WotC acknowledges 4th Edition Not for Everyone?

[reveal]

If there is anyone that thinks of these tiles as terrain, I would love to know so I don't play games with those people.

Way ahead of you.

 

[Hussar]

A picture of a pipe is not a pipe. A picture of a tree, is not a tree.

Try playing any 3d game and tell me line of sight with a 2d surface.

How do I know if I can see through your tree or not as a flat 2d image.

Look there is a window on that building draw on the tile. Which characters can see through it at eye level.

This is what separates tiles from terrain.

Do you think companies that make terrain sell flat 2d images?

Terrain is 3d. Pictures are 2d.

Tiles are not terrain. They may be pictures of terrain features, but they are not terrain.

Put your artist rendering of your landscape on your lawn and tell me how good it looks there versus planting the trees and shrubbery.

If there is anyone that thinks of these tiles as terrain, I would love to know so I don't play games with those people.

Considering how piss poor the scaling is on most fantasy minis, using actual LOS for gameplay is a BAD idea. I know Rackham's minis games are trying to do this (or at least that's what I understand) and it's being very strongly resisted by a number of fans. Unless your minis are perfectly to scale, then they are just as abstract as a 2d image.

 

[justanobody]

Considering how piss poor the scaling is on most fantasy minis, using actual LOS for gameplay is a BAD idea. I know Rackham's minis games are trying to do this (or at least that's what I understand) and it's being very strongly resisted by a number of fans. Unless your minis are perfectly to scale, then they are just as abstract as a 2d image.

I have never seen anything other the railway sets to be of any proper scale. That is a gripe I have had for decades, and nobody seems to want to address it because they don't want to get organized and have their sculptors follow standards of heights and such. Aside from that, a floorplan still is not terrain.

I think the only thing that has to-scale minis for gaming is Warhammer miniatures, because they actual require LOS, and are made to work with it and actual terrain in mind.

I mean thinking about D&D specifically, I wouldn't want a DM that considers the tiles as terrain, because what other things could he be describing wrong during the game as far as other visuals or anything else.

They are good visual aids, just not terrain. Just look at mini wargames that bored Gary enough to co-create D&D and you will find what terrain is.

I wonder if the new minis form WotC, in light of all the things happening to minis lately, will be to scale since they are using CAD on them and can see a proper scale on the screen to tell if something is too big to stretch or squash it to the proper size.

And keep your arms in your own grid square and stop grabbing your neighbor's butt!

 

[Rykion]

A picture of a pipe is not a pipe. A picture of a tree, is not a tree.

A small piece of plastic or wire shaped to look like a tree isn't a tree either.

Try playing any 3d game and tell me line of sight with a 2d surface.

Fortunately, we are talking about a product for playing D&D which has rules for determining LoS using 2d terrain.

How do I know if I can see through your tree or not as a flat 2d image.

Look there is a window on that building draw on the tile. Which characters can see through it at eye level.

The rules are in the PHB. I play all kinds of miniatures games and don't know one that doesn't handle windows/building interiors without some level of abstraction.

This is what separates tiles from terrain.

Do you think companies that make terrain sell flat 2d images?

Terrain is 3d. Pictures are 2d.

Tiles are not terrain. They may be pictures of terrain features, but they are not terrain.

Put your artist rendering of your landscape on your lawn and tell me how good it looks there versus planting the trees and shrubbery.

You are correct that tiles aren't actually terrain, but neither are the miniature hills, buildings, and trees people use to play tabletop games. They are just a 3d abstraction compared to the tiles which are a 2d abstraction. I can understand some people would prefer the 3d over the 2d versions.

If there is anyone that thinks of these tiles as terrain, I would love to know so I don't play games with those people.

I would love to have the space, time, and money to have the perfect 3d representation of everything I could want for my RPGs, but I don't. I also don't want to stop the game for 15 to 20 minutes to put together a diorama every time the scene changes. I'm perfectly happy using 2d terrain in games designed for it.

 

[catsclaw227]

If there is anyone that thinks of these tiles as terrain, I would love to know so I don't play games with those people.

Well, considering that RPGNow (and I think YourGamesNow) have a category called 2d Buildings/Terrain I think that list could include anyone who has ever bought one of these, as well as the publishers that create them.

 

[justanobody]

Well, considering that RPGNow (and I think YourGamesNow) have a category called 2d Buildings/Terrain I think that would be anyone who has ever bought one of these, as well as the publishers that create them.

It isn't my fault they don't understand the language well enough to be able to tell what terrain is and what maps and floorplans are.

I despise trying to redesign a language in order to sell something. The oxymoron in the name is quite funny, so thanks for sharing it.

 

[catsclaw227]

It isn't my fault they don't understand the language well enough to be able to tell what terrain is and what maps and floorplans are.

I despise trying to redesign a language in order to sell something. The oxymoron in the name is quite funny, so thanks for sharing it.

It seems that they understand the language just fine. They use a common language (English), and utilize it to define another common, well understood name for something. I would say that "2D terrain" is an acceptable phrase and is part of a common tabletop RPG lexicon.

A computer "mouse" wasn't a real mouse. But the terminology was acceptable to become part of computer lexicon, and then eventually it was made "official". Merriam-Webster has it as definition 4 for "mouse".

 

[Obryn]

It isn't my fault they don't understand the language well enough to be able to tell what terrain is and what maps and floorplans are.

I despise trying to redesign a language in order to sell something. The oxymoron in the name is quite funny, so thanks for sharing it.

Have you thought that - just maybe - if everyone seems to be using a word in a certain way, and you're not, that you might be in the wrong?

Maybe you're being a tad too literal? Or quibbling about the vagaries of language, when the actual thing being discussed is perfectly clear?

-O

 

[Brown Jenkin]

It does seem like a perfectly cromulent use of the word.

 

[Rykion]

It isn't my fault they don't understand the language well enough to be able to tell what terrain is and what maps and floorplans are.

I despise trying to redesign a language in order to sell something. The oxymoron in the name is quite funny, so thanks for sharing it.

*Pedant mode on* They are using 2d terrain as a way to describe what is probably most precisely called a terrain map. What you have described as terrain is actually model terrain. One form uses maps, the other models. Both are abstract ways to represent terrain. Neither is a form of actual terrain. *Pedant mode off*