Quote from: Seanchai;370131Of course they do...just like in the days of AD&D.

How do we know that most players used minis in the days of AD&D?

Quote from: Seanchai;370130Actually, it's more like Gygaxian devotees want context to matter to make their revisionism easier.

Right, I forgot that people who actually gamed with Gygax are somehow initiating revisionism on how it was meant to be played.

QuoteFrom the section USE OF MINIATURE FIGURES WITH THE GAME comes this quote: "The special figures cast for ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS add color to play and make refereeing easier. Each player might be required to furnish painted figures representing his or her player character and all henchmen and/or hirelings included in the game session."

From the section entitled AIDS TO PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS comes the following: "Various products such as modules, playing aids, and miniature figurines will be most helpful in establishing and maintaining an interesting and exciting campaign."

That's a far cry from saying "We're assuming you're doing it this way.  Get a grid and/or ruler."  That said, the last quote I had up there, from 2003.  A bit newer than AD&D, and absolutely no reason for Gygax to lie one way or the other.

Unless now you're going to claim Gary was playing the game wrong or something.  Oh!  Or, if you hate Gygax so much, then Monte Cook should've quit bitching when they changed the areas of certain monsters and changed other rules to focus more on gridded miniature combat rather than explicit distances in feet.  Of course, he's just crazy, and everyone always played with minis, and he didn't say anything about trying to design 3e so that you could play without them, and so he has no gripe with them changing things to squares.  Nope.

Quote from: Peregrin;370133Right, I forgot that people who actually gamed with Gygax are somehow initiating revisionism on how it was meant to be played.

That's interesting because when I went to learn how to play AD&D, TSR sold me the PHB, DMG, and MM. They didn't package the people who were playing with Gygax in blister packs and sell them on the shelf alongside some dice. Somehow, I'm betting that how AD&D was meant to be played is contained in the instructions manuals written to teach people how to play...  

Quote from: Peregrin;370133That's a far cry from saying "We're assuming you're doing it this way.  Get a grid and/or ruler."

You're right. Of course, I don't recall statements like those in 3e or 4e. Where are they at?

Quote from: Peregrin;370133That said, the last quote I had up there, from 2003.  A bit newer than AD&D, and absolutely no reason for Gygax to lie one way or the other.

And if AD&D were written in 2003, it might even be relevant. Because no one's arguing 4e's rules versus what Gygax mumbled on some board, they're arguing 4e's rules versus OD&D, BD&D, and AD&D's rules.

Of course, the reality is that Gygax said a lot of things over the years. In fact, he regularly contradicts himself in just the core AD&D books. Using his thoughts to frame or bolster your arguments is doomed to failure because there's just so much out there to cherry pick from which is contradictory.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;370130Actually, it's more like Gygaxian devotees want context to matter to make their revisionism easier.

Actually, it's more like you're taking my remarks completely out of context. I didn't say anything about your silly argument of minis vs. non-minis in D&D. Look. D&D comes from Chainmail. AD&D was diversifying by selling official D&D miniatures. Of course EGG would push them through the game itself.

You know, I'm using miniatures in my games. 3rd ed, D&D, AD&D. I don't give a shit about this argument of minis vs. non-minis. I do both.

To me, it isn't about whether miniatures are advised by the game or not. It's about how the gateway to the hobby that this Red Box represents is designed. 4e rules without miniatures don't make any fucking sense, man. That's what I'm saying. You need a battlemat and tokens to make sense of that shit. Whereas with OD&D, AD&D... even 3rd ed, god dammit, you can do with or without miniatures.

You've got to be fucking blind to not see that the use of miniatures is ALL over 4e's rules. Either blind... or a fucking hypocrite.

Quote from: Seanchai;370116So when he says something you like in the AD&D manuals, he's the genius patron saint of gaming, but when he says something you don't like, he's just shillin' for the man. I'll have to remember that for when I'm arguing about what AD&D and Gygax advocated.



And minis aren't required for AD&D, 3e, or 4e. For example, the 4e PHB, just like Gygax's AD&D, says that you might find them useful.

Seanchai

3.5 PHB explicitly stated that miniatures are required. Read the first few pages of the PHB. (Also, compare it to the corresponding sentence in the 3.0 PHB, and notice the difference. Sneaky.)

4e cranked it up to 11.

Quote from: Benoist;3701574e rules without miniatures don't make any fucking sense, man. That's what I'm saying. You need a battlemat and tokens to make sense of that shit.

You've got to be fucking blind to not see that the use of miniatures is ALL over 4e's rules. Either blind... or a fucking hypocrite.

This.

I should clarify for some forumites: I'm not hating on miniatures. I plays me some Warhammer 40K, and I enjoy it.

However, I prefer not to have miniatures in my RPGs. Some people prefer them. That's cool. So, what's the big deal? Why all the hate?

Well, up until 3e, we guys who liked playing without miniatures had our playstyle supported.

So, basically, D&D stopped supporting our playstyle, and we wish it wasn't so.

Take the example of GURPS -- three different combat systems supported in one book. You've got the full-out tactical system for people who like it. You've got the verbal/narrative combat system for people who want that. Then, you have the cinematic combat system, which is even more lite.

Okay, so all we really wanted was for D&D to support a range of styles as it did originally. People who want miniatures can use them; those who don't want to use them don't have to -- their style is still supported. But no, Wizards, wanting to sell accessories, mandated miniatures, and, oh my, how convenient, we now sell collectible miniatures! Coincidence?

Zeb Cook (2e core developer) is on record as saying that the 2e combat was a narrative/verbal system:

Read for yourself:

"2E was a narrative game. The combat sequence was kept vague intentionally so that DMs would have maximum leeway to interpret things for the best dramatic effect. In the example you cited, the key element is that the dwarf’s player just shouted “Charge!” and rushed in. He could just as easily have said, “I pause a moment to give the wizard a chance to hit them with a fireball, then charge!” … but he didn’t. His narration indicated that he wanted to hit the enemy as fast as possible, without waiting for the wizard, so that’s the way the DM ran it. That part of the sequence had nothing to do with the initiative roll itself.”

“The question of when things happen depends on the players’ descriptions and the DM’s interpretation of the situation more than on the initiative rolls. Within the one-minute combat round, a lot of things are happening more-or-less at the same time. The initiative roll doesn’t determine exactly when any particular character does something, especially if you’re using the basic one-roll-per-side rule. Initiative is not synonymous with turn sequence as it is in many other rules. It is simply “which side has the slight upper hand this round?” That side gets to log its damage before the other guys. But they’re all in there swinging, dodging, maneuvering, and casting spells at the same time. It’s significant that in the example, the wizard cancels her fireball before the initiative dice are rolled. The dwarf is charging into melee without hesitation, so he’s bound to be in the target area before she can launch the spell. No particular rule dictates this; it’s part of the scene that the dwarf’s player created when he shouted “charge!”

“It’s meant to be chaotic; it’s intended that everything is happening at the same time. The initiative roll is a tool to help the DM decide whether the dwarf or the troll lands a telling blow* first, but they’re both hacking away and maneuvering the whole time according to the DM’s and players’ descriptions.”

“This topic was hotly contested while we were working on 2E. I played a lot of Melee/Wizard and was a big fan of its rigid definitions for what a character could do and how far he could move under various circumstances. Zeb favored the exact opposite view, that the less these things were defined, the more the DM and players could bring the scene to life and adapt to anything. We debated that more and longer than anything else. The standard rule is Zeb’s; the individual initiative rule is mine. In the end, however, I came over to Zeb’s way of thinking. For a game like AD&D, I now prefer the standard rule with its heavy dependence on narrative and interpretation. Which is not to say that I dislike or disavow the individual initiative approach. It serves very well for one, entirely valid style of play. I’ve simply come to appreciate a different style of play more.”

From: http://feysquare.com/

Quote from: Seanchai;370152You're right. Of course, I don't recall statements like those in 3e or 4e. Where are they at?

It's things like these that even had the likes of Monte Cook saying the game was moving too much towards an abstracted grid/minis playstyle:

3.5 DMG, page 4

QuoteThe D&D game assumes the use of miniature figures, and the
rules are written from that perspective.

4e DMG, page 6

QuoteWhat you need to play:
-A place to play
-Rulebooks
-Dice
-Paper and Pencils
-Battle Grid or D&D Dungeon Tiles

DMG, page 7

QuoteA battle grid is very important for running combat encounters, for reasons outlined in the Players Handbook.

Sounds a teensy, weensy, bit different than "you don't even need miniatures" or "no game board is required."

Naturally, this is what happens when you move from a verbal/abstract combat round (as 1989 points out) to an explicit action-per-roll type combat that makes use of explicit movement mechanics.

Quote from: J Arcane;370167

Don't worry. It won't be too long before D&D goes belly up. By making itself a miniatures game, it has set itself in competition with Games Workshop. Failure is inevitable, unless it goes back to what made D&D so popular in the 80s.

As it stands, 4e has no strong point; it has nothing unique to offer. It is just a lame miniatures boardgame. It has turned its back on what makes RPGs different from miniatures games, etc.

Quote from: 1989;370174Don't worry. It won't be too long before D&D goes belly up.

I've been hearing this since 1985. 25 years of wrong. I don't expect it to be more true on the following 25.

Quote from: Imperator;370221I've been hearing this since 1985. 25 years of wrong. I don't expect it to be more true on the following 25.

Expect the unexpected. Never before has D&D changed so greatly since it first became popular. D&D will die a slow and painful death, as it wanders further away from the principles of the game that was so popular in the 80s.

Not totally on topic, but just to add some more hate:

Gygax speaking on 3e:

"The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good." - EGG

With 4e, this is even more true. All the classes are mechanically identical -- the archetypes are less present than in 3e. Combat and character power are even more at the forefront. More than ever, D&D has become a game of comic-book superheroes, with the increased baseline power level and ridiculous feats that characters can accomplish, totally detached from the world. The Dungeon Master is relegated to the sidelines even more.

Quote from: 1989;370174Don't worry.

JArcane's point wasn't even so much that you bring up stuff he disagrees with (I don't even think he does) as that the posts you write "re:miniless D&D yes or no?" and the responses your posts engender are only variations of exchanges we've had on this board many times over. It's awfully hard for a relative newcomer to any forum to appreciate this (and I've never been exactly sure whether newcomers ought to appreciate it all or just don't mind it and proceed however they like), but of course to anyone who's been in this debate on multiple occasions it's retreading familiar grounds. To me e.g. it's disheartening to see Peregrin's effort in dredging up all these sources with such care, only to see them picked apart by the same old tired farts who picked them apart on previous occasions. To cut a long story short - just don't expect any disagreement on these issues as people are coming from wildly diverging backgrounds and experiences, all of which trump theory and scholarship.

In a much similar vein, you're proclamations of D&D (and, more specifically, 4E) dying a slow painful death aren't exactly novel in these quarters either. I've beaten that drum myself  in 2008, expecting 4E to be stillborn (heck, even the developers voiced that fear, retrospectively!), but right now in March 2010 ... well, I think at this point it's just wishful thinking* on behalf of those who'd like to have product support for a version of D&D they want to play. Like it or not, 4E is here to stay for a while longer, and if that means your appreciation for earlier editions or other RPGs is intensified in that period, I'd consider that a net gain for you.

*Just by way of contrast.. you want to know what a stillborn RPG looks like, look to Warhammer 3rd. It basically jumped off everyone's radar only a couple of weeks after release, and the company's own forum doesn't muster more than 20,000 posts (by comparison, 10,000 posts for Rogue Trader). That's a RPG on its way out.

Quote from: Windjammer;370248JArcane's point wasn't even so much that you bring up stuff he disagrees with (I don't even think he does) as that the posts you write "re:miniless D&D yes or no?" and the responses your posts engender are only variations of exchanges we've had on this board many times over. It's awfully hard for a relative newcomer to any forum to appreciate this (and I've never been exactly sure whether newcomers ought to appreciate it all or just don't mind it and proceed however they like), but of course to anyone who's been in this debate on multiple occasions it's retreading familiar grounds. To me e.g. it's disheartening to see Peregrin's effort in dredging up all these sources with such care, only to see them picked apart by the same old tired farts who picked them apart on previous occasions. To cut a long story short - just don't expect any disagreement on these issues as people are coming from wildly diverging backgrounds and experiences, all of which trump theory and scholarship.

In a much similar vein, you're proclamations of D&D (and, more specifically, 4E) dying a slow painful death aren't exactly novel in these quarters either. I've beaten that drum myself  in 2008, expecting 4E to be stillborn (heck, even the developers voiced that fear, retrospectively!), but right now in March 2010 ... well, I think at this point it's just wishful thinking* on behalf of those who'd like to have product support for a version of D&D they want to play. Like it or not, 4E is here to stay for a while longer, and if that means your appreciation for earlier editions or other RPGs is intensified in that period, I'd consider that a net gain for you.

*Just by way of contrast.. you want to know what a stillborn RPG looks like, look to Warhammer 3rd. It basically jumped off everyone's radar only a couple of weeks after release, and the company's own forum doesn't muster more than 20,000 posts (by comparison, 10,000 posts for Rogue Trader). That's a RPG on its way out.

Actually, when I first came to RPGsite, I went through the entire archive of the forum (can't remember how many pages it was), and read those of interest to me.

I hate post-2e D&D, and enjoy hating on it from time to time. I never seem to tire of it.

So-called D&D dying a slow death ... that's more my wish than anything I really believe. I was just trying to quote Raistlin, and be funny at the same time. Guess that's the hard thing about forums; you don't if the other guy is serious, or just making some oot jokes.

Quote from: 1989;370238Expect the unexpected. Never before has D&D changed so greatly since it first became popular. D&D will die a slow and painful death, as it wanders further away from the principles of the game that was so popular in the 80s.

Really? Cause for the first time in three decades they just changed course and did a 180... Not that I'd join them again... because they might just change course, yet again. Interesting though.

GenCon now supports all flavors of D&D.
http://community.gencon.com/forums/p/22962/257416.aspx#257416  

The game is afoot. Also over at Enworld:
The feels to me like Hasbro has lit a fire under Wizards of the Coast and given them...