Is gaming *with* a map and minis really bad?

[Aus_Snow]

No.

 

[Umbran]

Minis and a map are a tool. The tool itself isn't really bad or good. What matters is whether you need the tool, and how you use the tool.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

Maps and minis are not necessary, but totally OK to game with.

Keeps it closer to the games roots.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

I use Dwarven Forge and Reaper minis every chance I get.

Same here, though we also mix in DDM and hand-made terrain for gaming.

 

[Laman Stahros]

I have always used some sort of visual aids in my games. It helps keep everyone on the same page as to where everything is. I use my battlemat with coins, dice, beads, or whatever I can scrounge to show where things are.

Visual aids do not slow down the game, people taking too long to make decisions slows down the game. I used to have an egg timer, and everyone had 30 seconds to decide what they were going to do or stand there confused. Sped up the slow pokes greatly.

As always, YMMV.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It isn't really bad, no. It isn't very preferable either, though. When I'm playing a roleplaying game, I don't much like to stop playing the roleplaying game and play a tactical miniatures minigame.

That interesting. I can't say I get that feeling when moving in and out of combat. In D&D I try to maintain an awareness of my characters' mechanics outside of combat and of their personalities and RP history in combat. It doesnt feel like two different games to me. If the battlemap did give me that sensation I could see not enjoying it's use....

 

[Desdichado]

That interesting. I can't say I get that feeling when moving in and out of combat. In D&D I try to maintain an awareness of my characters' mechanics outside of combat and of their personalities and RP history in combat. It doesnt feel like two different games to me. If the battlemap did give me that sensation I could see not enjoying it's use....

I try to too, and I think I'm reasonably successful at it, but I think the mechanics being written as they are--where some kind of visual representation of combat is almost essential to avoid combat just being a confusing nightmare--certainly hinders me rather than helps me in that regard. D&D in combat and D&D out of combat feel like two different games.

 

[Henry]

When I started, I never used Maps and Minis, but it was me and one player only, so narrating action was pretty easy. Later when I gamed with larger groups, we always used some kind of spatial representation (in the late 1980's it was a laminated 1" graph paper mat and Risk pieces). Somewhere along the way it became "bad" to use spatial rep, but my groups never had that mindset.

We do THINK about the mat far more than the older groups did, because of op-attacks, exact measures of the fireball radii, exact measures for cones, etc. but in general I don't feel like it interferes with our suspension of disbelief any more or less.

 

[tzor]

I've been playing with maps and minis since 1980. Many are saying that it's a tactical thing. I disgree. It can be a tactical thing, but it can also be a right brain / left brain sort of thing. I really find it easier to role play if I can see a visual of the situation, even if that visual isn't exactly what is actually happening, even if the mini bears only a passing resemblence to my character (or is in fact a d6).

 

[Jedi_Solo]

It's not "bad" at all.

Some groups may prefer to play without them.

The group I play with loves them.