Quote from: GameDaddy;370257GenCon 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...

Not sure if your second link is the one you intended. THe Enworld discussion which focuses on the first link is here. I found this comment quite apt:

Quote from: Markwalked through the WotC RPGA D&D hall several times while at Gencon last year and it seemed to me that about on fifth of the space was not being used at any given time. I'd estimate that about 30 to 40 extra tabletop games could be held in the additional space. While I am sure they sponsor that hall and pay an extra fee to have it to themselves and hang banners and set up a tourney judges area, I'm sure Gencon probably asked that they do something with the extra space or leave it to Gencon to decide. This is probably the solution they collectively decided to implement. I wonder if they will nix the DDM one-on-one tourney they had in there last year. It will be interesting to see how much space this year is available for non-RPGA games, how many are non-4E games, how often the full space is utilized, and what sort of reports are given regarding anyone who really would want to not be in the same hall for whatever reasons.

Here are my Gencon 09 photos -

Quote from: Peregrin;3701664e DMG, page 6

DMG, page 7

That's just the authors shilling for WotC. It has no bearing on what the game is actually about or what the authors actually believe.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;370275That's just the authors shilling for WotC. It has no bearing on what the game is actually about or what the authors actually believe.

How can you tell?

Quote from: Seanchai;370275That's just the authors shilling for WotC. It has no bearing on what the game is actually about or what the authors actually believe.

Seanchai

Seanchai, I'm not sure if you're aware, but there's a difference between an author saying "IF miniatures are being used, we make the highest quality available and you'll want to use ours" and an author saying "You NEED something on the table to play the game correctly and the rules are DESIGNED for them explicitly."  Nowhere in AD&D does it say you need them to play, it's always "If", "If", "If", and Basic clearly says you don't need them.

I mean hell, even WotC hosted an article on their site, published in '09, that says D&D's connection with miniatures throughout its life is tenuous, at best, and concluded that mini use didn't rise to prominence again until 3rd edition.  Yeah, the guys trying to sell you the shit are saying that D&D didn't always stress the use of minis, and that a lot of older editions actually downplayed their use.

Quote from: Article referring to 3rd editionFor the first time in (at that point) the over 25-year history of D&D, people who wanted to use miniatures in their games were provided with movement and combat rules that were written with miniatures in mind.

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4alum/2009june

Of course, WotC is just enacting revisionism, too, so you can win this debate if you really want to, if it'll make you feel better.

Quote from: Peregrin;370281Seanchai, I'm not sure if you're aware, but there's a difference between an author saying "IF miniatures are being used, we make the highest quality available and you'll want to use ours" and an author saying "You NEED something on the table to play the game correctly and the rules are DESIGNED for them explicitly."  

Except that's not what AD&D says, is it? I don't dispute that 4e was designed around minis (although page 9 of the PHB makes it pretty clear they're items you might find useful, rather than requirements), but Gygax wasn't saying, "Oh, if you use minis, here's some information." He out and out urged people to use them, saying they made it easier to run the game and, basically, would take the campaign to the next level.

In other words, both 4e and AD&D want people use minis and mats at the table (don't forget Gygax's plug for official TSR battlemats).

The difference is, 4e is better at incorporating that into the game.

And you know that article doesn't count because it was totally written by someone shilling for WotC. It doesn't reflect the reality of the game or the author's actual intent...

Seanchai

It's a waste of time folks. You'll get nothing out of him.

I think some people here are confused when someone else refers to minis as whatever sort of representation on the grid rather than a plastic figure on a 1-inch base.

Quote from: Seanchai;370289The difference is, 4e is better at incorporating that into the game.

Of course it's better. The system was build around using minis/representation + grid. For AD&D however, minis/representation was just tacked on.

Imagine this, one table is playing 4e and another AD&D. Grab both table's grids and minis/representations and throw it out the window. See which table can still continue without noticing any difference.

Quote from: jrients;370278How can you tell?

More importantly, how do we know he isn't just shilling?

Quote from: Seanchai;370289(although page 9 of the PHB makes it pretty clear they're items you might find useful, rather than requirements)

Actually, it's not clear at all. In fact, it's fairly unclear. First it says, "You might find some of the following items useful at your game table." Then it goes on to state, "Each player needs a miniature to represent his or her character, and the DM needs minis for monsters. Official D&D Miniatures are custom-made to be used with the D&D game." and also, "Combat in D&D plays out on a grid of 1-inch squares. You can pick up an erasable battle grid at many hobby game stores, or try D&D Dungeon Tiles - heavy cardstock tiles that can be set up to create a wide variety of locations - or you can create your own grid."

So, the actual book is kinda contradictory about the issue, on page 9 anyway. However, anyone who's played the games knows immediately how emphasized mat and mini use is in the rules for each edition, despite what any of the books may or may not recommend. We all know it, no matter how much we might like to argue the matter anyway. Of course none of that means that any of the editions aren't capable of being house-ruled to work either way, but the degree of alteration varies from one to the other, and we're all aware of that already too. I think I might have to be with J on this one.

Quote from: areola;370293Of course it's better. The system was build around using minis/representation + grid. For AD&D however, minis/representation was just tacked on.

Imagine this, one table is playing 4e and another AD&D. Grab both table's grids and minis/representations and throw it out the window. See which table can still continue without noticing any difference.

nice point

Quote from: Peregrin;370281Seanchai, I'm not sure if you're aware, but there's a difference between an author saying "IF miniatures are being used, we make the highest quality available and you'll want to use ours" and an author saying "You NEED something on the table to play the game correctly and the rules are DESIGNED for them explicitly."  Nowhere in AD&D does it say you need them to play, it's always "If", "If", "If", and Basic clearly says you don't need them.

I mean hell, even WotC hosted an article on their site, published in '09, that says D&D's connection with miniatures throughout its life is tenuous, at best, and concluded that mini use didn't rise to prominence again until 3rd edition.  Yeah, the guys trying to sell you the shit are saying that D&D didn't always stress the use of minis, and that a lot of older editions actually downplayed their use.

Ha!  Now I get to be the voice of reason!

Pick a different topic, and take the opposite stance you normally would.  Seanchai will be right in there arguing with you for the position you normally would hold.  That is specifically what he is here for:  simply to be contradictory.

Quote from: JasperAK;370331nice point

Amen. Anyone who cannot see the difference is just in denial.

Quote from: areola;370293Imagine this, one table is playing 4e and another AD&D. Grab both table's grids and minis/representations and throw it out the window. See which table can still continue without noticing any difference.

Neither. Both tables are populated with folks who are used to using minis. They'll both notice that play is difference.

If you want to demonstrate that 4e works better with minis or tokens or whatnot, there's no need - no one's disagreeing with that assertion.

The disagreement comes over the idea that AD&D and its creator intended it to be some kind of minis-free paradise or harbor for imagination. Clearly, they tried to sell people in the idea of using minis with their D&D games back then and thus in terms of using minis or not, it's not much different now...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;370520The disagreement comes over the idea that AD&D and its creator intended it to be some kind of minis-free paradise or harbor for imagination. Clearly, they tried to sell people in the idea of using minis with their D&D games back then and thus in terms of using minis or not, it's not much different now...

Nope. You're the only one who is qualifying the debate in such stark terms. Nobody's saying that "AD&D is intended as a minis-free paradise". You are consciously building a fallacy of the excluded middle to suit your argument that "these games are the same".

What's kind of laughable is that you still think this kind of rhetoric is working.