# WotC acknowledges 4th Edition Not for Everyone?



## DaveMage (Nov 9, 2008)

On the back of the latest dungeon tiles set (Streets of Shadow):

"All Dungeon Tiles products are compatible with all editions of Dungeons & Dragons."

I hope this means more edition-independent items.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 9, 2008)

Technically, it doesn't mean that WotC acknowledges anything but the fact that not everyone plays 4e.

People often make choices that are not based on any rational parameters.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 9, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> On the back of the latest dungeon tiles set (Streets of Shadow):
> 
> "All Dungeon Tiles products are compatible with all editions of Dungeons & Dragons."
> 
> I hope this means more edition-independent items.




I think it means more to the fact that many games can use a 1 inch gridded tile.

Do the tiles not include any indicators of terrain types like they did for DDM? No keywords on them or anything?

I think all D&D accessories should be edition-independent except for things like sheets and cards. Any map or miniature, etc should be suitable for more than D&D to get the most from the market.

I wish they map unmarked maps with just a theme like forest, that you could place tiles on and have overland areas, or cavernous background to have caverns....and stuff like that where you could lay out tiles on rather than gaping white table space or a grid piece of paper.

Do any of the tiles or tile products ever have a legend as to the distances?


----------



## xechnao (Nov 9, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Technically, it doesn't mean that WotC acknowledges anything but the fact that not everyone plays 4e.
> 
> People often make choices that are not based on any rational parameters.




Rationality is by definition a universal tool. But people often make choices that are not based on certain rational definitions. The fact that not all propositions may be decidable does not mean that people are irrational.


----------



## xechnao (Nov 9, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I think it means more to the fact that many games can use a 1 inch gridded tile.
> 
> Do the tiles not include any indicators of terrain types like they did for DDM? No keywords on them or anything?
> 
> ...




They did not say "games". They said editions. Davemage is right in his observation.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 9, 2008)

xechnao said:


> Rationality is by definition a universal tool. But people often make choices that are not based on certain rational definitions. The fact that not all propositions may be decidable does not mean that people are irrational.




You do not know many women, do you?


----------



## jdsivyer (Nov 9, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> On the back of the latest dungeon tiles set (Streets of Shadow):
> 
> "All Dungeon Tiles products are compatible with all editions of Dungeons & Dragons."
> 
> I hope this means more edition-independent items.




Well, it certainly gives me the impression that WOTC realise not everyone has embraced 4e.  They'd be pretty ignorant (or arrogant ) to think that everyone "upgraded".  They know people still hang on to 3.5 and earlier editions.

By putting this on the back of a product, it enables those who play 3.5 and earlier editions to realise there are still some products WOTC are releasing that can be used for their current games.  It's a chance for WOTC to reach beyond the 4e market and still make some $ from gamers who are shunning 4e.

In all honesty, they could have put "compatible with most roleplaying games," but they want to (and understandably so) concentrate solely on D&D.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 9, 2008)

xechnao said:


> They did not say "games". They said editions. Davemage is right in his observation.




There are two other possible explanations for it though.

-They want people to feel more like they don't have to play 4th or even D&D to purchase and use the tiles.

-4.5 is right around the corner so people buying tiles for use with 4th edition from the new tilesets will know that they are also good for 4.5 as well as 4th. 

I also wonder if that means the tiles can be used under OGL, or something about the new GSL when/if it comes out will have something allowing for people to use images of tiles to create maps to further sales of D&D branded tiles over say the guy around here from Fire Dragon(is that the people that make those terrain paper models?)


----------



## xechnao (Nov 9, 2008)

jdsivyer said:


> In all honesty, they could have put "compatible with most roleplaying games," but they want to (and understandably so) concentrate solely on D&D.




I can speculate their message goes beyond this. They very well could have written nothing of the sort: just indicate scale. I think there is a good probability they are launching marketing for edition proof products or even products for older, hybrid or even "evolved" editions (perhaps next step is something in DRAGON or DUNGEON ???).

Perhaps the limits of purism have caught the commercial projects?


----------



## xechnao (Nov 9, 2008)

justanobody said:


> There are two other possible explanations for it though.
> 
> -They want people to feel more like they don't have to play 4th or even D&D to purchase and use the tiles.
> 
> -4.5 is right around the corner so people buying tiles for use with 4th edition from the new tilesets will know that they are also good for 4.5 as well as 4th.




As noted just above I will rather go with the second (which I include to this any edition (older or newer)).


----------



## Grazzt (Nov 9, 2008)

justanobody said:


> -They want people to feel more like they don't have to play 4th or even D&D to purchase and use the tiles.




Disagree with the "even D&D" part. They did say all editions of D&D, not just "roleplaying games"

Either way- it's interesting to say the least.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 9, 2008)

Grazzt said:


> Disagree with the "even D&D" part. They did say all editions of D&D, not just "roleplaying games"
> 
> Either way- it's interesting to say the least.




So they cannot be used for DDM or AD&D?


----------



## JeffB (Nov 9, 2008)

It's a smart business move to make a little extra $. 

But I do love all the tabloid scenarios y'all are coming up with


----------



## Grimstaff (Nov 9, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> On the back of the latest dungeon tiles set (Streets of Shadow):
> 
> "All Dungeon Tiles products are compatible with all editions of Dungeons & Dragons."
> 
> I hope this means more edition-independent items.




How true is this though?

These tiles are based on a 1" equals 5' guideline (4 mat squares for every 10' map square).

In 1E, 1" on a battlemat equalled 3.33' (9 mat squares for every 10' map square).


----------



## darjr (Nov 9, 2008)

By the very simple fact that almost every edition of D&D is for sale as PDF, they have recognized this for quite some time.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 9, 2008)

darjr said:


> By the very simple fact that almost every edition of D&D is for sale as PDF, they have recognized this for quite some time.




I would buy that IF they only put up the older edition materials AFTER 4th edition became available.

BUT, the fact they didn't take those down when 4th edition came out, could agree that they know 4th is not all people will buy even though they only offer it in their current product line.

So having the tiles work with those older PDFs and even OGL material and saying so, just allows them to appeal more to a greater audience rather than just saying "for 4th edition" which some may bypass the product entirely as seeming to be made for, or only work for use with 4th edition.

So it is still a better way to word it than claiming for 4th edition, but the PDFs show nothing until they take them down.

IF they allow OGL/GSL scaled down versions of the map tiles in products to promote the sale of the tiles with the old PDFs as well as new products from 3PP, then it would go a lot farther to support older editions.

Nonetheless it is a small amount of support for older editions in the right direction.

*Warning:* don't drink coffee and eat BBQ because, it leaves you with more energy than you know what to do with and ends up with long posts.


----------



## darjr (Nov 9, 2008)

I agree that it is a good thing that they worded the marketing info on the package the way they did.

However, I think that the PDF's would be EASY as pie to take down in a heartbeat. If they ever really believed that 4e is the one and only, those PDF's would not have stayed on line. Period.

Oh, eh, thanks for the editing 

BBQ and coffee...


----------



## Team-Preston (Nov 9, 2008)

Ultimately it's marketing. It's useful outside D&D 4E because not everyone plays it and they know that...and they want to emphasize their own stuff by saying D&D (sans edition identifiers)...but realistically, it's useful for any RPG and they know it. It's marketing tactics and understandable.

Jeff Preston


----------



## the Jester (Nov 9, 2008)

Grimstaff said:


> How true is this though?
> 
> These tiles are based on a 1" equals 5' guideline (4 mat squares for every 10' map square).
> 
> In 1E, 1" on a battlemat equalled 3.33' (9 mat squares for every 10' map square).




Actually, in 1e, 1" was 10' indoors or 10 yards outdoors.


----------



## Nikosandros (Nov 9, 2008)

xechnao said:


> I think there is a good probability they are launching marketing for edition proof products or even products for older, hybrid or even "evolved" editions (perhaps next step is something in DRAGON or DUNGEON ???).



I would be extremely surprised if that was actually the case.


----------



## Dausuul (Nov 9, 2008)

darjr said:


> I agree that it is a good thing that they worded the marketing info on the package the way they did.
> 
> However, I think that the PDF's would be EASY as pie to take down in a heartbeat. If they ever really believed that 4e is the one and only, those PDF's would not have stayed on line. Period.
> 
> ...




What do you mean by "the one and only?"  They'd have to be utter morons to believe that everyone is going to convert to 4E.  There are people out there still playing every edition from OD&D onward.  Wizards has said from the beginning that they know not everyone will be on board with 4E.

Providing the .PDFs, and marking certain products as "edition-independent," lets them pick up a little money from the hardcore fans of earlier editions who are simply never going to convert, without supporting those earlier editions to such an extent that they risk splitting the 4E customer base.  It's a smart move.


----------



## Merkuri (Nov 9, 2008)

WotC knows that people play other editions of the games.  If they're even the slightest bit in touch with the gaming community they must know this.  It's a simple thing for them to say, "hey, these things could be used with any D&D edition that uses grids (and probably some that don't), so why don't we write that on the box!"

I doubt it's anything more than somebody trying to market this particular product to a larger audience.  There's probably only a tiny chance that this means they're planning on supporting other editions or that this is heralding 4.5.


----------



## reveal (Nov 9, 2008)

Team-Preston said:


> Ultimately it's marketing. It's useful outside D&D 4E because not everyone plays it and they know that...and they want to emphasize their own stuff by saying D&D (sans edition identifiers)...but realistically, it's useful for any RPG and they know it. It's marketing tactics and understandable.
> 
> Jeff Preston



Exactly. They're terrain tiles for gawd's sake. There is no conspiracy theory here. If a DM wants to show what the terrain looks likes to add a more visceral aspect to their game, they can plop these puppies down. Doesn't matter what system it is, terrain is terrain.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 9, 2008)

reveal said:


> Exactly. They're terrain tiles for gawd's sake. There is no conspiracy theory here. If a DM wants to show what the terrain looks likes to add a more visceral aspect to their game, they can plop these puppies down. Doesn't matter what system it is, terrain is terrain.




Terrain is not terrain. These tiles aren't even terrain. You want terrain check out Dwarven Forge, or Hirst Arts.

I think the point is by not saying "for 4th edition", it doesn't automatically drive people away that don't want to play 4th edition.

So if a new book comes out claiming to be "for 4th edition" yet there is no mechanical game information in it, it may drive people away, while not labeling it as 4th edition has a greater chance of picking up those people who would be turned away from the product as being something so tightly connected to the 4th edition ruleset.


----------



## Rel (Nov 9, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Terrain is not terrain.




Um...What?


----------



## justanobody (Nov 9, 2008)

Rel said:


> Um...What?




The statement was "terrain is terrain". But the tiles are not terrain, but more than a game board. Just one that happens to be modular.

Take one of those people that made Drow Outpost, or some of those other maps in 3D and there you have some terrain.

2D isn't terrain to a player. The green blob may suppose to be a bush or tree, but you have to ask. Terrain would be something that tells you right away even if it is a Lego tree. It needs depth beyond the tiles flat images to be terrain.

The tiles are good visual aids, but not quite terrain. Those fold-up models WotC has archived somewhere are good examples of terrain.

Now, if you have a pull-out tap like a pop-up book on the tiles to pop up the trees or something I will call them more akin to terrain. 

Otherwise, they are just a modular map that indicate what terrain _would_ exist in 3D just like a surveyors map, but without the contour lines.


----------



## usdmw (Nov 9, 2008)

In discussing scale in 1e ad&d you are both right.

Movement rates and missile ranges are given in a scale of 1" = 10 feet indoors or 10 yards outdoors.

In the rules for using miniatures. a scale of 1" = 3 1/3 feet is given.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 9, 2008)

usdmw said:


> In discussing scale in 1e ad&d you are both right.
> 
> Movement rates and missile ranges are given in a scale of 1" = 10 feet indoors or 10 yards outdoors.
> 
> In the rules for using miniatures. a scale of 1" = 3 1/3 feet is given.




Combat and Tactics half those to 5 feet and 5 yards, known as "missile scale".


----------



## usdmw (Nov 9, 2008)

True, but C&T is a 2nd ed book. Also, in 2nd ed all combat movement is assumed 1" = 10 feet, a change from 1st ed where 1" = 10 yards outdoors.


----------



## MINI (Nov 9, 2008)

If you can sell to a broad audience, why limit yourselves to just 4e enthusiasts?


----------



## reveal (Nov 9, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Terrain is not terrain. These tiles aren't even terrain. You want terrain check out Dwarven Forge, or Hirst Arts.




Stop being pedantic. Fine, it's not "terrain" by definition, since that refers to the ground or features of land, but if someone asked what the terrain was like in the dungeon, I wouldn't be pedantic enough to say "It's _the floor_, not terrain."



> I think the point is by not saying "for 4th edition", it doesn't automatically drive people away that don't want to play 4th edition.




No the point is that just because it says that it's "compatible with all editions of" D&D doesn't mean that WotC is saying that 4E isn't for everyone. They are tiles that can be used for anything and WotC knows that. That's the point I was making based upon the OP.


----------



## reveal (Nov 9, 2008)

MINI said:


> If you can sell to a broad audience, why limit yourselves to just 4e enthusiasts?



Exactly. It's marketing, pure and simple. And smart marketing at that.


----------



## Kishin (Nov 9, 2008)

I highly doubt this is indicative of anything other than "You can use these gridded tiles with any existing D&D product!"

It would be far fetched indeed to expect 'edition independent' products that weren't things like Dungeon Tiles, and were instead actual books.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Nov 9, 2008)

I'm very much thinking that some have this idea backwards.
Wizards, I think, is trying to inform people that they can also buy the older tile sets and use them for 4e, as well as use the "4e tile sets" for other editions.

They're trying to continue making money off of what older materials they can.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Nov 9, 2008)

reveal said:


> Stop being pedantic. Fine, it's not "terrain" by definition, since that refers to the ground or features of land, but if someone asked what the terrain was like in the dungeon, I wouldn't be pedantic enough to say "It's _the floor_, not terrain."




The thing is I don't think he's being pedantic about this at all. They ARE tiles. It says so right on the product. 

Also the tiles don't only deal with dungeon environments. In fact I'm pretty sure there are at least 2 of the sets that deal with outdoor environments. 

This is small thing to argue over but to me: THIS STUFF is terrain. 

These things are Tiles. 

I'm pretty certain that I'm not the only one who feels that way.


----------



## reveal (Nov 9, 2008)

ShinHakkaider said:


> The thing is I don't think he's being pedantic about this at all. They ARE tiles. It says so right on the product.




As someone who doesn't play Warhammer, I'm referring to the stuff printed on the tiles.



> Also the tiles don't only deal with dungeon environments. In fact I'm pretty sure there are at least 2 of the sets that deal with outdoor environments.




I know. So I guess my "terrain is terrain" statement is appropriate since there _are_ ground tiles.



> This is small thing to argue over but to me: THIS STUFF is terrain.
> 
> These things are Tiles.
> 
> I'm pretty certain that I'm not the only one who feels that way.




You're right; it's a very small thing to argue over and to me is pedantic.


----------



## Mephistopheles (Nov 9, 2008)

I'd say they're just trying to include their customers who are not playing 4E, with the aim of selling more of their product.

If the text had read "All Dungeon Tiles products are compatible with Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition." we'd have people howling about how they're being excluded for not moving to 4E (ignoring the fact that there's nothing that would make the tiles incompatible with previous editions as things stand).

Catch-22.


----------



## DaveMage (Nov 9, 2008)

In the interest of full disclosure, the back text includes:

"For use with these 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons Core Products:

Player's Handbook
Dungeon Master's Guide
Monster Manual
Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures
Other D&D Dungeon Tiles sets"

After this text, it indicates what I put in the initial post.

I find it interesting because it's different from the back text on the first set of tiles released after 4E (DU1 - Halls of the Giant Kings), which does not mention any edition.  (It simply states "for use with these D&D Products", with the listed products above, sans edition.)


----------



## justanobody (Nov 9, 2008)

usdmw said:


> True, but C&T is a 2nd ed book. Also, in 2nd ed all combat movement is assumed 1" = 10 feet, a change from 1st ed where 1" = 10 yards outdoors.




Yes. I was just noting that second didn't require to be outdoors when dealing with feet vs yards for the same scale amount of 1 inch.

So it doesn't quite fit even within the confines of D&D as the scale is not really constant with the 5 listed equivalents for one inch. 

I mean how big is that tavern at 4x5 squares?

20 x 25 feet?
20 x 25 yards?
12+ x 15+ feet?
40 x 50 feet?
40 x 50 yards? 

This is where perfect to-scale miniatures would come in handy to give you the relative scale of the tiles depending on the edition.... 


reveal said:


> You're right; it's a very small thing to argue over and to me is pedantic.




No it is being technical.



			
				technicality said:
			
		

> the quality or state of being technical; that which is technical, or *peculiar to any trade, profession*, sect, or the like




D&D isn't a game it's just a collection of books, unless you want to be pedantic about it.


----------



## reveal (Nov 9, 2008)

justanobody said:


> No it is being technical.




You know, I almost posted a defintion of "terrain" for you but I didn't because I thought that would be childish and insulting. I guess I was the only one who thought that and figured you were an adult who knew the defintion of the word.



> D&D isn't a game it's just a collection of books, unless you want to be pedantic about it.




You both know exactly what we're talking about here. We're talking about Dungeon Tiles. And you know full well that when I say "terrain" I don't mean terrain as in Warhammer terrain but as in what's printed on the tiles. That right there is full-on pedantry.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 9, 2008)

If they said it was only for 4e, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot ... not to mention lying. The stuff isn't specific to any edition, there is no edition specific rules involved in the package.

If they put nothing on it, considering that "all new products" are 4e, it might confuse someone, and they may think this is also 4e specific.

So, in order to avoid losing some business because of misconceptions, they clarified that while every new product works with 4e, this works for more than just 4e.


----------



## CleverNickName (Nov 9, 2008)

MINI said:


> If you can sell to a broad audience, why limit yourselves to just 4e enthusiasts?



Good question.  It's win-win for them.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Nov 10, 2008)

Two words people... FIFTH EDITION. You heard it here first.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 10, 2008)

justanobody said:


> BUT, the fact they didn't take those down when 4th edition came out, could agree that they know 4th is not all people will buy even though they only offer it in their current product line.




Or, you know, it's free cash from completists while not costing them one red cent. I wouldn't look at it as an acknowledgement of anything beyond that.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 10, 2008)

I don't see it as acknowledgement about much of anything except that the 1" gridded tiles make a good visual reference for terrain for D&D no matter what edition you are playing.

Occam's Razor.

(EDIT:  and for what it's worth, I consider tiles as terrain, too.  For example, I use the Skeleton Key tiles for my "terrain", because it's representative of... well.... terrain.)


----------



## Blair Goatsblood (Nov 10, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> (EDIT:  and for what it's worth, I consider tiles as terrain, too.  For example, I use the Skeleton Key tiles for my "terrain", because it's representative of... well.... terrain.)




Ditto. My gaming group has enough terrain to fill a 10'x10' room and we still use the lowly tiles.

- To avoid 'no room for fingers/minature' issues in certain situations such as narrow passages.

- To quickly lay out what's behind secret doors.

- To represent large areas with a fairly even surface such as large chambers, outdoor areas.

I plan an buying several sets of Ruins of the Wild (if it becomes available again) and streets of shadows. I hope they do a desert and swamp set. Just throw those streets tiles down between our resin buildings. Replace with the sewer tiles in two-level situations as necessary. Use tiles to represent the interiors of the resin buildings. Just lay them out and put the building on top.

A pile of Ruins of the Wild tiles would work very well with all of our 3-D trees and boulders and ruined walls. The Paizo Flip Maps and the Starship Troopers map box both get heavy usage for outdoor encounters.

I wish someone made outdoor tiles of dungeon tile quality, but maybe 8 to 10 inches square.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Nov 10, 2008)

Wow.

Talk about leaping to conclusions....


----------



## darjr (Nov 10, 2008)

Dausuul said:


> What do you mean by "the one and only?"  They'd have to be utter morons to believe that everyone is going to convert to 4E.  There are people out there still playing every edition from OD&D onward.  Wizards has said from the beginning that they know not everyone will be on board with 4E.
> 
> Providing the .PDFs, and marking certain products as "edition-independent," lets them pick up a little money from the hardcore fans of earlier editions who are simply never going to convert, without supporting those earlier editions to such an extent that they risk splitting the 4E customer base.  It's a smart move.




You should reread my post. What I said, was that *IF* they wanted to act as if 4e was the one and only the PDF's would have come down. I was arguing that they have never acted like that.

I was not claming that WotC are utter morons, nor was I claiming they have some 4e megalomania.

Also note in my original post, that, I agree, it's a good move.


----------



## Psion (Nov 10, 2008)

MINI said:


> If you can sell to a broad audience, why limit yourselves to just 4e enthusiasts?




Logically, I agree.

However, it is sort of contrary to statements by WotC that they "don't want any fence sitters" re:GSL. The marketing front here seems less than united. Which I guess is a good thing.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 10, 2008)

Blair Goatsblood said:


> Ditto. My gaming group has enough terrain to fill a 10'x10' room and we still use the lowly tiles.




Dude, seriously get a real terrain collection.  having 4 square inches of terrain is NOT a big deal.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 10, 2008)

FATDRAGONGAMES said:


> Two words people... FIFTH EDITION. You heard it here first.



I don't think so. I remember hearing about it, oh, just about when 4E was announced, I think.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 10, 2008)

Psion said:


> Logically, I agree.
> 
> However, it is sort of contrary to statements by WotC that they "don't want any fence sitters" re:GSL. The marketing front here seems less than united. Which I guess is a good thing.



Wasn't that with respect to publishers, not customers?


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 10, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Wasn't that with respect to publishers, not customers?



Yes


----------



## DaveMage (Nov 10, 2008)

Psion said:


> Logically, I agree.
> 
> However, it is sort of contrary to statements by WotC that they "don't want any fence sitters" re:GSL. The marketing front here seems less than united. Which I guess is a good thing.




Yeah, I found it interesting that this particular marketing text speaks to all players of D&D, regardless of edition.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Nov 10, 2008)

I can't believe this has two pages of replies.

Here's the deal: People are actually still playing other editions of the game.  WotC produces these tiles, which actually can be used with any edition, because they're basically just visual aids, and the game has always used a 1" scale for tabletop maps.  The tiles can actually be used for any other game that is compatible with a square 1" grid map, but WotC doesn't want you to buy those other games, so they emphasize only its compatibility with D&D.  Since they no longer produce or support previous editions of D&D (with the exception of PDFs of older editions, which probably account for <1% of D&D sales, and so aren't a threat to the new edition), it's safe enough for sales to mention backward compatibility in tiny text on the back of the packaging.

The point is so that no one sees the product with the new D&D logo on it and says "durrr...these tiles are 4th edition tiles.  I can't buy them for my 3rd edition game, cuz they won't work."  Yes, WotC is interested in selling games even to people who can't find their noses without a map.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 10, 2008)

Psion said:


> Logically, I agree.
> 
> However, it is sort of contrary to statements by WotC that they "don't want any fence sitters" re:GSL. The marketing front here seems less than united. Which I guess is a good thing.






Fifth Element said:


> Wasn't that with respect to publishers, not customers?






Jack99 said:


> Yes






DaveMage said:


> Yeah, I found it interesting that this particular marketing text speaks to all players of D&D, regardless of edition.




Publishers don't spend money on D&D. They generate value for D&D by creating products that tie into the current WotC edition and thus make it a good idea for consumers to buy 4E because they can also get the 3rd party support for it.

Consumers spend money on D&D, even if they are just buying the terrain tiles. 

Still advertising it as "compatible" or "for use" with 4E makes sense - because now even the most clueless customer will understand that if he bought any of the 4E Core products, he will find a use for the terrain tiles, too! But "older" customers will be happy to know that these terrain tiles will not force 1-1-1 diagonals or similar rules upon them and they can use them just like those 3E or even earlier editions, too. (And they are still informed: Hey, there's a 4E out there? I can still use the tiles? And these are the product names I should look out for? Cool!)


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 10, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> "All Dungeon Tiles products are compatible with all editions of Dungeons & Dragons."



Very interesting... maybe. Does anyone know when the last time the existence of previous editions was noted on the back (or front) cover marketing blurb?


----------



## jaerdaph (Nov 10, 2008)

Acknowledging that 4e is not for everyone is kind of like acknowledging that some people are male and some people are female....


----------



## justanobody (Nov 10, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Very interesting... maybe. Does anyone know when the last time the existence of previous editions was noted on the back (or front) cover marketing blurb?




On a 2nd edition product referring to 1st edition?

But that doesn't say "previous", just "all". Other than dice and pencils the tiles are about he only thing that are useful across all editions.


----------



## DaveMage (Nov 10, 2008)

Arnwyn said:


> Very interesting... maybe. Does anyone know when the last time the existence of previous editions was noted on the back (or front) cover marketing blurb?




The only things similar I remember are:

The Dungeons & Dragons (basic) Dawn of the Emperors box set indicates that its compatible with the AD&D and 2nd Edition AD&D game systems.  Also, the Greyhawk Adventures hardcover indicates compatibility with both 1E and 2E.  IIRC, both products came out just prior to the release of 2E.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 10, 2008)

I wouldn't read too much into it. I think they're acknowledging that they've got a fairly generic product but can't find the intestinal fortitude to advertise something as being suitable for RPGs other than D&D. That's my take on it. They still can't market a product as being truly generic. It's always got to be "D&D this" and "D&D that".


----------



## Thasmodious (Nov 10, 2008)

--Today, Wizards of the Coast announces a new product line of mechanical pencils bearing the D&D logo.  A company spokesman stated "these will be ideal for all RPGs, really."

Dave:  OMG!  Hasbro is going to buy GURPS!


----------



## Obryn (Nov 10, 2008)

THIS JUST IN: DIFFERENT PEOPLE ENJOY DIFFERENT GAMES!

THIS ALSO JUST IN: SELLING A PRODUCT TO MORE PEOPLE GETS YOU MORE MONEY!


Really, I can't think of a response other than "Yeah, so?"  And the 4.5 conspiracy theory is hilarious. 

-O


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 10, 2008)

justanobody said:


> On a 2nd edition product referring to 1st edition?



Yeah, that's all I remember too. Just on two FR books (Hall of Heroes and Cities of Mystery), which had 2e logos (but Hall of Heroes was had entirely 1e rules). None at all otherwise during 2e or 3e.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Nov 10, 2008)

justanobody said:


> The statement was "terrain is terrain". But the tiles are not terrain, but more than a game board. Just one that happens to be modular.
> 
> Take one of those people that made Drow Outpost, or some of those other maps in 3D and there you have some terrain.
> 
> ...



Are you using the "This is not a pipe" argument or do you honestly think that people who use tiles are unable to determine what represents a tree?


----------



## Scribble (Nov 11, 2008)

I think the idea that WoTC would think, or even just try to imply, that they have 100% of D&D players converted to 4e is strange...

I'm sure they know full well that there are gamers out there who play D&D but aren't switching, or just haven't switched yet. Those people still have gaming dollars, and WoTC wants those dollars. 

So if they have a product that can be used by anyone... Well they can put a little blurb on there at very little cost in an attempt to get those dollars.

DOLLARS!


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 11, 2008)

You know, I thought we were getting silly when the hundredth "Well, I know it's been six months, but here are the things *I* dislike about 4e.  You may recognize them from every other topic, _ever_" thread came around and reached 20 pages.  Again.

But this?  This is a whole new level of slap-myself-in-the-head, punch-myself-in-the-crotch silly.

Kudos.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 11, 2008)

Obryn said:


> THIS JUST IN: DIFFERENT PEOPLE ENJOY DIFFERENT GAMES!
> 
> THIS ALSO JUST IN: SELLING A PRODUCT TO MORE PEOPLE GETS YOU MORE MONEY!
> 
> ...



Please, no Crinoismns! They hurt my ears eyes!


----------



## Staffan (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> On a 2nd edition product referring to 1st edition?



I remember some Spelljammer products referring to the stuff from Oriental Adventures - notably a "ki helm" whose speed was based on class and level, listing a number of OA classes. There were probably some 2e FR books/boxes referring to 1e books as well.

But there was a whole lot more continuity between 1e and 2e than with 2e to 3e and then 3e to 4e. For example, the FR sourcebook series started with FR1 Waterdeep and the North in '87, and switched over to 2e with FR7, 8, or 9 (I can't check 7 or 8, but they were released the same year as 2e - FR9 The Bloodstone Lands has the 2e logo on it, anyway), and kept going until FR16 The Shining South. They didn't even release an updated FR box set until 1993 - until then, you were expected to get the 1987 box and the Forgotten Realms Adventures hardback updating things.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 11, 2008)

TarionzCousin said:


> Are you using the "This is not a pipe" argument or do you honestly think that people who use tiles are unable to determine what represents a tree?




A picture of a pipe is not a pipe. A picture of a tree, is not a tree.

Try playing any 3d game and tell me line of sight with a 2d surface.

How do I know if I can see through your tree or not as a flat 2d image.

Look there is a window on that building draw on the tile. Which characters can see through it at eye level.

This is what separates tiles from terrain.

Do you think companies that make terrain sell flat 2d images?

Terrain is 3d. Pictures are 2d.

Tiles are not terrain. They may be pictures of terrain features, but they are not terrain.

Put your artist rendering of your landscape on your lawn and tell me how good it looks there versus planting the trees and shrubbery.

If there is anyone that thinks of these tiles as terrain, I would love to know so I don't play games with those people.


----------



## reveal (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> If there is anyone that thinks of these tiles as terrain, I would love to know so I don't play games with those people.




Way ahead of you.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> A picture of a pipe is not a pipe. A picture of a tree, is not a tree.
> 
> Try playing any 3d game and tell me line of sight with a 2d surface.
> 
> ...




Considering how piss poor the scaling is on most fantasy minis, using actual LOS for gameplay is a BAD idea.  I know Rackham's minis games are trying to do this (or at least that's what I understand) and it's being very strongly resisted by a number of fans.  Unless your minis are perfectly to scale, then they are just as abstract as a 2d image.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 11, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Considering how piss poor the scaling is on most fantasy minis, using actual LOS for gameplay is a BAD idea.  I know Rackham's minis games are trying to do this (or at least that's what I understand) and it's being very strongly resisted by a number of fans.  Unless your minis are perfectly to scale, then they are just as abstract as a 2d image.




I have never seen anything other the railway sets to be of any proper scale. That is a gripe I have had for decades, and nobody seems to want to address it because they don't want to get organized and have their sculptors follow standards of heights and such. Aside from that, a floorplan still is not terrain.

I think the only thing that has to-scale minis for gaming is Warhammer miniatures, because they actual require LOS, and are made to work with it and actual terrain in mind.

I mean thinking about D&D specifically, I wouldn't want a DM that considers the tiles as terrain, because what other things could he be describing wrong during the game as far as other visuals or anything else.

They are good visual aids, just not terrain. Just look at mini wargames that bored Gary enough to co-create D&D and you will find what terrain is.

I wonder if the new minis form WotC, in light of all the things happening to minis lately, will be to scale since they are using CAD on them and can see a proper scale on the screen to tell if something is too big to stretch or squash it to the proper size.

And keep your arms in your own grid square and stop grabbing your neighbor's butt!


----------



## Rykion (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> A picture of a pipe is not a pipe. A picture of a tree, is not a tree.



A small piece of plastic or wire shaped to look like a tree isn't a tree either.



justanobody said:


> Try playing any 3d game and tell me line of sight with a 2d surface.



Fortunately, we are talking about a product for playing D&D which has rules for determining LoS using 2d terrain. 


justanobody said:


> How do I know if I can see through your tree or not as a flat 2d image.
> 
> Look there is a window on that building draw on the tile. Which characters can see through it at eye level.



The rules are in the PHB.  I play all kinds of miniatures games and don't know one that doesn't handle windows/building interiors without some level of abstraction.



justanobody said:


> This is what separates tiles from terrain.
> 
> Do you think companies that make terrain sell flat 2d images?
> 
> ...



You are correct that tiles aren't actually terrain, but neither are the miniature hills, buildings, and trees people use to play tabletop games.  They are just a 3d abstraction compared to the tiles which are a 2d abstraction.  I can understand some people would prefer the 3d over the 2d versions.



justanobody said:


> If there is anyone that thinks of these tiles as terrain, I would love to know so I don't play games with those people.



I would love to have the space, time, and money to have the perfect 3d representation of everything I could want for my RPGs, but I don't.  I also don't want to stop the game for 15 to 20 minutes to put together a diorama every time the scene changes.  I'm perfectly happy using 2d terrain in games designed for it.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> If there is anyone that thinks of these tiles as terrain, I would love to know so I don't play games with those people.



Well, considering that RPGNow (and I think YourGamesNow) have a category called 2d Buildings/Terrain I think that list could include anyone who has ever bought one of these, as well as the publishers that create them.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 11, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> Well, considering that RPGNow (and I think YourGamesNow) have a category called 2d Buildings/Terrain I think that would be anyone who has ever bought one of these, as well as the publishers that create them.




It isn't my fault they don't understand the language well enough to be able to tell what terrain is and what maps and floorplans are.

I despise trying to redesign a language in order to sell something. The oxymoron in the name is quite funny, so thanks for sharing it.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> It isn't my fault they don't understand the language well enough to be able to tell what terrain is and what maps and floorplans are.
> 
> I despise trying to redesign a language in order to sell something. The oxymoron in the name is quite funny, so thanks for sharing it.



It seems that they understand the language just fine.  They use a common language (English), and utilize it to define another common, well understood name for something.  I would say that "2D terrain" is an acceptable phrase and is part of a common tabletop RPG lexicon.

A computer "mouse" wasn't a real mouse.  But the terminology was acceptable to become part of computer lexicon, and then eventually it was made "official". Merriam-Webster has it as definition 4 for "mouse".


----------



## Obryn (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> It isn't my fault they don't understand the language well enough to be able to tell what terrain is and what maps and floorplans are.
> 
> I despise trying to redesign a language in order to sell something. The oxymoron in the name is quite funny, so thanks for sharing it.



Have you thought that - just maybe - if everyone seems to be using a word in a certain way, and you're not, that you might be in the wrong?

Maybe you're being a tad too literal?  Or quibbling about the vagaries of language, when the actual _thing_ being discussed is perfectly clear?

-O


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Nov 11, 2008)

It does seem like a perfectly cromulent use of the word.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> It isn't my fault they don't understand the language well enough to be able to tell what terrain is and what maps and floorplans are.
> 
> I despise trying to redesign a language in order to sell something. The oxymoron in the name is quite funny, so thanks for sharing it.



*Pedant mode on* They are using 2d terrain as a way to describe what is probably most precisely called a terrain map.  What you have described as terrain is actually model terrain.  One form uses maps, the other models.  Both are abstract ways to represent terrain.  Neither is a form of actual terrain. *Pedant mode off*


----------



## justanobody (Nov 11, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Have you thought that - just maybe - if everyone seems to be using a word in a certain way, and you're not, that you might be in the wrong?
> 
> Maybe you're being a tad too literal?  Or quibbling about the vagaries of language, when the actual _thing_ being discussed is perfectly clear?
> 
> -O




Except for the fact that those people are wrong because they are misusing the word wherein the tiles may depict terrain, but are not terrain.

The tree printed on a tile is a depiction of terrain.

Go smoke that pipe upthread. See how far you get. I want to know how you get your combustible material into it for starters.

Define "chair" as if to someone who has never seen one.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Except for the fact that those people are wrong because they are misusing the word wherein the tiles may depict terrain, but are not terrain.
> 
> The tree printed on a tile is a depiction of terrain.
> 
> ...



Do you think there's a single person posting on this thread who calls wilderness tiles "terrain" and actually _believes_ they are real, honest-to-goodness terrain?

Or that a marketing blurb is somehow deceptive because it refers to "terrain" but the package doesn't contain actual hills and foliage?

You're making an overly pedantic point that has absolutely zero relevance to the discussion.

-O


----------



## justanobody (Nov 11, 2008)

Obryn said:


> Do you think there's a single person posting on this thread who calls wilderness tiles "terrain" and actually _believes_ they are real, honest-to-goodness terrain?
> 
> Or that a marketing blurb is somehow deceptive because it refers to "terrain" but the package doesn't contain actual hills and foliage?
> 
> ...




My point is that gaming is more than just D&D. There is already an established industry usage of the word terrain. New gamers will not know the difference, and possibly get into arguments when they find out it means something else to a different game. I have already seen them with the keywords in 4th edition.

So don't mislabel things to confuse people just to sell something or purposefully mislabel it. They are tiles, please just call them that. Then when you discuss terrain you will be discussing the same thing with people.

If you just walk into a room of gamers and start talking about D&D and how you play it and don't define which edition you will run into a mes of confusion also.

Bob: I love how my fighter can use his "get over here" power and pull his opponent to him. (talking about 4th obviously)
Tom: (knows nothing of 4th and its powers) Aren't you talking about Mortal Kombat and the character Scorpion, not D&D?

Simple miscommunications are caused by bad naming conventions and lead to bigger problems, or by calling something the wrong thing.

Some poor new player walks into a hobby store wanting to buy the latest set of tiles as asks the clerk where the terrain is, and lead to a bunch of trees and buildings and foliage. Poor guy leaves without buying anything because he went looking for the wrong thing and the item he wanted was on the other side of the shelf.

That is why things have names to distinguish one thing from another....

So it doesn't matter that we know the difference, but the forums are likely to attract new users, and even those using the term here may carry it back to somewhere where someone else doesn't know the difference.

When they make D&D Mage Knight Dungeons Delve Minis, then those are more closely terrain, like the proposed treasure chests from the latest podcast, but they will still not be found in the average terrain section of a hobby store.

There is enough confusing terms in 4th for new players, lets keep the universal type accessories at least named properly so people can buy the right thing.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Nov 11, 2008)

My observations:

D&D is a game of imagination. If I want a 2d map print on a bar coaster to be a world of danger and excitement , in my mind it will be. If I want a Skittle to be an orc, an eraser to be a troll, and a paper clip to be a dragon, in my mind they will be. For a bunch of people who spend their leisure time pretending, you sure can be a literal lot. 2d, 3d, scale or not to scale who cares. Q) Is it fun? A) Yes. Good, go with that!

D&D 4e is not for everyone. Regardless of the D&D edition you play, if you are still playing, you are playing D&D. It says so right on the book.

Edition wars suck.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> My point is that gaming is more than just D&D. There is already an established industry usage of the word terrain. New gamers will not know the difference, and possibly get into arguments when they find out it means something else to a different game. I have already seen them with the keywords in 4th edition
> 
> ....
> 
> There is enough confusing terms in 4th for new players, lets keep the universal type accessories at least named properly so people can buy the right thing.



I think your slippery slope is ... overstated.  You're assuming that people don't interpret and process language.

While this may be the case for some disorders where people have problems with abstractions and communication, this is not the case for the vast majority of humanity.

Speaking of which, a flashbulb just went off in my head.

-O


----------



## justanobody (Nov 11, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> scale or not to scale who cares




Apparently many people over the years that have fought with miniature manufacturers to make to-scale products.

I mean should a kobold be put on a large DDM base? Why not, who cares right!

So what it takes up 20'x20' on a tile or map. it doesn't mean anything!

Just imagine the kobold is in one of those 4 squares when figuring out LOS and not really 15' tall, but only 2' even though it could pick its toes with the dragonborn paladin that is 6' tall.

Who cares about scale. I guess all those people that play wargames, and even the ones that created D&D, and all those people who have been building model trains before many of us were even born.

But they don't matter! They're stupid for being too serious about it all since its just a kids toy, and grown-ups shouldn't be playing with these toys or even making them.

That being the case why even have any grid lines on the tiles to begin with. Just imagine them there! Then you don't have to worry about selling the product to those silly few people not using inches and feet as their main forms of measurement...all 90% of the world of them.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 11, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> My observations:
> 
> D&D is a game of imagination. If I want a 2d map print on a bar coaster to be a world of danger and excitement , in my mind it will be. If I want a Skittle to be an orc, an eraser to be a troll, and a paper clip to be a dragon, in my mind they will be. For a bunch of people who spend their leisure time pretending, you sure can be a literal lot. 2d, 3d, scale or not to scale who cares. Q) Is it fun? A) Yes. Good, go with that!
> 
> ...





It has amazed me for many years (over 20 years now) how people refuse to see the simple reality and instead create a complete fantasy out of it. Which is a great thing for the RPG industry.


I think its obvious that WOTC just wrote the obvious. The tiles are usable with any edition of D&D. Even 1E, since house ruling scale/movement is so easy to do.

Did they write that with the specific idea of admitting not everyone plays 4E? I am sure it is in their thoughts, somewhere. The MAIN reason is simply admitting obvious fact.


----------



## JeffB (Nov 11, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> My observations:
> 
> D&D is a game of imagination. If I want a 2d map print on a bar coaster to be a world of danger and excitement , in my mind it will be. If I want a Skittle to be an orc, an eraser to be a troll, and a paper clip to be a dragon, in my mind they will be. For a bunch of people who spend their leisure time pretending, you sure can be a literal lot. 2d, 3d, scale or not to scale who cares. Q) Is it fun? A) Yes. Good, go with that!
> 
> ...





Please take your rational thought somewhere else Mr. Rouse- this is ENWorld for pete's sakes!


----------



## Obryn (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Apparently many people over the years that have fought with miniature manufacturers to make to-scale products.
> 
> I mean should a kobold be put on a large DDM base? Why not, who cares right!
> 
> ...



Um...

Yeah, I got nothing.

-O


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Apparently many people over the years that have fought with miniature manufacturers to make to-scale products.
> 
> I mean should a kobold be put on a large DDM base? Why not, who cares right!
> 
> ...





We are not talking about putting a kobold on a 180mm base we are talking something relatively insignificant  (difference between 28mm and 32mm scale) for a game like D&D.  Considering all the scales out there I would say this problem is never going to get solved in the Hobby no matter how many people want nano-accuracy in their games. All about scales

Splitting hairs it hurts my head


----------



## justanobody (Nov 11, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> We are not talking about putting a kobold on a 180mm base we are talking something relatively insignificant like the difference between 28mm and 32mm scale.
> 
> Considering all the scales out there I would say this problem is never going to get solved no matter how many people want nano-accuracy in their games. All about scales
> 
> Splitting hairs it hurts my head




Well when you have something like a Dwarf Maulfighter that stands as tall as Tanis "Free League Ranger" half-elven when you unbend there knees, then you have a bit more than a slight problem. The dwarf been taking some serious steroids.

It isn't about micrometer measurements, but at least get things closer to the correct height and footprint.

Dwarves shouldn't be taller than humans. You can add as many paint steps you want to a mini in the new product and have the scale sorely off, and you have made a poor mini that won't fit on these tiles.

How is it that model railroads have been able to do it right for years, but other people cannot?

You got the 1 inch grid down, now if you want to standardize, then find someone else who has done it for years and ask them.

You want to work in 32mm then try O scale.

It only gives you 4 foot per 1 inch square but who cares.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Well when you have something like a Dwarf Maulfighter that stands as tall as Tanis "Free League Ranger" half-elven when you unbend there knees, then you have a bit more than a slight problem. The dwarf been taking some serious steroids.
> 
> It isn't about micrometer measurements, but at least get things closer to the correct height and footprint.
> 
> ...



I think Scott's point is that the exact scale of minis isn't the focus of modern gaming.  (Or, for that matter, playing early editions of D&D.)  Heck, there's not even a general assumption that everyone will have minis for the stuff they use.  D&D isn't Warhammer.

Close approximations are fine.  _Somewhat distant_ approximations are fine.  It's a game of imagination, and the minis are there as a prop.  Unless you've never used candy or pebbles on a combat map to represent orcs, I think you understand this perfectly well.

And how, exactly, does this relate to whether or not cardboard can be called terrain?

-O


----------



## D'karr (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> It only gives you 4 foot per 1 inch square *but who cares*.




I think you just proved everyone's point.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 11, 2008)

Obryn said:


> I think Scott's point is that the exact scale of minis isn't the focus of modern gaming.  (Or, for that matter, playing early editions of D&D.)  Heck, there's not even a general assumption that everyone will have minis for the stuff they use.  D&D isn't Warhammer.
> 
> Close approximations are fine.  _Somewhat distant_ approximations are fine.  It's a game of imagination, and the minis are there as a prop.  Unless you've never used candy or pebbles on a combat map to represent orcs, I think you understand this perfectly well.
> 
> ...




It doesn't. It realtes to the tiles being 1 inch and the minis being random scale, and that throughout the "for use with all editions of D&D" there is not even a standard scale.

Oddsa re if you use minis instead of M&Ms and Cheetos for visual representations of PCs/monsters/etc, you are more interested in things being at least close to scale. wherein someone using Epic 40k minis in a regular 40k game wouldn't be silly at all would it?

So having a 2 foot tall barrel as tall as the 6 foot tall paladin seems to break up things for those that DO like some sort of consistency.

If you don't care about anything, then you probably don't use minis and don't care to spend money on them, or don't care for the ext5ra paint steps or grid lines on the tiles.

Those that do are the reason the tiles have grid lines, the reason care is being taken to give non-random minis to RPGers, and the reason the number of deco-ops are being increased to give better quality.

Maybe even those that do care, being the prime mini market are the reason for the change in not only DDM, but something from future tiles as well.

I didn't touch on Scott's remark about 2d v 3d because the tiles by WotC don't claim to be terrain that I have noticed yet.

Not being the DM, I haven't really paid attention to the packaging that much anyway, so it might be on it, but nothing to call Scott into just because he mentioned our side discussion, wherein the scale means more than just terrain but the minis and tiles and its important to them.

The tiles need to follow scale of some sort since those 1 inch grid squares are 1"=5' now right? Even if there is no minis game they need to support.

So that means the artwork depicting terrain upon them needs to conform to that scale. 



D'karr said:


> I think you just proved everyone's point.



I was being facetious.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 11, 2008)

The size of the dwarf within its square does not matter. Its how far it can move that matters, and is why they don't move as far as everyone else.

Heck, I use my Heroscape stuff as terrain, and the fact that the size of the mini's don't match up isn't what matters. What matters is how far they can move, or how far the can shoot/reach. How well they fit in their square or match up to figures of other races is pure aesthetics. 

The main reason I like to use my Heroscape is for 3 dimensional combat. They allow me to take actual height of terrain into account. Now their terrain pieces for vertical movement are not the same dimensions as horizontal movement, but it still wallows us to visually keep track of altitude/height.

So whenever fighting in caves, on mountainsides, while flying, or while swimming comes into play I like using my Hersocape, even though the scale is very, very off. It still works.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Nov 11, 2008)

Treebore said:


> Heck, I use my Heroscape stuff as terrain, and the fact that the size of the mini's don't match up isn't what matters. What matters is how far they can move, or how far the can shoot/reach. How well they fit in their square or match up to figures of other races is pure aesthetics.
> 
> The main reason I like to use my Heroscape is for 3 dimensional combat. They allow me to take actual height of terrain into account. Now their terrain pieces for vertical movement are not the same dimensions as horizontal movement, but it still wallows us to visually keep track of altitude/height.
> 
> So whenever fighting in caves, on mountainsides, while flying, or while swimming comes into play I like using my Hersocape, even though the scale is very, very off. It still works.




Hey, that sounds fun!


----------



## Scribble (Nov 11, 2008)

wait wait wait...

are you guys saying it's not the size of your mini that matters?





(someone had to say it)


----------



## rkwoodard (Nov 11, 2008)

*you are right*



justanobody said:


> Well when you have something like a Dwarf Maulfighter that stands as tall as Tanis "Free League Ranger" half-elven when you unbend there knees, then you have a bit more than a slight problem.




You are correct, if you are unbending your minis to see how tall they are, you have more than a slight problem.

Treebore, I am right there with you.

Heroscape terrain for the win.  And you can let your 3 year old play with it as well. Of course getting it back may be a problem.

RK


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Nov 11, 2008)

Getting the thread back on track. 



Scott_Rouse said:


> D&D 4e is not for everyone. Regardless of the D&D edition you play, if you are still playing, you are playing D&D. It says so right on the book.




 With my quote in mind and responding to the OPs query, the statement on the tile pack is in no way an acknowledgment of the the fact the 4e is not for everyone but we are also not so naive as to think that the only people who buy these things play 4e. They are an RPG accessory for games that use 1 inch grid (or games that don't if you can look past the lines and hash marks) and the statement is meant to acknowledge that.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 11, 2008)

rkwoodard said:


> Heroscape terrain for the win.  And you can let your 3 year old play with it as well. Of course getting it back may be a problem.
> 
> RK






Fortunately for me my youngest is now 12, so getting them back is a bit easier!


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Nov 11, 2008)

Scribble said:


> wait wait wait...
> 
> are you guys saying it's not the size of your mini that matters?



Minis?  Pah!  I've been using maxis for years!

...Wait a minute.  That didn't come out right.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 11, 2008)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> Minis?  Pah!  I've been using maxis for years!
> 
> ...Wait a minute.  That didn't come out right.




urge to make joke involving tuna... overwhelming...


----------



## justanobody (Nov 11, 2008)

rkwoodard said:


> You are correct, if you are unbending your minis to see how tall they are, you have more than a slight problem.
> 
> RK




There are quite a few tens of thousands modders and mini enthusiasts that want a word with you.

Have you seen the horrible pose the Maulfighter is in?


----------



## Obryn (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> There are quite a few tens of thousands modders and mini enthusiasts that want a word with you.
> 
> Have you seen the horrible pose the Maulfighter is in?



OK, get them over here, then.

I would love to hear how the "unbent height" of a pre-painted D&D mini (or the use of dice or M&Ms to represent kobolds and orcs) detracts from my enjoyment of D&D.

-O


----------



## rkwoodard (Nov 11, 2008)

*I apologize*



justanobody said:


> There are quite a few tens of thousands modders and mini enthusiasts that want a word with you.
> 
> Have you seen the horrible pose the Maulfighter is in?





Justanobody,

Sorry, I should not have engaged you like that.  I am certainly not a modder or mini enthusiast.  D&D is my game of choice because I can play it with Heroscape and Skittles, and have an absolute blast.  

So, enjoy the level of detail and technical precision that you like, and we will just avoid each others gaming tables.


I did not put down my edition of choice cause I will play or dm any edition and have a blast doing so.
RK


----------



## jaerdaph (Nov 11, 2008)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> Minis?  Pah!  I've been using maxis for years!
> 
> ...Wait a minute.  That didn't come out right.




LOL! You win the thread!


----------



## billd91 (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> How is it that model railroads have been able to do it right for years, but other people cannot?




Because making a precise scale model of an engine/car/building is exactly what model railroading is about. The same cannot be said about fantasy RPG miniatures, which are a bit more about just being artsy as well as finding reasonable representations of our own PCs and NPCs. They're not and never have been about precision.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 11, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Because making a precise scale model of an engine/car/building is exactly what model railroading is about. The same cannot be said about fantasy RPG miniatures, which are a bit more about just being artsy as well as finding reasonable representations of our own PCs and NPCs. They're not and never have been about precision.




Well, its important in model RR because if the trucks on those engines and cars are not done to the scale of your tracks, it don't work. Period.

I find that as long as the scale of the mini's are not off too much they still work just fine, in terms of doing the job that matters to me. Both in model RR and in RPG mini's. BTW, I am a HO scale model RRer.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 11, 2008)

rkwoodard said:


> Justanobody,
> 
> Sorry, I should not have engaged you like that.  I am certainly not a modder or mini enthusiast.  D&D is my game of choice because I can play it with Heroscape and Skittles, and have an absolute blast.
> 
> ...




It isn't that you have to want precision minis, but for years many people have been looking for ONE company to make a uniform standard within its own product line.

Measuring inches out in older editions and having a mini well off the map scale makes using minis hard.

M&Ms(Skittles) work better, and a reason why actual wargames don't allow for proxy by a smaller piece, but modding must be equal to or greater the size of the original so you don't get an unfair advantage where there is no grid or squares to "lock" your pieces into for placement.

Like flanking from 3 sides and still having 3 open sides on the front with hex maps...

Plus you can eat what you kill with snack minis.

So it is fine if you don't want to worry with minis at all or mix and match minis and snacks, but for those that have helped keep minis alive throughout the video gaming years, then it is high time someone just tried to work to some scale...meaning dwarves should not be taller than humans. 

Old Mage Knight minis work good for D&D as well, and were not too bad for scale on the D&D races, but the dang Clix bases are too big for the 1' grid.

I would just like to see me game of choice finally get to scale with its self.

I don't care what the scale is, but pick one you[they] can maintain.

For those wanting to talk to minis people there are plenty of sites from minipainter that Scott mentions to cool mini or not, and a few more, but I don't read Spanish and Russian.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 11, 2008)

billd91 said:


> Because making a precise scale model of an engine/car/building is exactly what model railroading is about. The same cannot be said about fantasy RPG miniatures, which are a bit more about just being artsy as well as finding reasonable representations of our own PCs and NPCs. They're not and never have been about precision.




There seems also be a difference in the ultimate purpose of these two types of models.

A railway model is supposed to look like the real thing, but on a smaller scale. It is like a 3D portrait. Relative sizes matter.

The minis on a terrain tile or generally a board game is more to establish the relative positioning of stuff. Inconsistent scales don't really matter for that purpose, since we can translate that to the real scale. What matters a little more to some is that the mini used looks similar to their character - but that doesn#t require a particular scale towards other minis, only to itself (as in "well proportioned" perhaps). And even that isn't alwas important. Sometimes a chess piece and a monopoly piece could represent a character - as long as it fits on your map and you can use it to convey the positions.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 11, 2008)

Then why even make a miniature product line at all?


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Then why even make a miniature product line at all?




Beacuse most people just want something that looks kinda a little better than pennies and gumdrops.  Scale freaks aand other terrain-wanery represents the lunatic fringe of gaming in some respect.  Take a bow.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Then why even make a miniature product line at all?




This has already been answered.  The minis and terrain/tiles (whatever you want to use) are there to provide approximations, not realism.  It doesn't matter where in that 5 foot square my mini is after all.  So, why would it really matter if my mini is a bit taller or shorter?  Heck, by the D&D scale, no mini actually fits, since a square is only 5 feet high.  The vast majority of minis are way off.

And I couldn't possibly care less.

Heck, I use 2d environments all the time because I play online.  I got me pretty maps and tokens.  Works for me.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 11, 2008)

justanobody said:


> A picture of a pipe is not a pipe. A picture of a tree, is not a tree.




A scale model of a tree isn't a tree either.

Plant your scale models tree in your front lawn and smoke your scale model pipe.

Model terrain, which modellers refer to as simply "terrain", doesn't mean that it is actual terrain.

It's ok that one group has shortformed it to terrain. Another group refering to something else that is an abstract representation of the terrain the characters are "in" is wrong, because another group has a different defiition ... even if that groups definition was ALSO wrong, instead referring to another abstract representation of the terrain.

EDIT:

D&D doesn't care if the Dwarf is shorter than the half-elf is shorter than the human is shorter than the dragonborn.

They are all medium. All medium characters have the same size BASE.

All small creatures have the same size BASE. Same with large, etc, etc, etc.

The point is base determines how many squares you fill. The figure ON the base represents what the character it looks like. Since the rules handle things without needing to actually measure out line of sight on scaled terrain with scaled minis [to match PC characters which would require TONS of different figures to have the right weapon in the hands of the character with the right height/weight of the character]. It cares about whether or not a character is in any given 5'x5' cube ... even if they are taller they aren't in the higher cube.

The rules for D&D abstract things out so you don't need to have absolutely correct scaling for minis and such. Thus they rather make the minis LOOK GOOD than waste time making them absolutely accurate to an exact scale.


----------



## Mark (Nov 12, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:


> A scale model of a tree isn't a tree either.





I've got some 28mm scale models of Bonsai trees that can hardly be seen.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 12, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Beacuse most people just want something that looks kinda a little better than pennies and gumdrops.  Scale freaks aand other terrain-wanery represents the lunatic fringe of gaming in some respect.  Take a bow.




Then use/make tokens. They are cheaper to make, and you can fit more in a pack for less to the consumer.


----------



## DaveMage (Nov 12, 2008)

Mark said:


> I've got some 28mm scale models of Bonsai trees that can hardly be seen.




You win the thread.


----------



## DaveMage (Nov 12, 2008)

Scott_Rouse said:


> Getting the thread back on track.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





So.....4E is not for everyone, but you don't (or rather, the tiles set doesn't) acknowledge that 4E is not for everyone.  

You must be in marketing.  

Edit - either way, I do like the tiles.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 12, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Then use/make tokens. They are cheaper to make, and you can fit more in a pack for less to the consumer.



Yes, I think you're right. People who like prepainted minis that are only approximately to scale are just wrong. How can they be so wrong and not realize it?

You tell 'em, brother.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 12, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I mean should a kobold be put on a large DDM base? Why not, who cares right!



I think more people would agree with you if you'd stop being so obtuse. Small DDM minis have the same size bases. Mediums have the same size, etc. We're talking about small differences in scale that *do not affect their use in the game* one iota.


----------



## Obryn (Nov 12, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Then use/make tokens. They are cheaper to make, and you can fit more in a pack for less to the consumer.



So they can't/won't make minis to your exacting standards, and you don't like how people use them - because they use them in ways other than how you presumably would.

Therefore, they should not make them?

You're nuts.

I can't imagine you actually use minis like you're advocating, and expect them to fit your precise standards.  Do you?  How the heck could you actually game?  And if you don't use minis, why do you have a horse in this race?

-O


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 12, 2008)

Kishin said:


> I highly doubt this is indicative of anything other than "You can use these gridded tiles with any existing D&D product!"
> 
> It would be far fetched indeed to expect 'edition independent' products that weren't things like Dungeon Tiles, and were instead actual books.




Pretty much what I'm thinking. I told one of my friends that he should check out the Paizo tiles because they're great for any fantasy RPG and he was like, "But they're not official WoTC products" and I was like, "but they're tiles man! Tiles!"


----------



## Hussar (Nov 12, 2008)

Mark said:


> I've got some 28mm scale models of Bonsai trees that can hardly be seen.




Dude, that's not a bonsai tree, you just need to vacuum more often.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 12, 2008)

The idea that a line most likely thrown in by marketing somehow represents the feelings at of a company towards it's own product at large is...stretching it, to say the least.  Making dumb statements without even bothering to check to see how much sense they make on the product...well, that's what marketing _does_


----------



## justanobody (Nov 12, 2008)

Obryn said:


> So they can't/won't make minis to your exacting standards, and you don't like how people use them - because they use them in ways other than how you presumably would.
> 
> Therefore, they should not make them?
> 
> ...




I have been using and working with minis for a long time. Many games depend on things being to best possible scale.

The point is if you are not going to do them right then why do them at all.

They can just as easily sell tokens as they could minis for less cost to produce, and less cost to consumer and get people to buy them.

You think the little things don't matter, then look at the wording mentioned on this product. Look at the death of DDM.

Apparently the little things do matter to enough people to effect a change.

Now with CAD used in creating minis there is no excuse to not have things acled the same as the software can give heights for things so you know, if you take the time to not do it half-assed and make it not only look flashy and "cool" but at least get the sizes right.

If base size is all that matter then the tokens can be made instead of bases and minis and they can be the right size.

Again look at this tile product and read the disclaimer.

So a tile is made for outdoors using 4th edition scale grids on the tiles.

1"=5'

Now what good will those grids or minis be for 1st edition where outside 1"=10 yards (30 feet=6 squares)

You are going to have some very funny measurement going on here.

How big is that tavern?



justanobody said:


> I mean how big is that tavern at 4x5 squares?
> 
> 20 x 25 feet?
> 20 x 25 yards?
> ...




So scale matters depending on which edition you play, and with what minis you use.



> "All Dungeon Tiles products are compatible with all editions of Dungeons & Dragons."




As long as you use the current D&D miniatures product and the current 4th edition scale.

Obviously nobody at WotC cares about a quality product since the claims are false, and they can't even understand the importance of some kind of scale for either the tiles, the older editions, or the minis.

@Fifth_Element:

No they will not agree, because those who don't care, think those who do care are wrong for caring because it doesn't matter to them so it shouldn't matter to anyone. You don't have a right to your own opinion because you must follow those who don't give a damn about anything. Because it is easier for them to exist without having to think about things and bash those who do like to think about things.

I wasn't disputing the bases being the problem, hell that is why I bought so many DDM minis because they had some sort of standard, AND the minis didn't fall over....mostly.

But if the minis look like crap because you end up looking at them closely while picking one for your character or playing and moving them, then the product ends up being crap.

It isn't that hard to say make the dwarves shorter than humans. You don't have to make them exact scale, but don't let them get stupidly disproportionate to what they are trying to represent. Make a quality product, not some toy for a 25 cent gumball machine.

The art on the tiles is good, and the scale of the bases works for the grid scale to 4th and DDM. Sadly it isn't compatible with all editions of D&D unless you rewrite those using the grids, unless there will be one side without grides, or just dots to represent grid corners.

But the ever changing scale in D&D itself without minis is something the tiles aren't to blame for, nor the minis. But they must both deal with them in some way.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 12, 2008)

DaveMage said:


> So.....4E is not for everyone, but you don't (or rather, the tiles set doesn't) acknowledge that 4E is not for everyone.
> 
> You must be in marketing.




That's not what he is saying, which leads back to post 2.


Jack99 said:


> Technically, it doesn't mean that WotC acknowledges anything but the fact that not everyone plays 4e.
> 
> People often make choices that are not based on any rational parameters.




Or, you could simply say that while WotC thinks 4e is for everyone, but knows that not everyone has realized it yet, and thus not switched (yet). Hardly marketing speak.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Nov 12, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> The idea that a line most likely thrown in by marketing somehow represents the feelings at of a company towards it's own product at large is...stretching it, to say the least.  Making dumb statements without even bothering to check to see how much sense they make on the product...well, that's what marketing _does_




Yeah, we're all a bunch of jerks and pinheads.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 12, 2008)

CharlesRyan said:


> Yeah, we're all a bunch of jerks and pinheads.




Forgive me if I offended you; I'm speaking only from my own experience with marketing executives.

That said, I'm still incredibly perplexed by this idea that Wizards is apparently trying to say something with the  			 				"All Dungeon Tiles products are compatible with all editions of Dungeons & Dragons."  Guys, I get that you don't like 4e, and that you don't like Wizards, but...look, try to make your arguments _rational_.  If Wizards is saying anything, it's not "Oh man, we messed up, 4e is so flawed!" and it's not "HAH HAH THE STATEMENT IS PURPOSEFULLY AMBIGUOUS TO INSULT YOU, OH SINGLE PERSON THAT WE DEVOTE ALL OUR TIME AND ENERGY INTO DISPLEASING."  If it's saying anything, it's saying "Buy me!"

In before people perplex me even more by finding something wrong with the notion that a company _wants to make money_.  _I know, those bastards!_


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 12, 2008)

Seriously aren't you the same person I always fall for?  Every few months?

Stop acting like donkey pastry.  Grow up.  Get a life.  Learn to enjoy without destroying and let the little stuff go.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 12, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Seriously aren't you the same person I always fall for?  Every few months?
> 
> Stop acting like donkey pastry.  Grow up.  Get a life.  Learn to enjoy without destroying and let the little stuff go.




...?  Are you referring to me?  Because I don't think I said anything really horrible there...?


----------



## BryonD (Nov 12, 2008)

Jack99 said:


> Or, you could simply say that while WotC thinks 4e is for everyone, but knows that not everyone has realized it yet, and thus not switched (yet). Hardly marketing speak.




Well, I won't confuse "WotC" with "the guys who actually designed 4e", but the latter group very directly and bluntly stated that 4e was not for a significant fraction of the former 3E base.


----------



## Jack99 (Nov 12, 2008)

BryonD said:


> Well, I won't confuse "WotC" with "the guys who actually designed 4e", but the latter group very directly and bluntly stated that 4e was not for a significant fraction of the former 3E base.




I am talking about the meaning of the statement on the back of the new tiles. Not whether it's true or anything else.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 12, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...?  Are you referring to me?  Because I don't think I said anything really horrible there...?



No, I think he wasn't referring to you.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 12, 2008)

justanobody said:


> You don't have a right to your own opinion because you must follow those who don't give a damn about anything. Because it is easier for them to exist without having to think about things and bash those who do like to think about things.



Dude, you should know by now there's a difference between having your own opinion and calling everyone else's opinion stupid.



justanobody said:


> I wasn't disputing the bases being the problem



Then why the kobold-on-the-180mm-base comment? You were completely mispresenting the "it doesn't really matter" side with that comment, and it makes you seem obtuse when you do that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 12, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Seriously aren't you the same person I always fall for?



You fall for him? Aaaawww...


----------



## darjr (Nov 12, 2008)

charlesryan said:


> yeah, we're all a bunch of jerks and pinheads.




a confession! I *knew* it!!!


----------



## Obryn (Nov 12, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I have been using and working with minis for a long time. Many games depend on things being to best possible scale.
> 
> The point is if you are not going to do them right then why do them at all.
> 
> They can just as easily sell tokens as they could minis for less cost to produce, and less cost to consumer and get people to buy them.



I'd say it's because _people like them._  I'd gladly pay a premium for relatively attractive miniatures versus tokens - within reason.  Just because a miniature fills exactly the same role as a token doesn't mean the miniature has no added value above a token.

And seriously?  You build every single battle map out of HO-scale terrain?  And this matters?  Somehow, I'm skeptical.



> You think the little things don't matter, then look at the wording mentioned on this product. Look at the death of DDM.
> 
> Apparently the little things do matter to enough people to effect a change.



The death of DDM had nothing whatsoever to do with crouching dwarves.



> Now with CAD used in creating minis there is no excuse to not have things acled the same as the software can give heights for things so you know, if you take the time to not do it half-assed and make it not only look flashy and "cool" but at least get the sizes right.



Really?  How much would that cost, in dollars, since you're the expert on how much time it would take?

Or are you calling WotC liars?



> If base size is all that matter then the tokens can be made instead of bases and minis and they can be the right size.
> 
> Again look at this tile product and read the disclaimer.
> 
> ...



Buildings and dungeon rooms in 1e were comically huge.  I'm going through ToEE and thinking, "Wow, his bedroom is 30x40.  That's 1200 square feet..."

You can use exactly the same maps in 1e and 3e/4e without breaking anything.



> Obviously nobody at WotC cares about a quality product since the claims are false, and they can't even understand the importance of some kind of scale for either the tiles, the older editions, or the minis.



That's because getting business from the 0.01% of people who demand exact scales on crouching dwarves will not offset the cost of implementing these kinds of QA checks.  They're perfectly adequate for ... well, basically everyone but you.  (And your 10,000 mysterious friends.)

And really, saying that WotC doesn't care about a quality product is ridiculous.  They care about making a quality product, but your criteria are insane.



> @Fifth_Element:
> 
> No they will not agree, because those who don't care, think those who do care are wrong for caring because it doesn't matter to them so it shouldn't matter to anyone. You don't have a right to your own opinion because you must follow those who don't give a damn about anything. Because it is easier for them to exist without having to think about things and bash those who do like to think about things.



Jumping in here - you're demanding that everyone else care about a topic.  How is that fundamentally different from saying that you _shouldn't_ care about a topic?

You have a right to your own opinion.  I have a right to the opinion that your opinion is crazy.

-O


----------



## justanobody (Nov 12, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> Dude, you should know by now there's a difference between having your own opinion and calling everyone else's opinion stupid.
> 
> 
> Then why the kobold-on-the-180mm-base comment? You were completely mispresenting the "it doesn't really matter" side with that comment, and it makes you seem obtuse when you do that.




Because a kobold mini that would require that size footprint would be stupidly out of scale with what kobolds are.

The base was used as a frame of reference for scale.

I didn't call anyone else's opinon stupid, just that they don't matter if they don't care about the scale.

If you take a poll about if people want things to scale and get these results:
Yes: 46%
No: 12%
Don't care: 42%

Which do you think matters most? Do you throw the undecided in with the "No" vote and just claim it isn't important enough?

What if that causes you to lose that 46% as customers?

If you throw out the "don't care" vote because they will probably buy it either way, and go with the "Yes" vote, you have a larger chance of keeping the greater range of customers.

So they are not stupid for not caring, but their undecided vote means little in the overall scheme of things because they don't care so they have no influence until a point comes up that they do care about.



			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> And seriously? You build every single battle map out of HO-scale terrain? And this matters? Somehow, I'm skeptical.




Nobody is saying that you must use tokens, but if you don't care about scale and such when even open your mouth about it?

Check your facts. Treeborn, I think, was the one who is the HO gague railroader.

I use closer to O gauge when I must buy terrain they is already made, otherwise I make my own terrain. I am not as good as the guy who made a 3D Drow Ooutpost by far, but I get by; and would love to be able to build my dungeons with Master Maze pieces rather than flat maps.



> The death of DDM had nothing whatsoever to do with crouching dwarves.




No the quality of the minis had absolutely nothing to do with its death. Did you listen to the latest podcast?



> Really? How much would that cost, in dollars, since you're the expert on how much time it would take?



Did you listen to the latest podcast?

Do you know what CAD-CAM is? How long it has been in use and why? Even fast-track prototyping uses it along side 3D printers, rather than taking the time to actually sculpt out the mini/model by hand.



> Buildings and dungeon rooms in 1e were comically huge.




I recall something about 4th edition where one of the designers said a room should be 8 squares wide.

Talk about comically huge having all rooms 1600' sq. Hell that is the same size as my floorplan! And it isn't just a single room.



> And your 10,000 mysterious friends.




Yeah because in your little fantasy world, there aren't people who actually make a living off terrain and miniature making. I guess Racham, FASA, Ral Partha, Games Workshop, Lionel, Reaper, Hasslefree, and the list goes on for sevarl pages....none of them exist.



> You have a right to your own opinion. I have a right to the opinion that your opinion is crazy.




I wish your state funded educators were at least educated themselves.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 12, 2008)

justanobody said:


> Because a kobold mini that would require that size footprint would be stupidly out of scale with what kobolds are.



Indeed. But the topic of discussion is not minis that are *stupidly *out of scale. The topic are minis that are *slightly *out of scale. And the bases don't enter into it, since there isn't any mini-by-mini variation in base size (assuming they're the same size category).



justanobody said:


> I didn't call anyone else's opinon stupid, just that they don't matter if they don't care about the scale.



So in a discussion about whether small scale differences matter, the opinion that they don't matter is not relevant?



justanobody said:


> If you take a poll about if people want things to scale and get these results:
> Yes: 46%
> No: 12%
> Don't care: 42%
> ...



If I am marketing a series of minis, of course the "don't care" matters. Making scale more precise increases the cost of the minis, which increases the price.

And your poll would have to specify what "to scale" means to be useful. If you mean that all minis will be to 28mm scale, give or take 10%, that's something very different than meaning scale will be ignored entirely.



justanobody said:


> What if that causes you to lose that 46% as customers?



The point is, most people here seem to think you're significantly overstating what number this would be. If the results are more like 10% - 10% - 80%, then that 10% loss is probably worth it given the cost increase required to retain them.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 12, 2008)

justanobody said:


> If you take a poll about if people want things to scale and get these results:
> Yes: 46%
> No: 12%
> Don't care: 42%
> ...



This argument isn't as valid as you might think. 

Wording of a question will skew results dramatically.  If someone just saw a poll that asked "Does scale matter for D&D tabletop gaming", you might get a fair number of Yes answers. 

But if you asked them to read your posts in this thread and asked if scale matters in the way at matters to YOU, then I am guessing you would get a dramatically lower percentage, and therefore the context of your argument goes out the window.  And don't say that context doesn't matter.  For the sake of this discussion, it matters quite a bit.

Your need for scale and suggesting that the phrase "2d terrain" is bad or wrong for those that understand EXACTLY what it means is pretty fringe for a huge percentage of TRPG gamers.

I am starting to wonder if you know this already and you are just having fun poking with a stick.


----------



## justanobody (Nov 12, 2008)

Fifth Element said:


> So in a discussion about whether small scale differences matter, the opinion that they don't matter is not relevant?




I will break it down into a simpler point about opinions.

10 friends are going out to eat. The choices have been narrowed down by allergies, money, etc to McDonald's and Burger king.

5 people don't care either way and are fine with either.

So they don't really matter in the overall scheme of things. They are pleased or displeased equally by any choice.

4 people don't like the menu at McDonald's, and prefer Burger King.

1 person just hates Burger King for whatever reason.

What it boils down to is the people that that actual have an opinion on where they prefer to or not to go are the ones making the decision.

This group would go to Burger King and have 90% satisfied.

If they went to McDonald's they would only have 60% satisfied.

Sure both cases have the majority satisfied, but why do something put more people off, when you could do the things that has the least "acceptable losses" as it were.

I think that some (one) around here under-estimate how large the actual mini community is, and how they view things like minis terrain, scale, etc.

If this tile set and all others are to work for all editions, then how does it accomplish this?

If the quality of the minis isn't important, then why add deco-ops to appease more people?

Where the hell are my unpainted minis at so I can paint them myself? I would prefer cheaper minis than adding cost, but adding "paint steps" that I will have to remove anyway!

So all in all scale/size does matter, no matter what the women told you.

So if you don't care, then don't worry about it. For those that do care, then let them try to discuss what and why with the people in charge without outside interference just for the sake of interfering.

Not saying you specifically, but in general.

With the time and money saved using CAD vs using hand sculpts there should not be a cost increase incurred there, and you CAN make things better to scale, without the excuse of different people working on the sculpts and the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing with the minis, since the CAD software can tell you how tall something is and should allow you to scale your model if it was worth using in the first place.

Just like everyone making tiles must use the same 1 inch grid standard, how about minis finally get a standard?

I mean how would it look having the artwork on the tiles be horribly off?



> If you mean that all minis will be to 28mm scale, give or take 10%, that's something very different than meaning scale will be ignored entirely.




Like I said, make damn sure the dwarves are shorter than a taller races, not the same height. I don't expect legs of all dwarves to be X mm long, but make sure the dwarf itself is within the right range from head to toe where it or the kobold is not taller than a noticeably taller race.

I am more forgiving on bodily proportions since I expect some buff kobold to exist somewhere, or a fat one.

In the case of the Maulfighter you could clearly see it was too tall and making it shorter would in no way have offset its center of gravity or reduced any detail for the uncommon, as it barely has any to begin with; so no real problem with it being of the correct size.

Like I said beofre, get a block that a mini should fit in for best footprint (height x width compared to the base/race) and the proper height and make sure the mini fits inside it.

Appendages and weapons can hang over some, but try to make them the right height for once! Elves shorter than kobolds in the older metal minis was pretty annoying, and there is little reason for the excuses of the way things were made them, in this day and age.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 12, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I think that some (one) around here under-estimate how large the actual mini community is, and how they view things like minis terrain, scale, etc.



I think someone is overestimating the importance of traditional miniatures gamers to the prepainted collectible miniatures lines.  The vast majority of customers for most collectible miniatures games are tournament players and people that are into collectibles.  Most traditional mini gamers objected to things like the randomness, the type of plastic, the prepaints, the lack of having to assemble the miniatures, the simplicity of rules, and/or the sculpt quality.  The only way to please a viable portion of them would be to make a traditional miniatures line with a traditional miniatures game.  That's a market dominated by Games Workshop and it wasn't the target market companies like Wizkids were after.  Rackham has gone after the traditional miniatures gamer with their expensive and very good quality non-random prepaints.  They don't seem to be taking the miniature world by storm.      

The collectible miniatures market seems to be cooling down now with the major player Wizkids being closed down by parent company Topps.  The World of Warcraft collectible miniatures game will probably last a while based on license appeal alone.  DDM has turned away from the tournament gamers and is aiming at roleplayers.  Most roleplayers desire inexpensive miniatures, that they don't have to paint, and that look like what they are supposed to be.  It remains to be seen if they will go for the still mostly random monsters, and if roleplayers will buy in large enough quantities to support the line.  Increasing the cost of the miniatures to try and please the relative handful of rivet counters and dedicated modders that are acutally interested in DDM is likely to alienate a far larger portion of the customer base than it will please.


----------



## reveal (Nov 12, 2008)

I hope you put this much effort into your Fantasy Football League!


justanobody said:


> I will break it down into a simpler point about opinions.
> 
> 10 friends are going out to eat. The choices have been narrowed down by allergies, money, etc to McDonald's and Burger king.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 12, 2008)

justanobody said:


> I will break it down into a simpler point about opinions.



Go back and reread my post. I said from a *marketing* perspective, the "don't cares" matter a lot. If 95% of the market doesn't care, it probably isn't worth pursuing that last 5% that do care. Law of diminishing marginal returns and all that. Your additional cost will exceed your additional revenue.



justanobody said:


> So they don't really matter in the overall scheme of things. They are pleased or displeased equally by any choice.



I understood your point fully, no need to explain it again. But choosing what restaurant to go to with 9 of your friends, and making decisions about a multi-million dollar product line are not remotely the same thing. You don't make all decisions in the same way. Not if you're rational, anyway.



justanobody said:


> If the quality of the minis isn't important, then why add deco-ops to appease more people?



It's not that the quality doesn't matter. It's that for the great majority, quality does not matter as much as it does to you. And a higher price would drive away some customers for whom this quality doesn't matter. So they could lose some customers to gain some others.



justanobody said:


> Where the hell are my unpainted minis at so I can paint them myself? I would prefer cheaper minis than adding cost, but adding "paint steps" that I will have to remove anyway!



I'm fairly sure there are several companies still in the business of selling unpainted minis.



justanobody said:


> So all in all scale/size does matter, no matter what the women told you.



OMG! What a zinger! And so appropriate for the topic, and so unlikely to offend Eric's grandmother.

Moving on.



justanobody said:


> Like I said, make damn sure the dwarves are shorter than a taller races, not the same height.



Since adult humans can range from 5 feet tall to 7 feet or more, I don't see why all dwarves have to be the same height, and why some of them can't be taller than the shorter humans.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 12, 2008)

Rykion said:


> Rackham has gone after the traditional miniatures gamer with their expensive and very good quality non-random prepaints.  They don't seem to be taking the miniature world by storm.



No kidding... because at $25 for three spearman, I can't afford it! 
Attachment Box : Spearmen

(They do look really nice though)


----------



## Obryn (Nov 12, 2008)

justanobody said:


> So if you don't care, then don't worry about it. For those that do care, then let them try to discuss what and why with the people in charge without outside interference just for the sake of interfering.



No, because despite your protests to the contrary, fixing a 10% height difference will affect the bottom line.  The minis are quite adequate, overall, and wouldn't be significantly improved by exact scaling.  They would, however, have a decreased profit margin - meaning less minis, or increased price.



> Just like everyone making tiles must use the same 1 inch grid standard, how about minis finally get a standard?
> 
> I mean how would it look having the artwork on the tiles be horribly off?



You realize, I hope, the difference in difficulty between a standardized 1" grid and sculpted, variable height, 3D miniatures.

-O


----------



## Hypersmurf (Nov 13, 2008)

justanobody said:


> 1 person just hates Burger King for whatever reason.




And that's you.  You're the one guy.

And in the Burger King example, you recommended that he's the one who loses out.

-Hyp.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Nov 13, 2008)

catsclaw227 said:


> No kidding... because at $25 for three spearman, I can't afford it!
> Attachment Box : Spearmen
> 
> (They do look really nice though)




those are heroes.

you're better off getting rank and file.

Unit Box : Spearmen


----------



## Hussar (Nov 13, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Forgive me if I offended you; I'm speaking only from my own experience with marketing executives.
> 
> That said, I'm still incredibly perplexed by this idea that Wizards is apparently trying to say something with the  			 				"All Dungeon Tiles products are compatible with all editions of Dungeons & Dragons."  Guys, I get that you don't like 4e, and that you don't like Wizards, but...look, try to make your arguments _rational_.  If Wizards is saying anything, it's not "Oh man, we messed up, 4e is so flawed!" and it's not "HAH HAH THE STATEMENT IS PURPOSEFULLY AMBIGUOUS TO INSULT YOU, OH SINGLE PERSON THAT WE DEVOTE ALL OUR TIME AND ENERGY INTO DISPLEASING."  If it's saying anything, it's saying "Buy me!"
> 
> In before people perplex me even more by finding something wrong with the notion that a company _wants to make money_.  _I know, those bastards!_




Who are you and what did you do with the real Professor Cirno.    I find myself agreeing with just about every one of your posts lately and that frightens me.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Nov 13, 2008)

JoeGKushner said:


> those are heroes.
> 
> you're better off getting rank and file.
> 
> Unit Box : Spearmen



Yes, Hmmm... Let's see that is about $37.50 for 8 minis.  About $4.69 each.

I think I can get DDM Elf Spearmen from Auggies for about $0.99 each.

But Rackham's are nicer....  I would still go DDM, I think.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 13, 2008)

Hussar said:


> Who are you and what did you do with the real Professor Cirno.    I find myself agreeing with just about every one of your posts lately and that frightens me.




I still ain't too happy with parts of 4e, but by god, if you're going to find a fault with it, find a *rational* one ;p.  This bizarro lashing out makes _everyone_ involved looked bad.  I look bad because he might agree with something I say, you look bad because you have to deal with a loon, and he looks bad because...well, do I even need to go there?

Thinking that Wizards has some devious scheme or is plotting with some hidden agenda - _in their product marketing of all things_ - reeks of conspiracy theory, and unless your name is Deus Ex One, Not To Be Confused With Those Bad Sequels, your conspiracy theory should not be given much thought.  If your name IS that, your parents are messed up.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Nov 13, 2008)

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...?  Are you referring to me?  Because I don't think I said anything really horrible there...?




No, while we don't see eye to eye on a lot of 4e, I've seen plenty of other stuff that you've said that made me unignore you.  

Truth is, I'm pretty sure I just pick someone I decide is a little obnoxious and decide they must be defeated.  You were like that, and actually, I'm sorry for being as much of a jackass to you as I was.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Nov 13, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:


> No, while we don't see eye to eye on a lot of 4e, I've seen plenty of other stuff that you've said that made me unignore you.
> 
> Truth is, I'm pretty sure I just pick someone I decide is a little obnoxious and decide they must be defeated.  You were like that, and actually, I'm sorry for being as much of a jackass to you as I was.




Hey, no worries.  It's not that uncommon to happen on the internet, and not really through anyone's personal fault; a good portion of what we type out will always be misunderstood.  It's the nature of trying to reduce human communication - which is by and large *very* non-verbal - to strict text.


----------

