oh so unneeded mini's) because the DM ruled that poor JoJo the thief got fried into a greasy spot on the dungeon wall.


R.I.P. JoJo...your lockpicking will be missed!
 
Last edited:

Here, let me put it to you a different way. :)

Lets say Winter, Gygax, and a host of other designers were asked about house rules. After all the Q&A is over, and we discover that so many of them see the Dungeons and Dragons rule sets differently, and each see them as "flawed" in some fashion, do we then assume that the RAW are not meant to be used as written.

Of course not.

The RAW is written in all its flawed glory on purpose. You can use the RAW just as it is and its perfectly reasonable to say "I'm playing D&D." You can also disregard just about any single rule you want too, and still say "I'm playing D&D." It is meant to be molded and shaped by the likes and dislikes of each DM and player group. It is meant to accomodate to the broadest current base of Dungeons and Dragons players within the vision of its game designers (for whatever version, each having its unique and freshly marketable ideas).

For example, just because Gygax or Winter (lets say for examples sake) really hate grappling, does not mean that grappling isn't a part of D&D or wasn't meant to be used. Heck there are things about D&D that are implied and never even mentioned in a single rulebook.

Cheetos for example were created specifically to thwart the Dungeons and Dragons gaming community.

Mal

:lol:
 

Just because some designers, gamers, and gaming trends shifted to a non mini attitude does not mean the game was not designed for their use. I still am waiting for the statement that says that.
It exists.

One of Gygax's players is on the record as saying they didn't use miniatures, and it's explicitly written in 0E that the game does not assume the use of miniatures. Additionally, he said that the only reason the word "miniatures" is on the cover of OD&D is that the term "fantasy roleplaying game" was yet to be coined, and they didn't know what else to call it in order to differentiate it from non-hobby games.

I'm sure that that won't stop the assumptions and the wishful thinking to the contrary, though, even if in direct contradiction to the statements of someone who was there, and knew what the author intended. It's pointless discussing further, but just know that your assessment of "what seems likely" is on the record as being in error.

It seemed likely to me, too, so there's no need to defend your assumed stance to the hilt for fear of appearing a fool. As this thread proves, it's an obvious assumption to make.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top