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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4840115" data-attributes="member: 18280">Which, apparently, you now acknowledge?  Or am I misreading your previous post.Still true.Um, that's not exactly what I said.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.This is an error in logic, or an error in language.  I am not sure which.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.Yes.  You did well.  Still, "hard pressed" doesn't mean "impossible". 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.Although WotC's Scott Rouse, who is presumably in a better position to know than you, is the source of the quote.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.If one includes Combat & Tactics, I am in error there.  In Combat & Tactics, the language of minis is certainly used (in keeping with 2e Battlesystem and Battlesystem Skirmishes).The data is available by simply reading the 2e books.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)......"Miniatures use is assumed while playing Dungeons and Dragons" OTOH, 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</blockquote>

Verification