Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="francisca" data-source="post: 3853610" data-attributes="member: 9734">I can only give my personal perspective, and perhaps this can help the OP understand the dislike of mini-centric D&amp;D.&nbsp; Let me start with this: I love mini games like Chainmail, Reaper Warlord, and an assortment of hex-less measurement and hex based miniature skirmish/war games.&nbsp; I love D&amp;D even more than miniature gaming.&nbsp; However, I think they are different gaming experiences.To me there is a continuum with roleplaying on one end and pure tactical minis on the other.&nbsp; I enjoy D&amp;D best when mini use falls just off center on the Roleplay side, in which minis are used as a general visualization tool, and actual measurement and distance doesn't matter as much as who is being flanked, line of sight, etc...&nbsp; I'm quite cool with eyeballing the situation, and saying, sure, the Ogre is in fireball range, and not worrying about counting squares and love not having blast radius templates chock full of right angles.&nbsp; :\&nbsp;&nbsp; 3.5 falls on the other side of the middle tending toward the tactical side, and to me, there is too much counting of squares and associated maneuvering.&nbsp; But that's cool.&nbsp; At my buddy's house, we play straight up 3.5, complete with all the stuff I don't really care for.&nbsp; It's just what it is, and as I'm not the DM, I roll with flow.However, there would come a point that if you keep driving D&amp;D toward the tactical/skirmish side of things, you'll end up with a miniatures based skirmish game with some level advancement bolted on the side.&nbsp; At that point, it would quit being &quot;D&amp;D&quot; to me.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think many others have a nebulously defined boundary along this continuum where we look at it, and think that it goes too far.&nbsp; The location of that boundary varies widely.A couple of years ago, I speculated here on ENW that 4e would be that minis game with roleplaying stuck to it on the side with duct tape (I think there are some compelling business reasons for them to do so).&nbsp; When I read that swift actions and some of the classes from DDM were released in the Complete Whatsit series, I saw it as confirmation.&nbsp; Maybe I was right, maybe not, we'll just have to wait and see. But anyway, there you go.&nbsp; I don't like too much much tactical mini play in D&amp;D, but I'm quite comfortable hacking up the game to fit my table, so it's no skin off my nose if I run 3.5 or 4e in the future.&nbsp; Others, I guess, are either not confident enough to do so, have a bunch of &quot;BtB!&nbsp; RAW!11!1&quot; shouting players at the table, or simply are pissy because WotC isn't doing it their way, and end up with with strong negative reactions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="francisca, post: 3853610, member: 9734"] I can only give my personal perspective, and perhaps this can help the OP understand the dislike of mini-centric D&D. Let me start with this: I love mini games like Chainmail, Reaper Warlord, and an assortment of hex-less measurement and hex based miniature skirmish/war games. I love D&D even more than miniature gaming. However, I think they are different gaming experiences. To me there is a continuum with roleplaying on one end and pure tactical minis on the other. I enjoy D&D best when mini use falls just off center on the Roleplay side, in which minis are used as a general visualization tool, and actual measurement and distance doesn't matter as much as who is being flanked, line of sight, etc... I'm quite cool with eyeballing the situation, and saying, sure, the Ogre is in fireball range, and not worrying about counting squares and love not having blast [I]radius[/I] templates chock full of right angles. :\ 3.5 falls on the other side of the middle tending toward the tactical side, and to me, there is too much counting of squares and associated maneuvering. But that's cool. At my buddy's house, we play straight up 3.5, complete with all the stuff I don't really care for. It's just what it is, and as I'm not the DM, I roll with flow. However, there would come a point that if you keep driving D&D toward the tactical/skirmish side of things, you'll end up with a miniatures based skirmish game with some level advancement bolted on the side. At that point, it would quit being "D&D" to me. I think many others have a nebulously defined boundary along this continuum where we look at it, and think that it goes too far. The location of that boundary varies widely. A couple of years ago, I speculated here on ENW that 4e would be that minis game with roleplaying stuck to it on the side with duct tape (I think there are some compelling business reasons for them to do so). When I read that swift actions and some of the classes from DDM were released in the Complete Whatsit series, I saw it as confirmation. Maybe I was right, maybe not, we'll just have to wait and see. But anyway, there you go. I don't like too much much tactical mini play in D&D, but I'm quite comfortable hacking up the game to fit my table, so it's no skin off my nose if I run 3.5 or 4e in the future. Others, I guess, are either not confident enough to do so, have a bunch of "BtB! RAW!11!1" shouting players at the table, or simply are pissy because WotC isn't doing it their way, and end up with with strong negative reactions. [/QUOTE]

Verification