|
Post by sgtslag on Nov 1, 2016 18:50:07 GMT
Actually, I consider the initial 2.5D Next system (realized that "Tilescape", is the new name/new technique) to require fewer components, and to be infinitely more versatile than cutting up mats into oval sections, used as rooms. Whether one approach is better, or superior, can only be decided by the individual DM. I just wanted to point out the differences in the two approaches. I can see the pro's, and the con's, of each system. I just wanted to make folks aware that Scotty's technique has changed. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by drwillsdc on Nov 1, 2016 19:14:52 GMT
I have noticed that as well. I would imagine it has arisen out of his specific tabletop needs. I really like my old fashioned modular 1.5 inch dungeon tiles and walls. I like that you are pointing out the differences though. I have watched every one of Scotty's videos and I have seen the change as well.
|
|
|
Post by SpielMeisterKev! on Nov 1, 2016 19:21:52 GMT
Howdy, a step backwards in your application of modular tiles. I was not enamored of 2.5d next and never embraced it. I feel it is DM Scotty's "New Coke", if you will. Modular tiles, set pieces, and Tilescapes are the real deal. Kev!
|
|
|
Post by sgtslag on Nov 1, 2016 20:13:49 GMT
I should point out that my comment, "a step backwards", is not meant in a critical manner. Instead, I feel he is reverting back to a previous approach. Not a bad thing, just a bit of a U-turn. Cheers!
|
|
jubbs71
Paint Manipulator
Posts: 125
|
Post by jubbs71 on Nov 3, 2016 4:09:31 GMT
New sculpting stands and a rack to hold them!
|
|
jubbs71
Paint Manipulator
Posts: 125
|
Post by jubbs71 on Nov 3, 2016 4:50:17 GMT
In my opinion, both you, and DMScotty, have taken a step backwards in your application of modular tiles. This is not a criticism, but merely food for thought. Both you, and DMScotty, have taken the 2.5D Next concept, and reversed it towards the 1.0 version of 2.5D: you cut up the base mat, creating finitely shaped rooms, though they may be stacked to form more 3D shapes, and configurations. In the original concept of 2.5D Next, the base mat was large, and square. This made it possible to create any size, or shape, of a room, merely by defining the size and shape by deploying the walls on the large, square mat. The non-room areas were ignored, but to change up the design, all that was necessary was to shift the wall sections. Now, with the current take on modularity, you will need to add/remove different cut-out's. Now you will need many different sizes, and shapes of room cut-out's, in your inventory. With the original concept, you could make up an infinite variety of sizes, and shapes, with just a few pieces of wall sections, and a single, large, square mat. To me, this is a reverse in coarse towards 2.5D version 1.0. Again, not a criticism, just an observation. Your table, your game. Do it how you like. For others, however, I want to point out the change in approach, and its requirements (additional room cut-out's/shapes, more storage space required, more labor to make, limited variety of sizes and shapes possible). I hope folks will weigh the differences before they embark on either method, making an informed decision -- or perhaps they will choose to use a combination of both approaches, to garner the best of both techniques! Cheers! I don't believe I have reverted, I just have many different systems for different purposes (and also different feels). I have a monstrous set of DMGinfo style tiles, 2.5D Next, Tilescapes and sets similar to what Drunkens and Dragons uses. I even have a fairly good number of Wyloch's tavern tiles and cavern tiles. I'll quickly admit that I don't put deep thought into modular tile systems. I make pieces as I need them and revolve everything around my main group's campaign. When I need high flexibility in caves I use the 2.5D Next cave walls. When I want elevation I use the Tilescapes cave tiles. I even combine the two to create elevation and defined walls. An example of this from my last session: I'm fortunate enough to have a dedicated gaming space with enough room to store multiple systems. My house may by small but the basement is mine and might I say works nicely for a dungeon feel type man cave! So regression, nah. I just have lots of different tools for different purposes.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Nov 6, 2016 3:07:10 GMT
well really depends... when i DM up to this point i take the time to set up the roads and houses. use the tilescapes i have. but my cousin... when hes dming, some how he just skips over the tilescape stuff and just put on the 2.5D next stuff on the table. because he just like free handing the stuff up.
so yeah its really up to anybody to do whatever they wants. i'll admit that 2.5D next setup time is much much less then any other methods.
|
|