No More Gargantuan?

[jdrakeh]

That is how it should be in ALL cases.

Just a moment ago, you were inferring that it wasn't true in any case, daring people to find examples of monsters not created to mimic minis, etc. My point was that you have it backwards. Most monster stats came first and, again, minis came later. Not vice-versa.

 

[justanobody]

Just a moment ago, you were inferring that it wasn't true in any case, daring people to find examples of monsters not created to mimic minis, etc. My point was that you have it backwards. Most monster stats came first and, again, minis came later. Not vice-versa.

Seeing I don't know monsters from 3rd or 4th as I never needed to and didn't DM either...are you sure the monsters came first for every mini in the DDM line?

From what I am reading about Tiamat from FOR1 her body was 37 squares long, and her tail was 40 squares long.

I think we will see many more monsters in the future that are made to conform to the minis. They used to be a novelty to have, but not this day and age.

I think the monster stats may have changed to match the minis, but can only check the minis via the downloadable stat cards as I don't have the MM.

My point still remains. The mini should be made later and as an afterthought.

I just don't see any 37-77 square long monsters being introduced in new books anytime soon.

 

[doctorhook]

Forked from: Who's on first? (Forked Thread: [WotC_Logan] Why is Tiamat Huge?)



I think the solution here is to errata out the Gargantuan size category out of standard 4e monsters.

Reasons:

1) D&D Icons didn't sell very well.
2) Gargantuan minis don't work very well on a battlemat unless you have a huge open space
3) Garguantuan and Colossal sizes categories were a 3e innovation
4) Gargantuan and Colossal sizes would be better suited as terrain than as monsters alone. If you plop down a gargantuan monster you are plopping down something size of a mansion or a small keep. As Kamikaze says, why shouldn't you have rules for moving around and over it?

I think the logistical problems in running combats were much worse with Colossal than with Gargantuan. Gargantuan creatures take up only 16 squares compared to a Colossal's 36 squares. (FWIW, the Colossal Red Dragon wasn't actually Colossal, he was Colossal+; the base was 8 squares rather than the 6 that was typical for Colossal creatures.)

 

[doctorhook]

Seeing I don't know monsters from 3rd or 4th as I never needed to and didn't DM either...are you sure the monsters came first for every mini in the DDM line?

From what I am reading about Tiamat from FOR1 her body was 37 squares long, and her tail was 40 squares long.

I think we will see many more monsters in the future that are made to conform to the minis. They used to be a novelty to have, but not this day and age.

I think the monster stats may have changed to match the minis, but can only check the minis via the downloadable stat cards as I don't have the MM.

My point still remains. The mini should be made later and as an afterthought.

I just don't see any 37-77 square long monsters being introduced in new books anytime soon.

Oddball monster sizes went away in the name of standardization. Providing ballpark categories for size is much simpler, and provides all the information players and DMs need almost all the time. Fortunately, for those few times that category isn't enough, each category is defined by a range of absolute values.

You're correct that at one time, minis were something of a novelty in D&D games. (Not originally, and not now, but sometime in between.) However, today many gamers prefer to use visual representations, whenever possible, and this is reflected in the popularity of minis. Are you going to argue that including minis is wrong?

I also disagree with your assessment that, "Minis should be made later and as an afterthought." I don't think anything that's meant to be included should be added as an afterthought; since minis appeal to many modern gamers, why shouldn't minis be included in the game? If they should be included, why should they be added only as an afterthought, rather than appropriately integrated?

 

[Khuxan]

When they forget that (as they did here, by giving me a Tiamat that doesn't enhance my game as much as it could), they have earned my public derision.

But the question we have been asking is, HOW does it not enhance your game as much as it could? HOW are you worse off than if "Gargantuan" had been printed? Monster size has little mechanical effect in this edition, so it is no trouble at all for you to change the size. The only way it could enhance your game any less is if you refuse to change a single word.

 

[Kunimatyu]

I would be fine with a general retool of sizes from Tiny to Huge. Minis aside, I just don't think the extra 7 squares make a huge difference, and they're really annoying to have in large fights. Huge is plenty imposing enough.

 

[justanobody]

You're correct that at one time, minis were something of a novelty in D&D games. (Not originally, and not now, but sometime in between.) However, today many gamers prefer to use visual representations, whenever possible, and this is reflected in the popularity of minis. Are you going to argue that including minis is wrong?

Yes including minis into the core of the game is wrong ever since the move from Chainmail. You should not be tethered to some map. What happened to the days of just having some space if/when you needed to show positions in battle, and the rest of the mapping was done by players?

Now every last tiny square of a map is implied to be drawn out with tiles or something else so the players can see where they are at all times like a big glowing "YOU ARE HERE" sign in a dungeon or anywhere else.

Players have been made lazy because of the overuse and emphasis on the minis, so No they should not be a part of the game, but made for any who MIGHT want to use them.

I also disagree with your assessment that, "Minis should be made later and as an afterthought." I don't think anything that's meant to be included should be added as an afterthought; since minis appeal to many modern gamers, why shouldn't minis be included in the game? If they should be included, why should they be added only as an afterthought, rather than appropriately integrated?

So for those that don't use minis they are forced to count up grid squares like some mini combat simulator rather than have an actual game that doesn't include the visual aids, because those that want to use visual aids, have to have to rules be added to the books to know how to count distances using the minis?

IF that is the intent of the minis, and I for one think the emphasis shows it is; they they screwed up.

D&D is NOT a minis game. The minis are a novelty item for those that choose to use than and SHOULD be optional to use for those that want them, not having the minis made in the past somehow dictate the rules of future RPG material just to conform to those minis, that not everyone buying the new material will even have access to.

In the original thread it was stated that the rules were made to fit existing minis. Existing minis should have nothing to do with the rules. You want to make a mini later, then do so following the rules provided. Minis should NOT be made at the same time as the rules, to alter the rules in any way to fit some manufacturing limitations on the RPG because of the fact that not everyone will use minis.

If you demand that everyone use minis, then you should give everyone a complete set of all the minis to be used with the rules, and make D&D the board game it is being turned into.

"G" sized creatures are in no way harder to play with than any other creature, and any mini needed doesn't have to have places for another mini to sit or cling on to.

It makes me sick seeing people trying to play D&D using minis and sticking stuff under them to show they are flying, when the minis and the game itself only have rules for 2D play with no real inclusion of the height the mini is off the ground in consideration for anything, other than people wanting to play with the minis than to play D&D. This is grown adults I am talking about to.

If you want a creature that big, then you only need to visualize you climbed up its leg, you don't need to really have a mini that can fit on its leg. The minis are made to be placed on a flat surface, not to interlock onto each other vertically.

Heroscape has rules for all dimensions since you can elevate things using its game so do that instead.

The minis are accessories, and should be treated as such, and not as necessities.

[/ ]

 

[doctorhook]

Yes including minis into the core of the game is wrong ever since the move from Chainmail. You should not be tethered to some map. What happened to the days of just having some space if/when you needed to show positions in battle, and the rest of the mapping was done by players?

Now every last tiny square of a map is implied to be drawn out with tiles or something else so the players can see where they are at all times like a big glowing "YOU ARE HERE" sign in a dungeon or anywhere else.

Players have been made lazy because of the overuse and emphasis on the minis, so No they should not be a part of the game, but made for any who MIGHT want to use them.



So for those that don't use minis they are forced to count up grid squares like some mini combat simulator rather than have an actual game that doesn't include the visual aids, because those that want to use visual aids, have to have to rules be added to the books to know how to count distances using the minis?

IF that is the intent of the minis, and I for one think the emphasis shows it is; they they screwed up.

D&D is NOT a minis game. The minis are a novelty item for those that choose to use than and SHOULD be optional to use for those that want them, not having the minis made in the past somehow dictate the rules of future RPG material just to conform to those minis, that not everyone buying the new material will even have access to.

In the original thread it was stated that the rules were made to fit existing minis. Existing minis should have nothing to do with the rules. You want to make a mini later, then do so following the rules provided. Minis should NOT be made at the same time as the rules, to alter the rules in any way to fit some manufacturing limitations on the RPG because of the fact that not everyone will use minis.

If you demand that everyone use minis, then you should give everyone a complete set of all the minis to be used with the rules, and make D&D the board game it is being turned into.

"G" sized creatures are in no way harder to play with than any other creature, and any mini needed doesn't have to have places for another mini to sit or cling on to.

It makes me sick seeing people trying to play D&D using minis and sticking stuff under them to show they are flying, when the minis and the game itself only have rules for 2D play with no real inclusion of the height the mini is off the ground in consideration for anything, other than people wanting to play with the minis than to play D&D. This is grown adults I am talking about to.

If you want a creature that big, then you only need to visualize you climbed up its leg, you don't need to really have a mini that can fit on its leg. The minis are made to be placed on a flat surface, not to interlock onto each other vertically.

Heroscape has rules for all dimensions since you can elevate things using its game so do that instead.

The minis are accessories, and should be treated as such, and not as necessities.

[/ ]

So, using minis is badwrongfun? Because this seems to be what your rant evolved into.

FWIW, how does Tiamat's size make minis any more necessary than before?

 

[justanobody]

So, using minis is badwrongfun? Because this seems to be what your rant evolved into.

No, but using minis to:

a- play with to pass the time as some child playing with a toy is unnecessary.

b- determine what a future print product will be base on an existing minis design/size/shape/etc is badwrongdesign.

FWIW, how does Tiamat's size make minis any more necessary than before?

If focusing so strongly on the minis to design any part of the game, then it only serves to support and emphasize the need for them in the game as a selling point.

The rules should not be advertisements for supplementary products.

If you want a mini for creature X, then make it, but don't make creature X just because you have some mini for it already designs/printed/etc.

If the Beholder had but a single eyestalk in any of the minis, would it have been changed in the rules to only having one for D&D?

There needs to be a distinct separation form the rules and the minis so that the minis can clearly be accessories for the game, and not necessities, or the driving factor in the design of the games rules, as was the case with Tiamat.

In the context of this thread, it sets some sort of precedent to remove "G" sized creatures on the basis that there is no minis for them, and using minis for a "G" sized creature would be hard.

So what?!?!

D&D is not a miniature wargame, and does not need to be bound by any of their principles.

Therein lies a problem with design philosophy in 4th in general outside of just the monster sizes because DDM was made to work like 4th, and then what happened to it?

Thankfully JQ, Ktatore, and others now have it to make it a decent game, so WotC can remove the attempts to link the skirmish game from the RPG.

You do not need minis to play D&D or any RPG. I use minis for some things, and collect ones I like in general.

So the implications on why Tiamat was made the size to accommodate the mini places the emphasis on people supposed to be using them because the rules were made for the minis.

:yuck: Bad design philosophy when you are talking about random distribution products. Not so bad if EACH mini could be bought individually on a per case basis,; or if your game was a game where the focus is on playing with minis (aka a minis game).

 

[I'm A Banana]

....
The minis are accessories, and should be treated as such, and not as necessities.

I think it should be said that I'm not totally on board with justanobody's view in this post, either. I don't begrudge minis play, I wouldn't say it is necessarily more limiting or less imaginative. I will say it's never done anything to enhance my game, and I share justanobody's frustration with a game that elevates minis to the realm of (basically) a necessity. While it's okay to play with minis, it should also be okay to play without them, and in a lot of places 4e (and, to a lesser degree, 3e and 2e and 1e before it) comes right up and screams at you to go buy them.

It's very odd to me when D&D books are designed with the intention of selling minis over the intention of making my D&D game better.

Not that I think that the two are at cross-purposes in getting rid of Gargantuan. I think it's a fine idea for the game, and I'd like to see some big setpiece battle rules, too, so ditching Gargantuan is probably a good plan.

No more Gargantuan would be fine, whatever the reason behind it, as long as we had something more fun to do with the big monsters that we fight, too.