Quote from: HaffrungThe only thing that annoyed me about the video was the implication that it's ridiculous to play without miniatures. I'm really hoping you don't need a battle mat to play 4E.

I think Mearls stated in one of the interviews that you would have no more need for minis in 4e as in 3e. And, well, y'know, as far back as 1e it felt vaguely ridiculous to play without miniatures. My group also tried to "fake it" like in the video - which is something I chuckled at, due to recognition - but towards the end of that era (right around the time my game group fell apart for a variety of reasons), we used a handful of minis. The reason it felt ridiculous was the precision implied by the combat rules and monster entries that used inches for movement. All that, and here we were trying to simply eyeball combat or just handwave it. At least minis (and "faux minis" like coins or watches or cups) let us visualize combat in a concrete way. Did we have to use them? No. But it helped.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI think Mearls stated in one of the interviews that you would have no more need for minis in 4e as in 3e. And, well, y'know, as far back as 1e it felt vaguely ridiculous to play without miniatures. My group also tried to "fake it" like in the video - which is something I chuckled at, due to recognition - but towards the end of that era (right around the time my game group fell apart for a variety of reasons), we used a handful of minis. The reason it felt ridiculous was the precision implied by the combat rules and monster entries that used inches for movement. All that, and here we were trying to simply eyeball combat or just handwave it. At least minis (and "faux minis" like coins or watches or cups) let us visualize combat in a concrete way. Did we have to use them? No. But it helped.

I know who Slaviscek is, but.. is he a D&D fan? Thats the only thing I'd really like to know, and I don't know enough to guess either way.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonHaving played in every era depicted in the video, I found myself nodding in amused agreement as the foibles of each edition where highlighted. I didn't think it said all those editions sucked, just that elements of each could be clunky and counterproductive. What i got from it was that they were saying "hey, we know D&D's history and remember the problems each version had, but more importantly, we remember what we loved about each version." I will agree that they didn't spend enough time showing what was lovable about the game throughout the years, but perhaps that was implicit - killing trolls in a heroic fashion was the constant in the video, after all.

Perhaps, but again the implication was that D&D 4 was going to finally "get it right"; meaning all those earlier versions were "wrong", and that no one will ever want to play those crappy flawed versions of older D&D again.  Its a stupid move from the point of view of marketing, and a stupid tactic to win the confidence or heart of your current fan base, who you must assume are actually having fun playing the game right now.

What you're telling those existing fans with this video is: We're going to radically change YOUR GAME because we don't think its very good.  I mean shit, if they wanted to start a general panic of wild paranoia and fear and loathing among their fanbase, this was pretty well the perfect way to do it: its got any real D&D 3.5 fan who saw this video wondering "are they going to think the things I LOVE about this game are part of the "flaws" they have to totally change forever?".

What a video introducing 4e SHOULD have been was a celebration of everything that came before, of everything that was GOOD about the game, and then how they were going to make it BETTER. It should have focused on the positives, not the negatives.  As it stands, it seems like they were making excuses and trying to publically justify themselves for trying to rush out a new edition before anyone expected it, trying desperately to convince the average D&D FAN that he should want such a thing.

RPGPundit

PS: when I saw it, all of the above combined with the bad production values lead me to think that, if I didn't know better, if I'd only seen it on Youtube or something, it was either a parody written by someone who dislikes D&D, or a really badly thought out marketing campaign by the publisher of a Fantasy Heartbreaker, some hapless amateur who had $10K and got some really bad advice (namely, "you HAVE to show them how your game is way BETTER than D&D")

Quote from: ColonelHardissonThe reason it felt ridiculous was the precision implied by the combat rules and monster entries that used inches for movement. All that, and here we were trying to simply eyeball combat or just handwave it. At least minis (and "faux minis" like coins or watches or cups) let us visualize combat in a concrete way. Did we have to use them? No. But it helped.

Me too. We used minis for 1E... but no grid. I think this was because ' and " indoors/outdoors confused the hell out of us. Combat was fudge-o-ramatic of course, with all that this entails. But we were a lively bunch, so the constant yelling over who's standing where when and shooting at whom how was somehow part of the conviviality.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonSlaviscek has been around forever. Check out his credits.

He did the original design for Paranoia 5th Edition? Damn! That's not a good sign.

Then again, he does seem to have more chops as an editor than as a designer.

Quote from: DrewBased on what we've heard so far I don't think it'll be a requirement, but doubtless the game will be heavily slanted toward their use.

Which is fine with me, as I enjoy using minis. When I don't want the bother it's fairly easy to abstract, anyway.

Rules-wise, pretty much every version of AD&D has been minis-centred except for 2nd Edition.

Quote from: WarthurRules-wise, pretty much every version of AD&D has been minis-centred except for 2nd Edition.

2e had a lot of extra rules that worked better with minis, too.

Quote from: WarthurRules-wise, pretty much every version of AD&D has been minis-centred except for 2nd Edition.

Thus my preference for Basic/RC D&D.  :wizard:

Which is EXPLICITELY Mini-based. It even has the five foot step.

Yeah, I guess I must've hallucinated all those grid maps and things.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: WarthurRules-wise, pretty much every version of AD&D has been minis-centred except for 2nd Edition.

Indeed, although the tactical impact of design decisions made during 3.x strengthened the emphasis. Whether 4E will be the same is sketchy at the moment.

Quote from: ArkasiaThus my preference for Basic/RC D&D.

Oddly enough back when I was playing Moldvay/Mentzer D&D minis were considered essential, even though the rules didn't require them in any way whatsoever. I think gamers just assumed that D&D equated with miniatures at the time, at least 'round my way. Of course being 9-years-old and wanting cool toys to play with had a lot to do with it, too.

I still miss my old Grenadier, Ral Partha and Citadel collection of the early 80's. There were some superb models being made around that time.

Quote from: SettembriniWhich is EXPLICITELY Mini-based. It even has the five foot step.

I was going to say.

Guess what I bought yesterday? My first Chessex battlemat. For our upcoming Basic D&D game. (Woot!)

PS: 5-foot step, though? Is that in the RC? Because it's not in B/X, I don't think.

i remember that little mini with the napoleon hat in the moldvay basic book and thinking, "playing with miniatures would be neat."  but my first group didn't get into them.  then i moved to a different town, and in that new group only one or two guys did the minis thing.  so my groups never bothered, and all combat or other clarifications were just quick sketches on scrap paper, or dice & other objects quickly set out to explain locations.  it wasn't until 3.0 (and yet a different group) that minis came into play.

i don't play with that (3.x) group anymore, so i'm back with the no-minis guys.  but they never switched from 1E ad&d to any later editions, so whatever happens in 4E won't matter to them.

the more i think about it tho, i'll most likely get the PH, no matter how it changes.

Quote from: WarthurRules-wise, pretty much every version of AD&D has been minis-centred except for 2nd Edition.

And yet I could ignore the minis/grid elements of the rules and play Basic/1E/2E just fine. With 3E... not so much. When specific abilities of PCs and monsters are tied to a tactical combat grid, it becomes difficult to play an abstract combat style without losing those abilities and the game balance that goes with them.

If 4E has lots of skills/feats/abilities tied to a combat grid, then I'll give it a miss and just use the OMNI (Talislanta) system, which gives me the coherence of d20 at a level of abstraction I prefer.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat a video introducing 4e SHOULD have been was a celebration of everything that came before, of everything that was GOOD about the game, and then how they were going to make it BETTER. It should have focused on the positives, not the negatives.

I actually felt the same way after seeing it.  I guess I can see what they were going for--light-hearted humor about previous editions--but it just sort of fell flat for me.  Not a huge deal, but I think I'd have made it a bit more positive.