[3.5] Narrative instead of Miniature based games

[Melkor]

I've read some arguments about using/not using miniatures with D&D 3.0. Now that 3.5 has come out, and a push towards playing with miniatures has been made, I was thinking on the topic.

I recently purchased some Dwarven Forge Master Maze stuff, and a good amount of close out Chainmail minis from SVGames. It's cool and fun, and sometimes it adds a great deal to playing D&D.

On the other hand, I really enjoy games that don't require the precision of miniatures for a number of reasons. Sometimes, I don't want to lug all of the stuff around. Sometimes, I like just relaxing on the floor or couch when we play - not having to get up to move my mini, or keep track of what's going on. Mostly, I just like the free-flow of narrative combat instead of the precision of minis.

My old DM would try and narrate games of 3.0, and would fudge attacks of opportunity and movement....as opposed to keeping a 'grid map in his head'...This didn't last long, he didn't like the precision that was lost - so we played with minis.

Now that 3.5 is out, and my group is starting back up - I am taking on the DM duties, and I asked my players what they thought about the push towards using minis. They agree that they like the precision, and easy visualization that miniatures promote, but they prefer to picture the scene in their head. Since we are going on a camping trip to get away and game, I don't want to cart my Master Maze stuff and miniatures with us.

My solution seens brilliant to me, but I'm sure it's a routine thing for anyone who gives it two seconds of thought.....As the DM, I am going to track the positions of everyone on Graph Paper behind the DM Screen. I'll describe the events with narration, and answer any questions about position based on the D&D 3.5 rules, and the grid. If a player says he wants to move 'accross the room to the door', I will move him on the grid. It will help me keep track of things like threatened areas, AoO, and Reach without having to sacrifice the loose feel of narrative gaming for my players....It puts all the work on the DM, but that's not a big deal to me.

We'll use minis when we have the inclination, but when we are too lazy, just want a relaxing game, or would just prefer the narrative style of roleplaying that gaming without miniatures promotes - we'll probably use the above method.

It's relatively simple, but I'm slapping myself and saying: "Why didn't I think of this before" ???

Any comments/thoughts ?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I think it's a good compromise, if you're willing to take on the extra work of keeping track of it yourself.

In my own game, we only use miniatures for very complex combats. For anything that's not especially complex, we all keep it in our heads. Sure, we might be the equivalent of "a square" or two off here and there, but nobody minds, and everyone--PCs and NPCs alike--still gets to make AoOs on a regular basis. Frankly, we've never felt like we're missing anything, even after trying it both ways.

But that's just us; if you want to keep the precision but not use the minis, the graph paper behind the screen sounds like a valid method.

 

[Darth Shoju]

The graph paper is a good idea for the non-miniatures game, and even just for quick combats in games that do use miniatures. We've done that before in our group and the only think I found to be a pain was all the erasing and so on whenever someone moved. So I'm thinking maybe some coloured push-pins and a thick pad of graph paper or something under the paper for the pins to stick into. This will eliminate having to constantly erase and redraw the character's markers and will still let you keep track of where everyone is.

 

[Melkor]

I was mainly referring to the use of graph paper behind the DM screen so that you can completely narrate the combat to the player's.

We've used graph papar with push pins on corkboard and a number of other methods to illustrate combat without miniatures, but the main thrust of my thread was narrative game style without losing the detail that miniatures bring to the system.

 

[Zogg]

I'm a control-freak so as a player I'd have major issues with not being able to see where my player is or actually touching and moving his mini...even if the DM is one hell of an awesome storyteller. But that's me wanting the game to be visual. If you find a group that's gung-ho about it then go ahead witchya bad self.

 

[Melkor]

We played 1st Edition & 2nd Edition in a completely narrative style.....Even so, we were able to keep combat fairly detailed. With 3rd edition, we started using miniatures, then tried 3.0 with narrative. We gave it up because the DM just had to 'wing it' when it came to Attacks of Opportunity, threatened areas, and reach.

The graph-paper tracking behind the DM screen won't take away player control, it will just focus on narration as opposed to a Warhammer Fantasy Battles feel of combat. I'm planning on letting my players ask all of the questions they want before taking an action (i.e.: Q:'Will casting my spell provoke an attack of opportunity ?' A: 'Not if you move back a little bit.').

We'll still be using miniatures from time to time, but there are situations where it's just nice to not have to interrupt the flow of the game to set up miniatures and gather everyone up off the floor and couch to sit at the table and move their minis.

 

[Emiricol]

I think it's a good compromise, if you're willing to take on the extra work of keeping track of it yourself.

In my own game, we only use miniatures for very complex combats. For anything that's not especially complex, we all keep it in our heads. Sure, we might be the equivalent of "a square" or two off here and there, but nobody minds, and everyone--PCs and NPCs alike--still gets to make AoOs on a regular basis. Frankly, we've never felt like we're missing anything, even after trying it both ways.

But that's just us; if you want to keep the precision but not use the minis, the graph paper behind the screen sounds like a valid method.

Same here - mostly in our heads, some battles on a battlemat (or graph paper, for your purposes). For those battles that you feel require graph paper, the players would probably benefit from being able to see it themselves, though.

 

[Darth Shoju]

I was mainly referring to the use of graph paper behind the DM screen so that you can completely narrate the combat to the player's.

We've used graph papar with push pins on corkboard and a number of other methods to illustrate combat without miniatures, but the main thrust of my thread was narrative game style without losing the detail that miniatures bring to the system.

I know. I was suggesting using push pins on the paper behind the screen. That's why I wasn't sure what you could use to make sure the pins stick in. A thick pad of graph paper would work but it would swiftly be perforated all the way through with holes. Perhaps a piece of graph paper on a small bit of cardboard. I dunno, it's not as convenient as just using a pencil, but I just hate doing that much erasing.

 

[Farland]

As someone who played using narrative combat in 2e, I have to say that the precision of mini combat is a 100% improvement. Personally, I would never go back.

Of course that's just me.

 

[JeffB]

Monte Cook posted a good article on playing 3E w/out mini's a couple of months ago. I suggest you check it out on his website.

And I like your idea.