Can D&D be played without all the mini rules?

[James McMurray]

Flanking and reach lose importance.
Wizards would have to drop area of effect attacks (fireballs and whatnot) and just stick with single-target zaps.

People handled things like that in previous editions without battle mats. 4e would be no different.

 

[Goumindong]

Yea, they used rulers and coins on a table or some such

 

[James McMurray]

Some of us just imagined things. I prefer battle mats, but for area effects and flanking they're not really necessary.

 

[HeinorNY]

Sure, but you'd be better off playing a game designed for that like Amber or Nobilis. Not sure how well Nobilis would handle a major power downgrade to the lower levels of D&D, but Amber could do it fairly easily.

Exactly, and that's the answer to the OP's question: "Yes, but..."

 

[BASHMAN]

You (the OP) really, Really, REALLY want to play Castles and Crusades. No miniatures required, no powers that slide monsters 3 squares after doing damage, etc. Just D&D as it was intended to be-- a Medieval Fantasy ROLE-PLAYING game. Not much like 4th ed at all.

 

[James McMurray]

Oddly enough, lots of us actually ROLE-PLAY in 4e. Don't believe me? Check it out.

There may be something inherent in you that stops you from roleplaying with 4e, but don't blame it on the game.

 

[2eBladeSinger]

To be honest, I’ve never liked using the grid and have always found the pure narrative/imaginative form of combat much more appealing. Our group initially tried combat without the grid but we found it very confusing because the shift, slide, burst and blast effects are so dependent on position – each of us had a different idea of our tactical (dis)advantage. This may have has something to do with an unfamiliarity of the rules as well. However, we then played with the grid. Not only was it easier, but I found it enjoyable. The emphasis on the grid had been a big concern but my opinion has changed; because 4e provides great incentive, it’s not that I HAVE to use the grid but now I GET to use the grid. That being said, I think now that we’ve had a few games under our belts and have a better understanding of the rules, I’ll try smaller battles gridless and try to set up larger battles through a narrative before plunking the miniatures down.

 

[SuperGnome]

I have to agree with those who've said it's more mini dependant that 3e was. So many powers move people around, and those positions trigger actions, etc...

I wouldn't -want- to play 4e without minis because of all those niggly things personally. Keeping track of that without a map would cause me to blow a gasket. I guess anything is possible, but there was zero intent for 4e to played like that.

 

[Kaffis]

I've been only through one scenario and so far it seems there's a need for either miniatures or counters or other ways of keeping positions and such clear to the players and GM. Except possibly against solos. With bursts, shiftings, adjacent targets, cover, many powers that focus on shifting both yourself, allies or enemies, etc, it seems impossible to me to play without minis.

It's no more impossible to play without minis in 4e than it was to cast a fireball, or exchange bowshots with enemy archers mat-less in prior editions. You have to trust your DM to adjudicate the effects and relative positions of your allies and enemies fairly, without favoring one or the other overly much.

Movement in 4e isn't for movement's sake -- movement in 4e is to set up neat, cinematic effects (which narration is good at) and moves, and to open up interesting tactical advantages (which can be narrated and accounted for IN narrative, but are easy to see, communicate, set up, track, and adjudicate on a mat).

 

[AllisterH]

Biggest feature that determines whether or not you need minis?

The number of opponents.

A poster earlier alluded to it, but this can not be underestimated. As a DM, it is MUCH, MUCH easier to "play without a grid" when you use only a single foe.

Then again, this has been true across ALL editions.