My character is not a pawn!

[David Schwartz]

I don't want to get into a discussion about 4E (who has time for that?), I justed wanted to say: Unless you are a pawn in a boardgame, a "square" is not a unit of linear measurement.

[Pygon]

But you CAN decide if a square is 5 feet across or, uh, 2 meters.

[Matthew Morris]

I am not a miniature, I'm a free Player Character!

[Wicht]

Pawn: A person used by another to advance a purpose or agenda.

Technically your character is a pawn in someone's cruel and twisted game. :-p

Still and all, I get where you are coming from. Dungeons and Dragons should be able to be played by two young boys with nothing but imagination and dice. That's what my two boys do (and their two sisters) and that's what me and my brother did when we were kids.

A Dungeons and Dragons rules set that requires, of necessity, a battle map, has lost some of its lustre IMO.

But...

Back to PCs as Pawns.

I always wanted to do a game, reminescent of Andre Norton's Quag Keep where all the PCs have dice attached to their arms and slowly realize they are in fact pawns in someone else's game.

[DangerDwarf]

Uh....you cant exactly cry "Darn you 4e!" on this one.

Look at the 3.5e PHB section on combat. It reads like the instruction manual in a miniatures game. So why buck it now?

[Matthew Morris]

Oh I know, DD.

Just thought the Prisoner reference was cute.

I do like the miniatures, just because they stop the teleporting halfling problem we would have.

[David Schwartz]

DangerDwarf wrote:

Uh....you cant exactly cry "Darn you 4e!" on this one.

I like miniatures. And gridlines are useful. But they're squares, not boxes: I let my PCs - and their miniatures - have some leeway when they move around.

It kills my suspension of disbelief when distances are given, not in actual units likes feet or meters, but in squares. It says, you're not a person, you're a pawn.

[Mike McArtor]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm a total square. Like the big L-7, daddy-o.

My characters, though, are not. They are bad mo-fos. They are my alter egos and they most certainly DO NOT live in 5-foot-cubes or measure space by squares.

What I'm trying to say is, I agree. ;)

[DangerDwarf]

Hill Giant wrote:

It kills my suspension of disbelief when distances are given, not in actual units likes feet or meters, but in squares.

*chuckles* Distances which are visually represented by...

Squares.

The mechanic in this regard differs not one bit from 3.5e to 4e. One little word does.

At least 4e calls it like it is.

Either way though, I'm not a fan of the battle mat.

EDIT: Plus, look at the 3.5e PHB, they aren't afraid of referring to the square either.

[golem101]

Hill Giant wrote:

I don't want to get into a discussion about 4E (who has time for that?), I justed wanted to say: Unless you are a pawn in a boardgame, a "square" is not a unit of linear measurement.

I agree.

My gaming world is not in a grid, either.

[Dragonchess Player]

Matthew Morris wrote:

I am not a miniature, I'm a free Player Character!

Only if you're in The Village.

"I am Number Two"

"Who is Number One?"

"You are Number Six."

At least tracking initiative will be simple.

[ArchLich]

I understand the point, but I believe you wanted to say: "My character is a person in a world not a miniature on a battle mat!"

If that is what you wanted to say then I completely agree. As to the "but 3.5 does it too"... well they do. But they give you the option to ignore this as it is an extra set of rules (not the base set of rules). We will have to wait to see if 4E treats "battle mat" as the standard, an extra rule set, or the only rule set.