Forked Thread: all about the minis!

[Ariosto]

MadMaligor seems to be getting into all sorts of contortions here. To avoid obfuscation with straw men, let us submit that:

(A) The original D&D set was advertised as "rules for fantastic medieval wargames campaigns playable with paper and pencil and miniature figures". The expected audience was made up of people already acquainted with wargaming in miniature, map games (including those with limited information a la Kriegsspiel), Diplomacy, and "Braunstein"-type scenarios. Arneson and Gygax would hardly be dismayed to find players employing figurines, or even scale models of dungeons, villages, and so on.

and

(B) The visual appeal and potential utility of figurines were mentioned in every edition of the game.


If MadMaligor's assertion is no more than the above, then I think it is trivially true -- and nothing with which any of us who have been playing for 30+ years are likely to take issue. End of thread, I should think.

So, why all this contentiousness?

The real controversy appears to be over whether to grant that WotC's designs brought in a new emphasis on the table top.

"The game remains the same" has been a recurring theme in 4E evangelism/ validation (in my view, a recurrence of a perennial nerdy neurosis that was called One True Wayism in the days of the "internet by mimeograph" of Alarums and Excursions, et al).

 

[Raven Crowking]

If MadMaligor's assertion is no more than the above, then I think it is trivially true -- and nothing with which any of us who have been playing for 30+ years are likely to take issue. End of thread, I should think.

Agreed.

The real controversy appears to be over whether to grant that WotC's designs brought in a new emphasis on the table top.

"The game remains the same" has been a recurring theme in 4E evangelism/ validation (in my view, a recurrence of a perennial nerdy neurosis that was called One True Wayism in the days of the "internet by mimeograph" of Alarums and Excursions, et al).

I would like to note that, at the very least, Scott Rouse has already said that there is a change in emphasis on minis, which was quoted and linked to in the thread this forked from. One would imagine that he would be in a position to know.


RC

 

[Dyson Logos]

I agree that they have always been part of the game.

However, through OD&D, B/X, BECMI, AD&D1, AD&D2, 3.X and our two forays into 4e, we've never used them except on the rare occasion to see what they added to the table. And our groups basically unanimously rejected them.

 

[Lanefan]

A few things:

1. Night's Dark Terror, a Basic 1e-era module, came with a sheet of cardboard punch-outs to represent the various opponents you'd (in theory) face; there was a corollary assumption (or suggestion, I can't remember which) that you'd be using minis or markers for the PCs. It did not, however, include poster maps.

2. Minis in the game are just fine - we've used them since time immemorial - and I'd say that all in all they make the game easier and smoother to play. If there's ever a dispute as to a character's location, for example, (e.g. was I in that fireball or not) the position of the mini is a handy final arbiter. BUT, they can become a bloody pain if the whole game gets married to them; if they force the world to pixellate itself into 5' squares and - as an example - dictate that only 4 humans can fit in a 10'x10' room. (try it sometime - you can get a lot more than 4 of 'em in there!)

3. Keep in mind that the AD+D inch sometimes didn't always mean 10'. For spell ranges and effects, outdoors it meant ten yards, or 30'. That said, I'm pretty sure the inch terminology came straight from wargames and did mean the equivalent of what a tabletop inch would represent in said wargames...at least as regards movement.

4. The only time I've ever used commercially-done pre-gen poster maps was quite recently, when I ret-conned Keep on the Shadowfell to 1e and ran it. The biggest headache I found was that sometimes the map showed all kinds of things the characters wouldn't be able to see as they entered the area...and that was a serious PITA.

5. Might as well toss this out here: for some 20 years now I've been on the lookout for a set of Elfquest metal minis. They came in a box of about 6 or 8 or 10 (I forget) and are marvellous for representing smaller PCs. If anyone knows where I can get 'em at a half-rational price, let me know!

Lan-"metal minis rule"-efan

 

[darjr]

I started with the red box in 81. I used mini's. Just a couple years later I owned my very own battle mat. Most of the games I played in or ran or played around used mini's.

In fact, if I remember correctly, I telegraphed my desire for the game to my parents by buying what I could afford as a 10 year old, a miniature.

 

[Keldryn]

A few things:

1. Night's Dark Terror, a Basic 1e-era module, came with a sheet of cardboard punch-outs to represent the various opponents you'd (in theory) face; there was a corollary assumption (or suggestion, I can't remember which) that you'd be using minis or markers for the PCs. It did not, however, include poster maps.

B10 Night's Dark Terror did include a 1" = 5' map of the homestead of Sukiskyn on one side of the poster map, to use those counters for playing out the siege.

There are a number of other TSR-produced products that have not yet been mentioned in this thread:

O1 The Gem and the Staff - contained a mini-scale map book (by Diesel) for the adventure, along with cardboard stand-up minis.

AC3 Dragon Tiles featuring The Kidnapping of Princess Arelina
AC8 Dragon Tiles featuring The Revenge of Rusak

The first of these was a set of dungeon-themed tiles with a few cardboard stand-up minis. The second was a wilderness-themed set.

B6 The Veiled Society - contained a few poor-quality buildings that weren't 25mm scale but I think the 15mm scale of the early Battlesystem sets. Also had some cardboard stand-up minis.

FR8 Cities of Mystery included dozens of fold-up 25mm scale buildings plus modular city-street maps.

WGA1 Falcon's Revenge
WGA2 Falconmaster
WGA3 Flames of the Falcon

These 3 Greyhawk modules were designed to work with the Cities of Mystery set and included new buildings specifically for the module, along with more street template maps designed for the module.

Being the fan of toys and miniatures that I am, I of course bought up all of these sets.

 

[Mark]

Although they did not (to my knowledge) ever include any maps scaled for minis, note on the cover of this 1980 product that the player/DM is reaching for a creature that appears to have a base -

 

[Mark]

Would an ape make a human doll . . . that could talk?

 

[Hussar]

Just throwing in another couple of cents.

The Dragonlance series had all sorts of modules that came with battlemaps and minis. One of the most gorgeous fold outs in the DL series was the Tower of (oh bugger I forget the name - the one with the orb in the middle) that was meant to be used. Plus quite a few of the other modules had 1" scale maps.

Do you have to use minis? Nope. Does 3e and 4e assume minis to a greater degree than earlier editions, I would say yes. Although, if you didn't use minis in 1e, how did you determine if your shield worked? Shield rules were absolutely mini-centric in 1e.

"The game remains the same" has been a recurring theme in 4E evangelism/ validation (in my view, a recurrence of a perennial nerdy neurosis that was called One True Wayism in the days of the "internet by mimeograph" of Alarums and Excursions, et al).

Nice.

The fact that critics are repeatedly jumping up and down decrying 4e as such a huge departure from earlier editions as to no longer be D&D has NOTHING, of course, with this at all. It's nothing but one true wayism from trufans all the way. Right.

See, the funny thing is, 4e does draw an awful lot from earlier editions. But, if any critic ever admitted that, then they could no longer cry that 4e isn't real D&D.

 

[Ariosto]

Hussar, those are reciprocal OTWs! I don't think that citing similarities is going to mollify people who "cry that 4E isn't real D&D", for one could make such citations for Tunnels & Trolls, Chivalry & Sorcery, RuneQuest, Palladium FRP, etc., etc..

It is, as I wrote, a perennial phenomenon, the "just the same" flavor being just one variety (prominent in D&D-land precisely because of WotC's radical redesigning). "It's radically different and better" was the line for (e.g.) RQ fans (of which I was an early one), which AD&Ders might counter with objections to either or both claims. Ditto Vampire: the Masquerade, for instance.

As to treatment of shields, that is a case in which the suggestion of static positions due to placement of figures, combined with simplistic interpretation of the text (especially the notion every procedure that could be used must be used at all times), can easily produce a situation at odds with basic concepts of the old D&D combat system and -- I think -- with the designer's intent. The D&D supplements, and their heir AD&D, were collections of tools for the referee, meant to be used in a spirit taking them as descriptive rather than in the strictly prescriptive stance increasingly taken since. That was in fact once pretty basic to all RPGs, a notable characteristic distinguishing them from other games.