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 think we can all probably guess my opinion.

for me 3d terrain, if playing with card token terrain may as well play with card token units

having played Necromunda on flat card and on a full 3d table I know which is better

3d terrain needs thought to be playable but it works fine

3D terrain provides a vastly superior experience. 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. There is nothing gained from sim like terrain interactions in my experience. They never work and only lead to arguments and people making tables that are less fun to play on to minimize arguments.

I guess I would argue your point about 2D terrain being "more gameable".

There are plenty of games that use a Zone of Control or an All Cover is Cover type mechanic that makes gaming with 3D terrain just as easy as flat terrain.

It is only "True LOS" combined with a certain "gamist mentality" where 3D terrain is a problem at all.

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!

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.

 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.

terrain is what you make of it, having played Napoleonic era stuff its remarkably simple to have stuff like hedge rows that are there as pure decoration and removable if they get in the way

comes down to what the game is, I mean for dungeon crawl RPG and similar I don't think I have ever bothered with a mat, 2d or 3d terrain, I have a map, if the players want one, thats up to them. especially since they are not getting accurate measurements evil laughter

for skirmish games its usually down to practicality - e.g. hills tend to be stepped or shallow slopes, trees and buildings are in effect never to scale anyway, and for 15mm saw WW2 a few buildings are representing many more so its all a bit abstract regardless

use whatever suits the game and players

 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. ;-)!

On the contrary, you may find avoiding fire rather difficult if diving for cover on top of flat squares of paper and cardboard...

On a more serious note....

For me it's 3d whenever possible.

2d is only "more gameable" if you only want to game in 2 dimensions. If height matters at all -whether stories in a building, bridges that can be crossed over or under, or the difference between a crate and a wall- then 2d is actually less gameable. Additionally, for someone who counted Necromunda as one of his earliest gaming purchases/inspirations, 2d was never really going to cut it.

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.

IMHO, completely flat terrain is essentially boardgaming and that's a perfectly worthy pursuit, but not what I'm looking for when I want a "miniature wargame". If the terrain is flat, why not the units as well?

Lastly, the title of this thread is "...which... is preferable". I think it's already clear which type of terrain most miniature wargamers find preferable, but to illustrate that point see the pictures below of my table for the "Grimdark Grinder" at TMX last weekend. 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.

 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.

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:

 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.

Thoughts...

1a) Space-crunch : Not sure why you think this is such a strong argument. Whatever you're building, build it big enough with some leeway for what you're trying to use it for. If your terrain is too small for what you want to do, build something different.

1b) Palace Coup. Put a rank of troops on top the wall and put the rest of the tray off to the side. Done and Done. Worked for us for our KoW finale Siege this year and it still looked far better than a flat piece of paper representing a castle wall.

1c) Mishaps. Mishaps are a thing, but that's just part of life. The danger of breaking something awesome is a poor argument against building something awesome and bringing it out to share it's awesomeness with others.

3) Yes. Size matters. Stuff and Scenario work hand-in-hand in wargaming and at wargaming conventions. No reason not to have both. Folks will generally sign up for a game on a 2d surface if it's something that is usually played that way (naval game, board game with miniatures, etc) but a flat version of a normally 3d game is going to be a very hard sell. Attendees at a convention have a limited amount of time and usually many games to choose from. I've been going to conventions for about a decade now, nearly always running a less common (or frankly unknown) independent wargame and it's my experience that folks will gravitate towards the spectacle of something wonderful, especially if it's more than they experience on a regular gaming night.

If you will permit me to make an assumption about you...
This thread and some of your others indicate that you approach wargaming like a boardgamer, board-wargamer (hex-and-chit) or a tabletop RPG'er. That's just fine and you express valid reasons for your points of view. However, folks on a miniature wargaming forum just aren't likely to find your points about storage, durability, tight confines and extreme affordability, more compelling than the spectacle of beautifully constructed miniature figures and environments.

Put more simply, Miniature Wargaming is set apart by it's use of "miniatures" and miniatures are not just the figures, it's also the miniature world in which those figures enact their stories.*

*Thanks for forcing the issue though, this sentence sums up my point of view and I'd never have expressed it quite so succinctly to myself or others if not for having to type it out in response to your post.

 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.

3D every time.

How do you “crawl under the tree” in 2D?

How do I tell which storey the model is supposed to be on?

No contest ...

It depends largely on the game I'm playing.
Some work better/worse with one type or another.
Some, like any airplane or space ship combat game, would be very impractical (maybe impossible?) With with 3d terrain....

3D almost every time.

Except for Battlefleet Gothic. 2D works much better for that. I've played BFG on tables with fancy styrofoam ball planets, but sooner or later you want to park your battlecruiser on top of one ...

Also, for some reason, my brain accepts the 'look' of 2D terrain plus miniatures for a spaceship game, because the ship models themselves aren't the 'real' units. Each unit is a point at the centre of its base, and the ship model is just helpful decoration on top. That makes it closer to a flat hex-and-counter wargame than other miniatures games to my mind.

For everything else, though ... well, the first purchase I ever made at a GW store as a teen (other than a couple of Space Marines and some paints) was the old How to Make Wargames Terrain book. I started out playing Space Crusade and Heroquest. Terrain is one of the things that makes tabletop wargames stand out from boardgames and first attracted me to the hobby. It's like model trains, but you can go pew pew kaboom on it instead of just standing back and admiring it.

Come to think of it, that might account for a difference in preference for 3D vs 2D. If you look at it as "a cool model landscape, THAT YOU CAN PLAY GAMES ON", then 3D will appeal more, and 2D will seem like it's defeating the point. Conversely, if you approach it as "a boardgame, WITHOUT THE BOARD", then 3D terrain may seem like a nice but unnecessary and sometimes awkward embellishment.

2D plus miniatures works for me in a boardgame or a tabletop RPG--for the same mysterious reason that I genuinely prefer identical monopose miniatures in a boardgame whereas I hate the copy-paste look in a tabletop wargame.

As Andy Chambers once wrote:

"Miniatures gaming isn't chess or draughts or even Drach nach Osten (an old board wargame), it isn't played on a strictly delineated playing area with a set number of pre-defined pieces. Miniatures gaming is all about colour, movement and breathing life into the armies you lovingly amass and then drive headlong into your opponent."

- Epic 40,000 Battles Book, 1997

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.

I like 2d for DnD and the likes.
For Wargaming it's only 3d. Also, having played Zone Mortalis on both 2d (necromunda tiles) and 3d (og FW resin), I can most definitely say 3d terrain causes way fewer issues, there's no "this base goes over wall by 1mm", 3d is just simply "you don't fit - you place where it fits".

Don't get me wrong, 2D terrain certainly has it's place. I own more tile-sets and map sheets than any sane person should, but they have appropriate uses.

I would never use 'em for 40k, but for RPGs and whatnot they're great.

Zenithfleet wrote:
3
As Andy Chambers once wrote:

"Miniatures gaming isn't chess or draughts or even Drach nach Osten (an old board wargame), it isn't played on a strictly delineated playing area with a set number of pre-defined pieces. Miniatures gaming is all about colour, movement and breathing life into the armies you lovingly amass and then drive headlong into your opponent."

- Epic 40,000 Battles Book, 1997

That's a great quote and very much how I feel. Of course the "Drive Headlong" bit at the end firmly reminds us that he's writing for Games Workshop...

 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

3 D no question. I'm not trying to play warmachine or with flat tokens

 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?

NapoleonInSpace 810188 11545680 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...

...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

-I'm not as deep into RPGS, but as far as I can tell they really run the gammut. Some are largely cooperative theaters of the mind, some are PCs VS DM slugfests and some are in the middle. The approach to physical representation varies as well, from nothing but a character sheet, to figures on a board, to full terrain. Much like other games there's something for everyone.

-I think we share a similar feeling about the emphasis on strategy and rewarding it but also necessity for some luck in each wargaming outcome.

- the"3D skyscraper " is a bit of a red herring. I put some sizable terrain on tables (yes, I have a 3D skyscraper), but none of that is as dangerous to figures as the "a trip to the floor" any miniature is at risk of as soon as it is placed on the tabletop.

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.

3d.

If you go for 2d might just as well put paper tokens for models.

3d models only make sense with 3d terrain.

Have to agree with the above. If the models are 3D, terrain should ideally also be 3D. Might as well go all the way into Cars Wars territory (all paper tokens, all the time) if we are sticking in 2D

 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 ?

 NapoleonInSpace wrote:
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 ?

I'm not telling you to throw away your dice, or your 2d terrain or your super cheap Risk mini armies, or anything else. I have I zero idea who Andy Chambers is or theory behind him or the cost of super expensive games that I do not play. I am poor. I play solo onepage rules with a mixture of cheap dnd minis, scratchbuilt stuff and some GW infantry. I've never played 40k or AOS or any other wargame besides OPR. I came here from TTRPGs because I thought orks and gobbos looked like fun to paint and I like the simpler flow of combat in OPR when I want to play a combat game and I like making little narratives and stories. I know so so so little about wargaming theory or anything like that. I just originally posted in this thread to say I like 3D terrain, it's pretty and helps me get into the world, because you asked why we like what we do.

I've made a couple TTRPGs and they're all focused on escapism and exploring a world other than our own. There's not any combat in them and dice rolls pull from a list to generate what happens. I've gotten a lot of really positive feedback from other women that like that sort of game. Sometimes the journey of the story is more important than the outcome of victory. Not everything has to be a competition.

I'm not saying everyone has to do the same thing at all, or "group think", I'm really perplexed because I have directly stated the exact opposite multiple times now.

3d all the way

Well apart from X-Wing but that's more of a rules / practically thing, having removable 3d Rocks on top of the flat templates would be nice but the hassle of moving them if a ship moves over (or even near with the most sticky out ones like the Shuttles) is more faff than its worth