This is the precise reason I like to play with a mat. It’s one less thing that a DM has to have control over.
...
A mat and miniature system is just a HUD (heads up display) to represent spatial relationship on top of your imagination.
QfT. From my experience, one of the oft-heard comments about 4E was that control & information was more evenly-balanced between player and GM. If players *must* consult the GM for every movement and status update in combat, that does give the GM more control over the proceedings (and the freedom to fudge - but there are plenty of other ways to do that). A map/mat keeps everybody on the same page, so no advantage is given to either side. I would figure that it percolates out to a very different play-style, quite independent of the map/minis issue itself.
Not making a judgment, just an observation. I think it's enlightening to know why you (or I) like to play the way we do.
Want a token that looks like your PC/monster/NPC? Sketch or find some artwork and print it out in small-size, voila! Don't want minis/battlemats getting in the way of your dramatic non-combat scenario, don't "whip it out" unless you need it. If it was a simple matter of taste (like with chocolate), I'd expect that people would liberally pluck out what they liked about 4E for their games, and leave the minis in the store. But I just couldn't wrap my mind around the idea that gamers would discount an entire game system b/c of the wording of a rule subset.
Oh, I'll happily pull things I like from 4E. It's just that the minis focus and squares and assorted blargh are not on that list. Ditto the "striker" and so forth designer jargon.
I pull things from 1st ed as well. However, I do not pull THAC0, or the madness-inducing psionic powers computational table. Or the math from the Enlarge spell that didn't grok the square/cube law.
But the minis-based combat system isn't the only thing I dislike about 4e. I think having dragonborn and crocodile-tailed tieflings as accepted members of society is incongruous with a world where "monsters are bad," especially when devils do still indeed try to procure souls (successfully, I should add) and dragons still eat maidens and roast villages. I think the lack of druids and bards and familiars and any sort of noncombat wizard in the main PHB is a serious design failure. Likewise the overlarge combat stat blocks relative to the scanty descriptions of creature in the MM is a real problem--you have to look at the illustration of the Displacer Beast, for example, to know that its sort of a black panther with squid tentacles on its shoulderblades. And then the description says that it's a fey magical beast.
Magical beast I can go with, to a point, but fey? Even forgetting that the original monster is a lift from a science fiction story with a monster on an alien planet, where do the fey get panthers with tentacles? Queen Mab dropped acid? Titania had Cthulhu over for tea and he brought one as a hostess gift? "Oh, how sweet, a kitten! And with tentacles too!"
And I really don't like the organization either. The DMG is missing large sections of useful magic items and in exchange is bloated at the end with a twenty page adventure I'd never run. The dragons book has less dragons than previous books but endless swaths of dragon lairs I'd never care to play. And on and on.
Which does not mean there aren't thing to like, but for the most part they're overshadowed by the things I don't care for in a serious way.
The DMG is missing large sections of useful magic items
This is one of the things I love about 4th Edition's book organization - stuff that the players need is found in books geared towards the players. Putting the magic items in the Player's Handbook was a godsend. No longer do I need to pass around my copy of the DMG so that a player can either buy/craft magic items or look up what their gear does. Instead, they just crack open their copy of the Player's Handbook and it's all in there for them.
TSR's old byline was "products of the imagination" - I still play that way. If I want to move plastic/metal figures around on some squares I'll break out my chess set.The game grew out of miniatures-based wargaming, so it's really not odd that miniatures are a significant part of many people's way of playing it. Little figures are just part of the imagining.
For me they remove the imagination. Instead of everyone having their own idea of how things look the miniature gets the focus. It's also a problem with movies made from books, the movie images tend to overtake your original vision of characters and places. For the record I didn't play with miniatures until 3e, since before then we were too poor to afford them and in retrospect our combats were too crazy. I like them from the tactical standpoint, don't like them from the imagination standpoint.
I would be interested to know the age bracket of those who like/dislike 4th Ed. I am wondering if us older GM's (GMing for some 24 years now) feel 4th ed. is a board-game/RPG hybrid and newer GM's feel that 4th ed. helps control their game by having the clear cut "game board" combat system?
I would be interested to know the average penile girth of those who like/dislike 4e. I am wondering if less well endowed GMs (unlike myself) are more prone to enjoy the "board game" combat system?
Cripes.
How do you measure the female gamers here?
I can understand that some people like playing with miniatures, and I can understand even more that some people really like people to buy miniatures, but requiring miniatures for someone to play a game is annoying.You must not be a big fan of board games, huh?
How many boardgames don't come with all of the necessary pieces?
How do you measure the female gamers here?
Srsly?
By their tracks of land.
I've been a DM since the old Red Box, but haven't really DM'd 4th Edition, but I'll give some of the things I enjoy and some I don't:
Enjoy:
1) I like the new monster creation (not completely new); 3.x was annoying with all the little bits that you supposedly needed to know in a monster build. True I ignored them, but published adventures needed them. 4e is heading back in the right direction here.
2) I like that they seem dedicated to re-balancing the classes. I don't think I've played / DMd it enough to judge their success, but I think it's a smart move.
3) I like the new cosmology. I still like the Great Wheel, but I think this one is neat too. I just wish they wouldn't tie so much of the small amount of fluff they give into it.
Don't Enjoy:
1) There's no real guidance for creating new powers or feats in the books as is. If I wanted to create a new deity (or all new deities since I homebrew) I don't have a nice template for the feats and powers tied to the deities. This is also the down-side of the new monster creation. I'm hoping we get more guidance here.
2) I don't like how samey the classes are. Instead of killing off Vancian magic, we now have Vancian everything. I liked to play fighters who just ran up and hit. Now that's not as easy, especially not useful.
3) I don't like them retconning worlds to use their new cosmology. I like the new cosmology, but established worlds shouldn't be forced into it. Create new worlds!
4) As above, I don't like the further requirement for mats / minis. It's one of the main reasons I also didn't like 3.x.
How do you measure the female gamers here?Srsly?
By their tracks of land.
I meant by the scale he was providing.
|
I would figure that it percolates out to a very different play-style, quite independent of the map/minis issue itself.
Not making a judgment, just an observation. I think it's enlightening to know why you (or I) like to play the way we do.
I agree 100%. In my type of game use of miniatures removes some of my "power" to effect the outcome of the battle. With miniatures battles it becomes a tactical game of me (as DM) verses the players. For example, if I decide that the player getting attacked is not looking to good (and its bad luck) then I can have the monster "move" to a new target and make it seem like sense - no square counting required. The "game board" means players will see I just moved the monster in a way that makes very little tactical sense. My players trust me that I "play fair" and don't abuse the fact that I use descriptive combat and won't have Orcs charging 450' to attack etc. But the odd plus/minus 5-10' between friends - who cares if it meant boring turned into fun?
I also find it interesting to read peoples reasons for the style of play they like. Reminds me what a cool thing role playing games are.
Thanks,
S.
A-freakin-men. We did the grand finale of a huge battle tabletop in our game store game. Big fae armies were supposed to be marching from the treeline to assault the lich's tower that ironically the PC's were defending. The tower had a number of defenses that the PCs were able to use--at wills, encounters and dailies from the various bastions on the exterior of the fortress.
Of course we didn't have a wizard's tower--so somebody volunteered an upside down big gulp cup. We didn't have a fae army, so we had like a couple dozen minis marching through the woods. Attacks hit templates so there was a lot of using a square template to tactically launch attacks that missed anyway. A lot of the game--a lot of the game, was units marching into position. The dracolich the party had under their control spend a lot of the game wheeling across the big giant game table taking double moves to try and get into breath weapon range. It was long. It was grinding. It was slow like crazy. I felt really bad. It just sucked all the air out of what in my head was this epic awesome battle of treants and cyclopses and griffon riding satyrs versus this awesome lich fortress blasting out death, undead and construct legions, and a green dragon versus dracolich battle with the PCs as huge champions...and turned it into a slow plodding slogfest to capture the holy inverted big gulp cup.
A-freakin-men. We did the grand finale of a huge battle tabletop in our game store game. Big fae armies were supposed to be marching from the treeline to assault the lich's tower that ironically the PC's were defending. The tower had a number of defenses that the PCs were able to use--at wills, encounters and dailies from the various bastions on the exterior of the fortress.
Of course we didn't have a wizard's tower--so somebody volunteered an upside down big gulp cup. We didn't have a fae army, so we had like a couple dozen minis marching through the woods. Attacks hit templates so there was a lot of using a square template to tactically launch attacks that missed anyway. A lot of the game--a lot of the game, was units marching into position. The dracolich the party had under their control spend a lot of the game wheeling across the big giant game table taking double moves to try and get into breath weapon range. It was long. It was grinding. It was slow like crazy. I felt really bad. It just sucked all the air out of what in my head was this epic awesome battle of treants and cyclopses and griffon riding satyrs versus this awesome lich fortress blasting out death, undead and construct legions, and a green dragon versus dracolich battle with the PCs as huge champions...and turned it into a slow plodding slogfest to capture the holy inverted big gulp cup.
I think this might have to do more with the fact that you included probably upwards of thirty participants in this combat rather than your use of a map/minis. D&D is not designed to handle combat on this scale well - it works better when you keep the number of figures on the table between 5 and 15.
|
|
Grimcleaver dude you crack me up :)
That was a very entertaining description of the saddest sounding "final battle" I have heard! Shame no one had a video camera that (edited) would have been funny as hell on youtube.
I agree and disagree with Scott.
Agreeing in that 4E (or 3rd Ed.) using miniatures for that battle was bound to fail. Perhaps grabbing 2nd Ed. Battle System and using those rules? Converting to 4E might have proved a challenge I guess.
Disagreeing in that D&D "without" miniatures handles such battles with ease! I remember running the Age of Worms adventure path, the one with the city about to be over run by hundreds of bad guys and the PC's the big heroes. Exciting, engaging, and easy if you use your head. I would imagine an experience similar to yours had we attempted the miniatures route.
Keep up the funny posts, regards,
Stefan.
Wizzies sent me a preview copy of Player's Handbook 2 (releases on March 17th or something). The art, as in Pathfinder, is quite lovely. Man, I adore top shelf art.
IMO, despite my abiding love for 3.5 and PFRPG, I found PHB 2 to be a strong book. Just wait till you see what and who gets brought back into their game.
They also have a cool and innovative new character class that's unlike anything I remember seeing before, which is a feat in and of itself, because I have seen puh-lenty of character classes in my time.
My players trust me that I "play fair" and don't abuse the fact that I use descriptive combat and won't have Orcs charging 450' to attack etc. But the odd plus/minus 5-10' between friends - who cares if it meant boring turned into fun?
Cool beans. I think the trust issue is kind of a big deal, actually, esp. since a lot of games are played with folks you may not know well (or at all, at first), and of course, people do get caught up in the excitement of the moment. I'm all for the GM fudging things to keep the fun going, but I actually enjoy the tactical/strategic aspect of the game almost as much as the funny-voice chats with brothel owners and mustache-twirlers. But it's good to know what else is out there.
1) There's no real guidance for creating new powers or feats in the books as is. If I wanted to create a new deity (or all new deities since I homebrew) I don't have a nice template for the feats and powers tied to the deities. This is also the down-side of the new monster creation. I'm hoping we get more guidance here.
Couple things might help you here. On racial/class/deity powers, I think the standardization of powers of similar type/style and level gives you plenty of guidance. The powers for each level basically follow a formula that is the same for all classes at that same level, but vary in their use of a weapon/implement, main or secondary stat, additional result or conditional requirement. The actual flavor varies wildly, but the base mechanics are straightforward to manipulate to get the combination that you're looking for.
Same deal with monsters - I've found that the DDI Monster Builder is very handy for coming up with the number/type/strength of monster powers by level & style. But frankly, it's just using the formulas & examples from the DMG/MM to give you a baseline that you can tweak and add flavor to. So even if you don't want to shell out the money, it's something you could do on paper (or on a spreadsheet).
It just sucked all the air out of what in my head was this epic awesome battle of treants and cyclopses and griffon riding satyrs versus this awesome lich fortress blasting out death, undead and construct legions, and a green dragon versus dracolich battle with the PCs as huge champions...and turned it into a slow plodding slogfest to capture the holy inverted big gulp cup.
That said, with a good set of minis rules and the right expectations set on the pace of game play and something like that could be a lot of fun. I've sat and watched a few games like that unfold at big conventions like Gen Con and, while the pace is slow, they are fun to watch.
You just have to know what to expect going in and nothing in most regular table-top RPGs these days really sets that expectation. Certainly not trying to directly translate the rules without adaptation.
That said, with a good set of minis rules and the right expectations set on the pace of game play and something like that could be a lot of fun. I've sat and watched a few games like that unfold at big conventions like Gen Con and, while the pace is slow, they are fun to watch.
You just have to know what to expect going in and nothing in most regular table-top RPGs these days really sets that expectation. Certainly not trying to directly translate the rules without adaptation.
Oh yeah, certainly I think you could adapt a game to run as maps and minis--but I just wonder why. I mean we get a more exciting, more engaging, more dynamic sense of action and deeper more real-feeling tactics when we do a narrative combat than we do in a tabletop combat. Plus narrative play allows us to squeeze every drop of description and scope out of the thing, whereas squashing it onto a board nearly always costs something (less badguys, less elaborate terrain, less ability for players to choose where battles take place).
I guess, all other things being equal, I just wonder why anyone would reach for the minis--except for novelty, like for a D&D Day or something. It seems like more work and hassle for less payoff. Then again, your milage may definitely vary--that's why I like talking about stuff like this is to swap experiences.
Plus narrative play...
Wait? What? :)
|
It'll be March 21st. And The Jade's probably a playtester.Wizzies sent me a preview copy of Player's Handbook 2 (releases on March 17th or something).Wait... What?.... How did you get that?
Hmm. Most online retailers are advertising 17th as release day. Either it shifted, or the WWGD is just set to Sat so there will actually be players in attendance. I'd also suspect 17th is date to distributors for a 21st release date by stores.
|
Hmm. Most online retailers are advertising 17th as release day. Either it shifted, or the WWGD is just set to Sat so there will actually be players in attendance. I'd also suspect 17th is date to distributors for a 21st release date by stores.
Hopefully WotC resolves that issue real quick. Both on its website and the kits say 21st. I'll contact a couple of FLGS and ask if they have a release date from the distributors.
Hmm. Most online retailers are advertising 17th as release day. Either it shifted, or the WWGD is just set to Sat so there will actually be players in attendance. I'd also suspect 17th is date to distributors for a 21st release date by stores.Hopefully WotC resolves that issue real quick. Both on its website and the kits say 21st. I'll contact a couple of FLGS and ask if they have a release date from the distributors.
If I recall correctly from talking to my FLGS, the advertising materials they got for Game Day said the 17th (I believe) even though they were told it was on the 21st. He did a little marker work on the stands to fix the dates. (This is assuming I didn't forget something or mistake something)
|
|
If I recall correctly from talking to my FLGS, the advertising materials they got for Game Day said the 17th (I believe) even though they were told it was on the 21st. He did a little marker work on the stands to fix the dates. (This is assuming I didn't forget something or mistake something)Hmm. Most online retailers are advertising 17th as release day. Either it shifted, or the WWGD is just set to Sat so there will actually be players in attendance. I'd also suspect 17th is date to distributors for a 21st release date by stores.Hopefully WotC resolves that issue real quick. Both on its website and the kits say 21st. I'll contact a couple of FLGS and ask if they have a release date from the distributors.
Huh. Mine's 21st. Must have received the corrected material.
Huh. Mine's 21st. Must have received the corrected material.
Yeah, I could be wrong. I think the stands have been up for two weeks and he talked about it then when I first looked at them, it is far enough that my memory might be a little fuzzy.
|
|
Huh. Mine's 21st. Must have received the corrected material.Yeah, I could be wrong. I think the stands have been up for two weeks and he talked about it then when I first looked at them, it is far enough that my memory might be a little fuzzy.
Well, if folks show up on the 17th, that's not our responsibility as DMs.
Hey, Zynete, switch over to the post, Worldwide D&D Gameday and we can discuss the mod. I skimmed it yesterday and while it's more sophisticated than that first gameday mod, it's definitely a simple plot.
|
|
Well, if folks show up on the 17th, that's not our responsibility as DMs.
No - this is not what I mean. The Game Day is scheduled for the 21st, but the book is being listed as releasing on the 17th. Two different issues. I really think what is happening is that the book is being released to DISTRIBUTORS on the 17th in order to be available for the 21st.
Wait? What? :)
Uuhh. Narrative play. You know, the other thing other than miniatures play. Okay I kind of made that up but I thought it was catchy...um...yeah.
Wizzies sent me a preview copy of Player's Handbook 2 (releases on March 17th or something).Wait... What?.... How did you get that?
Gamers get an exclusive sneak peek of the PHB 2 on the next Atomic Array gaming podcast (Friday the 13th! Taste the terror!), and Wizzies sent us eleven copies for us and the reviewers in our bloggers carousel a short while back.
We've got two of the authors coming on, Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford. Those guys really knew their book and explained it well. I don't know much about 4e crunch, but some of the ideas in that book are getting fluff-nicked for a future 3.5 or PFRPG campaign, and that's a fact. ;)
I think this might have to do more with the fact that you included probably upwards of thirty participants in this combat rather than your use of a map/minis. D&D is not designed to handle combat on this scale well - it works better when you keep the number of figures on the table between 5 and 15.A-freakin-men. We did the grand finale of a huge battle tabletop in our game store game. Big fae armies were supposed to be marching from the treeline to assault the lich's tower that ironically the PC's were defending. The tower had a number of defenses that the PCs were able to use--at wills, encounters and dailies from the various bastions on the exterior of the fortress.
Of course we didn't have a wizard's tower--so somebody volunteered an upside down big gulp cup. We didn't have a fae army, so we had like a couple dozen minis marching through the woods. Attacks hit templates so there was a lot of using a square template to tactically launch attacks that missed anyway. A lot of the game--a lot of the game, was units marching into position. The dracolich the party had under their control spend a lot of the game wheeling across the big giant game table taking double moves to try and get into breath weapon range. It was long. It was grinding. It was slow like crazy. I felt really bad. It just sucked all the air out of what in my head was this epic awesome battle of treants and cyclopses and griffon riding satyrs versus this awesome lich fortress blasting out death, undead and construct legions, and a green dragon versus dracolich battle with the PCs as huge champions...and turned it into a slow plodding slogfest to capture the holy inverted big gulp cup.
I'm going to disagree with this being why Grim Cleavers epic combat blew chunks. I don't know why it blew chunks really but I have done some uber skirmishes with minitures in 3.5 (not in 4E as of yet however) and they were awesome. Now some of Grim Cleavers problems was probably in the set up, sounds like lots of game time was used in just moving - don't even put the minitures on the map until at least some of them are in range of each other, and some of it may have been in expectations, the uber skirmishes I have run did take a long time full sessions, sometimes two, if your not down for that then it does not work, but its not in the model itself. Table Top RPGs adapt themselves to this kind of wargame like scenario very well.
...Now some of Grimcleavers problems was probably in the set up, sounds like lots of game time was used in just moving - don't even put the minitures on the map until at least some of them are in range of each other, and some of it may have been in expectations, the uber skirmishes I have run did take a long time full sessions, sometimes two, if your not down for that then it does not work, but its not in the model itself. Table Top RPGs adapt themselves to this kind of wargame like scenario very well.
I think that's probably accurate. I think there were two culprits for this. One is that in tactical combat, positioning is such a key element. There's a lot to be gained in war from getting terrain on your side or duping your foe into movements that expose a flank or spread out units so someone on the end can get hit hard before the rest of the army can get over to help. You want your archers somewhere advantageous where they can soften units for your heavy hitters to get a solid advantage when they go toe to toe with them. That sort of thing. It seems like starting the battle within striking distance of each other removes a lot of the reason for wargaming it out, wouldn't it?
The other main element that blew the setup was minis and map limitations. I have a fair collection of minis, but that said once you winnow it down to just feywild and undead stuff--it just ain't a war's worth. For a real battle you'd need just gobs of minis on each side with tons of duplicates to make military units out of. I mean you're looking at hundreds of guys on each side probably? Banks of archers, cavalry flankers, light infantry, heavy infantry--or the equivalents in units of 10-50 a unit maybe? Good luck me ever having that kind of minis collection.
Time was an issue too. We have about three hours to game since it's a store venue (unlike our leisurely 6-7 hour home games.) That said, in our regular narrative based games we're able to blaze through three or four big battles per session--they're fun and swashbuckling and plenty tactical. Why would it be a good idea to ever break out a map then?
Again, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying map and minis play is for doo-doo heads and I'm so leet because I play in my head. I just don't get why people do it that way. It's like they're torturing themselves. It takes more money, effort, time and frustration to do things map and minis and I totally can't see why almost everyone does it--because it just seems like you get so much less out of it. Sometimes I think it's just because they haven't gotten a good taste of the alternative, which makes me want to convert everyone. Sometimes I think it's that I just haven't had a good taste of the alternative, which makes me want to hang out with people who do game that way to see if I can figure out the appeal.
|
...Now some of Grimcleavers problems was probably in the set up, sounds like lots of game time was used in just moving - don't even put the minitures on the map until at least some of them are in range of each other, and some of it may have been in expectations, the uber skirmishes I have run did take a long time full sessions, sometimes two, if your not down for that then it does not work, but its not in the model itself. Table Top RPGs adapt themselves to this kind of wargame like scenario very well.I think that's probably accurate. I think there were two culprits for this. One is that in tactical combat, positioning is such a key element. There's a lot to be gained in war from getting terrain on your side or duping your foe into movements that expose a flank or spread out units so someone on the end can get hit hard before the rest of the army can get over to help. You want your archers somewhere advantageous where they can soften units for your heavy hitters to get a solid advantage when they go toe to toe with them. That sort of thing. It seems like starting the battle within striking distance of each other removes a lot of the reason for wargaming it out, wouldn't it?
The other main element that blew the setup was minis and map limitations. I have a fair collection of minis, but that said once you winnow it down to just feywild and undead stuff--it just ain't a war's worth. For a real battle you'd need just gobs of minis on each side with tons of duplicates to make military units out of. I mean you're looking at hundreds of guys on each side probably? Banks of archers, cavalry flankers, light infantry, heavy infantry--or the equivalents in units of 10-50 a unit maybe? Good luck me ever having that kind of minis collection.
Time was an issue too. We have about three hours to game since it's a store venue (unlike our leisurely 6-7 hour home games.) That said, in our regular narrative based games we're able to blaze through three or four big battles per...
I tend to favour the Heroes of Battle Book approach to only focusing on the PC's. The battle itself is really just background scenery.
What historical wargamers do is make each mini count as 5, 10, 50 100 whatever combatants. That way you don't need hundreds of figures.
stuff
Actually I play 3.x, mostly and have ran a good amount of 4e. I at this moment prefer to run 3.x and have yet to get to be a player in 4e. That being said I have a rediculous amount of minis (I'm sure many people have more though) and in a sense I'm addictd to mini collecting, have to have just the right mini for everything including one off and wandering encounters. Obviously budget and whatnot limits this there ya go. We use minis in all of our games, at pretty much all levels because to be quite honest it is just easier than having to explain everyones places, who's fighting who, who is or isnt in an area of effect, and what can realisticly be done in combat (special actions like tumble for flank, bull rushing off a ledge, etc). Sure we have for many years done this in our heads, but overrall it's just a more simple way for us to do it, takes less time (as a DM I get out the minis I need ahead of time for any planned or homebrewed adventure I have together, and wandering monsters and keep them together) and when an encounter comes just draw the map on my flipmat and lay down minis and go. This is in all truths no different in 3.x or 4e. I found that they shared the reliability and ease of use with minis. The differences to me at least, are that 4e presents the challenge of lots of variations on monsters so sometimes to accurately show the battle as minis requires multiples of the various minis,like an encounter with 3 gnoll huntsman, 4 pack hyenas, and 2 gnoll Facebreakers, this encounter would require the completist in me to have 3 of one gnoll, 2 of another gnoll, and 4 hyenas of the same type. Again this is NOT required by 4e as 5 gnolls and 4 dog like minis can do the work, but it just drives at the ocd in me not to have the semi proper minis for encounters in 4e... and less so 3.x.
I guess it just seems like describing things is the lion's share of roleplaying. It's how the story gets told. It's so fundamental to the hobby that I can't see a reason not just to use it for combat too.
You want to blast somebody with a blast 2 effect, you say "I wheel around to blast the gnolls with such-and-such attack". The DM is free to say either "Sweet!" at which point dice hit the table or "The best you can do, you can either only catch two of the badguys in the blast, or else you'll be including so-and-so ally in the blast radius."
I mean that's pretty bald description of pure mechanic-speak--usually everyone keeps it pretty vivid and descriptive, but that's the core of it. You state what you'd like to do, and usually it works fine but sometimes the DM throws in a proviso and you roll with it. What flows from it feels like you're reading a book. It's great and it's so simple.
It feels like all the complexity that comes from positioning figures is artificial complexity. The difference between "as the gnoll facecruncher rushes the paladin, my rogue spins in behind him with his shortsword out, flanking him." and trying to find the best route to bounce your figure around the map to get there in six hops without provoking an opportunity attack feels fake to me. It doesn't add anything to the experience that I wouldn't be glad to be rid of. If the DM wants to add in that one of the big hyenas pivots to snap at my guy's leg as he rushes by...well so be it. It's a chaotic fight and it makes sense. It makes for a nice scary beat to the story--because it's unexpected and vivid.
I guess I don't see what's so hard to track in a fight that it requires minis.
Then again, D&D Day is fast approaching (yay!) so I'll get a chance to try it out again and see how it goes.
It actually makes it so much easier for me as a player and DM as I am a very visual person - I respond much better to diagrams and drawings than just verbal description. I used to find the purely verbal combats in my University games club to be a) full of DM fiat and b) very hard to envisage.
Minis, card counters, maps mean I can quickly grasp the battle and imagine it all the more clearly in my head.
Horses for courses, and all that!
Based on the first 3 hardcovers only, plus a few sessions play time in the first module.
Likes:
- The 4e DMG, to paraphrase Nick Logue, is "titties". Well written, excellent advice, very little to quibble with.
- Rituals.
- Skill Challenges (in concept)
- Integrated scaling of abilities and items, epecially the former.
- Minions (in concept)
- XP Budget (in concept - although I've long done that with 3e and any other XP-based game system anyway, since the concept to me is identical in execution).
Dislikes:
- The 4e PHB and MM came across as decidedly written and edited by wholly different creatures than the DMG. I found these two books MUCH more difficult to peruse.
- The sameness of the character classes' abilities.
- Squares ... why'd it have to be ... squares ...
- The +1/2 level adding to - apparently - everything, blurring the characters even more together into a homogenous mass. An acceptable mechanic, just not one I cared overmuch for.
- Skill Challenges in execution - fortunately, as written in the original text, and pointed out (much) earlier in this thread, that is an easy fix.
- The blatant book build-up, leading inevitably to the dreadful 'splatbook syndrome' of 3e in short order. To have the equivalent of the 'core' 3e rules I suspect will conclude at a shelf-retail price total of ~$300 US , which is not personally acceptable, especially without providing electronic media as part of that VERY expensive price tag. Since I am often the GM, that means I bear the monetary burden.
- DDI
- Minions (in execution)
- Creature customization (lack thereof in a mechanically balanced fashion)
- A bit too MMO-gamey in flavor for bad guys/bosses, literally using the vernacular of that media: Elite and Boss.
- A pet peeve - renaming dinosaurs. :rollseyes: An ankylosaur is an ankylosaur.
|
|
On topic (for once)...
Specific to the MM
Likes
- Art work for each creature.
- Clear XP totals and clear idea on how to make a combat encounter
Dislikes
- Complete lack of detail in the creatures descriptions.
- Assumption that all PC's are going to do is fight/kill everything they meet.
- Multiple stat blocks - why such specialisation? Can't the orc with the bow be the "ranged" orc, and the one with the sword be the "melee" orc?
- Creatures given (in my opinion) silly titles like Lurker, Solo, etc. These only define the "combat" role of these creatures, what do they when they aren't being slaughtered by PC's? Do lurkers have the same rights as soldiers in a Kobold tribe? In a given tribe how many will be Minions, Skirmishers, Artillery, Soldiers, Lurkers, or Leaders?
- Going to have to wait for "Ecology of..." series of articles in Dragon mag.
I use to be in a group with a blind player.
I use to be in a group with a blind player.I bet a 4th ed MM is terrible for a blind player as far as knowing what a monster is/looks like. (this is not an anti 4e rant, but from my memory of the MM there is very little in the way of description if you aren't looking at the photo)
Your memory is correct, sir. If you look at the listing for "Unicorn," for example, all it says is some twaddle about this being a "graceful creature from the Feywild" or somesuch. Last session I quizzed my players by reading all of the description except the name of the creature, to see if they knew what it was. Everyone guessed that it was some sort of fairy or something.
If I had to describe the illustration, I'd be saying "You see some sort of large draft horse with a Flock of Seagulls haircut or Donald Trump combover."
Honestly, the illustration looks neither magical nor graceful. It looks like it should be pulling a beer wagon.
|
|
Complaints aside... :)
Specific to the DMG
LIKES
- The artwork, again.
- Good advice to first time DM's.
- Clearly laid out.
- Defining "combat roles" of creatures - note; I didn't like the MM for having actually having specific monster "sub-classes" for each of these roles. Seems like a way to fill up a book without thinking too much.
DISLIKES
- Not a lot for seasoned DM's.
- Worse example adventure possible to show people the scope of the 4E game. Fight, followed by fight, followed by fight. Leads new players to believe 4E (and D&D) is only about rolling dice to beat up monsters (oh and collect their ears...).
I think that's probably accurate. I think there were two culprits for this. One is that in tactical combat, positioning is such a key element. There's a lot to be gained in war from getting terrain on your side or duping your foe into movements that expose a flank or spread out units so someone on the end can get hit hard before the rest of the army can get over to help. You want your archers somewhere advantageous where they can soften units for your heavy hitters to get a solid advantage when they go toe to toe with them. That sort of thing. It seems like starting the battle within striking distance of each other removes a lot of the reason for wargaming it out, wouldn't it?
Been a couple of decades since I last did any major historical minitures wargaming but, as I recall, this pretty much comes down to providing both teams some maps and information on their forces and saying - So here's the layout, heres the situation, heres the resources at your disposal --- what do you want to try and do?
If your doing D&D as a wargame you, as the DM know what the evil forces are going to do so now its just up to the players to tell you what they plan to do. Then you work out how thats going to play out, describe the scenes as they unfold until you get to the action and then start putting down the mini's. So moving into flanking and all that jazz does not have to be gamed out by moving dozens of miniatures 4 squares for 6 turns. Don't bother doing more then indicating that such a unit exists and is moving into position until the action heats up.
It feels like all the complexity that comes from positioning figures is artificial complexity. The difference between "as the gnoll facecruncher rushes the paladin, my rogue spins in behind him with his shortsword out, flanking him." and trying to find the best route to bounce your figure around the map to get there in six hops without provoking an opportunity attack feels fake to me. It doesn't add anything to the experience that I wouldn't be glad to be rid of. If the DM wants to add in that one of the big hyenas pivots to snap at my guy's leg as he rushes by...well so be it. It's a chaotic fight and it makes sense. It makes for a nice scary beat to the story--because it's unexpected and vivid.
This leads me to wonder what percentage of gamers switched over to playing with minitures when 3rd edition came out and why,
In any case I think the argument has no correct answer. We are essentially arguing about which medium is better - books or movies. Its not something that everyone agrees on.
What I can say is that I switched to the miniature format of playing when I started 3rd, essentially leaving behind about 15 years of having played without miniatures. For me some of the appeal was the ability to negate arguments, X was on the table and there it was. Obviously, depending on the DM and group dynamic that is a bigger or lesser concern. For me its more like a Pavlovian reaction based on endless arguments when I was 14 or 17 years old. Issues with argumentative players that I don't have and would never put up with as an adult in my mid 30s - but the scars never fully heal. However you can see where the appeal would be for the kids just starting up. Your average teen has little real power at the table even if he is the DM.
Another aspect that appeals to me is complex situations. Its perfectly possible to overload your players with information even using mini's but they can handle a lot more when your marking down the portcullis on the battle map and the wall full of arrow slits and indicating that the goblins on dice are actually flying on gliders and dropping bombs etc.
In any case I think the argument has no correct answer. We are essentially arguing about which medium is better - books or movies. Its not something that everyone agrees on.
Really it's more like the guy and his friend who have a Lord of the Rings festival. At the same time one guy puts in all three movies and his friend cracks out the books. At the end of the movie-fest, the guy who just watched them all, loves them and goes to his friend in the den, who is only a few chapters in and asks "Why would anyone read the book when you could just see the movie and instantly get it with all the wonderful visuals and great acting moments added? It just seems so much slower and less dramatic to sit there and slog through it all."
Or rather, I figure there's going to be a response and that it's going to be an illuminating one, people like what they like for good reasons I figure, but from my perspective there's some real advantages to one way and the other just looks like an unnecessary hassle.
Anyway, great answers. Love your ideas for how to get a wargame to the good parts, by the way. I think that would have helped out immensely. I guess I end up getting stuck artificially between the two options--either you use maps or you don't, and so it doesn't occur to me to do it narriative until the first blows are being struck. That probably would have helped massively. Truth is, the battle we did wasn't planned to be a maps and minis fight. The finale was originally built to be run all narrative, but the players all chimed in at once that they'd like to wargame it out on the big map table. But yeah, your ideas are great and if I do something like that again having a good writeup seems like it would help too.
So how do you design a map and minis game? Seems like the elements would be a lot different for what would make an interesting fight. I've been planning a short adventure for Game Day in addition to the provided one in order to celebrate Sigil's introduction as the new city (like Fallcrest was last year). I've got the city sprawl maps from City of Peril coming in the mail and a ton of new minis to use as 11th level appropriate baddies, but it's been hard for me to design a fun series of encounters that hook together into a solid plot, but that use minis and maps I have.
Any tips for the new guy?
|
|
So how do you design a map and minis game? Seems like the elements would be a lot different for what would make an interesting fight. I've been planning a short adventure for Game Day in addition to the provided one in order to celebrate Sigil's introduction as the new city...
You design them the same way you'd design anything.
1) How much time do you plan to run ...
2) (which defines) the number of encounters you get
3) Theme your encounters. I would guess three, max.
I would link two encounters, and have one stand-alone encounter, but that's just how I roll. Falling back on years of pulp and media, I think a merchant quarter fight a la the first Indiana Jones movie would be smashing! So:
- Generic first encounter, a warm-up event.
- Street urchin steals something from you - Skill challenge to chase the worm through the bustling city streets - lots of hazardous terrain, etc.
- Big fight because you ticked someone off chasing the urchin, or he runs into his bigger goon squad, whatever.
4) Plan your terrain
5) Populate accordingly
No harder or easier than any other D&D session. Minis and maps are just TOOLS in your DM toolbox that help you "paint" your adventure. They're nothing more than enablers that help you tell a story. When players can adapt to that concept, then all is right with the world once again.
PS: I am a big fan of including skill challenges in the game, especially a teaching game.
PPS: One thing you can do is start this game in medias res, or in the middle of things already happening. Don't go into how the players got together, or anything. They're simply together in a room, perhaps defeating a trap and monster combo or something. Make it colorful and very descriptive because you kind of have to tell all the story that came before very fast and yet very robust. All the whys and whos and personalities of the players are not all that important in a one-shot 2-3 hour game. Create an initiative order yourself, and introduce each character briefly when it's their turn.
PPPS: I really liked this - may plan this one out fuller myself!
Well I got the module and I've decided to shift the Sigil thingie to DMG Game Day (since the day is apparently ABOUT making your own adventures). Instead I'm going to be using one of the suggestions on the back of the module for continuing the adventure. That way if folks have played the one they give, there's another one that's a continuation of the same story with the same characters. That should be fun. My module I'm making is set in Nocturnis (from Open Grave) too which I think folks will dig.