Tactical Boardgame?

[AllisterH]

I was going to elaborate a little on my one line response anyway so I'm glad you asked.

I think the move to a greater reliance on miniatures and a battle map has something to do with the perceived design goals of empowering players with more concrete choices and simultaneously proofing the game somewhat against "bad DMs" as much as any real requirement dictated by the complexity of the rules.

For example, if the players feel that they can trust their DM the following exchange is fine:

Wizard: I'd like to cast a fireball on as many enemies as possible. How many can I get?
DM: Hmm, you can get 10 goblins but you might hit your allies in melee, or 5 if you don't want to risk hitting your allies.
Wizard: Hmm, what about the goblin leader?
DM: If you target him you'll hit him along with his 2 bodyguards.

And the player then takes his pick on the basis that the accuracy isn't important, he's got a few options and his spell will make a good contribution to the outcome of the battle.

By using miniatures and a battle map the arbitration shifts towards the lay of the battle map. The accuracy is greater and the player is less likely to feel that the DM is short-changing him (if he was inclined to feel that way for whatever reason).

So I can agree that miniatures and a battle map have merits but I've also experienced the merits of the style of play that comes with not using them. My own experience has been that combats have become longer in real time as the battle map encourages more tactical thought and attempts to optimise actions, while combats without them gave me a greater sense of "ownership" of the combat in the imaginative sense and were a lot quicker to resolve.

Then the argument that 4E requires minis is totally bogus then.

If one can play a 1E/2E wizard WITHOUT the use of some form of minis, there is nothing I see in the 4E rules that requires the use of minis. For example, the warlocks' curse and move is no more harder to describe than using freeform by a DM to describe the effects of a fireball.

So if you can do 1E/2E wizards without minis, what rules in 4E do you think require minis.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'll concede to the point that there are a lot of players who want that level of complexity, I guess what I'm saying is that it's sad that RPGs have gotten to this point. I literally have played with DMs who don't even allow their players to role dice, you simply tell the DM what you want to do and he crunches all the numbers behind the scenes and then tells you in a dramatic narrative how the combat went. To me this is what RPGs are all about, sitting around a table listening and telling a story and I'm sad to not only see new rules not support this but also see how the up and coming generations will not be able to experience this wonderful element of the game.

But why is it "sad"? To you that's what RPGs are about, but clearly not everyone agrees. Why is it "sad" that other people like to play differently than you do?

If you mean it in the sense that you would prefer D&D cater to your tastes, that's fine. But choose your words carefully. Using the word "sad" the way you have here gives the definite impression of a badwrongfun argument, which you may not have intended.

 

[BryonD]

You like to talk about strawman arguments. There's one right there.

Wow did you ever miss the point. In order to be a strawman arguement I would need actually be claiming that to be the case.

No one is saying you can't criticize 4E. It's the method of criticism that's the issue here.

You can discuss the flaws you perceive in 4E without having to attach some label to it.

Again, WOW did you ever miss the point.
There have been tons of criticisms of 4e that have all kinds of reasons attached to them. It is the pro-4e side that is attempting to discard those reasons and sweep them all under a single label and then attack the label instead of addressing the concerns.

 

[Fifth Element]

[Again, WOW did you ever miss the point.
There have been tons of criticisms of 4e that have all kinds of reasons attached to them. It is the pro-4e side that is attempting to discard those reasons and sweep them all under a single label and then attack the label instead of addressing the concerns.

My posts have been specifically about attaching labels and why that's a bad thing, be it "grognard" or "videogamey". I don't see how your ad hominem attack disputes that.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I literally have played with DMs who don't even allow their players to role dice, you simply tell the DM what you want to do and he crunches all the numbers behind the scenes and then tells you in a dramatic narrative how the combat went.

But you don't need a very involved rules system to do that (see Improvisational Theatre). You certainly don't need one as quantifying as D&D - Theatrics would work just as well, if not better if you felt you needed some kind of "game" framework.

To me this is what RPGs are all about, sitting around a table listening and telling a story . . .

Rolling your own dice and using visual aids in combat situations does not dis-enable that aspect of the game. For some it may enhance their abiility to "see" the story unfolding and even increase their ability to immerse themselves in the immediacy of the events at hand.

I have been gaming for over 30 years. I am a commited extrovert with a strong streak of theatricallity (if that is a word). Yet, both as a player and as a GM I want to roll dice. I want that sense of fate/destiny/luck resting in the palm of my hand.

I have run games under more than a dozen rules sets from Aftermath to Traveller to Traveller 2300 to D&D to RuneQuest to Warhammer Fantasy to. . . .you get the idea. From rules heavy, to rules light, from published worlds to home-brews. I have yet to see "the rules" get in the way of anyone's ability to Role Play.

.........Exactly what is it that you see in the new rules that will prevent "the up and coming generations will not be able to experience this wonderful element of the game."

 

[BryonD]

If someone is incapable of making a criticism without using vague, and very reactionary language, then perhaps the critisism isn't as valid as you think.

You are still making the exact same mistake.
You are cherry picking select examples and then painting everything as falling under those cases, when that is not remotely accurate. Even if 6 people call names and only 1 makes the detailed criticism, you can not pretend that the criticism offered is invalid due to the words of someone else. And I'd say the 6 to 1 is giving your side a great benefit of the doubt.

If you can't address the real criticisms then perhaps they are a whole lot more valid than you are willing to admit.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Then the argument that 4E requires minis is totally bogus then.

If one can play a 1E/2E wizard WITHOUT the use of some form of minis, there is nothing I see in the 4E rules that requires the use of minis. For example, the warlocks' curse and move is no more harder to describe than using freeform by a DM to describe the effects of a fireball.

So if you can do 1E/2E wizards without minis, what rules in 4E do you think require minis.

It's not so much that 4e will require minis but that the combat rules are so tightly bound to the grid and minis that it will make running the game without minis much more difficult than in 1e, 2e, or Classic D&D.

There have always been two styles of play: with and without minis. Some like one style, some like the other. 3e, 3.5e, and 4e all work under the assumption that minis will be used For those of us who like the game without minis, this is a negative development. I'd love to see the game move back towards the more minis-neutral stance of 1e, 2e, and Classic.

 

[Incenjucar]

4E certainly has more reasons to use grids (minis are just for looks, all you need for a grid is graph paper and a way to mark positions), since more classes make use of grid-based tactics rather than "I stand there and turn on auto-attack" like they used to.

But as someone who mostly DMed 2nd edition, I don't see an absolute need for grids. They're just an even better idea now than before because every single class can make use of it.

 

[BryonD]

My posts have been specifically about attaching labels and why that's a bad thing, be it "grognard" or "videogamey". I don't see how your ad hominem attack disputes that.

You called the prior post a straw man when it was not.
You called this last post an ad homimem when it was not.
Do you just not know what these terms mean? Or are you just attaching labels?

All that aside, I had responded to Hussar's post, not yours.

 

[Primal]

I call shenanigans on this.

There is simply no way to run the classic 1E/2E wizard WITHOUT the use of some type of marking system, be it as simply as whiteboard and marker or as detailed as a grid with minis.
There is just no way you can use the classic wizard spells like Fireball and Lightning Bolt without the use of a "board".

What 4E has done is that it has changed it so that instead of JUST the wizard requiring a board, it looks like the warlock and the rogue both require having a board to help visualize. I personally see no reason why a board would be required for the ranger for example (no more having to worry about shooting into melee is the biggest reason).

IMHO, this is how it broke down in previous editions.
1E/2E - only the wizard, the druid and depending on how stringent your DM was with regard to backstabbing, the thief required the use of a board.

3.x - wizard, sorceror, cleric, druid, rogue and archer wielding classes required the use of an actual physical visualization BECAUSE of their powers.

4E - wizard, warlock, rogue and maybe cleric are the classes that seem to require the use of a board.

The reason why I believe this is HOW their powers work. A class that a) focuses on positioning of itself like the rogue or b) a class that has powers that affect both allies and enemies from range

These classes require that to use the class abiliteis effectively, you NEED to see the entire board. You need to see where the enemy kobold is in relation to everyone else if you want to drop a fireball on it. You need to see what's next to the giant so you can position yourself to get your sneak attack/backstab off.

Conversely, even in 4E, a paladin pretty much only needs to know what's adjacent to him which a DM can simply describe without the use of visual cues.

I disagree completely -- in my group we're still not using a board in 3E, because only spellcasting classes have powers that require measurements (for range and area of effect). You see, if the DM knows the distances at the beginning of the encounter, it's pretty easy to say: "Alright, you need to charge to reach them, or if you're hitting them with a Lightning Bolt, you'll get three with the spell." or that "The closest orc is about 65 feet away from you guys.". I'm not saying that using minis wouldn't help visualizing everything, but so far we've managed to play without them.