4e rules will make some games much harder to run

[RigaMortus2]

I know that is the stock response but I never even felt the mechanical need for miniatures until 3rd Edition. I think that as a logical off-shoot of Chainmail, miniatures were helpful but not necessary in the earlier versions.

I never used minis until 3E. Everything, as far as distance and what not, was estimated in our heads (that was what the DM was for). There was never this level of tactical movement before 3E AFAICR

 

[smathis]

Because D&D is much better supported than most other RPGs? Because it's infinitely easier to find players? Because there looks like being a whole lot of good stuff in 4E, much of which won't appear in other systems, and it seems better to try to tweak 4E than try to find some other game?

Also, because in many regions there's no alternative to not playing D&D. In some places I've lived, there really were two choices: play D&D or not play at all.

I don't mean to invalidate Dave's point. But I don't find statements like "play something else" all that helpful.

I seriously doubt that it was a design goal of WotC to alienate all those people who either can't afford or simply don't want to use minis. Sure, I believe they wanted to make mini use a more attractive option in 4e.

But to tell all those people to pack up and go home?

I don't think so. Especially when we have a lead developer (Mearls) giving us concrete examples on these boards and advice based on his own playtesting of 4e without minis. If the goal of some posters is to splinter the D&D community and dissuade others from playing, by all means, keep advising people to pack up and go play WoW.

But, in any other case, I can't see how it's helpful to tell people to not play D&D simply because they don't want to use minis. It's not like there's a strong contingent of mini-haters on these boards telling mini-users to go play Battletech.

:\

 

[Revinor]

And as for the "roots of D&D," I would never dream of playing Classic or AD&D with minis. Way too much hassle and loss of immersion, for too little reward.

Roots of D&D in this context mean something from what D&D grew (Chainmail), not just very old version of D&D.

Same as World of Warcraft could go back to it's root by releasing World of Warcraft 2, which would text only game playable over telnet. I'm sure that both gamers enjoying text MUDs would be very happy.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I, too, don't really like battlemats overall. Yes, they help clarify combat and reduce misunderstandings but for me they ravage immersion. Combat also take a LOT longer given the time it takes me to set them up and because it seems to encourage optimized boardgame thinking by players and doting over the mat, counting squares, etc., rather than doing what they feel their characters would do.

I played without any mini or mat in 2nd edition. I have found that the trade off is not as significant as you thing.

- Players will always optimize their combat actions. They will announce an intent to set up a flank. They will declare that the fireball is centered to maximum effect. I do not think that much time is gained by not using a mat / minis.

- You will save time by not having to set up a mat. You may however lose time if you end up in an argument about whether or not someone would have cover from another player or obstruction. Or whether or not a players Fireball is really able to hit 8 out of your 10 combatants. A grid inherently resolves all positioning arguments. On top of that, applying positioning based rules becomes easier and much fairer.

- The use of a grid makes the use of terrain considerations much easier. For me it helps immersion when a player can chose to run into a nearby building and close the door. Or they can choose to bullrush someone into an environmental hazard (off a cliff, into a fire). Without the visual aid, they wont bother considering it.

There are only two reasons I can think of not to use a grid at all. The first is if your gaming space is already cramped. A standard grid takes up alot of space, and if you have already have problems fitting your books, notes, and snacks at the table, you will have a problem.

The other reason is simply the cost of the grid and minis. I managed to luck out, since I still have the plastic mini's from a Hero Quest game, as well as a bunch of minis someone left at at my place 10 years ago after college (He just forgot them, and about 6 months later I realized they were still around). Using random coins hurts immersion, and it makes mixed combatants hard to track properly.

But if you do not mind the cost, or can work around it (chess pieces work quite well, pawns for fodder, king and queens for big bad), I am convinced that the mini's solve more problems than they cause.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[entrerix]

I'm really surprised to see how many people have arguments at the game table, or think that matless play will increase arguments, I know i posted a long message on this topic at the end of page 1, but it still strikes me as odd hearing about arguments. If I had a player try and argue hard enough slow play down more than once every few months I wouldn't invite someone like that back to play.

Maybe I'm just super lucky to have the friends I have or something, I don't like arguments and won't have them at the table

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think most people, even in OD&D, at some point broke out some counters (even scraps of paper) or sketched out a scene on graph paper to denote relative positions of combatants.

Maybe part of the problem is that the quality of those representations has steadily gotten *better*. If you use a button or bottlecap to keep track of your character's position, everyone knows that it's just a counter. It's not your character. But as minis have gotten better, it may have gotten easier to think of the mini itself as your character.

Magus Coeruleus, I encourage you to give it a try next time you play on a battlemat. Use M&Ms, spare dice, or pennies to represent your characters--anything other than miniatures. Since the playing pieces don't look *anything* like what they represent, your mind will have to visualize the characters themselves.

QFT. Plus, there is one other thing you can do to enhance this experience: Don't use a battlemat. That's right. Just plop your eraser and bottlecap and the hat from Monopoly down on the table, in approximately the relative positions they are in according to the description of the GM and players.

After you have done that awhile, get a yardstick or maybe a flexible tape--if you can trust yourself to not get too caught up in exact measurements, and only use it for things like, "This guy is close enough to short bow range to count as in range." Otherwise, you might want to get a piece of string and mark it with those excellent suggested distances, Here, There, and Over There.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Entreri: I think you're seeing different types of player groups. Some can get along with almost no arguing whatsoever (for whatever reason). Others will apparently argue over whether the sun is up.

A battlemat serves to lay down parameters in concrete terms rather than abstract terms. This is the essential difference between playing with a mat vs. not playing with a mat. Some people apparently find that keeping the action on the abstract level (no mat) helps their immersion, while other people find that actually _seeing_ the action going on helps their immersion.

It definitely seems to be a difference in style. I'm curious as to whether those who prefer concrete representations of the game state (mats) also prefer concrete representations of the rules (generally, more explicit and wordier rules to cover corner cases) as opposed to abstract representations of the rules (i.e., work with the GM and rely on his judgement and 'common sense').

Speaking for my group, personally, we use a mat. And it might be just me, but whenever I reach over and topple the BBEG's mini, I get a cheer from the players. That, to me, tells me that I'm doing the right thing. (Note: I and two of my players all score highly on the 'Tactical Gamer' scale of Robin Laws, and so factor that information in to the above.)

 

[kennew142]

I've played with and without a mat. I definitely prefer playing with one. Back in the 1980s I was in high school and couldn't afford miniatures, so we used cardboard counters with the character's/monster's name written on them.

 

[med stud]

I usually don't care for a grid, but some kind of graphic representation is a must in a close matched combat. I will try a grid out now with 4e and see how it works (it must be possible to make a working grid in Excel pretty easily).

 

[GameOgre]

I have never used a mat while DMing D&D in the 39 years Ive been playing. I've been running 4E D&D for two days strait now and there is no more call for a mat than there was in 3.5 or 2E.

Really if a experienced DM who doesnt like Mats/figures can run his 3.5 game without them then there is no issue with doing so in 4e.

I can see a new untried DM having issues however. But then they had the same issues in 3E and 2E.