Wherefore "mini-less" D&D assumptions?

Henry · Oct 26, 2009

One thing that's popped out to me in some of the edition "wars"/discussions has been the mention that 4E requires minis, with a seemingly unspoken assumption that previous versions never used them. Back when 3E was new, this would have been quite a shock to me, because the same claims were made about 3E back then; lack of the World Wide Web as a reference medium leaves me unable to tell if the same claims were made about 2E in 1989 or not - and the Dragon magazine letters of the time really didn't focus on it, because most of the negative press wasn't represented or dealt with, from what I can tell.

So, when it's mentioned that 4E requires minis, and this being mentioned as a megative point, I wonder if some people were just dumping a good quarter of the 3E combat system to avoid minis - Op attacks, spells and class abilities that affected 5-foot steps, bull rushes, armor speed reductions, Huge Monster threat ranges, etc. For that matter, even back in 1E, a large portion (or maybe even the majority, from informal polls I've seen) of AD&D gamers used minis, or some form of spatial representation in order to play.

I have to wonder - I know AD&D1 and 3E can be played without minis with plenty of trust in a DM (and even 4E could, too), but did so many people swim against the current that 3E was perceived by many as a "mini-less" game?

I know I have personally used them for the nine years I've played 3E and d20, and would only not use them in a very, very, short engagement that didn't involve much moving around, like "you're around the campfire, and a single big monster attacks. Roll init!" But in any combat with, say, 5 or 10 opponents, or in interesting terrain, I'm busting out those minis, for goodness sake, because I don't want to short change my fighters who invested in those cleave and tripping feats, and I don't want the wizard getting away with dropping fireballs with pinpoint "laser-guided bomb" accuracy and not have to worry about the party.

Aus_Snow · Oct 26, 2009

Henry said:
One thing that's popped out to me in some of the edition "wars"/discussions has been the mention that 4E requires minis, with a seemingly unspoken assumption that previous versions never used them.

Really? I've often heard (in such 'wars') that 4e requires the use of minis, to more of an extent than previous editions. That it's even more hardwired to the system core than in 3e, in other words.

Not saying I agree, by the way, but I've actually never heard what you have heard, regarding 4e vs. 3e (possibly vs. others too). I mean, it could be the case that 4e is more so than 3e. But, equally, they might be much of a muchness. *shrug* Dunno.

Perhaps some of the original angst might've been re: WotC releasing its own minis, particularly the prepainted ones. . .? I can definitely see that (I mean, people arguing that case) - but that would've been for 3e, just as much as for 4e. More so, because it was 'new'. :hmm:

Herremann the Wise · Oct 26, 2009

When I used to play AD&D at school, it was all in the theatre of the mind. However, since 2e our group has always used minis - I think combined in our group we've got over the 10,000 mark.

If reverting back to mini-less combat, I would say our group would have trouble with 3e and find it almost impossible with 4e. In terms of 4e, we use battlemap/map cardstock/terrain models, power cards, ritual cards, minis, condition tokens and even physical fantasy-play coins to go with our character sheets. To go back to just a character sheet would not be as much fun (if not impossible for our group).

I think it is one of things that people like to add on to a "this is why I don't like edition x" list when in reality, I think a much smaller number would have genuine issues with it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Mouseferatu · Oct 26, 2009

I never used minis in 1E or 2E. Heck, I didn't know what minis were for much of 1E. In the case of truly complicated combats, we occasionally used markers--dice or coins or whatnot--just to get positioning straight.

I didn't use minis for the early years of 3E, but as the game progressed, I found myself doing so more and more. I think I could play 4E without them, or go back to playing 3E without them, but I think in both cases you'd lose so many options and so much variety that it wouldn't be worth it.

Herobizkit · Oct 26, 2009

The whole concept of minis was foreign to me until the advent of 3rd edition. In rare cases, I might have used a chess board to give a general idea of what's where. If 4 PC's are attacked by 10 orcs, for example, the toughest PC's get 2 or 3 at a time and the rest either hang back and use ranged attacks/spells, or go after weaker foes.

In essence, 3.x Rogues REQUIRE the use of minis, otherwise the DM basically decides if he wants his monster to die quickly or slowly to the Sneak Attack damage. I understand that WotC designed the DDM to become the basis for their 3.x comabt engine, and so the many foibles of tabletop war-gaming came with. And from what I've been told, it's impossible to play 4e without minis. Bleah.

MerricB · Oct 26, 2009

Herobizkit said:
And from what I've been told, it's impossible to play 4e without minis. Bleah.

Rubbish. My past three sessions of 4e have been without minis, including the final session of King of the Trollhaunt Warrens and the first of Demon Queen's Enclave, so the PCs are around 13th level.

The group has a fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard and warlock. They use quite a few area and control effects.

It's all about description and visualisation. If your group prefers minis (and mine often does), then you use minis. If they prefer a more freeform version of combat, then you don't need them.

Every version of D&D has benefitted from the use of minis for resolving area of effects and relative positioning of combatants. 3E and 4E merely give a more robust system of using minis in combat (pioneered in 3e by Player's Option: Combat and Tactics) and allow more tactical play using them.

The game hardly breaks because you're not using minis.

Cheers!

Ariosto · Oct 26, 2009

The importance of precise positions in 3e struck me right away, perhaps in part because from the first session of my experience a grid and miniatures were always used. I can sort of imagine playing without them, although I've heard that 3.5 made that trickier. With 4e, not only is the board game ubiquitous in my experience but the rules seem built around it at least as much as in old DragonQuest or The Fantasy Trip.

(I love TFT!)

My gang usually used markers with RuneQuest, too, because the level of detail suggested it. With Tunnels & Trolls? Never! With Advanced D&D? Sometimes. Pretty often, the characters' figurines got set up in "marching order" and then just forgotten.

Some people were really into the miniatures, had great collections (even monsters!) and always deployed them (and maybe scenery) for games at home. Even they sometimes did not haul to a club meet "visual aids" other than paper and pencil or something like a plastic sheet and grease pencil or china marker -- which might be used without grid or markers. Sessions in borrowed college classrooms typically used blackboards.

I don't see 4e as a big departure in this regard from 3e. I find that either one just chews up way too much time and energy on fights and preparation for fights to deliver what I want in a D & D game.

Mouseferatu · Oct 26, 2009

BTW, for the record, I still don't use many official D&D minis. I have a small collection--maybe a couple dozen I got off eBay--and I use them to stand in for anything of roughly the same size. And often, I don't even use those; I'm quite happy using dice, counters, or anything else.

In fact, I've found that if I use dice of the same type to represent the same kind of creature--for instance "d10s are bugbears, d6s are goblins"--and I turn the dice so that different numbers are facing up for each one, I actually find that easier to keep track of than if I'm using a bunch of miniatures.

Thunderfoot · Oct 26, 2009

Just a guess here (I in no way endorse the idea) but it may have to do with the way the system was demoed in the first, early days of the system.
As an RPGA judge that help introduce it, it was pretty much required that EVERY movement in game be adjudicated with minis (or markers).

While I can see how it can be played without minis I also understand how the original concept as pushed by WotC meant that EVERY movement was cataloged by a mini or marker, from the time you started the session.

That being said, I find both systems (3.x and 4e) require at least a decent marker system to FULLY utilize the system rules (meaning, yes I believe they can be played without minis, but I wouldn't want to try it.) However if there is an argument that 4e is necessarily more minis intensive, no, it doesn't have to be.

As for earlier additions, not until I started running battles with 7 or more participants did minis become a necessity. Until 1994 the sum total of battles I ran with minis was a whopping 4 - and I started playing in 1978.

Ariosto · Oct 26, 2009

The game hardly breaks because you're not using minis.

That makes sense, although it may be significant in this context that the game now seems quite often to work in terms of five-foot squares and that spell-like Powers are getting tossed around a lot.

Mostly, 3e/4e players in general seem just a whole lot more interested in that fiddly stuff. In the old game, we might sometimes "zoom in" our resolution beyond the pretty abstract default. Mostly, though, the first really big decision is whether to stand and fight -- and the next is what to do considering the consequences.