Mearls' Legends and Lore: Miniatures Madness

[Knightfall]

The next Legends & Lore article is up...

Miniatures Madness

 

[Reigan]

I have to say I don't agree with MM on this one. I like the tactical nature of 4e combat and that the rules actually work. If combat is simply all about dm whim it ceases to be a challenge, its all an illusion and players no longer have any meaningful choices to make.

 

[wedgeski]

Yup I'm firmly in the battlemap-loving camp here as well, but we still tend to eyeball cover/concealment/line-of-sight, only resorting to tracing corners when someone's life is on the line.

The tactical minigame was a major part of what I loved about 3E, and is an even bigger part of what I love about 4E. We mix as much description and narrative into our combat as we can but there's no doubt that the focus around the battlemap is strategy, tactics, maneuvers, and victory. An exciting encounter area with lots of dynamism and hazards only multiplies the fun.

 

[Ryujin]

As someone who has been using minis since the mid '70s, I also disagree with Mearls on this one. One of the best things about minis, is that they remove the, "I didn't do that!" factor from the game.

In the early days I got rather tired of players stating that the wouldn't/didn't do a certain thing, that resulted in negative consequences. They didn't take the path across the floor, that intersected with the trap. They didn't walk under the Lurker Above, because they would naturally walk around the perimiter of the room in a dangerous dungeon. For the second time, in a week, I'm reminded of "The Gamers." Nimble sneaks everywhere, of course.

When position and movement are unambiguous it becomes far easier to just play the game, without 14 video gamish do-overs.

*EDIT* Make that "late '70s." The older I get, the earlier I started

 

[Pour]

Yup I'm firmly in the battlemap-loving camp here as well, but we still tend to eyeball cover/concealment/line-of-sight, only resorting to tracing corners when someone's life is on the line.

The tactical minigame was a major part of what I loved about 3E, and is an even bigger part of what I love about 4E. We mix as much description and narrative into our combat as we can but there's no doubt that the focus around the battlemap is strategy, tactics, maneuvers, and victory. An exciting encounter area with lots of dynamism and hazards only multiplies the fun.

I'm largely in your camp on the merit of translucency and fairness, but I voted DM judgment anyway. I think because I've only DMed 3rd and 4th, and I'm of a mind to give back situational powers to the (trusted) DM. Provide me guidelines much like the hard rules of the current battlemap, but the jurisdiction to relay those scenario features to the players, as Mearls said tempered with common sense and description. I'm curious if that provides both a mechanically sound challenge with more organic PC reactions.

Whichever they choose for future rules, however, I'll give it a try!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mearls presents something of a false dichotomy.

I prefer a hard and fast rule used by the DM to a vague rule or a grid rule.

The example he gives -- cover -- is better in 3.5/4e than it was in 3.0. But this has little to do with minis (the whole "imaginary lines" stuff is complicated and dumb). It has everything to do with the fact that it only comes in two flavors: cover and superior cover.

Those two flavors are good flavors, and their use is independent of "imaginary lines that cross a barrier blah blah."

The DM can still determine if the creature has cover. Or there can be a rule that says something like "gaining cover in this battle takes a move action." We don't need imaginary lines for cover rules, and we don't need to rely entirely on DM judgement calls and mother-may-I gameplay, either.

 

[DragoonLance]

Gotta agree with Ryujin myself. I'm currently in a 4e game where the DM keeps track of everything in his head without a battlemat so it can be done, but one of the reasons for me to switch from my previous game system to one that used a grid was I was getting so sick of the "teleporting" always in the middle of everything players who can guard both the back and front door at the same time somehow...

 

[Klaus]

Mearls presents something of a false dichotomy.

I prefer a hard and fast rule used by the DM to a vague rule or a grid rule.

The example he gives -- cover -- is better in 3.5/4e than it was in 3.0. But this has little to do with minis (the whole "imaginary lines" stuff is complicated and dumb). It has everything to do with the fact that it only comes in two flavors: cover and superior cover.

Those two flavors are good flavors, and their use is independent of "imaginary lines that cross a barrier blah blah."

The DM can still determine if the creature has cover. Or there can be a rule that says something like "gaining cover in this battle takes a move action." We don't need imaginary lines for cover rules, and we don't need to rely entirely on DM judgement calls and mother-may-I gameplay, either.

I agree with KM. But of the two options listed above, I'm for the hard-and-fast rule that speeds up play.

 

[Shadowslayer]

The rules as written work for me. You do it enough times and you don't really need the imaginary lines anymore.

Cover and concealment are one of those things I mark in my encounter key. ie: the walls provide hard cover, the bushes are good for concealmant etc. Have all that stuff figured out beforehand and you're set.

(And just make sure you've got a hairband or a piece of string handy for those times it comes into question. That doesn't eat up any time at all.)

I've got no problem with DM fiat on occasion, but in this case it really doesn't need to be.

 

[Ahrimon]

I'm confused about how people disagree. He presented two valid but opposite opinions. I think he presented both sides of the argument well.

Granted there are more sides than just the two presented. But for discussions sake, the two polar opposites make a good topic.