Is D&D 3.5 a board game?

[Lord Pendragon]

Never used minis. The DM tracks combat on a sheet of graph paper. He calls attacks of oppurtunity, and we ask if we're going to provoke any before we move.

I applaud any DM who can/will do this. As a DM, It'd drive me nuts. Much easier just to have the mat out, where everyone can see for themselves where they'll provoke AoOs, and positions are kept by player moving their own minis/markers.

To clarify, though: I find the use of a battlemat and some kind of markers indispensable. They don't necessarily have to be minis. Played 2 years in Japan, where we used little cardboard chits with each character's name on them.

 

[Dracolich]

If your DM doesn't use mini's in his game, he's either a fool or likes to cheat. It's probably the latter, so he can keep his precious story intact.

 

[Zander]

A "board game" is something like Monopoly. It is a game where all of the rules and the entirety of the game revolves around the board. And, most importantly, in a "board game" there is no story, no roleplaying, no character interaction or developement, and the game ends after reaching a certain resolution.

Very interesting...

I have a game where the rules revolve around the board. So in that respect I suppose it's a board game. However, there is a story, there could be role-playing, there is definitely character interaction and development and the game doesn't end after reaching a certain resolution. So in these respects I suppose it's a role-playing game even though it calls itself a board game.

Trouble is that if that game is indeed a board game, isn't 3.5? By relying on a grid 'n' minis system, 3.5 has effective become a board game. If not and 3.5 is a role-playing game, then the other game I have (which calls itself a board game) is in fact a role-playing game.

Can a line be drawn between the two types of games or are they fuzzy sets? If there is a line, what criteria define what falls on one side and what falls on the other?

 

[Grazzt]

If your DM doesn't use mini's in his game, he's either a fool or likes to cheat. It's probably the latter, so he can keep his precious story intact.

NIce assumption, but a bit harsh there Draco-, doncha think?

We use minis sometimes...depends on if we feel like it or not. As for playing without them...we've done that off and on since 1982-83 and have never had a problem. Like some of the above posters said, if its a really complicated battle, I track stuff on scrap paper. Otherwise, I just wing it. Same for the other DM in our group.

 

[Theron]

If your DM doesn't use mini's in his game, he's either a fool or likes to cheat. It's probably the latter, so he can keep his precious story intact.

Yeah, because it's the players' god-given right, NAY obligation to try to break the DM's precious story at every turn, and cry foul if they can't.

 

[jasamcarl]

I think the notion that the two categories are mutually exclusive to be stupid. I find the fact that it can do both to be a virtue.

 

[Numion]

If your DM doesn't use mini's in his game, he's either a fool or likes to cheat. It's probably the latter, so he can keep his precious story intact.

You've just called me and my current DM fools or cheaters without offering any proof of it. Nice going pal.

My opinion is that in our group the players just happen to trust the DM. We wouldn't gain anything by using minis, and it would just detract from the game. Besides, it would be too much of a hassle anyway, unless they've developed a 3D battlegrid - most combats at higher levels involve flight / airwalk.

So it's not that we were fools or cheated. We're just comfortable without minis, like we've always been. Actually your comment about cheating is a bit strange to me. No one in our group seems to get kicks out of it.

 

[Aeolius]

If your DM doesn't use mini's in his game, he's either a fool or likes to cheat. It's probably the latter, so he can keep his precious story intact.

I run a message-based game and, while I use the D&D rule set, I don't let stats get in the way of the story. I have seen other message-based games place text-based grids into the story entries themselves, but for me that spoils the game's momentum and atmosphere.

I enjoy writing, playing D&D, and keeping saltwater aquariums, thus I run a PbP D&D game set beneath he surface of the sea. While the game is designed for those interested in participating in a work of coauthored interactive fiction, I consider it no less valid a game of D&D as any tabletop session.

As for your original statement, the only thing foolish I feel I have done is respond to a troll.

 

[Harlock]

This one is easy. D&D is a roleplaying game that can sometimes have a muteable board. Why Roleplaying? Because you are "supposed to" have a character and assume that roll, playing pretend, as it were.

A board game has a board, but you do not actually assume a roll in which you play a character. The most character you get is, "I want to play green. Green is always my color!" or, "I am the race car. I'm always the race car!" Your token (mini?) only represents your advancement on the board (other factors can be involved as far as winning or advancement, for instance number of countries you have control of, number of Title Deeds you have and amount of money you've amassed) but you generally don't pretend to "be" green or the race car. There's no roll to play in a board game.

Even in games like Clue where you have a "character" with a name, you don't actually interact with the other players in a rollplay situation. you simply run from room to room trying to be the first to find out "whodunnit".

Spoiler Warning: It was Miss Scarlet in the Library with the Candlestick.

 

[Mercule]

Yeah, because it's the players' god-given right, NAY obligation to try to break the DM's precious story at every turn, and cry foul if they can't.

Kinda. I wouldn't say they have an obligation to break the story. I'd also say that the players shouldn't be willfully disruptive. Still, if a story is happenning to them, regardless of what they do, then it's probably a foul. It's called "railroading" and I refuse to play with a GM who does it with any regularity.

As far as the battlemat goes, I prefer using one. I don't differentiate between "complex" and "simple" battles most of the time because 1) appearances can be deceiving, and 2) players have a tendancy to try out new/cool tricks in battles they perceive as being easy enough and that can quickly change the complexity of the encounter.

Why do I prefer to use a battlemat? Because I remember that every GM I've played with and every group of players I've GMed for, there has been at least one time that someone just didn't quite "get" what was being related. Even playing with good enough friends that I was often able to finish their sentences I've had "what the heck are you smoking?" moments. Not out of maliciousness, not out of cheating, not out of rules-lawyering (although I've also seen all of those), but just plain miscommunication. Just because everyone at the table is human.

Since using battlemats, I've seen those moments almost vanish. Sure, there are rules disagreements, but nothing that involves "what do you mean I'm cut off?" or "There's no way I'd have been standing that close to the BBEG," or the like.

Are battlemats required? Nope. Do they make life easier? For every group I've played with, I could absolutely see an advantage. Do referrences in the books to "squares" rather than "feet" bug me? Makes me want to slap someone, hard, with my Players Handbook everytime I read one -- getting rid of referrences to "inches" one on of the best changes between 1E and 2E, let's not go backwards.