d19
Cardboard Collector
Posts: 2
|
Post by d19 on Jun 15, 2015 11:09:04 GMT
Been watching DM Scotty's great vids on YouTube. Love LOVE all the boards he has done and the stuff to go along with it. But after seeing his 2.5 Next, I'm not sure if that will allow for such great creations that were shown in all the other vids. Anyone have advice or experience with switching between the two? I really want to get started but don't want to spend time on either system only to find that I'm not satisfied with it. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 11:58:03 GMT
Why not do both? Build yourself a set of 2.5N dungeon/cave tiles, for those times you need something on the fly. Then build your other tiles for specific encounters but try to make them reusable as much as possible. There are strengths and weakness to both sets. I find myself using both.
|
|
|
Post by tauster on Jun 15, 2015 16:10:19 GMT
Exactly the same here: I would do both - generic wall pieces and some location-spcific tiles (but I'd build even the specific tiles with an eye towards re-usability).
|
|
|
Post by michka on Jun 15, 2015 17:01:32 GMT
I find the only way I finished tiles is to be working on a project. When I started I was running a specific series of modules, and worked toward building the scenes from those modules. If you're working from a story, it will inform the way you want to make your tiles. But that's just me. DMG started out by making eighty tiles all at once. Your mileage may very.
|
|
d19
Cardboard Collector
Posts: 2
|
Post by d19 on Jun 16, 2015 0:37:52 GMT
Thanks for the responses. I had pretty much made up my mind to do both, but stick mostly with the finished tiles. I tinkered around in my garage putting pieces and thoughts here and there, making up my mind to do both as suggested. I mean the 2.5 Next is AWESOME for stuff on the fly. Again, thanks for the advice.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jun 16, 2015 2:17:49 GMT
if you like random delves. which are basically just random one shot games. then going tiles may make your experience better as you can simply form a dungeon out of tiles without worrying about why they are there. if you are more into stories. then i also suggest going both routes. as i created my own set of tiles i figured that it was making th egame too board like game to me and i didn't like that. i may not like theater of the mind during combat scenes or action scenes... but i definitely do not like the idea of having the whole map all laid out in front of my players, looking at them moving their pieces around.
both systems have their pros and cons. but both systems will require you to build modular stuff that goes along with them. braziers, shelves, beds, you name it. so both systems have the same goal. to give out a visual ! i'm using Next mostly because i have to move out of my way to get to the game. so i dont have much space to move stuff up and tiles takes a lot of place. thats why i love Next... but that said, there are many times when a tile would of made a much bigger impact ont he game then the next system.
so as other have said, use both systems... its a question of preferences... DMG like compact dungeons and his games are always all laid out on the table. so 2.5D fits him like a glove. scotty changed to Next because its more free form then the tiles and he loves it that way. me, i want visuals, im not looking at the beauty of the scene.
so it all depends on your own style of play.
|
|
|
Post by Cyan Wisp on Jun 18, 2015 4:37:54 GMT
Do you like making tiles?
I actually enjoy the process and transformation (from cardboard to...dungeon/cave), so original 2.5d is best for me. What got me hooked were the DM Scotty tiles like the sewer tiles and the multi-level caverns. The 2.5d Next is very practical but not as grotesquely beautiful as bespoke tiles, imo.
For an adventure, I just lay out tiles during prep to make the adventure map as closely as possible and then photograph, including all 3d elements. Tiles and elements go into a kit and the photo(s) become my game maps.
|
|
|
Post by runningwolf on Jun 18, 2015 10:09:22 GMT
My thing is the 2.5d stuff seems to work better for modern and future settings and the Next seems to work better for fantasy/caverns. Being I mostly run games more modern than dungeon crawling the old way works best for me (or I might just be getting old and set in my ways). I can see some uses in sci fi, think of the Aliens bioforming the bottom of the colony in Aliens. Or some sort of biomechanical ship (Moyra from Farscape). The 2.5d stuff seems to work better for man made objects and the Next seems to work better for organic formed structures.
Have to take what I say with a grain of salt as I have not used the Next method so cannot comment one way or another on it.... although with the OP if you can mic both go for it! It's your world you are the boss of it, if you have the cool factor going so much the same of going for it.
With the 2.5d I like that you can add the LOS/Fog of War to save some table space. You don;t need to have a super long hallway all tiled out, have the treadmill going where there is a 200 yard hallway you can only use 100 ft of it to take up table space. The same goes for rooms. You don't have to put the tile down until the players get to the open door way or the players open the door.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jun 18, 2015 19:36:52 GMT
i'd say even for modern it works great... but like may said and i am saying it too cause its true... Next is much less visuals then say a tile is. a tile can have much more details then next can ever accomplish. so i'd say its more like a question of visuals. if you want superb details go for tiles. if you want simple visuals go for next. thats what i got out of the two when i tryed them out.
as for me... the main reason im with next is because i need to transport stuff and tiles were such a burden to transport. a box for my tiles, a box for my other stuff. while next gives me a single box and i have everything in it.
both definitely have their pros and cons.
|
|
|
Post by Sleepy Hollow Mike on Jun 18, 2015 20:18:57 GMT
Well for me it's all about time! Time rules everything since most of us have a finite amount of it! Whichever is the quickest way usually wins the day! However in those instances where time is not at issue like in a more static environment I go all out! The visuals are great for players and I suppose a bit of hubris for the game master goes a ways into it. The looks on the faces of my players makes me happy. The problem with tiles or Next is setting up all the peripherals. Tables and chairs and desks or beds. That's not even mentioning the monsters! It takes time.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Jun 19, 2015 7:17:50 GMT
much faster with already made tiles though. but... as mentionned both have their cons... while Next takes a bit of time to set up. it takes not much time on creation. i like not having to create for hours and weeks before a game. tiles are requiring next to no installation once done... but requires quite the ammount of time to actually create.
|
|