My DM doesn't want to use miniatures...

[Wombat]

I don't find the minis all that necessary. And, as has been said, once the minis come out, roleplaying goes right out the window. Dumb, friendly characters suddenly become vicious tacticians, the arguments over movement and time-needed-to-plan-a-move goes way up, and overall the game shifts from a roleplaying game to a tactical battle.

Do we suddenly stop before casting a spell to look through tomes of magic to find the what stance the wizard should take? Do we map out the minutiae of every lock and demand that the rogue have exactly the right tools? Do we ask the bard what songs are being sung before he starts to charm his audience in case the music is out of fashion? If not, why do we demand to know exactly how each character is moving?

Personally, my players and I got along just fine without miniatures in the past. Why should I change to them now?

 

[GlassJaw]

I wouldn't play in a 3ed campaign without minis. While I don't necessarily use them for every single encouter and some of the encouters do become a tactical exercise, having them makes life a lot easier. I actually think the game becomes too "free form" without them. While some people definitely like this style, as a DM, I like some structure so I can keep everything in order. 3ed combat is complex enough - having minis at least gives you a visual aid.

And I really don't buy the whole "better role-playing without minis" argument. I actually think it can help. Anything that adds to the visuals is a plus.

 

[punkorange]

I have used miniatures off and on, but normally we don't use miniatures. If it comes down to needing to know something exactly, we draw a grid. I think we may try using miniatures in the next few weeks to see how we like it, but as it is we don't have a problem.


My group is tactical enough without miniatures, I'm hoping it doesn't slow down the game.

 

[Umbran]

I only occasionally use minis (or other graphic representation), and when I use it shows what I think the strengths and weaknesses of minis are.

I use the minis when it's goign to be a large, complicated, or very important fight, or one that will take a long time to resolve. Miniatures actually help speed up such combats, because they eliminate the problem of everyone having a different picture of the action in their head. No more, "I thought he was across the room." discussions. Minis put everyone on the same page, at a glance, and that's a good thing.

For simpler, shorter fights, the minis slow things down. If there are only a few mooks who are going to go down with just a sword thrust or two, the setup and use time for a battlemat can be longer thant he fight, so I don't use it.

In general, even my most role-play heavy players like judicious use of the battlemat.

 

[Melkor]

I've never understood people who say "It requires more trust of the DM" and mean that as a bad thing. As far as I'm concerned, requiring more trust of the DM is a great thing. If you don't trust your DM, why are you playing with him?

Mouseferatu - I get where you are coming from: There is no reason to play the game in the first place if there are issues that go beyond the gaming table - as in, "not trusting the person running the game".

Perhaps "trust" was the wrong word to use.....Trusting his ability to keep up with all of the minutia appropriate to the tactical side of D&D combats with multiple oponents clarifies what I meant a bit better. Reach weapons, AoOs, Spell effects, 5' steps, creature attacks (tail slap), etc., etc., etc.......(because I don't even trust MY OWN ability to keep up with everything involved in using a "mental map" and no physical representation to keep track of large combats). That's a hell of a lot for one person to keep track of without letting small things slip through the cracks that might really have an overall impact on the outcome of a combat.

I've edited my original post to more closely resemble the thought I was trying to convey.

That said, I just wanted to hear thoughts from you folks on how your games have run in the past without minis, and if you foresee any major issues or hurdles....

Thanks

 

[Henry]

I've never understood people who say "It requires more trust of the DM" and mean that as a bad thing. As far as I'm concerned, requiring more trust of the DM is a great thing. If you don't trust your DM, why are you playing with him?

I say that because the DM is human, he sometimes forgets where PCs and opponents are placed in terms of spatial representation, which can can screw people out of their hard-chosen feats.

If I were going to run it without minis, I would either greatly alter or delete all feats that depend on Op-attacks. Mobility and spring attack and combat reflexes, for instance, I would remove. Tumble I would adjudicate much more freely, and give people the chance to move through enemy lines with it, and have the only ways through being to either tumble or bulldoze.

Having used minis for my AD&D since the late 1980's, I enjoy using them, and not using them is not my cup of tea unless a vast consensus of the other players wanted it.

 

[Cor Azer]

And, as has been said, once the minis come out, roleplaying goes right out the window.

Much as I agree you don't need miniatures, I really don't agree with that opinion (not to pick 9on you for saying it Wombat, yours was just the post I noticed with it first).

Honestly, if your players lose their ability to role-play when miniatures come out, I think it's the fault of the players (if, indeed, it is even considered a fault), not the miniatures themselves. Adding more visual aids should only help players... not bind them to a straightjacket.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Get rid of attacks of opportunity. Just check them wholesale out the window. Give monsters a special feature where they can attack anyone who comes wtihin their reach if it's past 5' and the same to weapons that have reach past 5'.

And then be prepared to have some type of issue when you're hit by spells. Have something on hand to minimize the arguements either in the form of the map of where you're at for crucial combats or suffer under the vagueness. (Problem I suffered in 1st and 2nd ed which lead to miniature use in the first place.)

 

[AuraSeer]

I dislike mapless combat because it's less forgiving of attention lapses. If a player goes to answer the phone or pay the pizza guy or even take a bathroom break, he becomes disconnected from the narrative. By the time he gets back characters will have moved, spells may have gone off, and the battlefield no longer matches his mental picture. Then he's liable to take useless or even counterproductive actions because he doesn't know the situation.

I used to do miniless combat under earlier editions, but it never worked out very well. After the third time I had to retcon a PC death due to out-of-sync mental images, I started using minis to show relative positions. Eventually I graduated to a Battlemat and never looked back.

In my current campaign we couldn't possibly do without the map, because some of our players have small children, and they occasionally need to wander off and do parent stuff. When they return, it's immensely helpful that they can glance at the map and see the whole situation, so we need not stop the game and recap all actions they missed.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

To me, D&D includes minis of some sort, even if the map and locations are vague. I like mixing RP w/ tactics and RPing doesn't HAVE to end when minis are drawn. I do tactically dumb things if it's what my character would do. No ranks in Swim, sure, I'll dive in to save the drowning kid. BBEG gonna coup de gras a fellow PV, sure, I'll suck up some AoO to get over there and stop him.

I think you all understand my babbling.