D&D 4E 4e, minis... and some of my thoughts

[Shortman McLeod]

Counters, sketches on the battlemat / whiteboard / sheets of paper, or just a bunch of people who somehow manage to keep the entire situation in their heads?

Miniatures are not required for anything. Heck, I could quite easily play the various GW miniatures wargames with nothing but cardboard counters. (It wouldn't be anywhere near as fun as it is with figures, though, but D&D is a different thing.)

You do realize that cardboard counters, sketches on the battlemat, or any other physical means of representing a character are all "minis" for purposes of setting up a combat scenario, right? It's a little silly to say, "You don't need minis at all! Just use cardboard counters!" Doode, they serve the same function.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Same here, using descriptive text and imagination/memory you can quite easily do without mini's. We did it all of 2nd edition and a fair number of 3rd edition sessions.

Player 1: "Where are the goblins?"
DM: "Use your imagination!"
Player 2: "Err, well, can I use Cleave?"
DM: "Don't you remember? We're using imagination and memory, doodes! This isn't a wargame!"
Player 1: "Umm, I'm casting Color Spray. Does the area of effect reach, err, any of these imaginary goblins?"
DM: "Imagination! That's it! Now you're getting it!"
Player 1: "Uh, excuse me, I think I left my curling iron on." (leaves to join a group that uses the full rules of 3.5)
Player 2: "Wait for me!"

 

[Shortman McLeod]

*cough, cough* Man, you're getting it everywhere. Let the crows have run of the field for a second and follow how the conversation goes with a competent GM.

DM: "Okay, ranger, you can attack. Go ahead."
Ranger: "I attack, uh, goblin #4."
DM: "Roll."
Ranger: "Wait, how far away is the goblin?"
DM: "About 80 feet, counting the distance you're shooting up the tree."
Ranger: "Great, that's inside one increment! *rolls*"

As with every single other thing in an RPG session that isn't represented with miniatures - city streets, non-hostile NPCs, weather, terrain, magical effects, the results of damaging blows - you describe it to the players using words.

I'm a little concerned that it's such a mind-boggling thing for you.

Oh, it is mind-boggling, I'm afraid. Because as you may know, the 20 goblins are constantly shifting position, charging, ducking under cover, etc. But if the DM and players all have some kind of idiot-savant photographic memory, it could work. Or if the DM doesn't mind describing the situation to the players every round as things change, it could work.

Or they could take the advice of the game's, you know, *designers*, and use miniatures and a battle grid.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Oh, it is mind-boggling, I'm afraid. Because as you may know, the 20 goblins are constantly shifting position, charging, ducking under cover, etc.

Which is, of course, best represented by 20 static goblin minis standing at perfect right angles to a battlemat grid.

But if the DM and players all have some kind of idiot-savant photographic memory, it could work.

Well, thanks for the back-handed compliment, I guess. It's worked for 11 years and two and a half editions of D&D for me. I'd have to say the other skills I possess - language use, for one - actually rule out 'idiot'. I'm assuming here you mean the technical medical definition, rather than being insulting, because that would likely be against board rules. I'll gladly take savant, though. I like the sound of it, and I could always use Uncanny Dodge.

Or if the DM doesn't mind describing the situation to the players every round as things change, it could work.

Or when relevant things change, or the players ask questions. It's really not that hard.

Or they could take the advice of the game's, you know, *designers*, and use miniatures and a battle grid.

I'm sure everyone is very proud of you for playing with your toys correctly - let's face it, minis (and to a degree RPGs in general) are more or less toys - but no-one's being graded on it.

Honest question time: If my personal experience and the testimonials of numerous folks on this board doesn't disabuse you of your failure of imagination regarding mini-less play, what would prove it's not actually impossible?

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

Player 1: "Where are the goblins?"
DM: "Use your imagination!"
Player 2: "Err, well, can I use Cleave?"
DM: "Don't you remember? We're using imagination and memory, doodes! This isn't a wargame!"
Player 1: "Umm, I'm casting Color Spray. Does the area of effect reach, err, any of these imaginary goblins?"
DM: "Imagination! That's it! Now you're getting it!"
Player 1: "Uh, excuse me, I think I left my curling iron on." (leaves to join a group that uses the full rules of 3.5)
Player 2: "Wait for me!"

Do you get your straw in bulk, or are you by some chance a farmer?

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Which is, of course, best represented by 20 static goblin minis standing at perfect right angles to a battlemat grid.

It seems your real disagreement is with the combat rules themselves. Having everyone take turns in 6-second increments certainly doesn't model the fluid nature of real combat very well. But that's how D&D has been played ever since 1974.

Perhaps LARPs are more fluid, etc? (Don't know, never LARPed).

Well, thanks for the back-handed compliment, I guess. It's worked for 11 years and two and a half editions of D&D for me. I'd have to say the other skills I possess - language use, for one - actually rule out 'idiot'. I'm assuming here you mean the technical medical definition, rather than being insulting, because that would likely be against board rules.

Oh come on now, don't be so sensitive. I use the term 'idiot savant' in its pop culture sense--the Rainman-type genius who can easily juggle the entire physical representation of a battle mat in his head rather than just using, you know, minis. It was intended as neither a compliment nor an insult, but merely a description.

Honest question time: If my personal experience and the testimonials of numerous folks on this board doesn't disabuse you of your failure of imagination regarding mini-less play, what would prove it's not actually impossible?

It certainly is possible to play without miniatures. But the full range of combat rules and combat-centric feats can only be properly used with miniatures. (Shrug) Don't get mad at me; I didn't design D&D. Just tellin' it like it is.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

It seems your real disagreement is with the combat rules themselves. Having everyone take turns in 6-second increments certainly doesn't model the fluid nature of real combat very well. But that's how D&D has been played ever since 1974.

Fail.

Rounds were a minute up until 2000. Additionally, your misunderstanding of my disagreement is only one of a long list of issues I see are at play here.

Perhaps LARPs are more fluid, etc? (Don't know, never LARPed).

I see what you did there. Neither do I. Next?

Oh come on now, don't be so sensitive. I use the term 'idiot savant' in its pop culture sense--the Rainman-type genius who can easily juggle the entire physical representation of a battle mat in his head rather than just using, you know, minis. It was intended as neither a compliment nor an insult, but merely a description.

I'm gonna let you read that over, see if you can figure how Rainman comparisons might be concerned vaguely impolite, if not actually insulting. I'll be here.
For what it's worth, mind, you're more amusing than offensive.

It certainly is possible to play without miniatures. But the full range of combat rules and combat-centric feats can only be properly used with miniatures.

And yet we've never had a problem. Someone must be wrong here. Either my combats have been untenable messes using the combat rules incorrectly, or your playstyle was not in fact passed down the slopes of Mount Sinai.
Hmmmmm....

(Shrug) Don't get mad at me; I didn't design D&D. Just tellin' it like it is.

I'm not, and you're not. I'm trying to get your attention and explain something to you, you're arguing in bad faith with a heavy reliance on straw men and willful ignorance of contrary evidence.

Now that we're clear on that, did you have any more questions about how mini-less play works, or did you want to be wrong for a while more yet?

 

[Wormwood]

Hey, you'll find no argument here...I wonder this about people who claim 3.5 is easy to run without minis.

I play roughly a dozen different RPGs in a year. D&D is the only one that we play using minis.

Perhaps by coincidence, D&D is the only one that grinds to a screeching halt every time a fight happens.

(I know I know. We're doing it wrong.)

 

[Shortman McLeod]

I play roughly a dozen different RPGs in a year. D&D is the only one that we play using minis.

Perhaps by coincidence, D&D is the only one that grinds to a screeching halt every time a fight happens.

(I know I know. We're doing it wrong.)

I doubt you're doing it wrong. In fact, I think most people who use the full combat rules would agree that the game slows down considerably once combat begins, even if only due to the time needed to set up the grid, place miniatures, trace distance and location, etc.

Whether that is a bad thing or not is another question. Personally, my group and I enjoy this more than anything else in the game. Our typically reaction is, "Time for a battle, boys and girls!" followed by setting up grid, terrain, minis, etc.

On the other hand, many folks prefer a faster, more abstract combat system, so they simply disregard the more tactical-oriented rules such as line of sight, cover, Cleave, etc., and do a lot of hand-waving. Works either way; depends what your group wants.

I'm one of those folks who thinks "combat is like a board game" is a *good* thing.

 

[Shortman McLeod]

Either my combats have been untenable messes using the combat rules incorrectly, or your playstyle was not in fact passed down the slopes of Mount Sinai.

Mount Sinai? Nope, just the Player's Handbook.