|
Post by DnDPaladin on Dec 3, 2015 11:42:58 GMT
wow ogre... seriously wow... you dont solve the scale problem by doing 1=3inches... because the problem you get is that now your minis are totally out of proportions. with minis averaging heights of 8 to 9 feet high. sorry i doubt the average human to be 9 feet high. this is what we're talking about here and as always been talking about... the size of the base, the scale of the thing. why it is not so important to have scales right.
as for 3 feet... sorry but thats a fucking cramped corridor you have. i dont think it solves much. because if i had a sword and swinging it... i wouldn'T be only 3 feet away from my enemy. that would mean greatsword would have reach then. and polearms would have double reach. i really dont think there is a way to solve any of the problems, thus why its just better to ignore the scale at that point... there is no way you can have a mini be good scale wise and have a base that is also good scale wise.
but isn't this why we're playing gridless ?
|
|
|
Post by Wyloch on Dec 3, 2015 14:05:27 GMT
If you play gridded, then scale is totally irrelevant. You are truly concerned with "spaces," not "feet." You don't actually care about 10 feet...you care about 2 spaces. It doesn't matter how large those spaces are - there just needs to be two of them.
|
|
sotf
Advice Guru
Posts: 1,084
|
Post by sotf on Dec 3, 2015 16:19:15 GMT
I totally agree sotf. Any issue of scale becomes a balancing act between accuracy and appearance. The most important gauge of what works needs to be the eye of the guy who's making the scene. If you're running the game, you get to say what looks right. I've never liked over sized vehicles. Many of my friends use them all the time. If my friend is running a game then I'm happy to play with whatever he puts on the table. When I made my dungeon doors I ended up making at least four different sizes before getting the size right. Just imagine if I'd spent that time working on tiles or monsters (or maybe even reading the module one more time) how much more I could have had ready. Scale is a wonderful thing but it should never get in the way of having fun. For vehicles, it tends to be more with the modern or close to modern settings. For example, if you're playing a more cinematic take on Spycraft, and you want cars around, well, the correct scale ones won't have the doors high enough (or likely straight up big enough) to represent the crouched behind the car door trope that a lot of players would expect. For a wagon or scifi vehicle that wouldn't have the same things reflected, you can get away with a whole lot more. And some of the really interesting takes on some wargames mix and match several different scales for different things (hero, soldier, vehicle, terrain, and sometimes more)...which kind of looks more, in play, like Civilization or Risk than a normal game.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Dec 3, 2015 19:15:56 GMT
wow ogre... seriously wow... you dont solve the scale problem by doing 1=3inches... because the problem you get is that now your minis are totally out of proportions. with minis averaging heights of 8 to 9 feet high. sorry i doubt the average human to be 9 feet high. this is what we're talking about here and as always been talking about... the size of the base, the scale of the thing. why it is not so important to have scales right. as for 3 feet... sorry but thats a fucking cramped corridor you have. i dont think it solves much. because if i had a sword and swinging it... i wouldn'T be only 3 feet away from my enemy. that would mean greatsword would have reach then. and polearms would have double reach. i really dont think there is a way to solve any of the problems, thus why its just better to ignore the scale at that point... there is no way you can have a mini be good scale wise and have a base that is also good scale wise. but isn't this why we're playing gridless ? First, the original question seemed to me to be about scale of furniture in a room and how disproportionate it looks. The size and scale of minis and their bases is relevant to that but not the core issue. Your scaling conversion for a mini in a 1 in=3 ft universe is reversed. If 1 inch equates to 3 ft and most minis are roughly 1 inch tall, then they all become hobbits, not oversized ogremen. However, saying "ignore the scale imbalance and just imagine the chairs to be the right size" is the same as "ignore the scale imbalance and just imagine the minis are the right size." Also, on a 2D or 2.5D map, vertical scale is less bothersome or relevant. We only care about horizontal distance. A mini can easily be seen as a fancy position marker despite scale discrepancies. Again, the lich apologizes for your claustrophobia in cramped quarters (he actually doesn't...thus why he made the 3ft corridor a prime position for his kobold minions to use as a murder hole choke point. See "300" to see how this strategy works). Also, any warrior worth his salt is going to sheath his useless greatsword and pull out a proper weapon to use in closed quarters...like a dagger. Even a short sword. Again, the lich doesn't apologize for making a dungeon corridor that strategically makes the party's most lethal warriors primary weapon useless. He hopes you don't have a rogue (used to "fucking cramped" spaces) or a halfling barbarian (no problems fighting due yo smaller weapon size) that would ruin his plan to deter trespassers from breaking into his library/tea room.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Dec 3, 2015 19:28:29 GMT
...OR the DM is going to hand wave the problem of closed quarter fighting, at most giving a disadvantage to someone trying to swing their clumsy greatsword in a 3ft corridor.
That is pretty likely to occur. Most people don't care about such fine details. As someone pointed out, a swing arc from a greatsword even in a 5ft square likely takes up the entire square if you are swinging from one edge. In a 5ft corridor this still means (technically) that the warrior should have opted for a weapon more capable in tight spaces.
But we like to overlook that. Frivolous details.
|
|
|
Post by sgtslag on Dec 3, 2015 20:38:11 GMT
As a DM, I have used 5-foot corridors to flummox my players... They whined that they could not wield their favorite Long Sword/Two-Hander/Whatever, due to lack of space. It really cramped their style, and they suddenly regretted selling off some of their smaller, magical weapons, which they said, "I'll never need this!", right before they sold it for gold... [Cue evil cackling laughter sound track -- in quadrophonic sound!] It also really annoyed them to have to fight in single file, with only one PC being able to engage their enemy at a time, instead of being in a large room, where everyone was able to maneuver into position to attack.
I've had great fun leading PC's into choke points, where the enemy knew, and actively planned, for this to happen. And I play 2nd Ed. AD&D, not 3.X/4/5/whatever, where such details are thought not to exist, as its combat system is more abstract than later Editions (such details are in 1st Ed., as well, but most DM's choose to completely ignore them...). Sometimes it can be fun to throw the PC's a curve they never anticipated, due to their severe, chronic, myopia (near-sightedness). [Cue 2nd, evil cackling laughter sound track -- in quadrophonic sound!] Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by sgtslag on Dec 3, 2015 20:48:45 GMT
I have to agree: use whatever works best for you, with regards to scale. There are no RPG Police who will shout, "Search Warrant!", before they smash your door down, spraying your game room with gunfire ("Excessive use of force, has been authorized...", quote from, The Blues Brothers, movie).
I mix 1/72 scale figures (basically, 25mm, foot to top of head), with True 25's (usually taller than 25mm, foot to top of head...), 28's, and some likely 30's. It works, as nothing is completely accurate. I try to keep them relatively close, but to have them all accurate to even the same scale, is virtually impossible -- I've tried, being involved in collecting mini's for wargaming since the early 1990's... Don't sweat the small stuff -- and, it's all small stuff. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Dec 4, 2015 2:33:50 GMT
Agreed
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Dec 4, 2015 12:30:02 GMT
so basically one thatwas, is... put it all on the DM. forget the rules int he books do not even try to make them work, create your own set of rules and in the end create your own PHB. thats for sure one solution, i dont like that one at all... but hey its a solution right.
the original question was talking about furniture scaling compared to real minis. yes furnitures looked too big, but what we answered him... me included is that at some point, thanks to the bases not fitting int he scale. you will not be able to use such furnitures... aka put your mini on top your chair. because the chair will be too small for the minis base.
as such we told him, not to take scaling too seriously. cause there is no way for us to have the scale and the base movement on par to each others, its just not possible. then you cam esaying 1= 3 inch solved that, but that would tell us that you'd be reducing your base sizes, doing that also reduces your scale of your mini. making the chair even smaller. because lets be honest here.. for scale to work, everything things needs to be identical. if the mini is too big, then you have to change your furnitures to reflect that.
so yeah, again... whatever you do, its impossible to make mini scale, furniture scale and base scale the same. because they all have different jobs. thats why the only answer is...
depends what you preffer, playability or realism ! if you go for realism then be ready for your minis not to be able to sit on chairs.
|
|
|
Post by michka on Dec 4, 2015 14:03:14 GMT
If sitting on chairs is really the goal of this, then just make the chairs and other furniture as 2.5D tiles. That's what DM Scotty did the first time he made his tiles. He eventually decided it was better to have 3D elements on the 2.5D tiles, but nothing says we have to follow every thing he does.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Dec 4, 2015 15:34:03 GMT
Pally, I am not sure at what point you inferred that I advocate making up your own rules and try playing a 100% Homebrew game that deviates from DnD completely.
However, let us also note that it is entirely possible that someone here is not, in fact, using DnD rules at all. Which makes much of this back and forth moot, because the rules problems inherent in one system are not applicable in another.
That being said, many rules systems use 1 inch=3 feet as the preferred scale AND are fine with using the very same minis that DnD encourages. Deadlands/Savage Worlds is one of these systems and is rather popular these days.
While there may be other problems with these systems, adopting their scale and using it for DnD (if in fact that is the system in question) will not in fact cause your PHB or DMG to magically burst into flame. It merely alters a perception of scale...one which some (myself) find to be complimentary and useful to crafting, and others (yourself apparently) find abhorrent and irrelevant.
I am a bit surprised personally that, considering your penchant for altering the rules of DnD to enhance the game at your table, you are being a stickler on this rather small point...it is by no meansa large shift in rules.
I also am not sure how you seem to infer that a preference for adding realism to a game has such a detrimental impact on playing the game. Many prefer having a game that seems more realistic, and, in point, the OP seems to want his tabletop presentation to more realistically reflect actual scale to enhance their gaming experience.
Are their problems with every solution? Yes. Yours maintains that there is no problem, just ignore the discrepancy and it'll be fine, or try to make chairs smaller. Which...ignores the question really, but does ease the belief that the issue is a big deal (admittedly it is not, I will agreee on that). My suggestion alters one number, solves one problem, but does present others (admittedly).
I am defending my solution as being viable while you seem to insist that my solution is gamebreaking and ludicrous. I am not sure why...I have pointed out in which ways it works, even supported my suggestion with the fact that it in no way makes DnD unplayable (since you can, in fact, play DnD without even using scale via theatre of the mind, which is alot more rules fudge-y) and the solution is replicated in other rules systems.
However, at the end of the day, we do agree on one point: It is a matter of personal preference. To each there own. I will continue to use my scale and include my realism and my house rules for my game. You will continue to use your scale, your house rules and your tone setting for your game. We will never agree on these, it seems, which further supports that we could not play in one anothers games. Thats fine.
To each their own. Thankfully there is a rule that says this is ok (rule zero)...if it doesn't work for you, change it so the game works for you and is fun.
I guess that one rule alone is what protects those books from spontaneous combustion any time someone changes the rules to make their game a more enjoyable experience.
|
|
sotf
Advice Guru
Posts: 1,084
|
Post by sotf on Dec 5, 2015 3:38:59 GMT
If sitting on chairs is really the goal of this, then just make the chairs and other furniture as 2.5D tiles. That's what DM Scotty did the first time he made his tiles. He eventually decided it was better to have 3D elements on the 2.5D tiles, but nothing says we have to follow every thing he does. Probably better to hack down the legs or undersides of the furniture that the players would sit on (normally use that way anyway). It would keep a lot of the 3D appearance while upping playability
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Dec 5, 2015 7:56:40 GMT
the problem is that even if you make the chair 3D... your mini will still be looking at a chair that is too big because otherwise your base wont fit on the chair. remember, the base of a mini is the equivalent of saying, this is the movement your mini is capable of doing. that has nothing to do with how high your mini should be. so basically if you want realism, you should make stuff base dont he height of your mini. and forget th ebase. then everything will be on scale. but playability wise, it wont work cause now you'll have chairs which your mini wont be able to sit on. may it be 2.5d or 3d there is no way to fix that. all you can do is do what scotty did. make the chairs a tad bit bigger and without arms.
|
|
|
Post by ogrestamp on Dec 11, 2015 1:02:23 GMT
the problem is that even if you make the chair 3D... your mini will still be looking at a chair that is too big because otherwise your base wont fit on the chair. remember, the base of a mini is the equivalent of saying, this is the movement your mini is capable of doing. that has nothing to do with how high your mini should be. so basically if you want realism, you should make stuff base dont he height of your mini. and forget th ebase. then everything will be on scale. but playability wise, it wont work cause now you'll have chairs which your mini wont be able to sit on. may it be 2.5d or 3d there is no way to fix that. all you can do is do what scotty did. make the chairs a tad bit bigger and without arms. If you truly want realism then you are going to have to create a mini that is sitting in a chair, and one that doesn't have his weapon drawn, and one sitting on the ground and...etc. Your only argument for the chair being off scale is for the mini being able to sit on it. Why should they have to sit on it? If it doesn't fit, saying that the character is sitting on the chair is just fine. The only reason we use minis and terrain is to help in the imagination of the game and to help clarify who is where and can they do certain things. If the chair is slightly larger than should be, to scale, but it looks like it belongs on the map, then you've achieved your goal. When you go to the theater and watch a play, the scalability of the play, if questioned, is all out of whack, but it's that warping of reality that achieves the believability which our brains are ok with. So, all in all, if what you see on the gaming table looks cool and looks alright, then it is.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Dec 11, 2015 18:44:11 GMT
so, remove the mini from the table and say, he sat on the chair ? sorry, but if you start giving realism to the players, those same players will want the playability to go along, and that means you'll see players picking up their character and trying to put it on the chair because thats where there characters are. the same way you'll easily see a character climb on the table and put his minis there.
its not just theater of the mind and all... its the problem about scaling and realism that just doesn't go well together. people want realism in their game. i dont know why they would, but some want it. and having bigger chairs for playability isn'T a thing for them. but then they get another problem, they think the base doesn't work and as such would want to simply remove it.
this is exactly why realism isn't made for fantasy gaming. the same way we dont have cars or vehicules that can actually carry minis. those vehicules would be much larger then need be.
|
|
|
Post by runningwolf on Dec 12, 2015 14:02:08 GMT
Any more I'm less about having things looks like a blue print and more about it being representative. The "close enough" rule. The Dwarf mini is almost as tall as the human fighter. Not a problem. The bookshelf is not to scale but looks cool. No problem. Forget if it was a response to a thread I posted about scale or if I just saw it around. The person used an example about maps. The capital of a area is not a star nor are cities circles. I'm sure most of us have seen the bag o zombies. Next to a regular mini they are Hobbit sized. The thing is when you're playing and a ton of them are on the table top the player is more worried about the hoard coming at them more than that they are midget zombies .... I've mentally coined the term "close enough rule". If it's close enough go for it. Now having a regular 28mm mini and an old school (11 inch) GI Joe going at it doesn't work unless you're wanting a 80ft tall giant. That's just me, so take what I say with a grain of salt. What works for me might not work for others.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Dec 12, 2015 18:30:37 GMT
so, remove the mini from the table and say, he sat on the chair ? sorry, but if you start giving realism to the players, those same players will want the playability to go along, and that means you'll see players picking up their character and trying to put it on the chair because thats where there characters are. the same way you'll easily see a character climb on the table and put his minis there. its not just theater of the mind and all... its the problem about scaling and realism that just doesn't go well together. people want realism in their game. i dont know why they would, but some want it. and having bigger chairs for playability isn'T a thing for them. but then they get another problem, they think the base doesn't work and as such would want to simply remove it. this is exactly why realism isn't made for fantasy gaming. the same way we dont have cars or vehicules that can actually carry minis. those vehicules would be much larger then need be. I disagree with the premise of this argument in its entirety. I am a player (as well as a DM) and I do not behave in the manner you state a playrr "MUST" simply because of added realism elements. I can think of at least two dozen other players who are the same. Either my local area is an exception against this rule, or the rule is flawed and is utter silliness. Just because some prefer things one way does not mean that it devolves into a slippery slope, non sequitur arrangement. "If you want realism then playability must follow. Realistic playability has to exist if you want one orthe other...which is why I vote for neither and prefer 100% fantasy!" Obviously that is not what you are saying. But...it kinda is. There is a LARGE zone of what is ok and preferable, which does not have to be within your norm or preferance, and still ok. You have a right to do it differently. But please, stop stop interpretting others choices as being a symptom of a false conclusion, and interpretting everything as black and white...one way or the wrong way. It is tiresome seeing these arguments. By the same token (as an example) using a pure fantasy world means you don't allow humans to be played, or for that matter anything perceived or invented by humans, because basing anything upon human perception/invention is too realistic...it adds what we humans perceive as reality. Which is wrong and not the point of pure fantasy. ...and honestly that would be a boring game since you can't use anything from any gaming system to play it. It would be everyone sitting around trying to have an LSD experience sans LSD. THAT is the same argument you appear to be making on realism and playability. Mandating that the inclusion of any must mean it has to be a game of office temp with perfect to scale figures and furniture is pretty much the same argument. And again, I oppose it on its premise.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Dec 12, 2015 21:39:34 GMT
you made a mistake, i never used the word rules when talking about player reactions to things. believe me, when you give something to a player its really really hard for him to lose it after that.
there is no rules. its just that if you are gonna make your players play theater of the mind then why are you even making tiles ? by adding a degree of realism tot he table by giving your players a scene. then its normal for your players to want to interact with the said scene. take a theater and see for yourself how the actors on the scene plays with what they have... you wouldn't suddently see an actor fight without a sword, when the others all have one for the sake of the scene just because you were missing a sword now would you ?
the same logic applies here, you took the time to put on your table a scene with which the players can interacts. so of course they will expect their minis to interact with the chairs and tables and the other stuff. of course they can still theater of the mind the fact they can't move their characters arms... but that doesn't stop them from doing what they can with that said mini and putting a mini over a chair or a table is quite easy for them. as easy as taking the mini and dropping it on the thing.
nothing stops you from making the said on scale chairs and tools... but sooner then later you will see minis trying to balance on them because your players will try to put their minis on top of it. so at this point you end up on the whole playability versus realism morale dilema we all have had while playing with our tiles. after all... we're mostly playing 2.5D here for the sake of playability. otherwise our walls would be more then half an inch high.
there is no rules, there is no set ideas... but one thing is for sure... if you want playability you can't have realism 100%. and you can't have realism and hope its gonna be playable at 100%.
thats all we've been saying since the start. but ignoring player reactions is, to me, far worse then just scaling things to their heights... i preffer my players to be able to do most of what they want. including sitting their characters on a chair.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Dec 12, 2015 22:18:18 GMT
But you can no assume that someone will react in a given way 100% of the time based solely on your interpretation of how they will react.
This goes back to our (unrelated) discussion about fears a how they work. You claim, based on personsl experience, that deep seated fears can be overcome with sheer will over the course of one single confrontation.
Sure...maybe that worked for you (just as perhaps you assume that people will immediately try to make their character fit on a chair made for a tile because that may be your reaction) but other people need years of therapy to resolve a deep seated fear (similarly, people may not respond in the manner in which you say they would...I know many who would not).
Your example about actors in a theatre is also a bit flawed. If the premise of the play is such that the actors should use swords, then that is by no means an unrealistic expectation for them to have. If the premise is that no swords are to be used in the production, then using swords may be unrealistic except for practice. And if some are to use play swords while others do not...then you will see that.
Generally actors are very big on following the constraints of the play. It really is unrelated to the issue of playability vs realism and Accuracy of scale.
At the end of the day, there is no "right way" here on how to present tiles, tile dressing, minis, scale, realism vs fantasy, or even application of rules.
What eorks for my table works for my table. What works for Ogre works for him and his. What works for you, works for you.
Lets stop pretending only one way works and acknowledge that things don't always work within the mold of what we personally experience. Many approaches apply and can be considered to be correct.
|
|
|
Post by DnDPaladin on Dec 13, 2015 15:38:32 GMT
now who's arguing for no reasons. my claims are clearly stating that playability versus realism will always be a dilema and that choosing one or the other will always be a choice that you will have to do. but can never have both at the same time.
the rest, i'll be the clearer i can about it. Murphy's law dictates everything... if a thing has a possibility of hapenning, it will happen at some point in time. there is nothing else to say.
PS: you are doing the same thing you claim im doing by putting words in my mouth that i didn't say. i never said there was only a single way fo doing things and i have never claimed otherwise. this discussion is useless because we're turning around in circles. i may have been wanting to try to understand your point of view. but you putting words in my mouth is something that just doesn't work. so at this point either you are trolling me or you are not even trying to understand my point. either way this can only lead to flaming at one point or another and thats not gonna happen by me. so i'm stopping here.
i'll repeat one last time.... Playability versus realism is a choice. but none can get both at the same time.
|
|