Wherefore "mini-less" D&D assumptions?

Voadam

Legend
I've only played one game of 4e and we used minis. I think it could have gone fine without them but we didn't have any powers that pushed or slid people around, just some area of effect attacks just like in past editions. With a lot of positioning based powers I could see the significantly increased utility of minis.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Orryn Emrys

Explorer
I started playing D&D when I was young, circa 1983, and I distinctly remember miniatures being mentioned in the rulebooks, and available to order in the Mail Order Hobby Shop catalogs, but entirely out of my budget. My first DMs didn't use them, so neither did I. As I grew with the game from a child into adulthood, my combats became increasingly more narrative, my players more in tune with my descriptive style. And a clear majority of the players with whom I've gamed over the years (upwards of 80-some-odd individuals by now) were people I introduced to the tabletop gaming experience. So it was never an issue.

I would occasionally use some sort of tactical representation in large, convoluted combat scenarios, but it was largely a visual aid to supplement my narrative. It helped me and my players keep track of their opponents. By the time 3E came around, despite nearly two decades of gaming, I could count the number of combats I'd supplemented in this fashion on my fingers. Keep in mind, I'd even really enjoyed 2E's Players Option books, and implemented their ideas into my game. Without minis, counter, tokens or combat maps.

It was obvious in the 3E combat chapter that the game was written and developed with tactical aids in mind. With the faith and cooperation of my players, who enjoy my descriptions and ask questions where necessary, I proudly implemented every rule in the book without using a combat grid.

Since my players trust me to provide them with a well-adjudicated and exciting combat experience, I reward them by assuming their characters act with the practice and experience they've garnered. If a PC can move to avoid an attack of opportunity and still reach their target, I'll assume it into their movement. If a PC can't reach a target and attack in the same round, I make sure they understand that they gage the distance appropriately before they act. If it's close, I might inform them that they're uncertain.

That uncertainty is one of the reasons I stay away from tacticals. Although accomplished combatants and tacticians will have a better picture in their heads of any given battle, and I treat them accordingly, the chaos of combat is otherwise prone to make things less clear. I don't feel that the wizard should generally be capable of planting a fireball unerringly in a position where it strikes several enemies and only barely misses his allies. If it's possible, I'll make it possible... but not guaranteed. A combat map offers too many guarantees.

And then there's the matter of running a game that takes place entirely in the imagination, as opposed to one where people focus on minis or counters. I find focusing on the combat map to be distracting, given my style of DMing.

(There's also the matter that combat is not the most important aspect of D&D to our group... Implementation of accessories that slow the narrative while people study a map and move pieces around tend to make battles even longer. Combats are fun, but I don't want them to overshadow the next roleplaying encounter.)

In 4E, much of the tactical power of the game is placed firmly in the hands of the player, with powers that involve small, specific adjustments of position and movement at frequent points throughout the combat. To be fair, this makes the gameplay reliant enough on tactical aids that I am unable to justify running a game without them. I've run a few smaller 4E combats without minis, but that's it. Consequentially, after an initial experiment with the new ruleset, I reverted to 3.5.

Sorry for being so windy. :blush: With gamers who don't approach the game the same way I do, I often find it necessary to defend my decision to run without combat maps. (Though I'll still occasionally use them for epic battles, since pulling out a pretty map and some counters makes it feel like kind of a treat...) And to be honest, I use software that allows me to track every combat on a map on my laptop... so it's not as if I have to guess at anything. I do have players who play in other games that use them... but they very much enjoy my play style as well. And I've enjoyed a level of devotion from my players that many of my fellow DMs often don't seem to.
 
Last edited:

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
This calls for a pole.

I started using a dry erase battle map with 2E, inspired in part by the first edition DMG. Then Players Options: Combat and Tactics came out and (as Merric B has noted) this was the first product that formally required playing on a square grid. 3E actually didn't, but it was clearer the cleaned up more user freindly son of PO:CT.

Before that, the game was scaled in inches, lots of people had minis, lots of stores sold minis, there where lots of adds for minis in Dragon, and some 1E concepts seemed to require them. But it is true that a lot of groups just skimed over those details in practice and didn't use them.
 

Janx

Hero
This calls for a pole.

I started using a dry erase battle map with 2E, inspired in part by the first edition DMG. Then Players Options: Combat and Tactics came out and (as Merric B has noted) this was the first product that formally required playing on a square grid. 3E actually didn't, but it was clearer the cleaned up more user freindly son of PO:CT.

Before that, the game was scaled in inches, lots of people had minis, lots of stores sold minis, there where lots of adds for minis in Dragon, and some 1E concepts seemed to require them. But it is true that a lot of groups just skimed over those details in practice and didn't use them.

Agreed.

Most of my metal minis were bought in the 2E era.

1E distances were measured in INCHES as in measuring on a battlemat or graph paper.

Considering the stereotypical early D&D adventures were dungeon crawls on graph paper, the expectation to play on a grid was quite high.

whether that meant literal miniatures, or "tokens on a grid" is just semantics. The game has always had a default assumtion of "tokens on grid". I suspect that 2E moved the farthest from this. It had the least reference to this (until 2.5E anyway).
 


Aus_Snow

First Post
halp, i needs sum

brain-bleach-225x300.jpg
 


Stoat

Adventurer
I started playing in 1989 with 2E. We almost never used minis or counters for melee combat. (I played a lot of Spelljammer, and we almost always used counters for ship-to-ship combat). I switched to 3E in 2000 and immediately started using minis. I think there are two reasons why. First, the rules seemed to assume minis use, with the focus on the battlegrid, templates for AoE's, etc. Second, my friends and I had accumulated a bunch of Warhammer minis, so we had them handy to use.

w/r/t the OP. I think a couple of issues are at work. First, 4E seems somewhat more mini-centric than 3E, primarily because of the focus on attacks that push, pull or slide combatants. In 3E, the big thing to worry about if you went without the grid were attacks of opportunity. (I assume that a DM who could handle flanking, movement and area attacks without a grid in 1 or 2E could do the same in 3.X.) 4E keeps a simplified version of the AoO, and adds a lot of tactical movement. To me, it looks like an incremental move toward "more minis."

As for older editions, I think a certain amount of self-selection is at work. Folks who enjoyed 1E or 2E with minis are more likely to enjoy 3.X or 4E's focus on minis. I posit that those folks are thus more likely to switch to 3.X or 4E. Folks who didn't use minis in 1E or 2E are less likely to enjoy 3X or 4E's focus on minis. Those folks are more likely to keep playing earlier editions. Over time, earlier editions of the game thus become more associated with non-mini play, because the people who played them with minis have moved on.

Edit: It also seems to me that the folks who complain about 4E's focus on minis are more likely to be 1E Grognards who didn't particularly like 3.X either. I don't know that I've seen too many 3.X players complaining about the use of minis in 4E.
 


coyote6

Adventurer
We mostly always had miniatures when playing D&D -- AD&D1e, Basic, etc. I'm pretty sure the first time I was introduced to AD&D, my lowly 1st level fighter had a miniature to represent him as he got beat up by a guard at the entrance to the Overlord's city-state.

We mostly didn't have a grid, though; the minis were just on the table, as rough representations of where folks were, marching order, and so forth. The first grid we used might have been for Champions; I don't recall for sure.
 

Remove ads

Top