Is gaming without map and minis really bad?

[edemaitre]

Do gamers need a map and miniatures?

I've also been role-playing and G.M.'ing since about 1982 and have used miniatures on and off through the years. I have fond memories of painting the early lead-based figurines back in AD&D1, then using counters sporadically, then relying on my gamers' extensive D&D3.5 prepainted plastic mini collections. For my D20 "Mutants & Masterminds" 2nd Ed. superhero game, we use HeroClix figures.

I don't think minis should be required by pen-and-paper, face-to-face games (only dice, core rulebooks, a character record sheet, and munchies should be), but they do help many players visualize situations. I still prefer to describe what they see in terms of the locale and their opposition before placing miniatures on a battle mat. Some players have gone so far as to buy terrain and building sculptures, but a marker and good dialogue should save lots of money.

For many D&D3.5/D20 feats and spell effects, a map and minis/counters seem necessary, but I hope that WotC doesn't make specific figures a requirement in the inevitable D&D4.0...

 

[awayfarer]

It is much, much easier to figure out exactly whats going on at any given moment if you have a map and minis. Combats with only a few creatures/PC's are doable without them, especially if its taking place in a cramped area. The amount of info in big combats can be really hard to keep track of without anything visual to go by.

 

[atomn]

We don't always use a battlemat but I think it's preferable it in D&D 3.x since so many of the rules revolve around spacing, line of sight, established movement, etc. Personally I enjoy playing with it because it brings a tactical/strategical bend to the game that turns it into a sort of chess game.

I've noticed that many people who are against using battlemats say that they think it ruins imagination and lessens colorful language and description of the combat. But I've found that a good GM who uses a battlemat will bring just as describtive and colorful feel to their game as a GM who uses no battlemat. Because of that, I see the battlemat as enhancing play instead of detracting from it.

In the way of models, I love using them. It's fun to have a piece that looks (somewhat) like your character instead of using a coin or glass marker. And even if you're not the best painter (i.e., me), it's neat when you have your completed, self-painted character in front of you.

 

[Umbran]

Maps and minis are not necessary in a general sense. I gamed for decades without them. They are a tool that is sometimes useful to aid visualization and help with more detailed combat mechanics. When that sort of aid isn't needed, either because the system mechanics aren't that complicated, or because the particular encounter is simple enough, the minis simply aren't important.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Nah, minis aren't necessary at all, although the 3E rules (especially 3.5) do seem to assume the use of a battlemap/minis as the default.

Minis can be helpful, though. I played for years without minis, but started using them with 1E (we used the 1" = 3.33 ft. scale described in the 1E DMG). I always used them with 3E. Now, I'm running Castles & Crusades, and I use them for some battles, but not all. I've drifted away from using the map as a definite grid, though. I've gone back to a ruler/tape-measure for quick evaluation of distance (usually faster than counting squares, if the distance is medium or long). I think "decoupling" from the grid/squares does make movement and combat feel a bit more organic.

Another thing I've been getting away from is a strict 1., 2., 3... order in initiative. Instead, I've been asking for declaration of actions, then rolling for initiative, and then deciding how any declared movement would play out. For example, two groups charging would meet in the middle, rather than the more "chess-like" practice of having one side move, then the other, etc. I've found that this also improves the organic feel of combat.

I've also found that initiative, itself, is often unnecessary. Sometimes it's obvious which actions would go first. In those cases, I don't bother with initiative at all. The approach I've been taking has also lessened the need for individual initiative, and I tend to use group initiative quite a bit, these days.

 

[WayneLigon]

Neither board or minis are needed, but they certainly do help a great deal. You don't need actual minis, just some representation of the various characters, but having a nice mini that at least sorta matches your PC is a nice benefit; it helps some with visualization.

I've gamed without a board, with us just sitting around on couches, and I've gamed at a table built for the purpose with a raisable lid so maps could be put under cover of tempered glass. I've played with people with no minis, with pennies and buttons and dice, and with people with thousands (not an exeggeration for effect) of minis (and had custom minis for our PCs).

As long as both the players and GM have a good idea about where people are and what they are doing, and don't pull stuff like 'No, you're over by the door' 'No, I said I was following the mage' then it's OK not to have a battlemat. The minute you misunderstand where you are in the combat and die because of it, or spend ten minutes arguing where you are in the marching order, then the mat and minis need to come out and continue to be used.

 

[bento]

Both.

I've stopped using minis for simple combat encounters because my players take too long plotting every little detail during their turn. I now describe the encouter and they play through. If they do have questions regarding distance and placement, I always have some graph paper near by to do a sketch.

I still use minis for complicated combat, such as a strange enviornment or encouter with different types of monsters. It helps the players call their shots easier and focus on specific enemies.

 

[pogre]

No.

yes - at least for the current edition of the game.

 

[Davelozzi]

I currently use minis most of the time but don't have any aversion to playing without them (and like many others, did so for the first 2/3 of my gaming career). When you have the right minis and some good scenery, it is great, but I would rather use nothing at all than counters on a blank page or something like that. Certainly the release of D&D minis has made acquiring a decent selection a lot easier, and considerably cheaper (though it is still a significant cost until your collection gets large enough to fulfill your general mini needs).

I've drifted away from using the map as a definite grid, though. I've gone back to a ruler/tape-measure for quick evaluation of distance (usually faster than counting squares, if the distance is medium or long). I think "decoupling" from the grid/squares does make movement and combat feel a bit more organic.

I could not agree more. IMO, a grid does not add to the game at all, I definitely prefer an ungridded battlemap.

 

[Nadaka]

We never, ever use miniatures. Ever. Minis are the Stunters of Imagination and the Bane of Cool Combats. They are the Antithesis of Action and the Killer of Real Gaming Everywhere (KORGE).

Imagination is cheaper, quicker, less distracting and better painted. Imagination needs no freaking battlemap. It needs no carrying case, and (most importantly) can't be knocked over in the middle of round 13.

Here's a little story from a few months back. In the interests of anonymity, I'll call the player Paul, because that's his name.

Paul had heard about our gaming group, and asked to join. He's a recent gamer having migrated from computer games, picked up 3.5edition and decided he liked what he saw. He's a great guy, and much fun to be with, so we let him in. He wanted to GM, but (his words) "hadn't bought all the miniatures I need to run the adventure yet". We choked our coke at that, and explained our "no miniatures" policy. It took a lot of persuading that We Are Right and He Is Wrong, especially as he had the rulesbooks on his side of the argument. He'd got a miniature of the character he was playing. Except he wielded a sword and the mini had a spear. And wore the wrong armour. Hey, at least the sex and race was right.

He was much relieved that he didn't need to spend £100s just to GM one scenario. But let's face it, a strict reading of the rules (to someone without a thousand years gaming experience as our group has) would interpret it so. He thought that Only The Rich GM, because at least the players only have to buy one mini at a time.

Now, he's regularly attending Miniatures Anonymous and makes a great contribution to our game.

Long live Paul and long live mini free gaming.

wow "Killer of Real Gaming Everywhere" tell that to someone who cant understand why thier fireball has to hit an ally when the target is being flanked by 2 said allies. I've played with people like that. It isn't that they lack imagination, or that they are stupid (well, not most of them) but that they have brains that are not wired the same as most others, they have to see some representation to be able to understand.

As for not being able to afford minis? Why not, all it takes is a nickle and a sharpie marker and you have an instant mini.