DMs who dislike using minis during combat?

[dreaded_beast]

The recent talk of minis has caused me to remember my former DMs quiet dislike of using minis (and maps) for combat.

Reasons:

1. He believed the group to be too "immature" to use minis without disrupting the game. This is a group where the youngest player is 27.

2. He believed minis would "detract" from the game since they were almost never the perfect representation of the creature/NPC encountered.

3. It would take away time from the actual session by having to draw the battlefield and place the minis on the map.

In my opinion, I believe that minis and maps for combat are a good thing.

I think my DM had a high opinion of his ability to "describe" the placement of characters, the description of the battlefield, etc. However, what he usually envisioned did not always mesh with what the players envisioned.

And if we made a tactical mistake in combat, it was because of our inability to fully grasp the "description" of combat. In his words, "I described the situation perfectly."

There were many times when we would say, I walk over to so and so, only to be greeted with an AoO because we didn't realize we where in melee range of an enemy. Or we didn't attack a particular enemy because we thought he was too far away, but in reality, wasn't.

We could ask questions about placement of creatures, the battlefield, etc., but if we started asking "too many" questions, the DM would get frustrated and berate us for not understanding his descriptions. We could never change an action that we based from a misinterpretation of a description.

Anyway, sorry for the rant, but for the DMs who do not use minis, why don't you and what have your experiences been? What are the pros and have you ever experienced situations similar to the above?

 

[Crothian]

It slows down the game. I only have two PCs and combats we have aren't that complicated. I don't describe things perfectly, but then they don't need it described perfectly. We also have a a bit of airial combat and that's tough to do on a flat mat.

 

[Berandor]

I don't like to use minis (even though I recently bought some Mage Knight Dungeons ), because I feel it
a) slows down the combat: Not only do minis and battlemap have to be prepared, but the players will think far more tactical. They also can and will count the distance between enemies in squares, how far their movement takes them, whether they can evade AoOs by choosing a different course, etc. That takes time.
b) takes you out of the narrative flow even more than round-based combat normally does: Many players I have encountered no longer considered the game reality of the combat, but the structure of the battlemap alone. Instead of getting by the orc chieftain with the malicious grin, it became a matter of moving ones mini past another mini. The fact that the mini will often not totally resemble (and in the case of our games, without a passionate collector, not even look very much like) the creature it represents, just like the map doesn't really communicate the dirt and darkness of the orc caves, only enhances this effect.

Using a map might still be appropriate, as long as I don't have ti use it as a battlemap, but only as a visual gide of the location (and not the creatures).
For the rest, I prefer to describe things and give the players leeway in what they can and cannot do. Instead of counting squares twice to make sure you can get to the wizard, the player simply asks, "Can I get to the wizard?", and I respond, "Sure.", unless the wizard somehow had specific precautions against such an action.

 

[tetsujin28]

I've never been able to understand not using them. A game without them always seems to be lacking a visual element. But I came into the hobby through military miniatures in '77.

 

[Shallown]

I think minis like the rules are a tool to be used (or not used) by the GM. as I place minis I tend to be descriptive about what or who I am placing. (At least I try I tend to get in and out of the habit). As mini's are moved around the board by myslef or others I try to throw in some description. I also describe rolls in a slightly cinimatic way. Usually only extremely good or bad rolls since the middling ones aren't worth the effort. I try to take those rules and add something to them. I know my group wouldn't picture what I describe if I went with no minis. Not a fault of thiers or mine I think we just envision differently. I have played games (Amber Diceless RPG) that required me to be entirely discriptive and go off pure imagination and shared veiw of a scene. I did it successfully but not everyone can always get on the same page sometimes. Mini's let me dispence with some mundane things while allowing me to refocus on the "cool" factor.

Later

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I agree and disagree. Minis are a love-hate thing with me. 3E D&D has pretty much made it mandatory for the use of minis or at least the use of a drawn out area on graph paper for a combat. We can thank WOTC for the Attack of Opportunity rule which from what I've seen is the biggest reason for it.
Hates:
1) Tactical movement - "Let's see... I have a movement of 30 (counts out the spaces). Crap, if I move there I'll be out in the open, maybe instead I'll go here (counts out the spaces again). Damn, that'll give the Orc Warchief an attack of opportunity.
2) Drawing time - "Okay guys, take 5 while I erase the Battlemat, get ink all over my hands, and draw out the next section". Or those wonderful times when you draw the whole thing out and the party promptly takes a passage down an area that isn't yet drawn out. They've explored 10% of the map you've drawn out and now you have to erase the whole thing and do it all over.

Loves:
1) Spellcasting - Forever ends the discussion on whether a player was within the radius of a Fireball, Sleep, or other Area Effect spell.
2) Movement - Halfling Rogues no longer just appear behind a villan to Sneak Attack him. Makes slow movement PC's really hate how slow they move.

I'm considering picking up the Dungeonworks set from Worldworks. If you haven't seen it yet, check out the site. Takes a bit of prep work to build ahead of time but at least it doesn't cost near as much as the Dwarven Forge stuff. If I don't get that then I'll probably go with Tact-Tiles since you can pull up a part at a time and it uses Dry Erase which is much cleaner than those stupid overhead projector pens.

Worldworks Web Site
Tact-Tiles Web Site

 

[Altalazar]

I think minis are an awesome tool. Before I had any, I used dry erase boards. Chalkboards. Pieces of paper. There had to be SOME way to indicate where everyone was in combat - an unambiguous way. Otherwise you have all of the problems originally listed here - and huge time wasted as people try and figure out where they are and what is going on - something that ZERO time is used when you have it all laid out with miniatures.

I've found from using them (with a battle mat) for YEARS prior to 3E that they do not slow things down, they speed things up considerably.

It takes a few seconds to slap down a quick sketch of an area on the mat and place the minis down where the NPCs are. The players tend to use the minis to illustrate marching order and such ahead of time, so it is quick for them as well. Then from there it is just a matter of keeping track mini by mini as they move, which also goes quick, because counting up squares is so fast and easy and unambiguous. The action goes fast and furious and there is seldom to never any questions about where something or someone is.

I couldn't imagine gaming without them. Doing so frees up so many brain-resources for other, fun things to keep track of. It allows everyone to see what is going on without confusion.

Sure, you can get almost the same effect with a board or piece of paper, but when it gets down to combat, nothing beats minis as a tool.

 

[Aaron L]

Miniatures tend to reduce the game to a strategy session, or a match of chess or Battletech, in my experience. I track combat on a piece of grid paper and it works fine.

 

[reveal]

I've found mini's to be essential in my campaigns up to a point.

When we use them:

1) When there are a lot of combatants - It's easier to keep track of where everyone is and what they are doing.

2) When we're in a situation that is hard to describe - "You're in a 40 by 30 foot room" is easy to describe and easy to imagine it's looks. "You're in a cavern that is 40 by 30 feet and has stalactites (or is it Mites?) in a few locations and each stalactite has 3 spiders behind it" is a lot harder to describe perfectly.

3) Because my vision of how things look is usually different than others - As a simple example, I may say "The spider is behind the stalactite." The player thinks the spider is on the left side and I think he's on the right. I don't want to have to remember to be that specific in my descriptions when it is SO much easier to take 30 seconds to draw out a quick map and slap down mini's/cut out monster tokens. I've had many players say "I'm having a hard time picturing this. Can we draw it out?"

When we do not use them:

1) If there are few combatants - If the party splits up and, let's say, 2 members run up against 2 enemies, I'm not going to draw it out unless it's vitaly important that I do or if the players ask that I do.

2) If it's not important - If it's not important tactically or just in general that I draw it out, I don't.

 

[Planesdragon]

And if we made a tactical mistake in combat, it was because of our inability to fully grasp the "description" of combat. In his words, "I described the situation perfectly."

This is why, when I decided to remove minis from my game, I added in a "Battle Tactics" skill that replaces the information lost by this abstraction.