Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5208736" data-attributes="member: 18280">No worries.  It happens to the best of us.Hell, it happens to me, and I am about as far from "the best of us" as you can get.  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />There are links to the WotC survey to be found; I know that over the course of the last few years I have found it & linked to it more than once. The problem is that you are conflating the original claim with specific locations on a grid (which are not, themselves, actually specific).  Neither complexity nor tactics require specific locationing of the type the grid allows.And, when you claim that "to run D&D mapless you need to eviscerate a lot of the detail in D&D", you are reliant upon the base assumption that only certain types of detail matter -- specifically those that rely upon the grid.As an obvious example, weapon speed, the manner in which a given weapon is being used (trying most to hit, trying to land a really solid hit, trying to defend yourself, etc.), attempting combat maneuvers, if you are able to draw an opponent toward you with a bluff, or intimidate an opponent to drive him away from you, etc., etc., are all properties of the RCFG combat system which do not rely upon a specific grid.  They are all details that a grid-based system might not allow for, allowing for both complexity and complex tactics, because the focus of the grid-based system is elsewhere.  And, in play, they work very, very well.As another example, in 3.0, I ran an encounter where the PCs were travelling along a cave tunnel angled between 30-40 degrees downward, when a cave fisher attacked a PC from a tunnel that intersected the PC's tunnel at a 45-degree angle, adjoining from the ceiling.  The need to use a grid would make such a set-up almost impossible, removing a tense and exciting encounter from the game.Similarly, I ran an encounter where a grick attacked PCs climbing a rope down a cliff, from a cave that was bored into the cliff, that could not be seen from above.  You could use a grid for that encounter, but the encounter was much better for not using a grid.These kinds of "non-standard" fights are discouraged by a grid system, meaning that, for many games, you need to eviscerate a lot of the potential detail in the campaign milieu.There is certainly nothing wrong with using a grid when it is appropriate; in a combat where the space is sufficiently complex, and where the fight is essentially a "set piece", it can be cool and fun to break out the minis and even a premade "battlefield" if you have one.....A map, a grid, or a three-dimensional model.But neither are these things always necessary, or always desireable.I think you have to keep in mind the ability to set a weapon against a charge.  A pike is a wonderful weapon when the enemy is coming at you; it is less useful when the enemy is in your face.A great system for dealing with this is Codex Martiallis (sp?), which is really worth a look.Sure, but in that case the guy buying minis is still spending more than the guy who isn't.  And, if Scott Rouse is telling us the truth, the correlation was strong enough that it affected WotC's business strategy with respect not only to miniatures sales, but also to how the rulesets were devised.I, personally, feel that there is more than enough evidence to demonstrate that the sales of miniatures are an extremely important part of WotC's business plan, and that the game rules are affected by the same.If you are not convinced, that is your perogative.  No one else can set the bar of your skepticism for you.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />You summed that up nicely.  I think that this is exactly what we have seen with 4e.In any event, I would love to see the marketing data on battlemaps, if any is ever released.  Cheaper to produce than minis, and sold at a good price point, they might actually be more profitable than the minis.....although I believe that you would still need the minis in order to sell the maps.There is nothing "evil" about trying to make a buck.  As I said earlier, I think Gygax & Co. dropped the ball on marketing some obvious accessories to earlier editions.  Had they not done so, TSR might still exist.But there is also nothing "evil" in paying attention to that desire to make a buck, and trying to see how it influences the end product, for better or worse.RC</blockquote>

Verification