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

[Mallus]

My groups uses a map and mini's every session, well, except the ones that are combat-free exercises in vaguely fantasy-themed, absurdist amatuer theatre...

You can probably tell that for us, combining mini's with a lot of roleplaying isn't an issue.

That said, I can see the problem some folks have with the, err, peculiar tactical wargame that is such a part of D&D. The big disconnect I see is between the cinematic derring-do that some players try to visualize, and the strange, jargon-laden dance-of-no-AoO's in the universe where Planck space = 5 ft. that D&D combat usually is.

(Kudos to my friend Paul for the Planck space line...)

 

[qstor]

I dont consider it a trust thing. I have done both and while I agree using Minis can "disconnect" you to roleplaying, instead focusing on the tactical aspect when you dont use minis, many feats *seem* to start losing thier effectiveness. Esp Combat Reflexes. Thats just my experience anyway.

I agree and Cleave doesn't see to work as well either.

Mike

 

[Mouseferatu]

Some interesting points, Mike. I'm not sure my experience agrees with yours on all of them, though.

First, I can assure you that the decision not to use minis--on my part, and on the other DMs I play with--had little if anything to do with reducing the power of choice of the players. In fact, looking at my games, I think I'm a little more generous with their capabilities without the mat. Now obviously, experiences differ with different groups; I just want to point out that it's not always an issue of DM vs. Player control.

The other issue is that, again IME, using the minis does detract from roleplaying--but not in the way many peolple think it will. It's not "Oh, I've got a figure on the board, I don't need to stay in character." (Though I have seen that.)

It's that I have never seen a fight that didn't take at least twice as long with minis as it could have without them.

Square counting. Figuring out the best route to avoid AoOs. Perfect positioning of spells. I've never seen a fight with a battlemat that didn't have all of these. Sure, the fight might be more "accurate," but it also takes substantially more time. Even if you allow for the occasional repeating of details in a narrative fight--"Wait, where did you say that last drider was?"--it still takes longer with the minis. (Yet again, IME.)

And when a single fight takes longer, it leaves less time for anything else--including plot, character development, investigation, and role-playing.

So I'm not attempting to suggest that people who use minis don't roleplay, nor that minis are always detrimental to the game. But if you're one of those who considers combat only a single part of a larger whole, as opposed to the main focus of the game, the extra accuracy of minis isn't always worth the cost in time and meta-game thinking.

 

[Aristotle]

Lots of mini talk recently...

I don't know what my group is doing that others aren't but I have never felt, or heard complaints about, a disconnection from the role playing experience from any player I have run games for in the past. The role playing keeps happening, and the players keep making choices based on their characters' natures whether the minis are on the table or not.

In my experience the miniatures only slightly lengthen the combat round. Time that was taken up with repetitive questions of "what's near me?" or "where is everyone again" is just replaced with player's looking at the grid and the minis and figuring that stuff out for themselves. I've also found the players seem to feel they have more liberty with their characters actions. They don't feel they are being lead by the game master.

On the ocassion that I don't put out the grid and minis; the players will often take it upon themselves to put out dice, cups, cigarette packs, and other objects as I describe a scene to get the relative position of things. If they are going to do it anyway, I might as well let them use my nice grid and minis.

 

[Klaus]

Disclaimer: I draw counters. There ya go.

If anything, I've found that graphic representation of combat (hereby termed GRoC), be it minis or counters, ADDS to roleplaying.

When I don't use minis, rooms gradually fade to featureless boxes in the minds of the players, mere minutes after I describe them. With GRoC, the room is THERE, they can see it and paint a picture in their minds.

And best of all, they interact with it! From the ranger who leaps across a stream as part of a charge against a foe that attacked his wolf, to the PC who jumps atop an altar to better smash the trog cleric with his weapon, to the rogue sneaking from stalagmite to stalagmite in order to gain cover, all these events, IMO, ARE roleplaying. You're acting as if you were there, in combat with deadly foes, taking their reach into account when moving about (or do you think a fighter would just cross a room, oblivious to his enemies?) and otherwise trying to be the most effective combatant possible.

BUT (there's always a but, isn't there?) I've seen that minis and stand-ups tend to distract players more than flat counters. Maybe it's the fact that counters are a compromise between abstract combat and full 3-D GRoC. All I know is that every time I've seen minis and standups used, some player or the other would pick his mini and move it around making little steps, or make the mini dance, or make his mini beat up the foe's mini, or make a little scene with other minis.

 

[Aristotle]

Square counting. Figuring out the best route to avoid AoOs. Perfect positioning of spells. I've never seen a fight with a battlemat that didn't have all of these. Sure, the fight might be more "accurate," but it also takes substantially more time. Even if you allow for the occasional repeating of details in a narrative fight--"Wait, where did you say that last drider was?"--it still takes longer with the minis. (Yet again, IME.)

Square Counting for the purpose of movement, avoiding attack, and placing ranged attacks or spells is definately a common occurence when a grid is in place. I expect someone who fights for a living to be able to determine whether they should be able to cross a certain distance in the alloted time, how to move through a fight to attempt to avoid getting bushwacked, or how to judge distances for the purpose of a ranged attack or spell (a miss indicates they innacurately judged that distance). I've known people, both trained military and civilian, who were frighteningly good at judging distances, weights, and so on. The counting of squares is the game mechanic to allow the players to make these judgements.

I concede that it can, and often does, take a little longer to count the squares ... but the players can take some of that burden by counting the squares and deciding what they want to do in their head while waiting their turn (using the grid as a constant reminder of where things are and where things are moving as their turn approaches). This, IME, has once again allowed for a great deal more freedom and 'fluidity' in combat. Now I get "I'm stepping forward (5 foot step) and loosing 3 arrows on the orc by the fire pit. He's within 30 feet so class ability A should be in effect," where as before I would get "Is that guy less than 30 feet away? No, how about the others? How about if I step forward? Okay, I guess I'll do that."

All IME as well ... and I understand that what works for me might not work for others. I'm just grateful I play with people who like to play the way I do. I would hate to be in a group that didn't like to use minis, as I'm sure a player who didn't like to use minis would hate to be in mine. *shrug*

 

[Harmon]

The few games I have run without figures- I feel that I miss something in every fight, that I spend more time trying to scrible down notes as the location of villians and PCs and such a lose track of the roleplaying aspect- like a distraction.

Maybe I am lazy, maybe I don't want to work that hard at keeping track of all the people and such, or (more then likely) I find that few descriptions of things stick in my head (its part of a learning disability I have). Figures help and I will continue to use them for as long as I can because it adds to the flavor of the game.

Cool thread btw.

 

[Afrodyte]

I think I'd enjoy using minis and battlemats if they weren't so bland. If you're going to be visual, be visual. Besides the little PC and NPC figures, how about introducing some terrain features and little prop pieces? What about a little pop-up sort of thing that suggests stairs or towers and the like? Basically, I want little details that add to making the game seem more like fantasy roleplaying than a chess board.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think I'd enjoy using minis and battlemats if they weren't so bland. If you're going to be visual, be visual. Besides the little PC and NPC figures, how about introducing some terrain features and little prop pieces? What about a little pop-up sort of thing that suggests stairs or towers and the like? Basically, I want little details that add to making the game seem more like fantasy roleplaying than a chess board.

Dry erase battlemats.

Draw the scene to your heart's content, add terrain, pits, levers, stalagmites, rocks, slopes, anything you can think of!

 

[der_kluge]

I've found a lot of instances, when I play without miniatures, that I lose a lot of the detail of the combat and the surroundings. I really appreciate being able to plan my moves, and make better tactical decisions. Let's face it, the game is designed with miniatures in mind. A lot of combat is just plain easier with minis - certain feats already mentioned, and things like bull rush, and a lot of spells like wall of force, and ice storm rely on knowledge of who is where. The GM is also missing out on these aspects as well, to be able to utilize interesting terrain features to full advantage. All of these elements really add a lot to the game, in my opinion.