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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 4070689" data-attributes="member: 3146">I'm of two minds about this.First, the beholder picture shows what seems to be the cleric of Pelor mini from the Dungeons of Dread preview along with an anonymous dwarf that could really be any mini. If the D&D minis line will be available in digital form for use, that's not too bad. If I had all the minis, I could have representative minis for most of the characters I use in non-online sessions. And it will certainly be a big improvement over the AOL instant messenger interface that I used the last time I tried D&D online. (Download a spreadsheet to keep track of locations where it is important; otherwise, ask lots of questions in text).That said, there are aesthetics issues that bother me and one big functionality issue that concerns me.Aesthetically, I am trained to expect 3d backgrounds in an environment like that. Where are the walls and the roof? When I play other games on my computer, I get the full 3d environment and it adds a lot to the aesthetic feel of the game. When I look at the DDI screenshot and don't see it, I'm disappointed. Also, my standards for representation are higher in an online or computer based setting than in a pen and paper session. Today, I needed a Gorgimera (gorgon rather than lion based chimera) for the Lost Caverns of Tsjocanth game I'm running. I didn't have a gorgon mini handy. I didn't have Chimera mini handy. So I plopped a fiendish dire wolverine on the table and called it good. In the past, I would have used blank large citadel monster base and called it good. (I've always had painted minis for characters but the paint quality improved until D&D minis came out when it took a moderate hit in favor of easy portability and hassle-free storage). But I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with proxying in a computer based system. Again, in computer games I'm far more used to wysiwyg representationalism and the though that I might have to remember that the fiendish dire wolverine is really a gorgimera is not a promising one.Even with those issues, however, it would still be a clear improvement over what I now use (or to be more precise, what I now don't use because it's too clunky, too complex, or has too much set-up time and effort involved). The one that concerns me the most is this: the modelling system seems to be the D&D Dungeon tiles.This concerns me because I don't like the dungeon tiles for most settings. I don't much like their inn and tavern. I don't remember seeing any kind of chapel in their dungeon tile set, and if I did, I don't know that I would want to use it. I generally use a battlemap because of the freedom that it gives me to make the terrain the way I want it, and when I do use tiles, I like to have a wider variety of tiles to use (0-one games' Inn for a large, high quality establishment; Dwayne Argim's HeroQuest tiles inn for a moderate sized inn, the Golden Griffon Inn from the back of the last DDM map set for a classy two story inn, and drawing one for a small inn or tavern. In a dungeon, I want to have more twisty, turny corridors and differently sized and differently shaped rooms than I have observed to be possible with the Dungeon Tiles product. If the product were limited to the NWN toolset, I would be unhappy but could probably live with it (especially if I could get the CEP and DLA add-ons). If it's limited to Dungeon Tiles, that's not enough functionality for me.</blockquote>

Verification