D&D (2024) My preferred way of playing D&D 2024 is... miniatures or not?

[Lanefan]

Naturally, the vast majority will say they do in fact play with miniatures.

Yet they'll complain 'til Kingdom come if you design rules that "expect" miniatures.

I do not understand this seemingly contradictory behavior. But it is observable.

It depends whether one sees the minis as being there to serve the game as play-aids and really nothing more, as I do, or the game being there to serve the minis and thus designed around their use.

Which means yes, while I use minis in play I don't want the game rules to be designed around their use.

 

[Lanefan]

I think they were also a LOT more hard to get hold of (and paint) back in the day.

Depends where you were, I guess. We've used minis snce the early 80s and there was always at least one store in town that either had them or could order them in.

Painting them has always been a pain for me as I'm no good at it; fortunately over the years I've had some players who are, and thus about half my metal minis are painted.

D&D painted plastic minis made a big difference when they arrived 22 years ago, and youtube painting tutorials also opened up the world to a lot of people. (The cost of the Wizkids minis now is absolutely shocking to me).

The easier availability and proliferation of 3D printers over the last few years is also making a big difference today, I think.

 

[MerricB]

Depends where you were, I guess. We've used minis snce the early 80s and there was always at least one store in town that either had them or could order them in.

Painting them has always been a pain for me as I'm no good at it; fortunately over the years I've had some players who are, and thus about half my metal minis are painted.

The easier availability and proliferation of 3D printers over the last few years is also making a big difference today, I think.

Yeah, 3D printing has REALLY changed things. I think its biggest impact might actually be terrain!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It depends whether one sees the minis as being there to serve the game as play-aids and really nothing more, as I do, or the game being there to serve the minis and thus designed around their use.

Which means yes, while I use minis in play I don't want the game rules to be designed around their use.

What on earth does that second thing even mean? "the game being there to serve the minis"???

Something being designed around a thing's use has nothing to do with whether it is there to "serve" that thing, whatever that even means. Computer games are designed to use monitors. Does that mean computer games are designed to "serve" monitors, to be slavishly bound to them? I can't imagine why it would. Some games are 3D because that is good for their particular design, others 2D, and a few (even today!) are mostly or purely text.

A game designed around a thing's use just means they're actually going to make it rewarding and beneficial to use it, rather than having it as a bolt-on potential thing you can kinda do, I guess, if you really try for it.

 

[mamba]

All of the things you just mentioned are mechanics improved by the use of miniatures...as in, mechanics written with the expectation of their use.

Including the 13A range-band approach (even if I find it mentally troublesome).

not sure, you hit 1d3 near you certainly works better in TotM than a 30 ft radius does. It sounds like by your logic everything is improved with minis as long as there is any level of tactical combat involved and the whole thing is not resolved by a single opposed die roll or something.

If not, I’d be curious to know some 5e combat mechanic that is not improved by minis… In any case, you were wondering why people use minis but do not want rules that require them, I gave you my answer

 

[John R Davis]

It's not a split. DND needs the minis et. al
Lots other games I play don't.

 

[Lanefan]

What on earth does that second thing even mean? "the game being there to serve the minis"???

Something being designed around a thing's use has nothing to do with whether it is there to "serve" that thing, whatever that even means. Computer games are designed to use monitors. Does that mean computer games are designed to "serve" monitors, to be slavishly bound to them? I can't imagine why it would. Some games are 3D because that is good for their particular design, others 2D, and a few (even today!) are mostly or purely text.

A computer can't really function without a monitor; this equates to it being hard to play D&D without dice.

A better analogy would be:
a) a computer game that can't be played without the use of a specific game controller because it has been programmed that way, as opposed to
b) a game that's been programmed so as to not require one and can be played perfectly well only using the keyboard and mouse and while having/using that same game controller works, its use is completely optional.

In a) the game is there to serve the (sales of) game controllers. In b), it is not.

A game designed around a thing's use just means they're actually going to make it rewarding and beneficial to use it,

Or, flip side, that the game simply can't be played without that thing; as per my a) example just above. Rewarding-beneficial are somewhat tangential to essential-required.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

A computer can't really function without a monitor; this equates to it being hard to play D&D without dice.

A better analogy would be:
a) a computer game that can't be played without the use of a specific game controller because it has been programmed that way, as opposed to
b) a game that's been programmed so as to not require one and can be played perfectly well only using the keyboard and mouse and while having/using that same game controller works, its use is completely optional.

In a) the game is there to serve the (sales of) game controllers. In b), it is not.

Or, flip side, that the game simply can't be played without that thing; as per my a) example just above. Rewarding-beneficial are somewhat tangential to essential-required.

Then D&D has never--not even in 3e and 4e--been designed to "serve" minis. Ever. Your claim overreaches far, far beyond the actual evidence.

 

[Hussar]

@EzekielRaiden, you're missing the passive/aggressive "boardgamey" criticism of various forms of D&D. Let's not forget that @Lanefan doesn't play WotC D&D. AD&D? No grid or minis? No problem. AD&D has pretty much zero rules for any sort of tactical play - each side rolls initiative, as soon as you are in melee, you stay in melee until the baddies fall down. There is virtually zero mechanical reason for movement in combat nor are there any mechanics for tactical positioning.

So, if you're playing AD&D, then sure, no minis is easy to do. If you play a system which has virtually no tactical level rules, then there's no need to play with minis or a grid. Something like Ironsworn, for example, has zero requirement for a grid because there's zero mechanical impact of having a grid or minis.

WotC D&D though? I cannot begin to imagine what that looks like TotM. Every single rule for combat is based on using minis and a grid. Heck, the current Stealth discussions is entirely based on the notion that everything is done with minis and a grid - line of sight is defined as lines from corners of the grid, for example. You cannot determine cover without minis and a grid. Virtually every single rule for combat assumes minis and a grid.

Which, of course, fuels the criticism that WotC D&D is all about selling minis. And old criticism that's been around since the early 3e days.

 

[Burnside]

I enjoy both, but I find that not many people want to play theater of the mind in this era. It was how I played exclusively in the 1E and 2E eras.

I did run the entirety of Lost Mine of Phandelver TotM when I first got back into D&D in 2017, and it went perfectly fine.

I disagree with the notion that 5E can't be run TotM; it very much can.