Things I hate

[jdavis]

I'm sorry, but I'm losing interest in replying to the terms you use only to have you turn around and say that those terms don't mean what you meant and that it is my fault for thinking that the words you do use mean something.

You insist you aren't attacking grids, then you turn around and attack grids again, just using slightly different terms that you will deny the next time.

I'll just say that even your final examples prove to me that you reduce the tactical detail of combat in your games compared to mine.

Your apple may taste just as good as my orange. But don't try to tell me they taste the same.

I have stated any number of times that I don't disagree with grids being good or helpful, I have stated several times that I am not agruing that the grid hurts the game, I have stated over and over again that it is a personal preference thing. You pick on me using the term number crunching which wasn't even used in context to talking about what the grid does and ignored the whole point I was making in that paragraph. You point out examples of my attacks on the grid system that I don't even understand how you could take them out of context and call them attacks. Here I'll put up the quotes you said were attacks:

if you are discribing things based on room diminsions and not room content then you are missing the point of a good discription

So this is a attack on the grid? I am saying you need a good description to play the game, grid use doesn't change the need for you to describe the room. This isn't a attack on the grid it's a attack metagaming and rules lawyering. The grid has nothing to do with it.

a lot of people get tied down in the mechanics and rules of the game and loose track of the storytelling part of the game

Same as above, no mention of the grid at all, just talking about the fact that the story is more important than rules lawyering.

so the players can picture the setting in their heads not on a grid map

Yes the grid map can't show if the room is dimly lit, slighly damp and smells of rot and decay those are things you will have to describe. If the party opens the door and your description is "the room is 10 feet wide by 15 feet long and contains 6 orcs and a table." then you are not making the room come alive. It has no feel or quality to it to make it memorable or stand out. I'm not saying the grid takes away from the description, I am saying you need to say the room is dimly lit, slighly damp and smells of rot and decay whether you use a grid or not.

I apologised for using the term number crunching already, I should of used something else, I didn't realize me saying the game wasn't about that would get you mad (even though you adamantly agreed with me that the game isn't about number crunching and you don't number crunch in the game).

I'm not sure what you meant by my final example, my listing of all the rules you implied we had to change that we used in the game Sunday exactly how they are written in the book. All those were not in one encouter they were just a list of rules we used over the course of a 6 hour game. I was just pointing out we used all those rules exactly how they are written in the book, I even went back and double checked the Players Handbook to make double sure. Or was it that I said I liked Battletech...or where I said that I can figure out the difference between five feet and ten feet on a map without using a grid? I know I sound sort of rude but actually I just don't have a clue what you are talking about.

You agreed with post by Psion and maddman75 that stated many of the same things that I am saying.

I think worrying about benig precise to the scale of the grid is a ludicrous situation because the grid itself is an approximation.

Yes and I can look at a map without the grid and get the distance within the same approximations the grid would give. I can figure things out to close enough to get the same effect, I'm just approximating using common sense and experience.

Oh, and I don't find that it substantially changes the feel to use them or not.

That's the whole point of my long winded argument, that is all I'm trying to say, it was a ok statement there why isn't it when I make it. If you replace the word grid with "rough map" in his post it sounds a lot like my campaign too. We only have 5 players so the top part is not something we have to deal with but other than that it's the same, we use a rough map if there is a lot of detail or movement, sometimes we even mark the map to show our location, where is this so different, if I overlayed a grid on my rough map would this open up a whole new level of tactical experience for us? This isn't about us gaming in our heads, it's about my ability to estimate 10 feet without a grid to mark it off. You say I can't do it and that makes your game more tactical. Give a example of this because I don't understand. I don't understand your point of view on this, I don't understand what you mean by more tactical detail. Are you saying your game becomes like battletech or that it becomes a chess match? I'm just saying we don't change the rules in the book, I'm saying you can play the game as written. If your game has a more strategy game feel to it then that is fine, but that has nothing to do with the grid or the rules in the Players handbook.

 

[MarauderX]

WE'RE FRIGGIN' LOST! -or- GIVE ME THE MAP!

I gotta say most people need the map, and me the most. I can't handle not knowing the direction of things and where the party is in relation to it. I hate this situation, which takes sooooo much time:

DM: "You enter a ravine. In the ravine are some humanoids that are clad in some ragged leather. What would you like to do?"

Player1: "Did we enter at the bottom of the ravine, or are we looking down from the top?"

DM: "You are at the bottom. There is a small stream to your left that comes from the ravine."

Player2: "So those humanoids, are they at the top of the ravine then?"

DM: "No, they are on the other side of the lower part, and have not noticed you..."

Player3: "I stealth over in the trees to identify them."

DM: "The trees end at the top of the ravine, and you are coming around the bottom, along the side... oh, let me draw it for you."


Instead I like a prepared DM who can just say "the ravine looks like this --" and pulls out at least a small 8.5x11 map of the ravine so we can get a sense of scale and direction. It helps so much, whether in a dungeon or wilderness, especially when there is a strong possibility of miscommunication.

I work in the architectural & construction field and know that unless you draw something up for someone else they will not understand what you meant perfectly about 50% of the time. Humans are visual, and i do not give them the benefit of a doubtful situation when it arises, so when there is a map of how far/close something/someone is the players know. Also I don't like to hear players or be the player that is moaning 'but i thought they were further away than that, and to the south...and now Gloin, boo hoo hoo, Gloin is dead!'

As a DM I like to prepare lots o' stuff in advance, and sometimes it involves some visual stuff, other times it's a lot of role-playing, but one of the best sessions I can remember running was a city adventure where the PCs were running around using their weak social skills to solve the puzzles in the adventure, and then at the end there was a huge battle. I had kept the mat flipped over and out of site for most of the session during the city part, but when I flipped the map out and they saw the detailed street layouts, I think they all stood up to check it out, and how they were going to make it from point A to B. Normally I hide the portions of the map the PCs can't see, but since they had already been all over the city they already knew the layout; they didn't know what lay in their path.

Most importantly the players switched gears from being role-players to combat oriented strategists, which changes up the game from being too much of one or the other. I have found I like to have both, and usually you get the hints from the players during the game when it's close to time to change it up. Having a player that is too much of one or the other starts to lose the interest of game for the other players and the DM.

Whew, that was my rant. Summary: Pro-battlemats. Pro-role players. Pro-communication.

 

[BryonD]

I have stated any number of times that I don't disagree with grids being good or helpful, I have stated several times that I am not agruing that the grid hurts the game, I have stated over and over again that it is a personal preference thing.

Originally posted by jdavis in his first post in this thread
Any game we have played using a battlemap or a grid of any kind has been a disaster, I don't know if I'd even play in a game that used mini's I've had lots of bad experiences with it turning into a huge wargaming session and that's not what I like

Which is it? Possibly "good or helpful" or "a disaster"?

You pick on me using the term number crunching which wasn't even used in context to talking about what the grid does and ignored the whole point I was making in that paragraph.

I have not ignored anything you said. You call your style a fantasy novel, something obviously very positive to nearly every person on these boards. While my style is like "calculus", possible the most boring thing in the world. But, of course, I'm just overreacting to read any implication into that. Yeah right. So then your flee from your own words and decide the "number crunching" is a more appropriate description. I call you on it and again you flee.

You point out examples of my attacks on the grid system that I don't even understand how you could take them out of context and call them attacks. Here I'll put up the quotes you said were attacks:

...snip quote A...

So this is a attack on the grid? I am saying you need a good description to play the game, grid use doesn't change the need for you to describe the room. This isn't a attack on the grid it's a attack metagaming and rules lawyering. The grid has nothing to do with it.

This is not a discussion about metagaming, or much about rules lawyering. The specific topic and specific context of the issue we were debating when you made that quote was pro or con of grids. Just because you did not use the term "grid" does not mean that the context of the debate becomes irrelevant. And regardless, your comment does exactly fit your claim that grids lead to getting caught up in "dimensions" over "contents". A claim that I have stated I have found to be true only very rarely.

...snip quote B...
Same as above, no mention of the grid at all, just talking about the fact that the story is more important than rules lawyering.

YOU are the one that equated grids with "wargaming" and "getting bound up in the rules", again in your very first post. You can't have it both ways. And you can't blame me for interpreting your terms in one post in the manner you defined them in prior posts.

...snip quote C...
Yes the grid map can't show if the room is dimly lit, slighly damp and smells of rot and decay those are things you will have to describe. If the party opens the door and your description is "the room is 10 feet wide by 15 feet long and contains 6 orcs and a table." then you are not making the room come alive. It has no feel or quality to it to make it memorable or stand out. I'm not saying the grid takes away from the description, I am saying you need to say the room is dimly lit, slighly damp and smells of rot and decay whether you use a grid or not.

Now you are back to mis-characterizing the use of grids. I am the one who has commented on the merit of the synergy of objective grids and imagination. Please point to any one of my posts where I have stated in any way that a grid was useful for doing the things you list above. You have not stated that a grids inherently takes away from the description. But you have indicated that people who use grids get “bound up in the rules” instead of using their imagination. Thus you have associated the use of a grid with taking away from description. Just because you have turned around and denied that in other places does not change that you have said it.

I apologised for using the term number crunching already, I should of used something else, I didn't realize me saying the game wasn't about that would get you mad (even though you adamantly agreed with me that the game isn't about number crunching and you don't number crunch in the game).

I’m not mad. But it is clear from the general comments from your posts throughout this thread that you do find the term “number crunching” to be somewhat attached to the style of play associated with grid use. Of course, I adamantly agree that it isn’t about number crunching. That has been my consistent position throughout.

I'm not sure what you meant by my final example, my listing of all the rules you implied we had to change that we used in the game Sunday exactly how they are written in the book. All those were not in one encouter they were just a list of rules we used over the course of a 6 hour game. I was just pointing out we used all those rules exactly how they are written in the book, I even went back and double checked the Players Handbook to make double sure. Or was it that I said I liked Battletech...or where I said that I can figure out the difference between five feet and ten feet on a map without using a grid? I know I sound sort of rude but actually I just don't have a clue what you are talking about.

But how do you know? Do you put markers on your map and move them each turn? (Obviously you do not) How do you know if a AoO was really required? Are you capable of memorizing the relative position of every single combatant? And all the other people that play with you have a hivemind (no offense to the hivemind) that share that knowledge? If you just say, “Well that should draw an attack of opportunity from one of the orcs.”, then that is fine. And you are using the AoO rule. But there is a gigantic tactical difference between objectively tracking the action and winging an approximation.

You agreed with post by Psion and maddman75 that stated many of the same things that I am saying.

Because I agree with many of the things you have said. It happens that 100% of the things that Psion and Maddman75 said fall in that group, and thus, I do agree with everything they said. There are a lot of things you have said that they did not say. I disagree with many of those things.

Yes and I can look at a map without the grid and get the distance within the same approximations the grid would give. I can figure things out to close enough to get the same effect, I'm just approximating using common sense and experience.

I’m certain you can. I am also certain that you can do it significantly better AND significantly more consistently and objectively with a grid. Or are you simply orders of magnitude more brilliant than us mere mortals?

That's the whole point of my long winded argument, that is all I'm trying to say, it was a ok statement there why isn't it when I make it. If you replace the word grid with "rough map" in his post it sounds a lot like my campaign too. We only have 5 players so the top part is not something we have to deal with but other than that it's the same, we use a rough map if there is a lot of detail or movement, sometimes we even mark the map to show our location, where is this so different, if I overlayed a grid on my rough map would this open up a whole new level of tactical experience for us? This isn't about us gaming in our heads, it's about my ability to estimate 10 feet without a grid to mark it off. You say I can't do it and that makes your game more tactical. Give a example of this because I don't understand. I don't understand your point of view on this, I don't understand what you mean by more tactical detail. Are you saying your game becomes like battletech or that it becomes a chess match? I'm just saying we don't change the rules in the book, I'm saying you can play the game as written. If your game has a more strategy game feel to it then that is fine, but that has nothing to do with the grid or the rules in the Players handbook.

Here is another quote from you. This one is from your first reply to me:

My prefered setting for running D&D or any game is in a living room with couches and recliners and comfy chairs not with everybody sitting around a kitchen table looking at a map.

That doesn’t really match what you said above. Your position has drifted very notably over the course of this debate.

If you use minis, or simply representative markers, then yes, it will open up a whole new level of tactical experience.

If you played battletech without a grid or markers, would it reduce the tactical experience?

Look, this keeps going back and forth in various shades of grey. As I said, there are a lot of things you have stated that I have no problem with. The issues I am disputing are quite simple. There are two.

1) You keep using highly negative terms to describe my style of play compared to yours. Yes, every time I call you on it you retreat from the terms, but then you go on to use a different but functionally identical term. Now I don’t care what style you prefer, and I don’t care what you think of my style. But if you describe my style in a way that isn’t remotely accurate, I will say so. If you dispute me, I will address your dispute.

2) You claim that dropping tactical tracking of combat from play has no effect. Sorry, I don’t believe that for a moment. I have played both ways and had a lot of fun both ways. But they are quite different. I’m really not clear on why it is such a big deal to you. You don’t want to “wargame” the battles, then don’t. So why is it so big a deal to insist that you get the wargaming experience without using the wargaming?

 

[jdavis]

jdavis,

How do you adjudicate reach weapons without measuring or using grids? For example, if I played my huge longspear wielding troll in your campaign, how would you know how far I could reach?

Am I dependent completely on your memory for the position of the baddies?

It would depend on the fight, if it was a small fight or a quick fight we wouldn't worry that much about it, if it was a big fight we would have a map, you would put your inital on the map where you were standing and point out that you were standing alittle ways back and using the weapons reach. If you put your initial or your dot or star or whatever on the map right next to the orc on the map then I would assume you were standing next to him, if you left a small space then you were standing back, and if you stated your intention to use the spears reach to stay back then I would jot down a note, if you did that in every battle then I'd just assume that was what you were intending. You can make a judgement call pretty easily if you are just judging whether something is 5 feet away or 10 feet away, that is a huge difference in length, you really don't need to estimate things down to less than 5 feet because that is the normal given unit of the game. But putting your initial on a map next to the orc you were hitting would be good enough I would generally assume you would be standing far enough back so you could use your weapon or you wouldn't of moved to that spot. If you gamed with us long enough there would be a understanding that you actually knew what you were doing and wouldn't of walked into something your character could obviously of seen.

I think the problem I am running into here is that there is a percption that if you don't use a grid then everything is in your head. It isn't, I love visual aid of any kind my group is a big fan of props (most of them are theater people), If I say you get a note from the Duke, then I am going to hand you a note not just read something to you, if you find a puzzle box in the dungeon then there is a chance somebody will actually hand you a puzzle box. When we were playing Cthulu we were really bad about physical props, we had old books that actually had the clues written in them, doctored photographs and sound effects; heck we even had a diagram for the seating inside of 1920's automobiles. I love diagrams and pictures (the illustrations that came with Tomb of Horrors were great aids for that module). We have maps and diagrams and pictures all the time, heck the party normally maps out the dungeon on a piece of old graph paper as we are exploring it, the last game the guy who was running drew the map of the dungeon himself as we were watching, so every turn and twist became a knucklebiter. When we opened a doorway into a dark tomb area he held up a piece of paper with little red eyes on it and said "you see this in the darkness and it's moving at you."

We use maps for everything, we love to have maps and in any combat situation that may take over three or four rounds or has even the slightest chance for confusion there is a map of the battlefield. It's just not a giant sized grid map, I never said we don't use maps, heck I never said we don't mark our positions on the map or that the bad guys are not marked on the map. Common sense is needed, you can't count out your exact move you estimate it but the actual tactical movement of the game is still there. If I said the width of a pencil eraser was five feet on the map then you could easily figure out how far 20 feet was in your head, If I said the room was 50 feet long and you could move 30ft then you can move a little over half the length of the room. You can mark position and movement without measuring distance an d get close enough to accuratly use the rules as they are written. 75% of combat doesn't require even that much detail you can just do it all in your head fater than it would take to draw the map, I mean how long are two orcs going to stand up to your spear wielding troll?

 

[jdavis]

Which is it? Possibly "good or helpful" or "a disaster"?

We'll It can be good or helpful, It just wasn't in our game. Is it possible that my own personal game doesn't immediately equate to everybody that plays D&D? I made a point of saying I and we (nine times) to point out I was talking about my own personal experience not making a general statement about the grid. The whole thread started by going off on people who do not use the grid, I was defending why we don't use it in our D&D game. (note: spelling error, that should have been battlemat not battlemap) I also make it real clear in my second post:

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with using a grid, I'm saying that there is nothing wrong with not using it, you can game without the grid and have just as good a time, it all depends on what the group likes and is used to.

I have stated and restated this over and over, I was defending why we don't use a grid not attacking the grid, I was saying what happened in our personal game so as to give the reason why we don't use it IN OUR GAME. I thought this was pretty clear by the fact that I kept using the term "in our game", I was talking about my game and the effect it had not stating that is what it did in everybody’s game, I spelled that out over and over again.

Look, if I said “I don’t like cats because they make me sneeze”, did I say anything bad about cat owners or cats in general? Did I say or even imply that cats make everybody sneeze? This is exactly the same thing.

I have not ignored anything you said. You call your style a fantasy novel, something obviously very positive to nearly every person on these boards. While my style is like "calculus", possible the most boring thing in the world. But, of course, I'm just overreacting to read any implication into that. Yeah right. So then your flee from your own words and decide the "number crunching" is a more appropriate description. I call you on it and again you flee.

I didn't call my style an fantasy novel and I didn't call your style calculus. Yes you are overreacting and reading things into it. I was talking about descriptive skills not the effect of the grid. I was replying to something that was said about descriptions, I started the post with:

I'd like to jump in and point out that a accurate description and a good description are not always the same thing

I thought that would make the point that I was talking about descriptions in the post, I stated I was talking about descriptions, maybe I should of stated "this is not a grid bash or a statement about what your game is" right off the bat, but I thought it was understood that I was talking about what I said I was talking about.

This is not a discussion about metagaming, or much about rules lawyering. The specific topic and specific context of the issue we were debating when you made that quote was pro or con of grids. Just because you did not use the term "grid" does not mean that the context of the debate becomes irrelevant. And regardless, your comment does exactly fit your claim that grids lead to getting caught up in "dimensions" over "contents". A claim that I have stated I have found to be true only very rarely.

I never claimed that grids lead to getting caught up in dimensions over contents. I stated that you needed the same descriptions whether you used the grid or not. I didn't say the grid made you game one way or the other I said you needed to describe things the same way. This is the metagame part of it (and maybe I shouldn't of read so much into what Barsoomcore was stating):

I think that was the point that was trying to be made, a lot of people get tied down in the mechanics and rules of the game and loose track of the storytelling part of the game,

I didn't say that the grid caused it (for that matter Barsoomcore didn't say the grid caused it, he said not using the grid made people better at descriptions because they relied more heavily on them), and don't even try to tell me that there is not too much emphasis on rules instead of storyline, we get a "Rangers suck and here's why" thread in general at least once a month, and there has been almost constant griping over the 3.5 rules change.

Even if you ignore what I stated I was talking about and go with the "context of the debate" you completely missed my point there, I was stating that you need to be able to describe things the same way whether you use the grid or not, I was talking about the fact that you need to be able to describe the room the same way regardless of grid use. You were talking about descriptions and I was replying to that, I'm not saying that DMs should use big flowery words and forget to say how big the room is, I'm saying that a interesting description is very important to the game. Just because your description is accurate does not mean that your description was good. I never said or implied that you didn't need to be accurate, I never said or implied that the grid caused you to give poor descriptions. I was making a point that an accurate description was not good enough, it had to be interesting too.

Believe it or not I can reply to one part of something in a quote and not be responding to the last 5 quotes a person made but just the part of the quote I STATED that I was responding to.

YOU are the one that equated grids with "wargaming" and "getting bound up in the rules", again in your very first post. You can't have it both ways. And you can't blame me for interpreting your terms in one post in the manner you defined them in prior posts.

I was stating what happened in my game and why we didn't use them, I went on and on over and over again to point out it was a personal preference, heck I even went to the point of saying that maybe we didn't use the grid long enough to get used to it. I was defending our reason for not using them, I never stated the grid caused anything at all to everybody's game, I was explaining why I didn't like it in OUR game. Heck I even have stated over and over again that I don't think what you are accusing me of implying, go with my statements not your perceived implications. I've went way out of my way to be fair to the grid argument, my point was and is that it is a personal preference thing, I was defending my own personal preferences. You are equating my statement of my own personal preference as saying the grid causes something to happen in everybody's game. Everybody's game is different, I am not making a statement about anybody else’s game I am explaining what happened in our game. I was very careful to always point out I was talking about my game. I can prefer to not use the grid and realize that it can be useful to other people, I do not believe that my way is the only way, I have stated over and over again that it's all about personal preference and that neither way is better than the other.

Look, if I said “I don’t like cats because they make me sneeze”, did I say anything bad about cat owners or cats in general? Did I say or even imply that cats make everybody sneeze? This is exactly the same thing.

Now you are back to mis-characterizing the use of grids. I am the one who has commented on the merit of the synergy of objective grids and imagination. Please point to any one of my posts where I have stated in any way that a grid was useful for doing the things you list above. You have not stated that a grids inherently takes away from the description. But you have indicated that people who use grids get “bound up in the rules” instead of using their imagination. Thus you have associated the use of a grid with taking away from description. Just because you have turned around and denied that in other places does not change that you have said it.

This all goes back to what I have already talked about, I never said or implied that the grid took anything away. I said you needed the same descriptions either way. Whether your car is a manual or a automatic you still have to steer the car to drive it. The same descriptive skills are needed whether you use the grid or not, therefore the grid should make no difference in that area of the game. People keep saying the grid helps them describe things I am saying that it isn't a replacement for a good description.

Look, if I said “I don’t like cats because they make me sneeze”, did I say anything bad about cat owners or cats in general? Did I say or even imply that cats make everybody sneeze? This is exactly the same thing.

I’m not mad. But it is clear from the general comments from your posts throughout this thread that you do find the term “number crunching” to be somewhat attached to the style of play associated with grid use. Of course, I adamantly agree that it isn’t about number crunching. That has been my consistent position throughout.

No I stated that the game isn't about number crunching it is about role playing, the grid does not change that. The style of play associated with grid use is the same style of play associated with not using the grid, it's all role playing. The grid is irrelevant, the grid does not make the game better or worse because the grid does not change what the game is, the only actual issue with grid use is personal preference.

Look, if I said “I don’t like cats because they make me sneeze”, did I say anything bad about cat owners or cats in general? Did I say or even imply that cats make everybody sneeze? This is exactly the same thing.

But how do you know? Do you put markers on your map and move them each turn? (Obviously you do not) How do you know if a AoO was really required? Are you capable of memorizing the relative position of every single combatant? And all the other people that play with you have a hivemind (no offense to the hivemind) that share that knowledge? If you just say, “Well that should draw an attack of opportunity from one of the orcs.”, then that is fine. And you are using the AoO rule. But there is a gigantic tactical difference between objectively tracking the action and winging an approximation.

What is the point of marking your position on the map if you don't remark it when you move? Of course we move our initials or dot or x when the character moves, that is the whole point of marking the map to show where you are standing. We only mark the map when the fight may be confusing or complicated (much like people keep saying they only use the grid if the fight might be confusing or complicated). I have stated over and over that the grid is only a measuring tool and that this is not about maps it's about a measuring tool.

I’m certain you can. I am also certain that you can do it significantly better AND significantly more consistently and objectively with a grid. Or are you simply orders of magnitude more brilliant than us mere mortals?

Yes I am able to estimate distance to the length of a couch, how much more accurate do I need to be. The grid estimates to 5-foot intervals, are you saying that I can't tell the difference between 5 feet and 10 feet? All I am saying is that I can figure the difference on a map between Mini Me and Shaq without needing a grid, and that's about the same estimate the grid gives you anyway. Just how objective do you need to be to use the rules as they are written, everything is broken up into 5-foot intervals, any more consistent or objective than that is a waste of time because it doesn't matter.

Here is another quote from you. This one is from your first reply to me:

HUH?

That doesn’t really match what you said above. Your position has drifted very notably over the course of this debate.

HUH? I stated we game in a living room. How is this a change in my position?

1) You keep using highly negative terms to describe my style of play compared to yours. Yes, every time I call you on it you retreat from the terms, but then you go on to use a different but functionally identical term. Now I don’t care what style you prefer, and I don’t care what you think of my style. But if you describe my style in a way that isn’t remotely accurate, I will say so. If you dispute me, I will address your dispute.

No I didn't use any terms to describe your style of play, I have no clue what your style of play is (that's why I asked what you were talking about last post). I never compared your style of play to mine, I never compared anybodies style of play to mine, I gave examples of my style of play to defend my position. Style of play is a personal preference thing, if you haven't figured it out I am very big on everybody's right to their own personal preferences and the fact that nobody's style of play is better than anybody else’s. Some people may have more skill at playing or more imagination at playing but nobody has a better style of play than anybody else because the game is based on personal preferences, it's all about entertainment value not rules adherence.

Maybe I am using the same "functionally identical term" because I am trying to say the same things a different way because I am trying to explain to you what I am meaning to say. You keep saying I am attacking you and I keep saying no I'm not and try to explain what I meant a different way, we clearly have a breakdown of communication and no matter what I say or how many times I say it you insist I am saying something I am not, when I say that's not what I meant, or that you misunderstood me why don't you accept that? Why do you insist I am saying something based on what you inferred rather than what I stated over and over again? Go with my statements not your inferences. If I wanted to attack your style of play I'd just come out and attack it. If I wanted to state that the grid causes anything I'd just state the grid causes this. You are reading stuff into my statements that just isn't there and are insisting that you know more about what I meant to say than I do.

What I stated; first, what happened in my game to defend my decision not to use the grid in my personal game (because it was implied in the first post that DMs who don't use the grid are wrong); second, that the same exact descriptive skills were needed whether you used the grid or not (because there was a discussion going on about descriptions); and third, that you can play the game using every rule in the Players Handbook without using the grid (because it was said that you had to use house rules if you didn't use the grid). Anything beyond that was just me trying to explain or reason out those three points.

Look, if I said “I don’t like cats because they make me sneeze”, did I say anything bad about cat owners or cats in general? Did I say or even imply that cats make everybody sneeze? This is exactly the same thing.

2) You claim that dropping tactical tracking of combat from play has no effect. Sorry, I don’t believe that for a moment. I have played both ways and had a lot of fun both ways. But they are quite different. I’m really not clear on why it is such a big deal to you. You don’t want to “wargame” the battles, then don’t. So why is it so big a deal to insist that you get the wargaming experience without using the wargaming?

I claim that I can use all the rules in the rule book correctly without using a grid, if I am using the rules correctly then how am I loosing anything from the game? Yes your game may have a different feel than my game but my game is just as correct and by the rules. I went back to the rules to show that the grid is not stated as necessary anywhere in any of the books, it just states it can help you. This isn't about style of play; this is about you saying that I don't use the rules properly because I don't use a grid to measure distance.

 

[BryonD]

You have got to be kidding.

I'm not going to bother go sentence by sentence because you have contradicted yourself so many time there isn't any point.

I'll just throw out a few contradictions and be done with it.

For the record, I am quite happy with the position you are now taking. I find it to be very consistent with my philosophy.

We'll It can be good or helpful, It just wasn't in our game. Is it possible that my own personal game doesn't immediately equate to everybody that plays D&D?

OK, so I was not supposed to interpret " Any game we have played using a battlemap or a grid of any kind has been a disaster" to be a generalization? Of course you are talking about your experience. Um, duh. If you do not consider your experience to be meaningful to anyone elses's then why bother posting it?

I don't know if I'd even play in a game that used mini's I've had lots of bad experiences with it turning into a huge wargaming session and that's not what I like

That is you saying that you don't know if you would even go near people who own cats.

I didn't call my style an fantasy novel and I didn't call your style calculus.

You want the players to be able to close their eyes and picture how a room looks in their head, you want the players to feel like they are interacting with the room, you don't want the players to feel like they are sitting in Physics class in school.

A good DM needs to have the same discriptive powers of the author of a good fantasy book not the discriptive powers of a high school calculus teacher.

I never claimed that grids lead to getting caught up in dimensions over contents.

I really don't care if you use a grid or not (it is a personal preference thing, no one side is any better than the other) but if you are discribing things based on room diminsions and not room content then you are missing the point of a good discription.

Yes, you say here the you don't care. But nobody had ever advocated describing things based on room dimensions. You are dancing on a pinhead in order to distance yourself from your own arguement. If no one has advocated description based on dimensions, then why are you suddenly telling us that it is bad? Answer: Because you are blatantly presuming that use of a grid leads to descriptions based on dimensions.

I never claimed that grids lead to getting caught up in dimensions over contents.

Again, completely within the total unambiguous context of a discussion of grids you said:

I think that was the point that was trying to be made, a lot of people get tied down in the mechanics and rules of the game and loose track of the storytelling part of the game

Please explain to me how any reasonable interpretation could be anything other than your association of grids with getting tied down in the rules.

Of course, you also contradict yourself there as well.

I hate it when we get to bound up in the rules and end up flipping books looking for some obscure rule instead of getting on with the game.

we don't really leave out rules or skip that much stuff

we don't downplay any rule

And, I know, I know, you're going to tell me that hating getting hung up in the rules and following them all are not contradictory. But I am comfortable claiming that any reasonable person will interpret your first quote as strongly infering (to the point of stating) that you happily skip rules during your games, in the interest of getting on with the game.

Please tell me, if you hate getting "bound up in the rules", why do you not downplay some? Removing things you hate tends to facilitate enjoyment.

Even if you ignore what I stated I was talking about and go with the "context of the debate" you completely missed my point there, I was stating that you need to be able to describe things the same way whether you use the grid or not, I was talking about the fact that you need to be able to describe the room the same way regardless of grid use.

OK, so why exactly did you tell me this then? What made you think I needed to know? Why in the middle of a debate on the pros and cons of grids did you suddenly start talking about something that, in your mind, had nothing to do with grids? And if you are changing the subject, as you clearly claim you were, why did you not mention it first? Particularly when you change it to such a closely related topic, so that the only reasonable result is confusion in readers who only naturally presume you still ARE on the topic.

HUH? I stated we game in a living room. How is this a change in my position?

My prefered setting for running D&D or any game is in a living room with couches and recliners and comfy chairs not with everybody sitting around a kitchen table looking at a map.

I think you have forgotten the part about not looking at a map.

We use maps for everything, we love to have maps and in any combat situation that may take over three or four rounds or has even the slightest chance for confusion there is a map of the battlefield.

I just kinda find this last quote to not jive with the whole not looking at a map thing. So, cool, you do pretty much play the way I do. GREAT!!

Look, if I said “I don’t like cats because they make me sneeze”, did I say anything bad about cat owners or cats in general? Did I say or even imply that cats make everybody sneeze? This is exactly the same thing.

How can I argue with such a perfect analogy? I just can't seem to find a single quote from you that seem to imply anything about the cat owners or automatic reasons that cats make you sneeze or anything like that.........

 

[jdavis]

You have got to be kidding.

I'm not going to bother go sentence by sentence because you have contradicted yourself so many time there isn't any point.

I'll just throw out a few contradictions and be done with it.

For the record, I am quite happy with the position you are now taking. I find it to be very consistent with my philosophy.

Except that you went on and on about how my game doesn't use the rules right. Besides you said yourself that I keep using similar terms to say basically the same thing, I'm still saying the same thing I was always saying, sorry it took a week and half a dozen post for you to understand what I said to start with.

OK, so I was not supposed to interpret " Any game we have played using a battlemap or a grid of any kind has been a disaster" to be a generalization? Of course you are talking about your experience. Um, duh. If you do not consider your experience to be meaningful to anyone elses's then why bother posting it?

Because I was defending my position in not using it, didn't I already say that? I was pointing out that it isn't some great wonderful tool for everybody, that for us it made the game a mess instead of making it quicker. Because everyone has different experiences with different things.

No you are not supposed to interpet it as a generalization, if I meant a generalization I wouldn't of said "for everybody" or "in general", and in the second post in the thread I stated that I was just talking about my own game and that I wasn't saying anything bad about the grid in general. I stated I wasn't saying what you assumed I was saying, in the second post just to avoid that assumption about the first post. Even if you interpeted that about my first post my direct statement in the second post should of covered that assumption a week ago.

That is you saying that you don't know if you would even go near people who own cats.

I game with people who own cats, but no I don't like to game with a cat on the table right under my nose. If you said you have to hold the cat to game here then no, I wouldn't, I don't mind the cat owner, heck I don't mind the cat, just not when it's in my face. (My ex was a cat lover, she has a housefull of cats so that might have something to do with it. I wouldn't game with her in my face either. )

As far as my statement on not knowing if I'd game with the grid people are going on and on all over how they don't like gaming without it. Once again personal preference I game the way I am comfortable, you game the way you are comfortable. I can not care for using the grid in D&D without thinking it is ruining the game for everybody, I am a big enough person to admit that my way isn't the only way to play the game.

Yes, you say here the you don't care. But nobody had ever advocated describing things based on room dimensions. You are dancing on a pinhead in order to distance yourself from your own arguement. If no one has advocated description based on dimensions, then why are you suddenly telling us that it is bad? Answer: Because you are blatantly presuming that use of a grid leads to descriptions based on dimensions.

No I stated what I was talking about at the first of that post, I restated it as a example of me stating what I was talking about. You were going on about accuracy and how your discriptions were more accurate because of the grid, I pointed out that the descriptions should be the same either way and that accuracy alone was not good enough they had to be interesting. A DM isn't there to just read the rules he's there to keep the game exiting and fun for the players. You advocated that your accuracy made your game better because you used a grid, I advocated that interesting was more important than accuracy in a description. You advocated descriptions based on dimensions yourself when you stated that it made your descriptions better because they were accurate to 5-feet on a grid. I was replying to your statement on accuracy being more important. Accuracy is not more important than interesting. What did it have to do with the grid arguement, well only that it was your point about descriptions I was talking about. I am not dancing around I am trying to explain the same thing over and over again, every explination is the same , I am using terms that mean the same things , my point has not changed. I was replying to this statement:

You and I could describe the same situation in each of our games.

My description is held to an objective standard and therefore must be more accurate.

Your description will never be anything more than 100% imagination. Without a standard, you are not forced to learn anything.

"Without a standard, you are not forced to learn anything" gee maybe that is what I was replying to, maybe that is what I was looking at. You are saying that you learn to describe rooms because you know the dimensions. This sounds like a statement of accuracy being more important than being interesting to me, this sounds like "knowing dimensions make your discriptions good" to me. You said more accurate is better than imagination and stated that everybody who doesn't use a grid is innacurate in their descriptions because they are using only their imagination. I said the descriptions should:

A. Basically be the same whether you use the grid or not.

B. Better be interesting and entertaining.

C. Being accurate doesn't necessarily make your statement good or interesting.

Isn't it obvious what I was posting in response to, I said it in my response I quoted it (twice now) I repeated over and over again in every response to every post on the subject. It's right there in your own words what I was talking about.

Please explain to me how any reasonable interpretation could be anything other than your association of grids with getting tied down in the rules.

Well it's obvious by the post I quoted that you are much more worried about dimensions and accuracy than imagination and creativity, you downplayed them with your accurate descriptions are better descriptions statement. As for the general assumptions, those are yours, but did I use the term grid? Did I say the grid caused anything? Can you deny my statement isn't valid? Just the fact that we are having this discussion at all about grid use and rules proves the point of the statement. Your the one who drew the connection between grid and rules and you have done it over and over again, I was just making a statement, that as it turns out is very relevent to this discussion.

If you assumed something from my statement then there is no problem at all but when I say no that wasn't a statement against the grid it was a general statement, and you say no it was a blatent attack then you are saying that you know more about what I meant to say than I do, and that is just silly. The problem is that when I say "what I meant was this", you are attacking me, and saying I am backpeddleing and changing my position instead of "oh I see" or even "you could of said that better". You know what when you type 20 pages of this stuff sometimes you are not as clear as you would like with everything you said, but the fifth time I have to explain what I meant it really gets old. Are you claiming that I am lying when I try to explain what I was talking about?

And, I know, I know, you're going to tell me that hating getting hung up in the rules and following them all are not contradictory. But I am comfortable claiming that any reasonable person will interpret your first quote as strongly infering (to the point of stating) that you happily skip rules during your games, in the interest of getting on with the game.

Please tell me, if you hate getting "bound up in the rules", why do you not downplay some? Removing things you hate tends to facilitate enjoyment.

Because the people I game with won't downplay any of the rules or let them go, I would happily skip rules but that doesn't mean that my group does. It's why I posted it in the "Things I Hate" thread. It's also why the whole "you have to use houserules if you don't use a grid" bit got under my skin, because we use everystinking rule whether I want to or not, I know we use them all because if they have a question about one of them they look it up at the table.

OK, so why exactly did you tell me this then? What made you think I needed to know? Why in the middle of a debate on the pros and cons of grids did you suddenly start talking about something that, in your mind, had nothing to do with grids? And if you are changing the subject, as you clearly claim you were, why did you not mention it first? Particularly when you change it to such a closely related topic, so that the only reasonable result is confusion in readers who only naturally presume you still ARE on the topic.

How presumtuous that I was only talking to you

I did mention it at the start of the post, and I already posted what I was replying to, your statement, here I'll quote it again:

You and I could describe the same situation in each of our games.

My description is held to an objective standard and therefore must be more accurate.

Your description will never be anything more than 100% imagination. Without a standard, you are not forced to learn anything.

You actually changed the topic to descriptions in your post. This is what I was posting in response to, I started out my post by stating what I was responding to, here I'll post that again too:

I'd like to jump in and point out that a accurate discription and a good discription are not always the same thing, science books tend to give very accurate discriptions but that doesn't mean that they give interesting discriptions.

I also said later in the post:

Using a grid or not doesn't change the fact that the game is played in your head, it's all a big fantasy that the players and the DM are making up.

Which means that whether you use the grid or not the descriptions must be the interesting. Accuracy isn't the key to a good description (as you implied) creativity and imaginative detail are key. Yes It was grid related but only in the fact that it was a discussion on what's needed for a good description. What I was pointing out was that the grid is irrelevant to having a good description of the room. It wasn't about the grid being good or bad it was about the needs of the description whether the grid was there or not. Maybe not a completly different topic but it was a definate sub topic to grid pros and cons. The topic was the importance of accuracy vs imagination as was being discussed in the post I quoted.

The problem here isn't that you misunderstood or I worded things poorly the problem is that I try to explain what I meant over and over and you treat me like I am lying about it or trying to cover up something. I have stated over and over and over and over what I meant , I have stated it in every way possible, I'll even admit that I could of worded it better the first time through, but good grief I directly stated what I believe both before and after that one post, and you still go with your assumption and say I'm backpeddling and doubletalking, if that one post caused some confusion then I am sorry. Go with the direct statements not the assumptions, particularly if they are before the post you are assuming stuff about.

I just kinda find this last quote to not jive with the whole not looking at a map thing. So, cool, you do pretty much play the way I do. GREAT!!

You got me, I should of typed grid map instead of map. Gee wiz we are digging aren't we, I state something twenty times as what I meant and you get me on a spelling error. I thought it was obvious what I was talking about was the huge fold out grid maps you put minatures on, not the rough sketch maps I have mentioned over and over again (including in the very first post). (We don't sit around the table looking at a map we pass a notebook or a clipboard around the room with the map on it, think I already said that before too.) It was the gaint grid map under our noses that took away from our game and was what I was talking about. For some reason it became the focus of the game instead of being a tool to help us get into the game. It just didn't work for us at all. I didn't mean to say that I dislike all games on grids, just that it didn't work for us in D&D.

I don't think we are all that different here and that was one of my big points to start with, the game is the game whether you use the grid or not. The whole grid issue is way blown out of proportion to what is really important to the game.

How can I argue with such a perfect analogy? I just can't seem to find a single quote from you that seem to imply anything about the cat owners or automatic reasons that cats make you sneeze or anything like that.........

It's probably the shortest and easiest thing to understand that I have written in this crazy thread.

 

[BryonD]

I'm sorry, but you have consitently used very specific language to make very specific point. And time after time you come back and say that what you said was radically different than what you meant. I have no idea how you are going to change the meaning of what you have said in this post in your future posts, so it seems pretty hopeless.

Except that you went on and on about how my game doesn't use the rules right.

If you did what you SAID you did before, then I stand by my statement. Now that you have dramatically revised your description of how you play, the conclusions change.

if I meant a generalization I wouldn't of said "for everybody" or "in general",

So "of any kind" in no way generalizes.... OK.

You were going on about accuracy and how your discriptions were more accurate because of the grid, I pointed out that the descriptions should be the same either way and that accuracy alone was not good enough they had to be interesting.

You have stated that accuarcy alone is not good enough, that is true. And I have responded that this is a typical anti-grid misrepresentation that ANYONE using a grid thinks that accuracy alone is enough. STILL your comments carry this deeply flawed assumption that those of us who like grids need you to enlighten us about the merits of description to go with our scales. We do not need it. You say that you are pointing that out, so you admit that somebody needs it pointed out. What basis makes you think that somebody needs that? Answer: No basis, just your biased presumptions.

A DM isn't there to just read the rules he's there to keep the game exiting and fun for the players.

And I need you to tell me this because I use a grid? Or why?

Well it's obvious by the post I quoted that you are much more worried about dimensions and accuracy than imagination and creativity, you downplayed them with your accurate descriptions are better descriptions statement.

Completely wrong. I have stated time and time again that both are important. That they work together. You are the one putting one over the other.

problem is that when I say "what I meant was this", you are attacking me, and saying I am backpeddleing and changing my position instead of "oh I see" or even "you could of said that better".

Sorry, but when you call black "white " and then later say you meant "white", it just doesn't occur to me to say, "you could have said that better."

You got me, I should of typed grid map instead of map. Gee wiz we are digging aren't we, I state something twenty times as what I meant and you get me on a spelling error.

You misspelled "GRID" as "MAP"?
OK, so the sentence was supposed to be:
"My prefered setting for running D&D or any game is in a living room with couches and recliners and comfy chairs not with everybody sitting around a kitchen table looking at a grid."

First, the sentence doesn't even make much sense now. Are you saying that you do like sitting around a kitchen table looking at a map, as long as there is no grid on it? What other point of the statement is changed by switching that one word?

Second, so, THAT statment is simultaneously true with

We use maps for everything, we love to have maps and in any combat situation that may take over three or four rounds or has even the slightest chance for confusion there is a map of the battlefield.

Plus numerous other quoted from you in the latter stages of this thread in which you have described that you make locations on maps and move the marks and basically use tactical combat. I'm really unclear on why you so emphatically described the sitting in comfy chairs as a antithesis of using a "grid" but now say that you, in fact, constantly mark on figures and maps. Are you REALLY unable to see the contradiction in these completely opposite statements?

I mean, at the beginning you made a big deal out of describing the comfortable setting that is made possible by removing the physical limitations of a map, er, excuse me, a grid. (Still not clear on how looking at a grid requires a kitchen table but a map does not...) You also made it clear that you where strongly biased against minatures. But now you explain that you mark locations on maps frequently and move the marks around as needed. Do you not see that the difference between moving marks and using minis is nothing more than cosmetic?

Honestly, if you wanted me to usnderstand the way you played from the begining, you could have said these thing better. (like by saying, "we use markers inplace of minis when we need them." That would have put a different image in my mind than "never used grids or minis" and " don't know if I'd even play in a game that used mini's" Can you see how these things produce a slightly different concept in the mind of the reader?

If you want me to step back and say "you could have said these things better", perhaps it would be nice if you say" Gee, maybe if I hadn't said so many things in ways I didn't really mean, BryonD might have a dramatically different idea and understanding of what I really did mean. This might dramatically change the replies he posted." Or is this type of advice just a one way thing?

I don't think we are all that different here and that was one of my big points to start with, the game is the game whether you use the grid or not. The whole grid issue is way blown out of proportion to what is really important to the game.

True. I have never dispusted that.

But I will continue to dispute statements like:

Well it's obvious by the post I quoted that you are much more worried about dimensions and accuracy than imagination and creativity, you downplayed them with your accurate descriptions are better descriptions statement.

In the quote you posted, I was replying to the false claim that NOT using a grid facilitates better descriptions. I was demonstrating that an opposite argument can be made. But even with that, your description of my quote is totally wrong. Nothing in it states that I am even SLIGHTLY less worried about dimensions and accuracy and and did not DOWNPLAY them at all. The ENTIRE POINT of the quote was how to make descriptions better through the use of grids. How in the world can you possible read that as saying that one part is more important than the other. Just look at it. if I describe the merit of grids purely as a tool for making better descriptions (which is what I did in the quote you referenced) then it is trivial to see that description would be MORE important than something that merely makes that description better. This is a really desparate twisting of words. Now in other places I go on to state numerous times that grids also bring in other values (objective scaing). Thus I think that both are equally important. But the quote you referenced says EXACTLY the opposite of what you claim.

Honestly, lets paraphase the statements down to the core concepts:
barsoomcore: "Not using a grid makes descriptions better."
Me: "Using a grid makes descriptions better."
You: "AHA!!, You don't use as much imagination."

??????

So we return to YOUR constant false assumption that people who use grids place the value of accuracy OVER description. This claim is wrong and is the point of I have challenged throughout. In my games BOTH description and accuracy are both highly important. Not a single word I have stated indicates that either is more important.

You keep insisting that you don't think my game is less than yours. But here at the end you again openly state that my games have reduced creativity and imagination (but, of course, I was just over reacting on that whole fantasy novel thing, yeah right). Well, you can't think that I downplay imagination and at the same time think that our games are ultimately the same.

I guess, somewhere, you could have said things better.

 

[BryonD]

nothing to see here....

 

[jdavis]

I'm sorry, but you have consitently used very specific language to make very specific point. And time after time you come back and say that what you said was radically different than what you meant. I have no idea how you are going to change the meaning of what you have said in this post in your future posts, so it seems pretty hopeless.

I have used very specific language to make the same point over and over again, Yes I do see some mistakes I made early on when I didn't realize every single word I typed would be picked over with a fine tooth comb. Obviously I stumbled into something much bigger than I thought when I started, believe me I will not comment on grids again, it's not worth the trouble to drag through the paranoia. Obviously this is a touchy subject for you and the Pro-grid community (whatever the heck that is). I feel like every word is under the microscope and every time I turm around you will bull out some obscure thing I said two pages ago and say ah ha see I proved you are disrespecting the grid, even when I bluntly state over and over and over and over and over aond over that I am not.

If you did what you SAID you did before, then I stand by my statement. Now that you have dramatically revised your description of how you play, the conclusions change.

I said we use rough maps in the very first post, I thought I said we even mark our positions if it may get too confusing, that's why I kept talking about the grid is only a measuring tool. Good grief I can't even keep up with everything I have said as I have written a 20 page essay off the top of my freaking head here and there. I never dramatically revised my position or my statement, does me saying that we will put initials on the map completly change the point that I was making that we don't have to count out and measure any moves? If I thought that was all you were looking for I would of mentioned it days ago. It's very rare that we do mark the map and we only do it if there is a huge battle, it's a freaking scribble on a piece of notebook paper. To me it does change everything, it's a scratch paper we pass around the room when somebody has a question about position, not a giant in scale map of a battle with grids that we all sit around like were in a war room planning D-Day. Heck we've drawn them on post it notes before. So you mean that I've been going over and over this crap about measurements and counting movements and worrying about tactical movements and all I needed to say is well we will put a freaking dot on the paper if the battle is to hectic. I thought we were talking about the big grid maps people roll out on tables that are scaled for minatures, not a post it not e with a couple of initials on it. Yes I said it at the start and I said it all the way through we will use visual aids and maps if need be, we rarely do because it's rare that the fight is that complicated but yes we do. What I said all the way through the thread from the very first post is that we will use rough maps if necessary but rely on discription and common sense for judging movement. Obviously I am freaking missing the point here?

So "of any kind" in no way generalizes.... OK.

the statement was "grid of any kind", you know hex grid, square grid, see through grid, overlays. What did you think I meant? Those type of big tactical role out maps that people use with minatures, am I missing something here?

You have stated that accuarcy alone is not good enough, that is true. And I have responded that this is a typical anti-grid misrepresentation that ANYONE using a grid thinks that accuracy alone is enough. STILL your comments carry this deeply flawed assumption that those of us who like grids need you to enlighten us about the merits of description to go with our scales. We do not need it. You say that you are pointing that out, so you admit that somebody needs it pointed out. What basis makes you think that somebody needs that? Answer: No basis, just your biased presumptions.

"Typical anti-grid misrepresentation"? What are you talking about? I guess this is much bigger than I ever thought it was. Look two months ago I posted one in a thread on minatures saying that I didn't realize they were that popular, then I posted here when I saw the first post on people who don't use grids. I am not part of some big conspiracy or persicution group, this is my first actual discussion of the subject at all. It seems by this statement that you are basing your interpetation of my meaning on some past fight or argument you had not on what I keep trying to explain I meant. "STILL your comments carry this deeply flawed assumption that those of us who like grids need you to enlighten us about the merits of description to go with our scales." What the heck are you talking about, my assumption was that you needed a good description either way, I stated that over and over in the post in question. I don't know why you are so touchy on this but when I say that this is about needing equal descriptions then that is what I meant and that is all I meant, anything more than that I really don't even care to talk about because it's obvious that you are locked into the being grid bashing no matter what I say. I have stated the exact same thing over and over angain, I stated before and after that I was not attacking the grid or saying negative things about the grid, that's it I will not say it again, believe what you want. Do you really think I would be this freaking angry about you misrepresenting me so badly, or that I would go on so much about how you are not getting what I am saying if you were even close to my actual meaning. I stated it in plain english before during and after that post.

And I need you to tell me this because I use a grid? Or why?

I wasn't talking to just you I was posting on a messageboard, obviously we've ran everybody else off but at that time there were several people posting here. It wasn't a personal attack, it wasn't a grid attack, it was me talking about descriptions. It was stated all in it. If I wanted to make a attack then I would of made a attack, I would of come right out and said it, I wouldn't of beaten around the bush and went back and tried to explain it away, I would of let you have it, instead I said it wasn't a attack over and over and over and over and over and over.

Completely wrong. I have stated time and time again that both are important. That they work together. You are the one putting one over the other.

Sorry, but when you call black "white " and then later say you meant "white", it just doesn't occur to me to say, "you could have said that better."

But I said it over and over again, I spelled out exactly what I meant before, during and after. I stated and restated exactly the same thing. Eh why bother, I just don't have the energy to restate my position for the 50th time.

You misspelled "GRID" as "MAP"?

no I meant gridmap. actually I didn't realize it would be picked apart like a law docuament or I would of been sure to give all the details, not just assume that it was obvious by what I was talking about, huge giant grid maps scaled for minatures, is there any other kind? Isn't that the grid in question, aren't grids the big grids used with minatures, heck they hand out fold out girds in Dragon Magazine that are two by four pages that only cover a small street. You can't sit in a living room and use the grid maps that well because you have to put the dang thing on the floor, most of them are bigger than a coffee table. It's awkward and bulky and takes up room that I could be using to prop my feet up. Apparently I am either missing something or we are not on the same page as to what a gridmap is.

Second, so, THAT statment is simultaneously true with

Yes the the small scratch pad maps or the pre-printed dungeon maps, not the grid maps you use with minatures. I have stated over and over and over and over and over and over and over that I am not talking about the map, just the grid. I can fling a sticky pad or a old notebook across the room heck we can turn it over and use it to pass private game notes, heck half the time we just use the dungeon map the party is drawing, we've had ten round battles in a space the size on your thumb on a map. It's a huge difference between using a big grid map and minatures, it's freaking dots on the back of the DMs hand as a very rough visual aid to stop confusion.

Plus numerous other quoted from you in the latter stages of this thread in which you have described that you make locations on maps and move the marks and basically use tactical combat. I'm really unclear on why you so emphatically described the sitting in comfy chairs as a antithesis of using a "grid" but now say that you, in fact, constantly mark on figures and maps. Are you REALLY unable to see the contradiction in these completely opposite statements?

What does making marks on a sticky pad have to do with giant grids with minis on them. I have stated over and over that I was talking about the grid as a measuring device. And yes we are using tactical combat, I said that to start with two pages ago. I said we did the measurements in our heads and used descriptions and common sense, not measuring out movements on a grid. I thought I said something about marks pages ago but I just don't care to re-read the freaking thread again to see; but I know for a fact that I said it wasn't about the map it's about the grid and I know I said it's just about the grid as a measuring device, because I said those two things 500 times. I said over and over that we will use maps and visual aids if the situation gets confusing we just don't need the grid for measuring things out.

Sitting in comfy chairs is the antithesis of the grid as you put it because you need a table for the big freaking map. I can role my dice on a clipboard and recline in the chair with my feet up if I don't have to sit around a table. Five or six people in a living room are not sitting right next to each other they are sitting all around the room, there is no focal point, the DM has a small table (normally a TV tray) sitting next to him the rest of us are sitting back on the couch or in chairs, one guy likes to sprawl out on the floor, where would you put the gridmap?

I mean, at the beginning you made a big deal out of describing the comfortable setting that is made possible by removing the physical limitations of a map, er, excuse me, a grid. (Still not clear on how looking at a grid requires a kitchen table but a map does not...) You also made it clear that you where strongly biased against minatures. But now you explain that you mark locations on maps frequently and move the marks around as needed. Do you not see that the difference between moving marks and using minis is nothing more than cosmetic?

A map doesn't require a table because it is on a piece of notebook paper that you can hold in one hand. We don't mark our places frequently, only when there may be some confusion. There is a lot more than a cosmetic difference between moving six squares around a attacker and casting a fireball on a certain grid point and me saying I move over there and fireball the orcs. Even if I'm using a map and marking I'll just estimate about how far I can move and draw a new point, I don't count out grid moves I don't measure in any way, which is what I said pages ago and restated hundreds of times. We say where we are moving and move there. It's a huge difference between counting squares. Yes I understand where you are comming from and since I probably figured it was understood what I was doing when I said we use a map and visual aids when needed and didn't spell everything out in detail, I'll just say I am wrong, it's easier than trying to dig up exact quotes from these huge post and go on with this any more. Obviously I did not realize there would be a test over this material or I would of tried harder earlier.

Honestly, if you wanted me to usnderstand the way you played from the begining, you could have said these thing better. (like by saying, "we use markers inplace of minis when we need them." That would have put a different image in my mind than "never used grids or minis" and " don't know if I'd even play in a game that used mini's" Can you see how these things produce a slightly different concept in the mind of the reader?

Yes it seems there are only two sides here 100% on a grid with a map and 100% in your head. If I realized I was walking into a battleground I would of done a little freaking research. I went on and on saying this was about using the grid as a measuring device, and that we do use rough maps when we need to because people seemed to be putting the map and the grid together as one unique item. I was trying to point out there was a difference between the map and the grid but obviously in this arguement there is no side for that. It's one or the other. I think when I stated that this argument was overblown that was the understatment of the year. You seem to talk like you have this discussion all the time around here. I didn't realize there were actual sides or given pre-assumptions (and honestly I am still not believing that is the case, I'm just going by your statements earlier that there is a pro-grid community or a typical anti-grid misrepresentation). Honestly I didn't think that much about marking the map I was talking about all the fussing and planning and studing and counting out of different moves and people trying to fit a round fireball into a square grid that we had problems with. I didn't think somebody saying I move here and putting a initial on a map was the crux of the arguement, it's not what caused our problems with the grid it was the huge ass gridmap that mezmerized everybody and became the focus of the game. Nobody in my group focuses on the dots on the paper as important, they focus on what the DM tells them.

If you want me to step back and say "you could have said these things better", perhaps it would be nice if you say" Gee, maybe if I hadn't said so many things in ways I didn't really mean, BryonD might have a dramatically different idea and understanding of what I really did mean. This might dramatically change the replies he posted." Or is this type of advice just a one way thing?

Yes I could of said them better as I obviously have failed to make you see what I was talking about, but I never changed what I was talking about, matter of fact I keep typing the same things over and over, give or take a phrase or word. It seems that I can change one minor adverb in a sentence and you say I changed from black to white in my position, but I can state in clear english something and you read it as a attack you infer (apparently based on some pre-concieved notions you have of the typical agruements used in these discussions). I have no clue where half of this is comming from as much of it seems nuts to me. If I state something like D&D is not about number crunching it's about imagination, then that is what I mean not "grids are the devil". To me you sound like you are paranoid and overly defensive and to you I apparently sound schizophrenic and it just keeps getting worse the harder I try so I just give up.

In the quote you posted, I was replying to the false claim that NOT using a grid facilitates better descriptions. I was demonstrating that an opposite argument can be made. But even with that, your description of my quote is totally wrong. Nothing in it states that I am even SLIGHTLY less worried about dimensions and accuracy and and did not DOWNPLAY them at all. The ENTIRE POINT of the quote was how to make descriptions better through the use of grids. How in the world can you possible read that as saying that one part is more important than the other. Just look at it. if I describe the merit of grids purely as a tool for making better descriptions (which is what I did in the quote you referenced) then it is trivial to see that description would be MORE important than something that merely makes that description better. This is a really desparate twisting of words. Now in other places I go on to state numerous times that grids also bring in other values (objective scaing). Thus I think that both are equally important. But the quote you referenced says EXACTLY the opposite of what you claim.

Honestly, lets paraphase the statements down to the core concepts:
barsoomcore: "Not using a grid makes descriptions better."
Me: "Using a grid makes descriptions better."
You: "AHA!!, You don't use as much imagination."

??????

Look here is what you said:

Your description will never be anything more than 100% imagination. Without a standard, you are not forced to learn anything.

If you can infer all this wildness off of what I am sayiong but you can't see this is a obvious slander then there is no sense arguing about anything anymore, this is a two way street, you can't just turn from black or white on me either. You have made countless vieled attacks and statements, you say both ways are good but then have to slip something in as to why your way is still better everytime, you used inflamitory language and have said you agreed with mee a dozen times only to go back and say sometning to the effect that I am still wrong. I tried to give you the benifit of the doubt and just go with your direct quotes and ignore all the other crap, but if your going to hang me up over it well I might as well point out that you are doing the exact same thing you are acussing me of doing; only I'm not actually doing anything but trying to be understood.

What I stated (over and over and over and .......) is that the descriptions should be the same regardless of grid use, not "AHA!!, You don't use as much imagination."

What you stated is that the only way you can learn how to describe anything well is by having a standard and that 100% imagination was apparently something lesser that you didn't learn anything from. You also glossed over the obvious fact that nobody uses 100% imagination in their descriptions either. Since when is it the objective standard that is the only way to improve on descriptive skills in a fantasy game? How was I supposed to read that again? Wasn't it obvious what anybody reading that would think? I don't want to digress into a nitpicking war, I'll just leave that as is and state that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. I can tear them apart sentence by sentence but really what's the point.

On Imagination vs Accuracy (and this is my last point ever in this thread)If your description is interesting but it isn't accurate then you can get by because you are still keeping the players interested, but if you are accurate but not interesting then it doesn't matter because the players are not paying attention to what you are saying. Yes both is prefered but it's always better to keep the players interested in the game, interesting is the more important part. Please don't try to tell me that players who are bored care at all if you are 100% accurate and objective. (Note right at the first I stated what I was talking about and I am even putting this in to insure you don't infer any grid slight or meaning in this, there is none).

I won't say it's been fun but it has been real informative, good luck in your fight against the anti-grid forces. I learned a lot from this, but now I'm done with it. Back to Plots and Places for me where it's safe and happy all the time.