Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;534811I prefer to play with miniatures and a grid, even if the "miniatures" are tokens and the "grid" is a bare tabletop and we're using tape measurement.  (It's the way I played BattleTech back in the 1990s when I played on Saturdays at Phoenix Games in Minneapolis, so it's way doable on the cheap.)  I agree with Gleichman as to the reason for doing so--clear picture of the action, easy to resolve Line Of Sight questions, etc.--and I find his attitude towards rules to be understandable, and not unreasonable.  It is my experience that players would rather honestly fail than succeed only because the GM made it so, for whatever reason, hence why I play the game even when I run it, if you follow me.

I don't have anything against playing with miniatures and a grid.  However, I also think that you can play without a grid without being stupid and/or a cheater.

I think problems with Gleichman weren't over how he preferred to play with a grid, as with what he was saying about people who didn't play his way.

My own feeling is that you can only play "off the grid" with people who AREN'T stupid cheaters.

Quote from: jhkim;534869I don't have anything against playing with miniatures and a grid.  However, I also think that you can play without a grid without being stupid and/or a cheater.

More people fall into the category of limited spatial awareness than those who have spatial awareness.

Quote from: jhkim;534869I think problems with Gleichman weren't over how he preferred to play with a grid, as with what he was saying about people who didn't play his way.

No it's the opposite of what TRSwarriors say is the 'correct way' to play.

Quote from: Sommerjon;534907No it's the opposite of what TRSwarriors say is the 'correct way' to play.

What is a 'TRSwarrior,' please?  

Quote from: jhkim;534869I don't have anything against playing with miniatures and a grid.  However, I also think that you can play without a grid without being stupid and/or a cheater.

That's not what people who play without a grid/mini claim. Instead they say one of two things and thus define themselves:

1. They can't play with grid and minis because it's a wargame to them, i.e. they're are not capable of playing by the rules and role-playing at the same time.

2. They don't want to be bound by the rules, i.e. they want to cheat.



The most interesting thing here to me is that they pick games unsuited to their desires, i.e. ones that require a grid and minis (or their equal).

Basically they want to be able to say that they are playing the popular games (i.e. D&D and it's clones for the most part) but are unwilling to actually play them correctly (i.e. by the rules).

And then they want said game to dumb itself down to their level in a future edition. It's a bit like a bunch of people invaded Professional Baseball with the intent to change the rules to T-Ball. Why they don't just play T-Ball and leave other games to their own niche in the first place is the elephant in the room.


The answer is rather clear. The only games with a large enough market base to support the desired adventures/expansion/supplements are grid and mini games. So they almost have to parasite themselves on those games.

But the desire to dumb them down (i.e. removing support for the grid and minis) is self-defeating. If D&D 5th goes this path, it will die as surely as HERO did when it took that option.

Quote from: gleichman;534924That's not what people who play without a grid/mini claim. Instead they say one of two things and thus define themselves:

1. They can't play with grid and minis because it's a wargame to them, i.e. they're are not capable of playing by the rules and role-playing at the same time.

2. They don't want to be bound by the rules, i.e. they want to cheat.

Do you have some hard data that supports this claim?  Can you please point me to the research that supports this claim?

Quote from: Drohem;534926Do you have some hard data that supports this claim?  Can you please point me to the research that supports this claim?

This very thread. Go read it, and note what people opposed to grid and minis are actually saying.

Quote from: gleichman;534927This very thread. Go read it, and note what people opposed to grid and minis are actually saying.

So, you don't.  Thank you.

Quote from: Drohem;534933So, you don't.  Thank you.

For the purpose of this thread, I have 350 posts of data. I'm sorry however if you're incapable of understanding them.

Quote from: Drohem;534933So, you don't.  Thank you.

See, he thinks his playstyle is "the one true way" and if you play another way it's not only "badwrongfun" but you cheat. He forgets his opinion isn't an objective fact.

Quote from: Marleycat;534941See, he thinks his playstyle in "the one true way" and if you play another way not only "badwrongfun" but you cheat. He forgets his opinion isn't an objective fact.

It's not a question of "one true way" nor of opinion.

The rules are objective fact. If a spell has X Range, then a player/GM not determining the correct range means those rules have been broken. It's that simple.

And I've heard only two reasons why people break those rules in this thread- 1) they can't follow them and role-play, and 2) They want to override the rules at their whim (i.e. cheat). This is also objective fact.


I'm not against anyone playing a game without such rules, they would not be cheating nor dumbing down their game. I would find such games boring, but that's a matter of taste.

Quote from: gleichman;534942It's not a question of "one true way" nor of opinion.

The rules are objective fact. If a spell has X Range, then a player/GM not determining the correct range means those rules have been broken. It's that simple.

And I've heard only two reasons why people break those rules in this thread- 1) they can't follow them and role-play, and 2) They want to override the rules at their whim (i.e. cheat). This is also objective fact.


I'm not against anyone playing a game without such rules, they would not be cheating nor dumbing down their game. I would find such games boring, but that's a matter of taste.

For my games we use grids when deemed appropriate like big battles with multiple opponents and factors like flying or water. But its still not with rulers or the like.

It's cool that this playstyle is boring to you and I'm glad you admit it's not cheating.

Quote from: Drohem;534923What is a 'TRSwarrior,' please?  

the rpgsite warrior

Quote from: Marleycat;534941See, he thinks his playstyle is "the one true way" and if you play another way it's not only "badwrongfun" but you cheat. He forgets his opinion isn't an objective fact.

AYFKM?
This whole site is based around Onetruewayism.  Except gleichman's onetrueway happens to be different.

It's a bit much when every post you make is a number 17.

Quote from: Sommerjon;534948the rpgsite warrior
AYFKM?
This whole site is based around Onetruewayism.  Except gleichman's onetrueway happens to be different.

Just when I could start taking you seriously you say something silly again, whatever I guess.

I have no problem with Gleichman's playstyle.  I do have a problem with calling any other style cheating.  Just like certain styles may be storytelling not roleplaying but neither are cheating.