Why Must I Kludge My Combat?

[Raven Crowking]

Minis are generally required for more complex and accurate combat.

Already refuted upthread.

I don't think that's bad or good, just what it is.

Depending upon your personal preferences, those consequences may be good or bad.

And as the game has evolved in to a more complex tactical game, marketing and playstyle kind of grew together.

So, despite the trends discovered in their market research, WotC just sort of kind of haphazardly fell into the profitable minis-oriented model? I find that to be rather insulting of the intelligence of those running WotC, and, if true, doesn't give me great confidence in the future of the company.


RC

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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.

I think people forget or downplay the accuracy angle.

Doing complex positioning accurately in your head is, frankly, bunk. But it's a form of bunk that a group will buy into if they trust their DM. If the group has all bought into it, they don't care about the lack of precision. Maybe they make very loose use of terrain, so it doesn't matter. Or maybe their DM is very good about adjudicating things in his head so that it feels fair to everyone involved. But that social skill is not something you can design a game toward.

Personally, every time a disagreement about the mental model of the combat comes up, I start digging around for coins, bottle caps, and what have you. Maybe this is because I mostly played in my youth with very tactical people who enjoyed things like knocking people over bars or cliffs and making use of high ground and so on, and knowing which of those options works best depends on a strong common image of the battle rather than constantly referencing the DM's imagination through clumsy, imprecise linguistic means. So we broke out my bottle cap collection and fought over the cool ones to be our character before we got down to playing.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Already refuted upthread.

Not remotely.

The complex examples that were gridless rely extensively on DM fiat or player narrative control in terms of exactly where characters or terrain are in relationship to each other.

This is not "accurate." It is socially agreed upon handwaving. It's not a bad way to do things, but it has never been the way D&D encouraged people to do things, which used to involve measurements in scale, after all.

 

[xechnao]

I think people forget or downplay the accuracy angle.

Not really. You have to be accurate on things that matter to be accurate. And if you figure this out you see how you can be accurate on those things. Then you see if you do need a board or not. And I am positive that you don't.

Most people OTOH use inverse logic due to conditioning.
1)"I have a battlemat"
2)"what can I do with a battlemat?"
3)"Now that I have learnt to use a battlemap can I do what I do with a battlemat without one?"

Which is a wrong way to try to answer the whole battlemat problematic.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Doing complex positioning accurately in your head is, frankly, bunk.

Oh, but it is the position of the weapon that is important. Oh, but it is weapon style that is important. Oh, but it is the position of the shield that is important. Oh, but you cannot be accurate without facing.

Oh, but accuracy is defined by your preferences, not by a large range of factors to be considered, by which no game existing can be considered accurate or complex unless you prune the tree to the definition you prefer.

Colour me unimpressed.



RC

 

[billd91]

Not remotely.

The complex examples that were gridless rely extensively on DM fiat or player narrative control in terms of exactly where characters or terrain are in relationship to each other.

This is not "accurate." It is socially agreed upon handwaving. It's not a bad way to do things, but it has never been the way D&D encouraged people to do things, which used to involve measurements in scale, after all.

Not even close. There's a certain level of precision in using a grid, but it's pretty much unnecessary. Negotiating out a combat verbally with the GM is no more handwaving than rolling an attack to see if the sword injured the target. It's just a different level of abstaction from the fighting action than using minis on a grid.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not even close. There's a certain level of precision in using a grid, but it's pretty much unnecessary. Negotiating out a combat verbally with the GM is no more handwaving than rolling an attack to see if the sword injured the target. It's just a different level of abstaction from the fighting action than using minis on a grid.

Exactly.

And, in RCFG, you need to determine how you are using your weapon. Are you trying to land a really solid blow? Trying to make sure you hit? Putting more effort into defense? And the answers cause mechanical differences to how combat plays out.

[monty python]Yet, were I to claim that a game which does not do this is neither "accurate" nor "complex", but rather "socially agreed upon handwaving", they'd put me away.[/monty python]


RC

 

[Herschel]

Already refuted upthread.



Depending upon your personal preferences, those consequences may be good or bad.



So, despite the trends discovered in their market research, WotC just sort of kind of haphazardly fell into the profitable minis-oriented model? I find that to be rather insulting of the intelligence of those running WotC, and, if true, doesn't give me great confidence in the future of the company.


RC

Your claim of refuting does not constitute proof. In general, they help make complex combat more accurate and efficient, if that sounds better to you. I'm pretty good with spacial concepts but a lot of people are not. Minis help a lot for those that aren't great at them or trying to keep track of more things than they're confortable multi-tasking. They aren't necessarily needed by everyone always, but they're a tool for facilitation.

As for neither good or bad, it is exactly because of personal preference they are that way. They will have different "meaning" to everyone rather than having an inherent value either way.

As for trends in market research, you're putting the cart before the horse, as it were. The reason they could do market research at all was because minis had been introduced and people were using them to enhance their game. If the game wasn't evolving with the advent of miniatures, Ral Partha would have ever been the only one.

I will agree the market research had a big influence on how the game has evolved after the introduction of 3.0, but I disagree with, well, just your starting point of analysis.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Your claim of refuting does not constitute proof.

No; but saying "No it's not!" doesn't refute the refutation, either.

In general, they help make complex combat more accurate and efficient, if that sounds better to you.

My experience is that mini-dependent combat systems are no more accurate than the better mini-independent systems I have played, and quite a bit less efficient.

But YMMV, depending upon what you want out of a system.

I will agree the market research had a big influence on how the game has evolved after the introduction of 3.0, but I disagree with, well, just your starting point of analysis.

Fair enough.


RC

 

[Fanaelialae]

Not really. You have to be accurate on things that matter to be accurate. And if you figure this out you see how you can be accurate on those things. Then you see if you do need a board or not. And I am positive that you don't.

Most people OTOH use inverse logic due to conditioning.
1)"I have a battlemat"
2)"what can I do with a battlemat?"
3)"Now that I have learnt to use a battlemap can I do what I do with a battlemat without one?"

Which is a wrong way to try to answer the whole battlemat problematic.

I don't know about "most people" but that certainly wasn't my experience.

With a few minor exceptions, we played without minis for the first few years (mostly 2e and 3e). We finally started using minis after we got tired of having arguments caused by descriptions that directed us to take actions we otherwise wouldn't have (had we properly understood what the DM was trying to explain).

You might have (or be) a DM who never makes mistakes when describing scenarios, and kudos if so. However, for some of us minis are, while not outright necessary, of significant benefit nonetheless when it comes to the accuracy of our shared imaginative space.