Is gaming without map and minis really bad?

[blargney the second]

A picture is worth a thousand words.
A battlemat is a picture.
I have two players who can't pay attention for more than three sentences.
-blarg

 

[tonym]

It looked to me they were examples of the player either not understanding what the DM described or the DM describing thing badly. So, it could be bad players or a bad DM, not just a controling DM.

Ack! You said it! "BAD PLAYERS"!

That is exactly why I kept my mouth shut when the ambush became weirdly unrealistic. I knew it was either the DM's fault or that I was a bad player. But the DM was really, really good (a published novelist, even). So must I not be the bad player?

Yet I'm not a bad player! So then what?

The answer: The DM is not bad and I am not bad. Playing the sceanrio without minis was bad.

I was listening to the DM describe the landscape, but I thought I understood the descriptions when I really didn't. How can that make me a bad player?

Here's another scenario...

A mini-less DM once erred (IMO) by over-describing a room.

He described this room for about three or four minutes. I tried my best to remember details, but the more he added, the more I forgot. When he said there was a door in the west wall, I kept repeating to myself, "Door on the west wall...door on the west wall."

After the DM stopped describing the room, I quickly said, "I walk over to the door on the west wall and examine it." I could tell the other players didn't even remember that door being mentioned.

There is no way we players remembered even 50% of the complicated room, yet none of us asked the DM to repeat the description of the room. I'm guessing the reason is that no one wanted to look dumb, or appear like they were bad players who were not paying attention.

Here's something else to chew on. When a DM does not use minis, his players may even occasionally pretend to understand a description when they actually don't, so they won't be seen as bad players. Then, when an ambush or battle gets screwed-up, the players will keep quiet and blame themselves for not having asked more information early-on. (I've done that.)

Give me minis or give me death.

Tony M

 

[tonym]

What does a PC dying have to do with the DM being a jerk? He's the ref after all and if the PC dies, he dies.

Nothing. I'm just saying nice people want to do nice things, even DMs.

I think players shouldn't think their DM is a jerk for letting their character die. That's how the game is played.

I'm saying if I was DM and my wife's PC was about to die, I'd be compelled to save her if there were no minis to reign-in my niceness.

I could've phrased it all better.

Tony M

 

[tonym]

Either he can reach the potion or not. It doesn't depend on me choosing if he can. It depends on where the potion is, where he is, and if he can reach it in time.

But you decide the distance between characters arbitrarily. There is no reference for you to reference, other than a blank map of a dungeon, if even that.

You are not Bobby Fisher; you are not brilliant at spacial relationships. You are not capable of mentally tracking the movement of numerous points in motion on a map with anything close to the accuracy of a DM using minis. Like all mini-less DMs, you have a vague idea where PCs and monsters are, at best.

You may filter your players' questions about locations through several mental mechanisms before you decide "yes" or "no," but you are nowhere near as impassive as you think you are. If your players are happy, you are keeping them happy via choosing friendly outcomes more often than not in situations where the outcome is totally your judgment call.

If you repeatedly said "no" to your players, your players would be unhappy because they know you are making decisions about PC and monster locations based partly on what you feel like saying at the time.

The only thing that keeps your players from thinking you are a jerk is that you are not a jerk. You must say "yes" when it really counts, for example. Among other patterns.

You have discovered patterns that make your players happy. That's great. I think all DM's who forego minis should strive for that.

However, patterns are predictable, as I said.


PLAYER: Is there a spot in the room that I can position the fireball where it will get most or all of the orcs, but none of us?

NOT-A-JERK DM: Last round, it would've been no. Luckily, the orcs pressed the party forward a bit...so yes. You safely get all the orcs, except for...(rolls die)...one.

PLAYER: Wow, lucky me!


Tony M

 

[Aus_Snow]

yes - at least for the current edition of the game.

No.

 

[babomb]

I like to have minis (by which I mean assorted D&D minis that usually look very little like the character/monster, pokemon standees, lego men, counters, and on one occasion candies) to make it easy for everyone to remember where the combatants are. In the game I'm currently running, I just eyeball distances rather than use a grid.

 

[wedgeski]

But you decide the distance between characters arbitrarily. There is no reference for you to reference, other than a blank map of a dungeon, if even that.

There is a lot of truth in what you're saying, and it's starting to illuminate what, to me, may be one of the most basic reasons why some DM's despise the battle-mat so much.

 

[Odhanan]

From the Red Box set:

This game doesn’t have a board, because
you won’t need one. Besides, no
board could have all the dungeons,
dragons, monsters, and characters you
will need!

There's nothing wrong with playing D&D without map or minis, so long as all the players support this play choice. That's perfectly fine.

 

[BryonD]

I agree. Minis help bad DMs and can avoid confusion and miscommunication. I disagree that no minis makes the game more predictiable or that the game is less deadly.

I agree with you on both of these points.
Minis or the lack thereof have no impact on predictability or deadliness.

The critical pieces, imo, and roughly in order are:
A good DM
then
Decent agreeable players
then
A good ruleset for the game style

If you got those, then you will have a good game and everything else is gravy.

I find minis to be a really excellent gravy.

 

[BryonD]

I get the feeling that you don't trust your DM's motives.

Trust but verify????

Seriously, I think you're being a bit over harsh on this.
You don't have to distrust a DM to find added fun in having things physically set.
And there will always be times, even with the best DM ever to sit at a table, where an player idea will come up that the DM had not thought of. So the DM is forced to make a choice after knowing exactly what the implication of their choice will be. It isn't a lack of trust to understand that the DM is still human.

Does that mean no minis is a bad thing? No, absolutely not.
But there are certainly positives that minis bring to the game and this is one of them.
I don't think it is a fair argument to try to discount this very real advantage by implying that DMs should be unreasonably assumed immune to any hint of bias, either towards or against players or towards or against impacts to the plot of the game. Even if the DM is 100% convinced that they ignore all bias, they can be wrong. AND there is value to the players in KNOWING (not just trusting) that they got through (or failed) fairly.

That is an upside that any great game can easily persist for years without ever needing. But it remains an upside.