How Close do your Minis Need to Match?

[Jeff Wilder]

Software that can depict things on a monitor. Video graphics. Why don't you use this sort of thing? If you want to depict the things that a miniature does, it has more possibilities and would even provide more content for your games.

How would this kind of content do what a miniature does, aside from showing the players what something looks like (two dimensionally)?

I must still be missing something, sorry. I feel like I've been mistaken for someone else you were having a conversation with, who left in the middle.

 

[xechnao]

How would this kind of content do what a miniature does, aside from showing the players what something looks like (two dimensionally)?

What can a miniature do beyond this? And there is software that handles camera angles -?3d like?
I am trying to figure out if you think video graphics would be good enough for your depiction necessities and if not understand why.
Always assuming that you have easy access to both.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I am trying to figure out if you think video graphics would be good enough for your depiction necessities and if not understand why.
Always assuming that you have easy access to both.

If you can give me a Star Wars holo-chess game-table, I'm so there. Believe me.

Until then, I'll take the three-dimensional tactical representation of minis.

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, for D&D the most important thing for me is that the mini's size is correct.

Apart from that I never use duplicate minis. If I need a dozen troglodytes, I'll use the three (different) troglodyte minis I've got, three lizardmen, an ophidian, three dragonspawn, etc.

That's because it's easier to refer to individual enemies that way.

I've become a fan of prepainted minis for a similar reason. From afar all unpainted minis look alike.

Since I started collecting minis I also sometimes adjust encounters to make better use of the minis I own.

 

[the Jester]

While it is certainly preferable if our minis are representative of the pcs and monsters, it is not required. Pretty much the only thing that is even loosely required is that the size is about right- if you're medium, you should only take up one square on the map.

With that in mind, when the pcs would find really big monsters, I'd use things like pickle jars to represent them. "Raargh!! The big pickle jar attacks!!"

 

[pogre]

Usually, yes. I have a few stand-ins for unusual monsters, but I have most of the bases covered.

 

[Chainsaw]

I really, really, really, REALLY like a mini that matches my character concept, but it won't deter me from a concept I really like. If I'm on the fence about options (sword/axe, two swords/sword&shield, etc) or don't have the concept fleshed out, sometimes I let mini availability guide me.

As for monsters, we use whatever's handy. Matching would be nice, but no one in our group has the time or money to ensure matching group of beasts for every adventure.

 

[jgsugden]

My minis factor in to my games in the following ways:

1.) Some encounters are inspired by my minis. I sometimes write an encounter so that I can use some of my favorite minis.

2.) I use the best figure I have for the encounter I've written. I don't worry if the figure isn't a great representation of the 'actual' monster - I'll come as close as I can and move on.

3.) I am willing to spend money to get better representations. I've bought a lot of minis so that I could afford to have good representations of monsters in most encounters.

4.) I don't need a PC mini to match my character concept - the idea comes before the figure. However, if there is a figure out there that better mtches my concept, I'll go after it.

 

[knasser]

The closer the mini looks, the better

I have the exact opposite point of view. The less the place-holders look like actual creatures the better. Typically, PCs are matchsticks coloured in with a felt-tip pen (I think in the US they're called 'sharpies') and jammed in a blob of blu-tack.

If you start down the route of trying to use miniatures that look like what they're meant to be, you find yourself adapting your character to what they look like, getting confused about discrepancies ("wait - is this gnoll an orc or a hobgoblin?") and shaping encounters around what miniatures you have ("why are we fighting a lich and three angels again?").

Description shouldn't be influenced by the miniature because you're less free to describe things how you like. Encounters shouldn't be limited by miniatures because you're less free to create what you want. If I suddenly decide to throw my players into a pit with a pit fiend (where else would one be?) and his twenty legion devil lackeys, I don't want to be worrying about how I'll represent them or where I'll get the miniatures. And I don't want to swap him for a Glabrezu just because I have the miniature.

You can ignore the miniatures, but if you try to ignore in some places and represent in others, then you're inconsistent and people will have to keep asking what is what. Get bits of paper or sawn off bits of dowel or painted pennies or something, with r1, r2 and g1 written on them - voilá! You have two Reavers and a Ghoul and your players will remember what each is and which they've hit. And when I tell them the Reavers are translucent, spectral figures with long pale hair that floats ethereally about them, then that's what the players are going to see!

It's like the "Uncanny Valley" for those familiar with the concept. If you can't get what you want, then close to what you want is more disconcerting than something that clearly and definitely isn't what you want.

Ooops, sorry. Ranted.

 

[Mark]

Usually, yes. I have a few stand-ins for unusual monsters, but I have most of the bases covered.

Punny.