The way Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 is designed, you are clearly expected to play with miniatures. It is widely believed, as well, that the next version of D&D will be a minis-based board game with no roleplay content of any kind supported. Some argue that's already what it is.
I say, and I think it seems self-evident, that that is entirely up to the GM and the players; roleplay IS up to you, and the game is what you make it. No ruleset destroys roleplay unless you let it. There is roleplay at my table; it is part and parcel of the game. Witness, below, the description of Session 2, wherein no combat happened, pure roleplay, investigation, legwork, discussion, etc.
However, the question I really want to examine here; is it worth including minis in the game? I say, so long as you're careful with it, miniatures can add a dimension that actually makes the game run smoother. If you've got a battlemat, mini use eliminates the questions over space, facing, distance, and settles the "my character couldn't have been effected by that fireball!" argument once and for all. The trick is to not let mini use get out of control.
There is also the fact that minis get expensive. I'm sure Wizards of the Coast touts that their minis are a cheap alternative to the old classic metal figs made by companies like Reaper. They're plastic, they're already painted, fully assembled; play right out of the box. However, with Wizards D&D minis, you have to buy blind, and they're collectible. So if you really need a beholder mini for an upcoming game, you better just keep buying booster packs until you find one. Magic: The Gathering is clearly the worst thing that ever happened to gaming; once you make something collectible and you suck your public in, you can really get them over the barrel.
Of course, there are other options; many companies still make metal minis, and the paints, and you can still go that route. There's also sculpy, the "clay" stuff that you can easily sculpt into the rough size/shape of odd monsters (and, if you desire, bake in the oven to make permanent, then paint- no sorting through $80 worth of booster packs to find a beholder). So, personally, I think as time goes on in this campaign, we're going to add minis for large-scale combat, to more easily keep track of the things minis help you with.
One of the things minis can hurt, though, besides the wallet, is the imagination. The reason D&D, and RPGs in general, work better at the table with other players than on a computer screen, whether in MMO or single-player format, is that the table game doesn't place limits on your imagination. In a video game, your character is defined for you; the boundaries are set by the graphical representations the game makes. Sure, you can customize to an extent, both visually and with the numbers, but not nearly as much as you can in a tabletop game. You can imagine plenty more than any computer game can come up with. Not just as regards what your character looks like, but his/her gear, family, background, attitudes, preferred tactics, signature moves, witty lines, quotes, etc. Computer games are not going to let you do all of that. You might want your character to have a particular haircut, meaningful tattoos, a certain motif to their weapons and gear, a personal sign in the spells they cast, a particular style of singing or playing the lute or the bagpipes. In a tabletop game, you can do all that. The limit is only your own imagination.
Minis can change that; once you've taken something cast in tin or pewter, you've defined it, and in defining it you've limited it. You can search high and low for the perfect mini to represent your character, but chances are you won't find one. You'll find one that's close, but not perfect. And then, forever, your character looks like the mini, and not necessarily how you imagined him. Unless, of course, you have access to sculpting tools, clay, pewter, and casting facilities, in which case, you can make whatever mini you jolly well please. In that case, F you.
In summary, the point is, minis can help the game flow easier, but they can damage the imagination involved by placing limitations on it.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I heard someone describe D&D (positively mind you) as "tactical wargaming interrupted by bouts of improv acting."
I'd say that's a pretty apt description, especially when minis are used for combat. Definitely put me in the camp of D&D 3.x as a minis-based board game with no roleplay content of any kind explicitly supported.
What I mean is it is not "supported" insofar as playing Axis and Allies or Risk does not "support" roleplay. In other words, you could play Risk exactly like you play D&D 3.x if you made up some names for generals in certain territories on the board, and acted out invasion conflicts. There isn't anything in the rules that exists for the purpose of story manipulation/narrative results. It all exists to resolve conflict.
Nothing wrong with this at all, of course. It is a perfectly satisfying way to play.
oh man. now dan's made me self-conscious for searching for that "perfect mini" - guilty as charged. but i'm also more than willing to spend some time modding the mini and painting it up to represent my character.
i can see how the 3.5e system could simply be a board game. that's probably a smart marketing move on the part of WOTC, targeting the role-play lite demographic. the RPers will add in flavour as we see fit, regardless of the rules set forth.
since i'm very visual/spatial, i hope to use minis in the current campaign to compliment what i see as an advancement in the combat system provided by 3.5e - issues such as flanking and line of effect are now clear.
specific techniques employed by my character as he defeats that 25mm foe, however, are best acted out in my imagination and through table-top discussion.
Post a Comment