Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MadMaligor" data-source="post: 4839635" data-attributes="member: 66102">No logic, harumph!  Baiting me like that RC, FO SHAME! hehehehe <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> You were the one that said that editions prior to 3.0 did not assume the use of miniatures, that in no edition prior to 3.0 were mini's strongly encouraged, and prior to 3.0 you would be hard pressed to find a use of them outside battle system. 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. Myself and others disagreed with you and cited products pre 3.0 outside of Battle systems that were specifically made for use with miniatures. 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. You then went on to talk about mini's and 4E which I completely agreed with. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Then for some reason I got attacked (not by you but others) stating that I was proven wrong.  Which I have yet to be (though I admitted it was possible I was/am, and as a big boy if shown, I would admit as much). You said when I forked the thread that "So rare was the useage of minis in AD&D 1e, that the language of minis was expunged in 2e."  How is the first part of that true without any specific backing by numbers, studies, or data?  Which is why I asked for such.  In fact later on there was discusion regarding how much minis were used that rebutted that position.  The only thing you pointed too was TK's play with Gygax as some sort of definative that miniatures were somehow not a part of D&D (or at least not meant to be) because Gygax and Co played without them. Which, as I pointed out, is interesting conversation.  But it doesn't mean miniature use wasn't assumed, or meant to be a part of D&D. 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." I eagerly await any logical position <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> you may have to show that I was wrong.  I may be old, the knees are shot, but I can take it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Oh...btw...the thing about my job was kind of a trick question hehehe.  I was interested to see your guess, but you are correct.  It has little to do with logic and linguistics.  Well I shouldn't say little...but rather my job is in Operations at a very large Wastewater treatment Plant in California, and centered on the function of the plant.  Though I do a fair bit of novice writing as a hobby.</blockquote>

Verification