Forked Thread: all about the minis!

[Ariosto]

It's interesting that you are quoting from an edition that uses the line "Each player might be required to furnish painted figures representing his or her player character and all henchmen and or hirelings in the game sesion"

I then provided you with text from the AD&D DMG that cited that in some games miniatures would be a requirement (a pretty strong statement if you ask me).

That long paragraph (at DMG p. 10) also suggests that "monster figures are likewise most helpful ... Furnishing such monsters is probably best undertaken as a joint effort, the whole group contributing towards the purchase of such figurines on a regular basis." The same could be said of books, modules, character sheets and monster and spell cards; toy coins, costume jewelry, "parchment" paper and other props; atmospheric music; pizza and beer; or any number of optional supplements to paper, pencil and dice! Taking the passage out of context to imply that miniatures were any more de rigueur is not at all convincing.

 

[Ariosto]

As I recall, Gary and other TSR luminaries acknowledged that the guys at GDW demonstrated in Traveller a perfect grasp of how D&D was meant to work. Before I would reach for anything fancier, I would use a Traveller "range bands" diagram -- just a sheet of lined paper!

The notion that figurines or other markers were assumed as par for the course is utterly at odds with my experience in the 1970s-80s. Moreover, the really practical point is that the games worked just fine without them. Playing 4E without markers and a grid would be harder -- but playing 4E at all is in related ways a more demanding exercise. I see a lot of anachronistic supposition probably going on here, of the "What are you going to believe, me or your own two eyes?" sort. I was there, man, playing the games without minis and without any notion that one "ought" to have them. That was, as far as I saw, a perfectly normal state of affairs.

 

[Hussar]

Didn't followed the whole thread so I'm basing what I'm going to say in what I captured since 3.0.

D&D started with a miniature wargame but it really started to focus on minis when Hasbro, a toy manufacturer, get in the wagon. Now there's a business reason to sell the idea of the game needing minis. 4E pushes to it, tying the game to minis.

Even so, you can play it with poker chips, beans, etc.

Just for historical clarity:

WOTC had no links to Hasbro when they were developing 3e. They were bought out by Hasbro at the end of 99 and started publishing 3e in early 2000. Hasbro bought WOTC because of Pokemon, not D&D.

 

[Hussar]

A later thought occurs from Avin's post.

While you do have a point about the timing, coincidence does not equate with causality.

3e showed one thing very, very clearly - D&D gamers liked having battlemaps and minis in the game. While there are some who don't, I don't think it's an exageration to say that the vast majority did. We gamers liked having these little toys to play with and it was all the better when those little toys were tied to the mechanics in new ways.

Let's face it, we've always liked the little toys. A bajillion metal then plastic fantasy minis in production for a few decades shows that.

So, we have 3e which begins to show how you can make combat more interesting by borrowing from tabletop wargaming and porting a number of those rules into D&D. In my mind, 4e is simply continuing that same line of thought. 3e gave players a new aspect to play with - a tactile one that was mostly absent from many tables pre 3e. A slew of mechanics were produced specifically because of the use of minis and battlemaps - feats, combat mechanics, various spells, etc. All centered around moving something or someone on the battlemap.

4e is just exploring the same design space created by 3e. It's taking it much further, you'll get no argument from me about that. But, it's not like this sprang out of nowhere.

I don't think we can point fingers at Hasbro for this.

 

[rounser]

3e showed one thing very, very clearly - D&D gamers liked having battlemaps and minis in the game.

With AoOs you didn't have much choice in the matter, unless you particularly liked handwaving them.

I don't think we can point fingers at Hasbro for this.

When Monte Cook says management or marketing bridled at the idea of him putting "miniatures are optional" into the 3E DMG, your argument seems less plausible.

Wizkids proved that flogging cheap minis from asia was potentially a goldmine. WOTC has been experimenting since with DDM and Chainmail. D&D has now been compromised to support this plastic flogging strategy in place of these, so far as I can see.

It seems naive to me to suggest that Hasbro made the miniatures dependence a result of customer demand, rather than an attempt to turn D&D into miniatures cashcow. I mean, I could be wrong, but the signs are pretty obvious IMO.

I'm a touch disappointed that D&D is being dragged down this path, but WOTC is a company that made it's fortune on the randomised booster business model, so it's hardly surprising. Good luck to you guys who follow them down this path and don't use proxies....your wallets will need it.

 

[Hussar]

Hang on though. When did Monte cook do this? There were no Hasbro suits overlooking 3e. 3e was pretty much at the printers by the time Hasbro bought WOTC.

But, my point remains the same, gamers LIKED minis. Considering the use of minis is absolutely hard coded into the 3e ruleset, and the 3e ruleset was pretty damn popular, I'd say that that's pretty true.

You'd think if people hated minis, or using battlemaps, that after TEN YEARS of 3e, we'd see mini-less 3e clones. But, for some reason, we don't.

If minis were so hated and reviled, you'd think Pathfinder would strip them out. But, oh look, there they are right there.

If minis were so hated and reviled, you'd think that other games wouldn't touch mini-centric rules, yet, we have things like Savage Worlds which is right there with minis rules.

I dunno, I guess it's because I've always played games that had minis rules. Back in the day I played Star Frontiers which came with a bazillion minis. Then I played Villains and Vigillantes, again, minis based combat. Played loads of Battletech, both wargame and RPG. Played Star Trek RPG. Almost ten years of 3e using minis every single time. I don't see the issue here. RPG's, in my mind, have always equalled mini use. We used them in 1e and 2e. String and a protractor anyone?

So, for me, exploring the design space presented by tying the rules to a battle map does not equate with "compromising" the game. It's taking a good thing and making it better. But, it's something that, in my mind, has always been a fairly big part of gaming, so the shift for me is not as big as for some others.

Oh, btw, Rounser, good to see you again.

 

[rounser]

But, my point remains the same, gamers LIKED minis.

No doubt. I do too. I like lots of things that would probably be silly to actually spend my money on.

Do you want a list?

 

[Ariosto]

Lion Rampant's Whimsey Cards could make a fun addition to a role-playing game, but the purchase of special decks was required for play of Magic: the Gathering.

There is likewise a big difference between including notes on how models can add color and ease adjudication of situations in D&D -- and designing the game systems around markers on a grid!

 

[Hussar]

But, that's the point Ariosto - the use of minis wasn't just adding color in AD&D. Shield rules, movement rules, adjudicating area of effects, space requirement rules (especially) are pretty strongly minis centric.

Now, that being said, I will agree with you that earlier versions of D&D missed the boat and ignored a huge aspect of the game. Luckily that was corrected by later versions. The attempt to get use out of minis was tried by 1e, but, they just didn't explore the potential there. The rules started in the right direction, but, it took a number of years to realize that adding a tactile, tactical aspect to the game was something that gamers apparently wanted.

Funny how spinning things works both ways.

 

[Ariosto]

Villains and Vigillantes, again, minis based combat

Sure, if you've got a 146" (over 12 feet) table for Bandit's move! That's just 33 miles per hour, and he has souped-up cars as fast as 200 m.p.h. (880 inches per turn). Crossfire's crossbow has 88" range, and a bog standard rifle's effective range is Agility x 10" (average 105" for 1st-level normals).

Sure, it could be done -- and FGU even provided sheets of card-stock counters with adventures and villain compilations. It was hardly essential to the game, though, else I would never have had room enough to play it. Nor have I ever owned superhero figurines, chiefly because their costumes are so distinctive that it would seem most awkward to me to substitute Marvel Boy for Wonder Lad (and I have not felt like doing a lot of conversions).