Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7617346" data-attributes="member: 996">I'm suspicious of complaints (or praise) that rest on appeal to tradition,&nbsp; yet require new terminology to express in a way that actually sounds negative (or positive).When 3e came out and used 1&quot;:5' squares, like 2e C&amp;T, but by default, instead of AD&amp;D wargame-provenance 1&quot;:10' (and grid maps) indoors, 1&quot;:10yds (and hex maps) outdoors, there was a hew &amp; cry over &quot;grid dependence.&quot;But what did that really mean? It wasn't that 3e had settled on a scale that more closely matched the 25-30mm minis long used with the game.&nbsp; It wasn't that it had dropped the arbitrary complexity of outdoor hex maps at a different scale.&nbsp; And it wasn't that the movement &amp; positioning tactics made easier by those simplifications - flanking, 'parting shots'/fighting retreats, impracticality of missiles and casting in melee, charging,&nbsp; holding choke points, careful placement of area effects, etc - hadn't always been nominally part of the game, and were now just easier to understand and more functional &amp; practical to actually use. If you used a graph paper map (as D&amp;D always had, /indoors/) and a play surface like a chessex battlemat you got more out of the game then you likely had before (unless you were an old wargamer with a sandtable and crates of Napoleonics miniatures you weren't afraid to imagine were goblins), and, if not, you didn't get anything less.But, call those simplified, more useable (more likely to /be/ used) rules &quot;Grid Dependence&quot; and you can make it sound bad.Contrarywise,&nbsp; there's TotM, cute acronym, you can spell it out Theatre for extra snoot, and like WWGS's 90s larp system, Mind's Eye Theatre, /mind/ makes it sound vaguely intellectual.But, what is it, really?&nbsp; It's just giving up a tool that makes it easier to track range/area &amp; movement/positioning.&nbsp; That's not terrible, if you provide alternate tools. 13th Age does that:&nbsp; the rules are written to add back much of the options and depth that a TT sub-sytem can deliver.&nbsp; 5e does not, it simply removes options,&nbsp; depth and facilitation from it's support for a play surface, so that you lose little if you don't use one - the loss is all up-front, when you choose 5e over 3.x/PF, 4e or 13A.But call it &quot;Supporting Theatre of the Mind by default,&quot; and it sounds positive.&nbsp;First off, 5e makes that easy: every class but the Barbarian has the option of casting spells in combat (the Totem Barbarian only gets rituals).Secondly, until your EK or AT gets spells at 3rd level, you can &quot;get creative.&quot;&nbsp; That is, you can propose an action that the rules don't cover (which admittedly, if you don't cast spells, is&nbsp;almost anything other than &quot;I attack,&quot; or maybe &quot;I grab&quot; or &quot;I Help&quot;), and persuade the DM to resolve it in your favor.(Of course, if you cast spells, you can also get really creative with implied consequences of the spells effects...)&nbsp; No, no, we don't say that - instead, say:&nbsp; &quot;this game really supports role-playing, not just combat.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7617346, member: 996"] I'm suspicious of complaints (or praise) that rest on appeal to tradition, yet require new terminology to express in a way that actually sounds negative (or positive). When 3e came out and used 1":5' squares, like 2e C&T, but by default, instead of AD&D wargame-provenance 1":10' (and grid maps) indoors, 1":10yds (and hex maps) outdoors, there was a hew & cry over "grid dependence." But what did that really mean? It wasn't that 3e had settled on a scale that more closely matched the 25-30mm minis long used with the game. It wasn't that it had dropped the arbitrary complexity of outdoor hex maps at a different scale. And it wasn't that the movement & positioning tactics made easier by those simplifications - flanking, 'parting shots'/fighting retreats, impracticality of missiles and casting in melee, charging, holding choke points, careful placement of area effects, etc - hadn't always been nominally part of the game, and were now just easier to understand and more functional & practical to actually use. If you used a graph paper map (as D&D always had, /indoors/) and a play surface like a chessex battlemat you got more out of the game then you likely had before (unless you were an old wargamer with a sandtable and crates of Napoleonics miniatures you weren't afraid to imagine were goblins), and, if not, you didn't get anything less. But, call those simplified, more useable (more likely to /be/ used) rules "Grid Dependence" and you can make it sound bad. Contrarywise, there's TotM, cute acronym, you can spell it out Theatre for extra snoot, and like WWGS's 90s larp system, Mind's Eye Theatre, /mind/ makes it sound vaguely intellectual. But, what is it, really? It's just giving up a tool that makes it easier to track range/area & movement/positioning. That's not terrible, if you provide alternate tools. 13th Age does that: the rules are written to add back much of the options and depth that a TT sub-sytem can deliver. 5e does not, it simply removes options, depth and facilitation from it's support for a play surface, so that you lose little if you don't use one - the loss is all up-front, when you choose 5e over 3.x/PF, 4e or 13A. But call it "Supporting Theatre of the Mind by default," and it sounds positive. First off, 5e makes that easy: every class but the Barbarian has the option of casting spells in combat (the Totem Barbarian only gets rituals). Secondly, until your EK or AT gets spells at 3rd level, you can "get creative." That is, you can propose an action that the rules don't cover (which admittedly, if you don't cast spells, is almost anything other than "I attack," or maybe "I grab" or "I Help"), and persuade the DM to resolve it in your favor. (Of course, if you cast spells, you can also get really creative with implied consequences of the spells effects...) No, no, we don't say that - instead, say: "this game really supports role-playing, not just combat." [/QUOTE]

Verification