Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Dausuul]

* I suspect that, as the marketing data indicated was likely, the minis sold very, very well. If the marketing data is correct, then the sale of books is 1/10th the sale of minis; the game becomes a means of selling minis, rather than the minis becoming an adjunct of the game.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point, this does not logically follow from the observation that "gamers who buy minis spend 10x what gamers who don't buy minis spend."

More plausible, I think, is the explanation that some gamers are deeply committed to the game and some gamers are not. Those who are not committed to the game are unlikely to drop money on anything but the basics - a Player's Handbook and a few dice. They aren't going to be out buying minis.

Anyone who does buy minis is almost certain to be a committed gamer, and therefore willing to drop lots of money on the game. That doesn't mean all or even most of that money will be spent on minis. Until the last few years, I had bought maybe 2-3 minis in my entire life; but I had a heap of D&D books big enough to shingle a house with.

 

[wedgeski]

Although I tend to agree with RC that the progression of the game has gone hand-in-hand with Wizards' success with mini's, there is a distinction to be made here, if it hasn't been made already. The game does not encourage the use of minis, so much as it encourages the use of a battle-mat.

Now there happens to be an excellent line of official D&D mini's sold by Wizards that will do this job. But you could as easily use cardboard tokens (of which there are also many options on the market), marbles (I have a fine collection myself), bits of paper (I'm never without), beads, balls of fluff, bits of hardened pizza crust, coins... whatever. Maybe they're not as *fun* (well, depending on where the fluff came from), but they do the job.

In addition, that 40% figure that RC quoted... I too would have answered "no" to the question, "Have you ever used mini's to represent D&D combat?". But I would have answered an emphatic yes to the question, "Do you visualise D&D combats on your table using tokens to represents PC's and monsters?".

 

[Raven Crowking]

While I don't necessarily disagree with your larger point, this does not logically follow from the observation that "gamers who buy minis spend 10x what gamers who don't buy minis spend."

Perhaps not, but when I co-owned Golden City Comics, minis outselling books by a factor of 10 to 1 was pretty much spot on. Moreover, Scott Rouse's quote makes it seem likely that the margin was big enough to affect WotC's business plan.

Although I tend to agree with RC that the progression of the game has gone hand-in-hand with Wizards' success with mini's, there is a distinction to be made here, if it hasn't been made already. The game does not encourage the use of minis, so much as it encourages the use of a battle-mat.

That is absolutely true; but battlemats make less of a profit, I would imagine, than the little pieces of plastic that get placed on them. Encouraging the battlemat is the best way to encourage the use of minis that I know of.

I mean, am I the only person who remembers when WotC considered selling randomized virtual minis for the Virtual Tabletop (RIP)? That's how much profit there is in it for WotC. And, had there not been such a backlash against that idea, I bet the VT would be a reality now.



RC

 

[Hussar]

I mean, am I the only person who remembers when WotC considered selling randomized virtual minis for the Virtual Tabletop (RIP)? That's how much profit there is in it for WotC. And, had there not been such a backlash against that idea, I bet the VT would be a reality now.

Again, this isn't quite what happened. Someone at WOTC was basically just spit balling an idea, and IIRC, it wasn't even someone directly related to developing Gleemax, talked about something like this as part of a larger bunch of ideas. People, as was usual for the time, massively over reacted and now it's become "truth" that WOTC considered selling random virtual minis.

Kinda like a lot of things related to the roll out of 4e.

Meh, this conversation isn't going to end well. I'm out now.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Add this rule to all of your combats from now on:

Roll a d6 at the beginning of combat. If you roll a 6, you can participate in the combat. On a 1-5, your character is dead.

Now your combats have *more* risk. Does that make them better?

Cheers!

The odds could use a little work and fluff needs to be more closely tied in with the crunch.

The incident happened about 9 years ago - wow, where did the time go? As part of my Greyhawk campaign, there was an arena in which gladiatorial combats took place for profit. One PC - the 3rd level ranger - enrolled himself into a fight which was (IIRC) until unconsciousness or yielding. His opponent was the 1st-level half-orc, and the PC didn't get an action before he was dead.

So the ranger decided to engage in mortal combat with real weapons to try and make a quick buck? It seems the player decided on a risky endeavor based on metagame factors. Had he thought about the situation as the ranger then he might have realized that volunteering to let a bestial strong looking half orc swing an axe at him was perhaps not the wisest way to earn a bit of coin.

I mean, looking at the risk to the character before entering the arena, you were talking about 27 hit points to 5... even with weapon damage for the orc at 1d12+5 or thereabouts, you'd expect to survive a hit. Yeah, good old criticals and swingy combat.

Yup. Metagame thinking can get you killed kids, don't try this at home.

Yes, it is an extreme example, but that basic form of swingy combat applies to all low-level pre-4e combats. Characters are fragile as anything, and if the dice go against you, despite preparation, you're likely dead.

Thus, he who proposes combat as plan #1 sometimes does not survive to attempt plan #2.

I mean, I'm not against risk in combat. I'm not against unwinnable combats. I just like having the PCs have the option to make a decision that the combat can't be won and get out of there... rather than suddenly going from "I'm fine!" to "I'm dead!"

Cheers!

I think the problem lies with equating having a berserk hulk swinging an axe at you defined as "fine".

 

[ExploderWizard]

Do you mean "drop" as in dead or "drop" as in below 0 hitpoints?

Because, if you mean "drop as in dead" then that means you should be whacking a PC every other encounter. That's a bit bloodthirsty don't you think?

I meant reduced to 0 hit points, knocked out, or the like. It doesn't have to be death per se.


The level of combat threat being measured in resource consumption just always seemed lame IMHO. I guess if the goal is to lead PC's by the nose into fight after fight it has to be done that way.

 

[Votan]

The other problem with low-level 3e combat just related to the abilities of the wizards: Do I fire my crossbow (which I'm awful with) or cast my one spell for the day.

Well, to be fair, that was much more the lot of the wizard in 1E and 2E; in 3E the wizard needs to have an Intelligence of less than 12 not to have a bonus first level spell, is likely to have adequete dexterity (and so only be a point or two in attack bonus behind the Fighter) and has a bunch of cantrips.

Still, the scaling point is well taken as the opposite extreme (dozens of spells to cover all contingenices) wasn't ideal either.

 

[billd91]

* 3.5 comes out, and references to real distances are replaced by references to the grid; the game is made to forward the use of minis more than 3.0 did.

Nitpick. They didn't replace, they were added to the distances in feet. It's SW Saga and 4e that replaced the feet with squares.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nitpick. They didn't replace, they were added to the distances in feet. It's SW Saga and 4e that replaced the feet with squares.

Fair enough. The point is that a business decision is involved, and, from the standpoint of making the game profitable, it is a good decision.

But it has consequences to gameplay, and, depending upon your personal preferences, those consequences may be good or bad.


RC

 

[Herschel]

Minis are generally required for more complex and accurate combat. I don't think that's bad or good, just what it is. And as the game has evolved in to a more complex tactical game, marketing and playstyle kind of grew together.