Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Merova" data-source="post: 1201190" data-attributes="member: 2505">Thumb Tacks &amp; FoamcoreHi all!I had a GM do something similar, but with colored thumb tacks and foamcore board. It was amazingly efficient for tactical adjudication. However, I never really liked being the &quot;purple tack.&quot; I prefer seeing a representative figure for my PCs, which is why I use minis. YMMV. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Again, this leads back to the &quot;immersion&quot; question. I prefer minis over more abstract representations, such as tacks or coins or scratchmarks on grid paper, because my ability to imagine &quot;being there&quot; is aided by them. My recent experiments with printed tiles and floorplans has led to a similar conclusion. A well rendered corridor or a detailed wilderness backdrop does wonders for my &quot;immersion&quot; experience, when compared to my typical practice of scribbling out bare environmental or architectural details on my old Chessex.Whether the situation calls for combat or conversation, having a floorplan in which the players can imagine their PCs acting seems to aid in the &quot;suspension of disbelief&quot; and helps the players get &quot;into&quot; their characters.I know that some players loath minis and maps, citing them as examples of a &quot;wargaming&quot; bias. I can understand this prejudice, which was probably gained by an unhappy prior experience that left a lingering dislike. They usually speak of &quot;roleplaying vs. roll-playing.&quot; I've found that the floorplans aids in the &quot;immersive&quot; experience, which is definitely an aspect of &quot;roleplaying.&quot; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />So, any thoughts, agreements, or disagreements?Thanks for reading.---Olivia</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Merova, post: 1201190, member: 2505"] [b]Thumb Tacks & Foamcore[/b] Hi all! I had a GM do something similar, but with colored thumb tacks and foamcore board. It was amazingly efficient for tactical adjudication. However, I never really liked being the "purple tack." I prefer seeing a representative figure for my PCs, which is why I use minis. YMMV. ;) Again, this leads back to the "immersion" question. I prefer minis over more abstract representations, such as tacks or coins or scratchmarks on grid paper, because my ability to imagine "being there" is aided by them. My recent experiments with printed tiles and floorplans has led to a similar conclusion. A well rendered corridor or a detailed wilderness backdrop does wonders for my "immersion" experience, when compared to my typical practice of scribbling out bare environmental or architectural details on my old Chessex. Whether the situation calls for combat or conversation, having a floorplan in which the players can imagine their PCs acting seems to aid in the "suspension of disbelief" and helps the players get "into" their characters. I know that some players loath minis and maps, citing them as examples of a "wargaming" bias. I can understand this prejudice, which was probably gained by an unhappy prior experience that left a lingering dislike. They usually speak of "roleplaying vs. roll-playing." I've found that the floorplans aids in the "immersive" experience, which is definitely an aspect of "roleplaying." :D So, any thoughts, agreements, or disagreements? Thanks for reading. ---Olivia [/QUOTE]

Verification