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

[rob626]

To the OP: I completely understand your dissatisfaction. There is a serious disconnect from narrative to combat perspective when using minis.

This Thursday night our group is giving mapless/gridless 4ed a try- over Ventrilo! We will be using maptools to help with dice and MAYBE the occassional rough sketch of any particularly confusing environments but the intent is to divorce the mini-skirmish game mentality from the rp-mentality.

We intend to use description and a somewhat fuzzy or mutable narrative space and yes, it will take cooperation between the players and dm to pull it off. If we have even one person that is unable to adjust or has problems with some give and take then this experiment will not succeed.

I will post a review of how the session goes.

 

[IanB]

4E is primarily a combat system with out-of-combat being a distant second, and some people don't consider the mechanical combat part of it to be role playing.

We have a player's handbook which is chock full of character creation which is all combat stats. A monster manual, which is all combat stats. And a DMG which has some role-playing in it, but mostly players look at their PHB and wonder how to use all those combat stats. Is there a setting? Not at present.

Yes, you can role-play in 4E, but it's in spite of the system, not because it.

This is exactly how every edition of D&D has been, from where I'm sitting.

 

[Mr. Peabody]

A setting might be nice.

The lead-off module being about 5% RP and 95% HnS is pretty telling.

It's clear from the product how the game is intended. Kobold miniatures anyone?

Our group has spent in the neighbourhood of 60% RP and 40% HnS in this module so far (if you assume RP <> combat and that HnS = combat, which is downplaying the roleplaying potential of a good, well run combat session).

I guess it comes down to what the party likes and what the DM allows. We spent bunches of time negotiating with the kobolds after Irontooth died, researching the Keep with Valithin, calming down townsfolk (after the undead appeared), talking to Lord Paddy in the inn, questioning the goblin prisoner in the torture chamber, uncovering the history of the dragon graveyard, etc., etc.

And to answer the original question - yes you can play without minis. You just need to trust that the DM is 'playing fair' and giving you full value for the abilities you have. This is no different then any other version of the game. Did you need the grid in AD&D to shoot a lightning bolt or determine whether the thief could backstab? Same thing.

 

[timbannock]

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

Agreed. In all my years of 2E, we used battlemaps like once maybe? Take a look at the 2E rules...there were ranges, diameters, radii, etc. just as there are now. We had no problems.

 

[timbannock]

A setting might be nice.

The lead-off module being about 5% RP and 95% HnS is pretty telling.

It's clear from the product how the game is intended. Kobold miniatures anyone?

In D&D's defense, they've never been shy about their combat-heaviness. However, I'd argue that the 4E DMG has some of the most solid RPing advice (and rules - see skill challenges) that any edition of D&D has ever had.

Oh, and the DMG contains a setting, and text in the Class and Race descriptions in the PHB, as well as the Monster Lore in the MM, all point to a coherent setting.

There's even a map in the DMG.

 

[Contents May Vary]

A setting might be nice.

The lead-off module being about 5% RP and 95% HnS is pretty telling.

It's clear from the product how the game is intended. Kobold miniatures anyone?

The setting shouldn't be part of the core rules. I want to have a choice of settings! For example, I prefer Forgotten Realms to Eberron.

I want to choose from a variety of settings!

 

[Dausuul]

I've played D&D with and without minis, and I have to say that all in all, I prefer playing without them. With no-miniatures play, everyone is paying attention to the images in their heads, instead of dividing their attention between mental images and a bunch of little figures on a grid. I find that this dramatically increases immersion and pumps up the energy level, because minis on a grid are just bits of plastic on paper, but the images in your head are BAD-ASS.

With the battlegrid, you have to choose: Do I think about the tactical situation as laid out with the bits of plastic and the paper, counting off squares, looking for flanking positions, and checking for opportunity attacks? Or do I concentrate on imagining the scene and immersing myself in it? The more of your brain you devote to analyzing the tactical situation, the less you have to spare for immersing yourself in the scene, and vice versa.

Without the battlegrid, there is no conflict. The more clearly you visualize the scene, the better your grasp of the tactical situation will be. The desire to "win" and the desire to role-play support each other rather than opposing.

That's not to say I don't enjoy the battlegrid approach as well. It has its own charms - it's very tactical and intricate. Since I like strategy games and board games, I can have a lot of fun with that. But ultimately, I like gridless better.

Currently, I'm running with the battlegrid, so my group and I can get a feel for how 4E combat works when it's played as written. Eventually I'm going to see what my players think about switching to non-grid combat. We'll probably try a few gridless fights and then hold a vote.

 

[Lord Xtheth]

My warlord player insists on using minis to facilitate his powers and options better. I don't blame him. Knowing where everything is in relation to everything elce with a visable reference is a great tactical advantage.
Now key in the fact that the player himself might not have tactical training, and/or military experience like his character would. I think using minis, for him at least, is a good way to "even the playing field" when it comes down to playing his character.

 

[Zogmo]

I have DM'd a few 4e sessions without a battlemat or miniatures. One of the groups I DM for has been playing since the 70's and feel that exactness is not needed. They ask me if something/someone is in range so that they can do "insert cool move here" or "insert spell here", I tell them either yes that's possible or no they need to be about 5 feet closer (or whatever the situation calls for). If they are a bit too far they just have to tell me they want to move within 10 feet (or whatever) of the bad guy and off we go. This is a group that wants to have fun, is trusting enough in me to accept that I won't "cheat them" and will challenge me on any ruling or rule they see fit to challenge.

I am very descriptive when we game and they do ask for re-confirmations of things they want to do and if I misunderstood their intentions or didn't describe something well enough then we re-do the action, but nobody stresses about it. We have also enjoyed a number of nights camping in Yosemite with no dice or books (3e) and played our continuing campaign sitting around a campfire at night while real bears were roaming around. Very fun indeedy.

It is much easier with minis and battlemats and I like using them when I can. It makes my job easier as a DM but playing without is limited to only your imagination.

 

[rob626]

mapless update

I promised to report back after running a mapless 4ed game over Ventrilo.

Players-
Fighter
Warlock
Wizard
Ranger
Wizard (yes, two of them)
(The cleric flaked and the paladin had to leave early)

The short version:
In general, I felt more liberated than I did in 3.x. but a little more restricted than my 2ed games.
Two skill challenges (a chase and a forest tracking challenge) run with no visual references. Worked great. Probably better than if we had used minis.
One combat challenge (6 skirmishers) run with an initial crude sketch. Worked great, couple of very cinematic moments allowed by narrative distance and pretty loose spatial relationships.

The longer version:
It was a fun session and any friction that was felt was due to the combination of me being rusty and not working from a published adventure.

We started off with a bit of roleplay as the pc's received their mission. No maps, a funny voice or two, and off the party went.

I started a skill challenge without the pc's realizing it. I told the party that they were being paced by a group of humanoids. The party went defensive but after a while the humanoids left a watcher and continued on their way. The party chased down the watcher (success), drubbed him (combat success), and intimidated him into revealing plans (success). All of the chase scene distances were done through description and dm hand-wavery. It felt very fluid and everyone was involved. Good encounter.

Next the party arrived at a deserted village. It was supposed to be a combat encounter but the party chose to investigate a different direction and so an unplanned skill challenge took place- tracking a group through a forest. Again, description and a little nudging and the players came up with some very inovative ideas. Again they succeeded and their reward was enough time to plan an ambush.

Next was a combat scene. I gave a quick quick sketch on maptools of the encounter area. I know- Cheater! Well, we really did not refer to the sketch much past the initial setup. In all honesty we could have done without the sketch and been just fine. I was getting lazy. They fought 6 skirmisher type bad guys with movement all over the battlefield. The players were very flexible. I let a couple of melee attacks from the pc's through that probably should have been out of range but the descriptions the players gave were high on the cool factor so I let it go.

Overall we struggled to wrap our heads around squares vs feet in description and how that translated in the story but once we recognized that was where the trouble was it was quickly corrected and things smoothed out.

Was it all rosy? No. It was a little clunky at times. When I felt the action was slowing down or confusion was creeping in I opted for the player's point of view and adjusted even if it contradicted my mental image a bit. If what the player was describing was way off then I corrected or restated so the image was clearer. The session would have been in big trouble if the players were less flexible in their views.

I think that I tried too hard to reenvision and redescribe how the different powers looked during combat. The fluff within them is actually not bad and stands as part of the mechanical description so confusion was the result when the descriptions got too far away from the stated power fluff. This had an impact on the spatial relationships at times. Next time I will stick with the fluff a little closer and we shouldn't run into as much confusion.

In 2nd and 3.x editions it was up to the players to describe how each sword blow or magic missile landed. In 4th it seems like this is pretty much laid out by the power the player chose to use, especially with the martial powers.

So, overall, the session went well so long as both players and dm were willing to compromise. Distances- especially in a skirmisher heavy battle- were not really a big consideration. We said feet but it really boiled down to either they were in range or not in range and how long it would take to get to either state.