Miniatures and Role-playing games

[was]

I am in the middle of an argument with a friend over whether or not miniatures enchance the gaming experience or detract from it. He says that they are a crutch
and reminds me of the 2nd ed. games we used to play without the minis. I'm not sure that I agree with him, but I can see his argument. So I thought that I'd ask and see what other folks here think.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have been using minis since I first trying the game in 1977. I have also played without minis. I prefer using them.

1) I think they're fun.

2) They minimize disagreements about who was where and when.

 

[Dice4Hire]

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], that is my experience also. Maps help make sure who is where and doing what. Of course I play high rules systems. If I did a more freeform or rules-light game, I might do it differently.

 

[Rune]

I rarely used them in the 2e or 3e days, but I used them frequently in the 3.5 days and early 4e days.

I used to like them a lot, but I run games mostly at other people's houses and I got real tired of taking a bunch of minis (and a library of books) with me to sessions. For me, they were far more hindrance than crutch.

Frankly, I'd been moving toward streamlining play for some years, anyway, so when I finally stopped using a battle-map and minis, my game improved dramatically (and I was still running 4e, at the time!).

 

[Vyrolakos]

Using miniatures in a role-playing game is neither good nor bad, it's just a play style preference.

Do what brings you and your fellow players the most fun and satisfaction.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't think they are inherently good or inherently bad. I believe they have pros and cons.

From my perspective, the biggest pro is having a clear picture of where things are. Yes, it's a game of the imagination. Yes, the GM is describing things. However, there are times when my description of something seems clear to me, but may not be clear to someone else. Also, as DannyAlcatraz said, "they minimize disagreements about who was where and when." On a more personal level, I find painting to be something which helps me relax, so it's nice to have a practical use for the things I paint (minis.)

The biggest con I've noticed is that a lot of people I game with tie themselves too heavily to the battlemat, and sometimes this leads to virtually every encounter being restricted to areas which are the size of the table/game space being used. I've had a few experiences in which I tried to abstract things by using minis and the battle map as just a rough illustration combined with a verbal description, but it was lost on some of the players involved because they were so accustomed to minis being an exact representation of what's going on. I'm not so sure that's something which is a product of using minis... I mean, it is, but I believe it's more an issue of a game situation which was different than what those particular players had experienced before.

Overall, I think minis enhance the experience. Even if you don't have minis, just using some checkers, chess pieces, or whatever you have and a quick sketch can help to illustrate a situation. Where they become a problem (I believe,) is when you become so tied to them that you lose your ability to expand your game beyond the space available on your table.

 

[Storminator]

Even when we played 1e we used minis constantly. For D&D, where movement rates are low, they are a great tool for precise tactical combats. They are fantastic for 4e, which really rewards a tactical focus. And the game where you can break out whole armies is awesome.

I've never used minis for Call of Cthulhu, nor have I missed them there. I can't use them for my Mutants and Masterminds game, because superheroes move so fast it becomes silly to have minis. But in last night's game we confused which hero was fighting which villains for a couple of consecutive rounds. That rarely happens with minis.

PS

 

[Bagpuss]

They change the nature of the game in my experience. Making it more tactical and more boardgame/wargame like and less about character. This is neither a good thing or a bad thing, as I enjoy aspects of boardgames and wargames.

 

[ExploderWizard]

They can become a crutch if system cannot handle play without them. They can also add greatly to the fun of playing depending on the group. I can run combat comfortably without them but the kid in me loves playing with toys so I prefer to use them anyway.

There are several levels of miniature use:

-on a plain table to illustrate marching order, and relative positioning.

- on a battlemap to do likewise as well as track movement in combat.

- used with full on terrain dioramas to provide all of the above with a stunning visual reference of the adventurer's surroundings.

Not mention the fun of painting and collecting them as a hobby of its own.

 

[Janx]

I have been using minis since I first trying the game in 1977. I have also played without minis. I prefer using them.

1) I think they're fun.

2) They minimize disagreements about who was where and when.

Yup. Given that the AD&D PH refers to distances in inches, it is pretty much talking about using miniatures and a map of some sort (gridded paper usually). Any talk of the purity of D&D without miniatures is revisionist history.

I've played with and without a map or minis. There are pros and cons to both.

As Danny's #2 says, a battlemat and minis (or tokens really, minis are just the pretty version) helps reduce confusion.

In no-map D&D, I may have to re-explain the situation to EACH player because they weren't paying attention during everybody else's turn, and because the situation may have changed and they need to understand the detail.

Or I could just use a battlemat, and the player can plainly see in 1 second that he can run over to you and help kill the extra orcs that are beating you up. Less time is wasted explaining pretty basic spatial information that a picture cures for free.