What would D&D look like without the emphasis on minis & maps?
- Thread starter RangerWickett
- Start date
JeffB
Legend
Well, I sure hope they DO make a 4E that is less dependant on mini's: I don't like them at all.
For ME the game is all about imagination. Little painted figurines hopping all over a grid get in the way of that. It breaks the game down in that players spend more time debating about their moves (like chess) instead of getting on with the action, and creating an interesting, free-wheeling combat.
Just not my thing. I know they solve some ajudication problems but for me they erode the foundation of the game.
But I certainly don't begrudge anyone else who likes them. I just wish that the game handled both styles equally well, which it does not.
For ME the game is all about imagination. Little painted figurines hopping all over a grid get in the way of that. It breaks the game down in that players spend more time debating about their moves (like chess) instead of getting on with the action, and creating an interesting, free-wheeling combat.
Just not my thing. I know they solve some ajudication problems but for me they erode the foundation of the game.
But I certainly don't begrudge anyone else who likes them. I just wish that the game handled both styles equally well, which it does not.
s/LaSH
First Post
Final Fantasy.
Let's look at computer RPGs for a moment. There are three types for the purposes of this discussion - the D&D-style ones, the real-time action ones, and the Final Fantasy-style ones. (These names I chose for a reason.)
D&D-style ones (exemplified by things such as Baldur's Gate, Fallout and Avernum) allow people to move around in combat. You see your characters in an actual mapped setting, normally the same one you were exploring before big nasties jumped out at you.
Real-time action ones (things like Zelda or Tomb Raider with swords, you know the drill) are even more immersive - there are no turns, you often run around impressively detailed 3D environments, and often your combat skill is reliant on how often you click the mouse. There's a 'tabletop' equivalent of this, and it's the LARP. Something that D&D isn't and should probably never be.
Final Fantasy-style ones (exemplified by Final Fantasy, Wizardry and similar first-person dungeon crawls, and that sort of thing) don't allow any movement. You line up your heroes on one side, and the bad guys line up on the other side (or, in the case of a Sneak Attack!, on both sides or behind you). Then you take turns beating the crap out of each other. There is normally no environmental interaction - if you're lucky, the background's green if you were in a meadow.
But wait! Computer games aren't nearly as flexible as tabletop games! Well, that's true... but consider: in what type of game are you most likely to complain about not being able to climb onto a table during combat? In a game with a map, the more that map is integrated into play the better (in my opinion). If you don't have the map to hand while you're fighting, you're not going to be worrying about that sort of thing as often, are you?
And besides, without maps, D&D loses a D and the other D is suddenly much more comfortable in a 10x10 stone room... not that you'd know how big the room is, anyway.
I like the idea of knowing where people are during combat - it's precise and often adds a graphical punch to the proceedings. ("Is THAT how big a giant scorpion is? Oh crap." -Actual paraphrase of play.) That's not to say that it's the perfect way of dealing with matters, but it's the way I prefer - and it's very useful for strategy. The players have pulled off some very interesting tricks by using their movement on a grid wisely (and it wasn't really grid movement, anyway. We know when to bend the rules).
Let's look at computer RPGs for a moment. There are three types for the purposes of this discussion - the D&D-style ones, the real-time action ones, and the Final Fantasy-style ones. (These names I chose for a reason.)
D&D-style ones (exemplified by things such as Baldur's Gate, Fallout and Avernum) allow people to move around in combat. You see your characters in an actual mapped setting, normally the same one you were exploring before big nasties jumped out at you.
Real-time action ones (things like Zelda or Tomb Raider with swords, you know the drill) are even more immersive - there are no turns, you often run around impressively detailed 3D environments, and often your combat skill is reliant on how often you click the mouse. There's a 'tabletop' equivalent of this, and it's the LARP. Something that D&D isn't and should probably never be.
Final Fantasy-style ones (exemplified by Final Fantasy, Wizardry and similar first-person dungeon crawls, and that sort of thing) don't allow any movement. You line up your heroes on one side, and the bad guys line up on the other side (or, in the case of a Sneak Attack!, on both sides or behind you). Then you take turns beating the crap out of each other. There is normally no environmental interaction - if you're lucky, the background's green if you were in a meadow.
But wait! Computer games aren't nearly as flexible as tabletop games! Well, that's true... but consider: in what type of game are you most likely to complain about not being able to climb onto a table during combat? In a game with a map, the more that map is integrated into play the better (in my opinion). If you don't have the map to hand while you're fighting, you're not going to be worrying about that sort of thing as often, are you?
And besides, without maps, D&D loses a D and the other D is suddenly much more comfortable in a 10x10 stone room... not that you'd know how big the room is, anyway.
I like the idea of knowing where people are during combat - it's precise and often adds a graphical punch to the proceedings. ("Is THAT how big a giant scorpion is? Oh crap." -Actual paraphrase of play.) That's not to say that it's the perfect way of dealing with matters, but it's the way I prefer - and it's very useful for strategy. The players have pulled off some very interesting tricks by using their movement on a grid wisely (and it wasn't really grid movement, anyway. We know when to bend the rules).
Similar Threads
