I would like to preface this by saying "HOLY WALL OF TEXT BATMAN!!" and say "RC, I haven't considered my words this carefully since English Lit in College...I am enjoying the debate, I hope you are too. No hostility is intended, nor will there be on my part."
1. Quote:Originally Posted by
MadMaligor
You were the one that said that editions prior to 3.0 did not assume the use of miniatures.
RC: Which, apparently, you now acknowledge? Or am I misreading your previous post.
MadMaligor: I did acknowledge that. More on this in a second.
2. Quote:Originally Posted by
MadMaligor You said "that in no edition prior to 3.0 were mini's strongly encouraged,"
RC: Still true.
MadMaligor: Encouraged...definately, especially prior to 2.0. The word "strongly" is where your argument has validity...but its debatable. I would give you the nod here and say you are correct, it wasnt "strongly" encouraged. We can split hairs all day, but it was still encouraged. Rule sets, products, art, gameplay use, and on and on.
3. Quote:
MadMaligor: You said "and prior to 3.0 you would be hard pressed to find a use of them outside battle system."
RC: Um, that's not exactly what I said.
MadMaligor: Yes it is, pretty much word for word...but lets continue.
RC: You can find a use of minis easily enough, but you cannot find regular useage within the rules outside of Battlesystem. Of course, as has been noted, I forgot about Combat & Tactics, which also makes use of minis on a regular basis (to the same degree, I admit, as 3.0).
City System and Waterdeep allow you to make models of buildings, as did a few other modules (Flames of Falcon), but those props were generally out of scale to D&D minis.
It has been demonstrated that some prestige boxed modules made specific use of counters and mini-scale maps, but even the text on these products, as noted above, marks them as unusual.
So, again, "hard pressed" stands.
MadMaligor: Hard pressed suggests it would be difficult to find a use for minis or rulesets that accomodate them outside of Battlesystem. They were found, in multiple instances, and it wasn't hard at all. So no. Nice try though In fact, pre 2.0 it was rather easy to run into mention of, pictures depicting their use, or direct rules for them.
4. Quote:
MadMaligor: I said that editions did indeed assume the use of mini's, that the rules assumed both. I wasn't neccessarily disagreeing with you, just clarifying that it was a mischaractarization to just cite one side of the debate.
RC: This is an error in logic, or an error in language. I am not sure which.
MadMaligor: Its neither an error in logic or language but lets just go with what you have written...
RC: If one is unsure that a person does X or not, one does not assume that the person does X. One does not both assume that the person does X and assume that the person does not do X.
MadMaligor: Of course you can assume both. It is done all the time when you have a situation where planning for both events can occur. It may or may not be intentional, but I think its a safe bet to reason miniatures were discussed in length. They knew players were going to use them, they wrote rules for them, gave suggestions for their use, and incorporated miniatures in a variety of other ways, both official and not. They never assumed no one would use them, and they never assumed everyone would use them. They did assume people would, and people would not use them, but did not divulge (at least not that I have seen) a given statistical number of users per tabletop. Which is why we get all the debates that revolve around peoples personal experiences...the "I never saw mini's used, so it wasn't a part of Dungeons and Dragons where I am from" type of arguments.
RC: If your argument relies upon the idea that "TSR knew some folks were using minis, so TSR assumed that players were using minis and players were not using minis", then one must be aware that, perforce, TSR did not assume that
any given set of players was using minis. IOW, conflating the "players using minis" above (subset of group) with "players" (as the whole group) creates the problem you are experiencing.
MadMaligor: Quite the contrary, it is creating the problem you are experiencing. Your making a general statement without context. Your argument is trying to infer that miniatures were not as prevalent as they may have been without any conclusive data, save some general supposition. That the designers had some "miniature free" vision of the game, in opposition to the inclusion of material that revolved around miniatures. Its what some people (not neccessarily you) who have had little to no experience with miniatures argue to refute the idea that miniatures have always been a part of Dungeons and Dragons, to some degree, large or small, throughout every edition. Your not out right saying what I just wrote, but the inference is there.
Put another way, its like saying "I assume the sun is rising." Sure, when, where? "I assume the sun isn't rising." Again, true, but in what context?
RC: TSR knew well that some players were using minis, but did not assume that any given group was using minis, or that most players were using minis, or that all players were using minis.
MadMaligor: I agree. So you agree that TSR assumed some players were using minis now. At least we are getting closer to the whole "glass half full/half empty" realization.
5. Quote:
MadMaligor: 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). I also was willing to quote more text from a number of sources talking about the use of miniatures prior to that. Other evidence I mentioned that suggests a strong tie to miniatures are their commercials, print, and pictures used of miniatures in play.
RC: Again,
If one is unsure that a person does X or not, one does not assume that the person does X. One does not both assume that the person does X and assume that the person does not do X.
If your argument relies upon the idea that "TSR knew some folks were using minis, so TSR assumed that players were using minis and players were not using minis", then one must be aware that, perforce, TSR did not assume that
any given set of players was using minis. IOW, conflating the "players using minis" above (subset of group) with "players" (as the whole group) creates the problem you are experiencing.
TSR knew well that some players were using minis, but did not assume that any given group was using minis, or that most players were using minis, or that all players were using minis.
MadMaligor: That is not logical. If TSR knew some people were going to use miniatures, and some were not, then they assumed both. To say TSR assumed "players were not using miniatures." and only that, then the logic for writing rules, talking about, or using them in any official capacity falls by the wayside. It wouldn't make sense. The position that "TSR assumed players were not using miniatures" as a complete definative would attach some likelyhood or greater than value. Which I would then ask where you get that data from? Did TSR do some kind of study? Was there an official position that more players did not use miniatures? Did they actually discuss the numbers regarding the debate we are having or did they just go with both to cover their bases (in other words, assume both)?
If you want to change your position and add a context like "any given set of players was" then that changes the debate a bit. I would then say "TSR assumed any given set of players could use miniatures, or might be using miniatures."
Which puts miniatures squarely in the "meant to be part of Dungeons and Dragons" catagory. Which may have run contrary to any specific designers ideas regarding how Dungeons and Dragons was to be played. Which circles us back to the whole "Its interesting conversation" but the realities of the game as a whole prove otherwise, idea. It is entirely possible, even probable, that there were driving forces behind the scenes to divulge miniatures from the game entirely. Those forces however did not succeed, in house, on the game table, at the cons, or otherwise...for any number of reasons, and I would hazard a guess that the most likely counter force was players themselves and the widespread proliferation of miniature use. I am now however wandering into straw man territory as you would say 
6. Quote:
MadMaligor: You then went on to talk about mini's and 4E which I completely agreed with.
RC: Although WotC's Scott Rouse, who is presumably in a better position to know than you, is the source of the quote.
MadMaligor: True, and true. Now in this case, I would say that in all likelyhood, the use of miniatures in 4E is assumed. I am sure they did/are doing their homework, and are probably still generating numbers to back that assumption. That is a guess though, based on the quote and other posts on the WotC boards. I don't recall ever seeing any actual data.
7. Quote:
MadMaligor: How is the first part of that true without any specific backing by numbers, studies, or data?
RC: The data is available by simply reading the 2e books.
MadMaligor: That is kind of like me refuting, the data is in books released prior to and after the 2E sourcebooks.
7. Quote:
MadMaligor: So I would ask. Are you saying miniature use in OD&D, AD&D, and 2ED&D was less likely at each gaming table? If so where do you get that from? Even if it was, and could be proven, how does that refute the two statements..."Miniatures were meant to be used with Dungeons and Dragons." or "Miniatures use is assumed while playing Dungeons and Dragons."
RC: Well, for one thing, there is WotC's marketing survey prior to the release of 3.0, which demonstrated that over 40% of respondents polled claimed to have never used minis at all. From there one can follow the trends in miniatures sales, where WotC has thoroughly cleaned the clocks of their competitors. Finally, I suppose, you could take Scott Rouse's word for it that WotC intentionally tied minis more firmly into 3e and 4e as part of their business plan. (And, again, if you look at the survey, there is very good cause for them to do so.)
I am not sure that anyone is attempting to refute the statement "Miniatures were meant to be used with Dungeons and Dragons," or even the statement "Dungeons and Dragons was meant to include optional miniatures use" (which isn't exactly the same thing). If you mean to imply that each group of gamers was meant to use miniatures, well then, since every book of every TSR edition claims they are optional (if they mention them at all, again excepting Battlesystem)......
MadMaligor: Wait a second, are you saying... 
"Miniatures use is assumed while playing Dungeons and Dragons" OTOH,
MadMaligor: ...
DOH!...
RC: I would answer like this:
If one is unsure that a person does X or not, one does not assume that the person does X. One does not both assume that the person does X and assume that the person does not do X.
If your argument relies upon the idea that "TSR knew some folks were using minis, so TSR assumed that players were using minis and players were not using minis", then one must be aware that, perforce, TSR did not assume that
any given set of players was using minis. IOW, conflating the "players using minis" above (subset of group) with "players" (as the whole group) creates the problem you are experiencing.
TSR knew well that some players were using minis, but did not assume that any given group was using minis, or that most players were using minis, or that all players were using minis.
In contrast, WotC assumes that any given group playing 4e is using minis, and that most players of 4e are using minis. The rules were written to that end, and they have made this part of their business plan.
RC
MadMaligor: Which is exactly why your argument is illogical. In fact it kind of proves the opposite, that if TSR had in fact done the research, it was very possible that more players than not, used miniatures. Which would then lead the dev's to conclude "it is assumed players will use miniatures while playing Dungeons and Dragons." It is my position that they did not do the research, and therefore they assumed both. Given the lack of a definative, and your generalized stance without a more refined context "editions prior to 3.0 did not assume the use of miniatures" the weight of evidence is not quantifiable either way. Thus, my statement is as true, if not more so based on WotC's position today.
How is that not a logical conclusion?
I need a beer.
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
