Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

IMHO, each one absolutely has benefits that completely beat out the other.

3d terrain, of course, just plain looks better. No question. End of discussion.

Some of the pieces I've seen over the years are absolutely stunning in their quality. In fact, the terrain pieces I've seen DONATED to my FLGS are often breath-taking, and say a lot about the courtesy of gamers. If I wanted to, I could play all the games I wanted and never buy or create a piece of terrain again.

Top-down flat 2d terrain, of course, is just plain more gameable. No question. End of discussion.

Also the benefit that there is so much of it free online. These pieces https://aginsinn.yeoldeinn.com/tilesfuture.html are a staple of my sci fi games. They make a very nice starship, space station, or series of starships and space stations, can be laid out as you see fit, take up minimal closet space, are almost indestructible, AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY PLACE YOUR MINIATURES ON TOP OF THEM WITHOUT EITHER GETTING IN THE WAY OF THE OTHER.

Add to that, you can print this stuff for any scale you like. 6mm, 15mm, 25/28/32-or-whatever-GW-has-scale-creeped-to-these-days-mm, even 54mm if you're that ambitious, and you don't even have to fiddle with resizing them. Just hit the right button on the printer, and the computer resizes them quite nicely.

In the end, for me, what it comes down to is that in the best of all possible gaming universes, all terrain would be three-D. However, we live in this universe, not that one, and in this universe, you just can't convince that metal/ plastic orc to crouch low behind the tree after he's wriggled in under the branches, while he and his comrades await the princess, her carriage, and mounted cavalier escort to ride by.

As long as that remains the case, I will always be a top-down flat terrain guy.

In fact, in my new 15mm collection, I'm going this one better by mounting the miniatures on pieces of clear plastic, so that the base gets in the way of the terrain to the minimum extent possible. I'm just blu-tacking them for the moment, as I'm not quite sure how this will turn out, but I have high hopes.

Your thoughts?

PS Couldn't do this without show casing the generous Mr. Ron Shirtz's royal palace tiles.

Let's face it, after the princess and her cavaliers have successfully slaughtered the orcs attempting to ambush her in the woods, and get home to the royal palace, can they catch a break?

Not a chance.

Her uncle the duke (or the marquis, cardinal, evil court sorcerer, whoever), has just decided this is the capital moment for a coup d'etat, and his guardsmen are now attempting to slaughter said cavaliers in the palace.

Well. Ya need a palace for that, right?

Have no fear: http://english.yeoldeinn.com/tiles-shirtz-palace-set.php

For top down terrain pieces, I find these to be stunning in their own right. One neat trick is to do a little surgery on the Great Hall tile with your favorite drawing program, and cut it down to three squares by eight, with the columned sections running down the edges of the of the eight square sides, and the floor running down the squares in the middle. This makes a nice instant hallway that can connect the rooms of the palace together.

I'm clearly outnumbered here, so I will dig in and hold to the last man. Fortunately, digging in won't be hard, as I'm using 2d terrain. ;-)

But in fairness, gentlemen, when I read statements like "If a game doesn't play well on 3D terrain its a problem with the game itself and absolutely something that should be adapted into something more playable." I'd say that needs a bit of a re-think. In fact, there are situations where it simply isn't possible to conform to it effectively.

Let's take the palace coup idea above. I have seen many beautiful castle models in my forty some years of gaming, but none that could really handle a game such as described above.

Miniatures would be falling over, or being crammed on top of each other, possibly knocking over the banquet table, etc.

Can you really say that's the game designer's fault for not accommodating an impossible situation?

The fact is that human beings have marvelous brains that can balance their bulky bodies on two little feet. Even the finest miniature lacks such refinements, and gets, instead, a flat base to compensate. Of course, this makes it very tough for the miniature to change body position, let alone performing such palace coup necessities as the Errol Flynn swing on the tightrope across the banquet hall. This becomes all the tougher when as required by most rule sets, the miniature must then have attached beneath its molded base an even larger base, usually 1" square if you're doing 25mm.

Now, don't get me wrong! Minis are excellent and stalwart companions! Why, I've known some of mine to stand at attention in a box for months, sometimes years on end! Could the finest elite human soldier do that?

Still, they have their limitations. What's the poor game designer to do?

Again, in the collection I'm building now, I plan, as I said, to try transparent bases, which will make seeing the terrain, whether flat or 3d, that much easier, but it seems to me that there's only so much that can be done.

Or am I missing something? I'm perfectly willing to be the idiot in the room if that can be substantially proven, and I write a lot of my own minis games and rpgs, so I'm always happy to learn. If there is some way that I'm not seeing what you are talking about here, I'll give myself forty whacks with the stupid stick, but I really can't imagine how this can be done in a tabletop environment.

So, please, educate me!

P.S. Though minis are my first love, I am not somebody who has a problem with tokens either. In fact, my avatar is a token. An Imperial combat servitor done by a guy who goes by DeZigner on Patreon. Have a look at his stuff! Its very nice indeed. Nothing like bringing a folder full of tokens and flat terrain if you're going out of town on business. You never know when you might meet another gamer in a bar, restaurant, or even an airport! The only three d things you really need are a few dice, and you're set to go!

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm not saying that the rules need to conform to ANY terrain. Far from it. Terrain that doesn't have a few square inches of level ground just isn't usable regardless of the rules you're working with. The issue is when a game's rules make interacting with terrain miserable to the point where people insist on playing on a flat surface. There's a huge middle ground between the two where terrain can be 3D and accommodate miniatures well, while rules can also be written to make interacting with terrain engaging.

And again, I have no problem with 3d terrain, as I say. It certainly does look better. Though Ron Shirtz's palace is, I think, very nice indeed, a beautifully painted 3d palace looks better, and no question,

It is also very true that in most situations, 3d terrain DOES NOT GET IN THE WAY of miniatures gaming. Take Cannae, Kasserine Pass, or Kursk, let alone naval combats like Lepanto or the Coral Sea. Starship games where players are crashing into comets and asteroids, are probably almost laughable, but, hey, if you're trying to simulate Star Wars on the tabletop, have fun!

Now, I will say in fairness that the more 3d terrain that gets added to the field, the more problematic it becomes. Waterloo is easy to game in large scale, right up until you are trying to cram minis into La Haye Sainte and fight over the breakfast table.

This becomes even more problematic with that wargame to end all wargames, Dungeons & Dragons. Call it whatever you like. Its a miniatures wargame to this day. This is why almost all D&D and other rpgs that use miniatures are fought on battlemats, which really are just 2d terrain, like Ron's palace. Its just not possible to effectively do it otherwise.

Again, if I'm missing something, please elucidate me. I mean that sincerely.

 Eilif wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
I'm clearly outnumbered here, so I will dig in and hold to the last man. Fortunately, digging in won't be hard, as I'm using 2d terrain. ;-)!

1. 2d is only "more gameable" if you only want to game in 2 dimensions.

2. From a personal perspective it's the "Spectacle of painted armies clashing on evocative terrain" that drew me into wargaming and continues to sustain my interest with construction of interesting terrain being perhaps my favorite part of the hobby.

3.If I'd shown up with flat terrain for the event, not only would I have been unlikely to attract any players, I'd have been unable to muster up the interest to run the game myself. Luckily I did bring that setup and 7 players had a great time battling across it.

I like your response, and only cut it back to answer what I think are the most salient elements.

1. There I'd have to disagree. I've done a lot of gaming myself over the years, and have often used 3d terrain. I do it still, sometimes, at the FLGS, and I enjoy it, I just don't find it a necessity. For me, board games and minis games are on a continuum, as, in fact, they are in the hobby as a whole. Many miniatures games blend in two d terrain, or take it the next step up to 3d paper terrain.

Also, there is the "crunch factor" which I kind of define as what happens when the laws of physics meet the gaming table? No one has attempted to answer my argument about the palace coup, and it really is unanswerable. If you can't fit figure + base into the hallway, the terrain doesn't work, or the minis don't work, take your pick. with Shirtz's palace, and similar stuff, it never becomes a question. So the hallway is an eighth of an inch narrower than the figure's base? Who cares? Let it hang over the edge and get on with the game. No one will even notice.

The crunch factor has uglier consequences as well, of course. I remember a day at another FLGS when one guy, a really excellent modeler, brought in a waterfall he had built, either out of epoxy or something similar. He had probably done one of the most beautiful jobs I've ever seen, and had even shaded the "water" with some type of blue pigment that got darker as you looked deeper in. It was magnificent.

Then he got clumsy and knocked it off the table as he was packing up.

He almost cried, and I even got a little choked up.

My paper palace, dungeons and forests, otoh? I could launch them off a skyscraper, and as long as I could find them again, they'd be perfectly gameable.

And in the end, that's always the right answer. Its your hobby, so do what pleases you. If you love building and displaying terrain, GO FOR IT!

3. This one I'm going to question as well. Is that really the case? I admit its been quite some time since I ran an event at a convention, but are people really that picky about stuff like terrain anymore? To me, it was the system and the scenario that attracted me to an event at a convention. Are people really that concerned about the "stuff" aspect?

Granted, I'd probably prefer that somebody at least would bring painted miniatures, and something other than chalk marking where the wood line was on the tabletop, but as long as some effort was made, I don't think I'd turn up my nose at an event just because it was in full color 2d rather than 3d.

But I could well be wrong, and I'd love to know the thoughts f all on that one too.

 makeitorky wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
...This becomes even more problematic with that wargame to end all wargames, Dungeons & Dragons. Call it whatever you like. Its a miniatures wargame to this day. This is why almost all D&D and other rpgs that use miniatures are fought on battlemats, which really are just 2d terrain, like Ron's palace. Its just not possible to effectively do it otherwise.

Again, if I'm missing something, please elucidate me. I mean that sincerely.

DnD, and most other TTRPGs are closer to a cooperative narrative than a wargame. While the mechanics are there, there is a player (the GM) who narrates the scene and what is going on. Part of the lure of TTRPGs, and why they don't require terrain is because of the theater of the mind. There may be a grid map to show positions and things, but everyone is imagining the GM's description of where ever they are as they play. Likewise more crunchy TTRPGs, like DnD generally will have maps and terrain in more established groups. One-shots or short campaigns are really common where I live, so there isn't a lot of terrain, but almost everyone gets and paints up their own character model because it helps to ground the setting.

There isn't a storyteller describing the landscape and every action a miniature makes in a wargame, so that visual effect can be very helpful for setting the scene and helping things make sense and feel like there is an actual narrative to play. I really enjoy making terrain and painting figures, crafting parts of my own little world for them to explore around in. I'm not playing TT games to play a boardgame, it's to have fun with a narrative and being creative.

And any terrain and figures I make may be more fragile than paper cutouts, but I can fix them up and repurposed them as needed and continue to have a fun way to have an outlet for my creativity.

I think Eilif did a much better job explaining why that is than I ever could. Just please know that there are people for whom painting and creating is just as much of a part of playing as is the act of playing itself.

Edit: Reread the thread and clarified my post.

Theater of the mind is one way to do rpgs, but I still run them in a somewhat competitive manner, as do some of the GMs I game with.

I think the best rpgs are competitions between the GM and players to win the fight, rescue the princess, save the kingdom, whatever. IMHO, the GM should play the monsters HARD. He should make them fight tactically to the best of his ability. The PCs either win or lose. He should NOT use his position as the GM to give the monsters a competitive advantage. If the PCs have played it at all smart, the monsters usually don't know they are coming, and should probably get the benefit of surprise in the early stages of the dungeon crawl.

That, I believe, is what makes it the most fun. The unknown. The thrill of victory is nothing unless there is a chance of the agony of defeat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:

 makeitorky wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
...This becomes even more problematic with that wargame to end all wargames, Dungeons & Dragons. Call it whatever you like. Its a miniatures wargame to this day. This is why almost all D&D and other rpgs that use miniatures are fought on battlemats, which really are just 2d terrain, like Ron's palace. Its just not possible to effectively do it otherwise.

Again, if I'm missing something, please elucidate me. I mean that sincerely.

DnD, and most other TTRPGs are closer to a cooperative narrative than a wargame. While the mechanics are there, there is a player (the GM) who narrates the scene and what is going on. Part of the lure of TTRPGs, and why they don't require terrain is because of the theater of the mind. There may be a grid map to show positions and things, but everyone is imagining the GM's description of where ever they are as they play. Likewise more crunchy TTRPGs, like DnD generally will have maps and terrain in more established groups. One-shots or short campaigns are really common where I live, so there isn't a lot of terrain, but almost everyone gets and paints up their own character model because it helps to ground the setting.

There isn't a storyteller describing the landscape and every action a miniature makes in a wargame, so that visual effect can be very helpful for setting the scene and helping things make sense and feel like there is an actual narrative to play. I really enjoy making terrain and painting figures, crafting parts of my own little world for them to explore around in. I'm not playing TT games to play a boardgame, it's to have fun with a narrative and being creative.

And any terrain and figures I make may be more fragile than paper cutouts, but I can fix them up and repurposed them as needed and continue to have a fun way to have an outlet for my creativity.

I think Eilif did a much better job explaining why that is than I ever could. Just please know that there are people for whom painting and creating is just as much of a part of playing as is the act of playing itself.

Edit: Reread the thread and clarified my post.

Theater of the mind is one way to do rpgs, but I still run them in a somewhat competitive manner, as do some of the GMs I game with.

I think the best rpgs are competitions between the GM and players to win the fight, rescue the princess, save the kingdom, whatever. IMHO, the GM should play the monsters HARD. He should make them fight tactically to the best of his ability. The PCs either win or lose. He should NOT use his position as the GM to give the monsters a competitive advantage. If the PCs have played it at all smart, the monsters usually don't know they are coming, and should probably get the benefit of surprise in the early stages of the dungeon crawl.

That, I believe, is what makes it the most fun. The unknown. The thrill of victory is nothing unless there is a chance of the agony of defeat.

In my humble opinion, no. Andy can have his idea about it, and I have mine. A decent minis game should have solid enough rules that is neither pure theater of the mind nor a pure die rolling contest. Victory whould usually go to the better general, but those dice can turn things around, as they often did in real life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cody.d. wrote:
I get the appeal of 2D terrain. Easy to produce, easy to communicate what it is. But does require a certain rules set to utilize it properly.

Also would let you make a variety of terrain sets for specific events. No risk of knocking terrain over or having models falling off which is nice for sure. No wobbly model syndrome as well.

But I really enjoy the world 3D terrain creates, and I enjoy making terrain too. Either from hirstarts molds or from foamcore and card so I'd always have a few tables worth of 3D terrain in a tub somewhere or another.

Amen, Amen! Especially the part about no models falling off!

Again, I fervently admit that well-built 3d terrain looks better, but I wouldn't put my lovingly painted miniatures on top of a 3d skyscraper

 makeitorky wrote:

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
Theater of the mind is one way to do rpgs, but I still run them in a somewhat competitive manner, as do some of the GMs I game with.

I think the best rpgs are competitions between the GM and players to win the fight, rescue the princess, save the kingdom, whatever. IMHO, the GM should play the monsters HARD. He should make them fight tactically to the best of his ability. The PCs either win or lose. He should NOT use his position as the GM to give the monsters a competitive advantage. If the PCs have played it at all smart, the monsters usually don't know they are coming, and should probably get the benefit of surprise in the early stages of the dungeon crawl.

That, I believe, is what makes it the most fun. The unknown. The thrill of victory is nothing unless there is a chance of the agony of defeat.
In my humble opinion, no. Andy can have his idea about it, and I have mine. A decent minis game should have solid enough rules that is neither pure theater of the mind nor a pure die rolling contest. Victory whould usually go to the better general, but those dice can turn things around, as they often did in real life.

Your competitive view of how TTRPGs should be played in a world dominated by the far more common narrative cooperative ones (particularly 5e) I was talking about aside;

You didn't respond to what I was saying though? I just said that there were many ways to play games, and there are many different ways to get enjoyment out of them. Making terrain and creating a world to play in with painted minis is a common one. I'm confused because I'm not trying to argue with you on what you should like, I'm just saying that it helps to keep an open mind to people's different preferences. I don't understand why you are treating this "what do you prefer" discussion thread more like an argument that you have to win?

Okay. Sometimes thoughts to type written words to electrons to other thoughts don't translate perfectly well. So let me say that I had no intention of either insulting you or getting huffy. We're talking about playing with toy soldiers on 2d or 3d terrain boards. Life's too short. If I've offended you, I apologize.

That being said, let me try to get your serious take on wargaming, and especially 40k, which has a VERY high financial bar to entry as opposed to most of the rest of this hobby.

If its all theater of the mind, why the expensive rule books, and, most importantly, WHY THE DICE?

If you really want theater of the mind, check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commedia_dell%27arte. All people did was adopt a persona and go free form from there. Its an interesting pastime, and was some fairly good theater, in its best iterations, as I understand.

But why do you need dice to do that?

Let's go outside 40k, and use D&D as an example. I swing my sword at an orc, lets say there are four possibilities:

I roll a 13-19 and hit the orc.
I roll a 2-12 and miss the orc.
I roll a 20 and score a critical hit on the orc.
I roll a 1 and fumble.

Why do we bother with that, as well as all the encounter tables, treasure rolls, characteristic rolls, random treasure rolls, etc., if all we want is theater of the mind?

The fact is, most human beings like a certain randomness in their pastimes, they like exploring the unknown, they like conflict, and that has to come with the possibility of victory and defeat. Without defeat, victory becomes boring, because it is not victory.

The same Andy Chambers who (you tell me, I haven't read this) is lauding theater of the mind, is also raking in the money selling you very expensive games that are all about dice rolls that cause little metal/plastic soldiers, to hit or not hit, die or not die, charge or stay put, win or lose.

If the world of wargaming and roleplaying becomes dominated by group think, I'll either leave it altogether, or just start playing it solitaire, in which case I'll still use my encounter tables, morale check rules, and all the rest.

***

All that said, I'm not trying to jump down your throat. I'd really like to understand whether I understand you correctly, and why you think what you think? How is this stuff any fun if there is no chance for defeat, or, in fact, no chance at all, if we'll simply come to a consensus as to what happens at the gaming table.

Should I throw away my ?

You like one pagers? Very cool. Sending you a PM.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
3d models only make sense with 3d terrain.

I mean... BattleTech.

Word up mah bro!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
There is room for hybridization of the two ways.

I see a difference between "games" and "tabletop wargames". Most of my 2-D experience comes from Heroclix back in the day, and yes, portability and easy of setup is wonderful.

With games like 40k, it's not just the game, it's a full on hobby. Seeing the full 3D environment is part of the experience. That being said, it's still a game not a diorama. You need to accept some lack of realism or the game doesn't quite work right.

That's why I would prefer some kind of game mat with ground level stuff being 2D, and major objects being 3D. I feel no need for rivers, lakes, or roads to be 3D at all. Knee high rubble can also be 2D. An abandoned car, building, or large wall should be 3D. Something like a patch of woods could be a hybrid system itself, with the outline of the woods in 2D and a couple trees in 3D. With a hybrid system like that you could have a mat and 6-9 physical terrain pieces make a convincing 6x4 board.

And that's a good compromise. Its not my compromise, for me, the figs are generally 3d (I seldom play with tokens but will do so in a pinch, as when out of town) and the terrain is generally 2d, but yes, rivers are roads don't need to be three d. When I've seen this done, they are generally made out of plaster, which cracks easily and degrades quickly thereafter, even if glued back together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
3D terrain. A good board can be downright majestic.

Spoiler:

Beautiful stuff, and no question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ced1106 wrote:
I'll just use a combination, typically a 2D board with 3D terrain on it.

Main reason is storage and disinterest in crafting. Even with just generic fantasy, you're looking at 3x3 boards for grassy areas, forests, caverns, dungeons, towns, coasts, etc. I have a hard enough time painting and storing miniatures and terrain. It's easier to put on a shelf some 2D map books, than to find storage for 90 or so 3D boards that need to be kept from damage. Doesn't mean I won't get around to doing it, though!

Here's a 2D Loke Battlemaps "Book of Wilderness" board with some moss and Archon's "Elven Woods" campsite, with some Tiny Furniture "Harvest of War" corpses.

Spoiler:

Very nice indeed. Everybody has to make some compromises in this hobby, and this ^^ certainly works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cool thing I've done with 2D terrain is put down a bunch of tiles or maps, then put a table cloth over it, put down more tiles/maps, a cloth over that, and then a final layer of maps/tiles.

As we moved through each part of the adventure (this was for the 40k RPGs), I could just remove the tiles/cloth from one layer, and instantly have the second set ready to go. Made things very quick.

Can't do that with 3D terrain.

How'd I miss this? I really LOVE that idea, sir. STOLEN!!!

 Just Tony wrote:
Now do tiered hills count as 3D or flat? The store I go to has rounded hills and it can be a bear to leave models on them, especially pewter models in a ranked unit.

Well, to me, 3d is 3d. If it has more thickness to its third dimension than a sheet of cardboard, that's 3d.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyel wrote:
2d with removable 3d elements works great for games that really benefit from 2d terrain - can't imagine playing A Song of Ice and Fire or Warmachine on fully 3d terrain.

Well, I can imagine, actually, as I used to occasionally play WFB 6-7ed over 3d terrain and it was always a pain. And 3d hills (or forests with non-removable trees for that matter) can just go to hell, I have never played a game in which they worked.

Which brings me back (not to whip my own dead horse, but I'm about to) to my example of the orcs sneaking out of the woods to ambush the princess and her cavalier guard as they come up the forested road. How, exactly, do you accomplish that with 3d terrain when its all a solid piece? Again, I've seen a lot that is really beautiful in its own right, but just isn't feasible for gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eilif wrote:
We also use allot of trees, but they're removable and placed on bases that delineate the actual forested area.

Which is the best way to do it, if you have to go 3d.

If I were to argue AGAINST my example of the palace coup being only workable in 2d, I'd do it by pointing out that while a fully constructed palace might not work, stand-alone-walls, doors, banquet tables, etc., might do pretty well. Even here, you are going to run into problems with solid things trying to push each other out of the way, which doesn't happen with drawn or painted rooms on a flat surface, but it would be easier, certainly, in some not quite so intricate siruations.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Depends entirely on the style of game being played, and how the models interact with the terrain.

Games that involve inertia and limited maneuverability like X-Wing, Armada, and the like are better with 2-d terrain. Or at least the capability of being 2-D, where swanky 3D models (asteroids, dust clouds, etc) can be removed from a standard flat template for when the models interact with them.


Any other game, where models can move however they feel? 3D all the way, accept no substitute. I know lots of people play standard Battletech on the paper maps alone, but man, it's so much better on a board with "real" terrain items, even if you are still using hexes.

And the terrain on hexes/squares thing vs. the measuring stick then rears its head, but I've always been one to avoid that battle whenever I could.

"You're Chasseurs of the Guards are CLEARLY 1/64 of an inch within my lancers zone of control!"

"No they're not!"

"Yes, they are!"

"No they're not!"

"Yes, they are!"

"No they're not!"

"Yes, they are!"

...etc...

Somebody please hand me a pistol and I'll just shoot myself now.