Is gaming without map and minis really bad?

[Man in the Funny Hat]

From the Red Box set:

This game doesn’t have a board, because
you won’t need one. Besides, no
board could have all the dungeons,
dragons, monsters, and characters you
will need!

I've been playing for some 30 years now. Been using miniatures and 1" square grids THE ENTIRE TIME. First session to last. I can recall exactly ONE game where I actually made do with no minis and that was a one-night, 2-hour game run by a guy who got his jollies being the leader of the school bullies when we were in high school together. That was obviously a wierd night for more than one reason: the high school bullies inviting me, the geek of geeks, over for a game of D&D. We never played again but I explained how the regular group I played in used minis and grids.

Using minis and a "board" is still not necessary and never has been. I wouldn't really want to play without them though, even moreso in 3E than in older editions as 3E is geared to work WITH those things even if it doesn't REQUIRE them.

Some have here opined that their use will actually stunt your growth and shrivel your brain. That is of course utter shash. Use them if you want. Don't if you don't. Neither is mandatory. Neither is "wrong".

For my part, I wouldn't do without them. Too much fun with them to try NOT using them on a regular basis. Honestly, they are such an ingrained part of MY D&D experience that I don't really want to try. I also use a fair amount of Dwarven Forge and the occasional 3-D terrain elements in addition to the ever-popular Battlemat.

Just TRY and tell me I have no imagination (heck I chant about that all the time with the prediliction people show for religious adherence to rules Rules RULES). Lack of imagination isn't the advocacy of use of minis. Lack of imagination is thinking that the advocacy and use of minis is inherently unimaginative.

 

[MerricB]

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.

That, in fact, is how we used to run AD&D combat (and, once you read the initiative rules, seems to be how it should work).

Cheers!

 

[Crothian]

The answer: The DM is not bad and I am not bad. Playing the sceanrio without minis was bad.

A good DM would have known that and used minis though.

I was listening to the DM describe the landscape, but I thought I understood the descriptions when I really didn't. How can that make me a bad player?

You just read bad player from my post and nothing else it seems. It was one of many possibilities another being bad communication. And I'm not calling you or your DM bad, I am just suggesting that with the very limited info I have presented by you that these are one reason things did not work out.

 

[Darkwolf445]

I started using minis when 2E Combat and Tactics came out, then with 3.x, thanks to the love of tactics my players have. Since then, I have used minis for everything except Call of Cthulhu.

I like using them, but still gripe about it.

 

[Thurbane]

From the Red Box set:

This game doesn’t have a board, because
you won’t need one. Besides, no
board could have all the dungeons,
dragons, monsters, and characters you
will need!

It is totally possible to play without a map or minis, and I have done so many, many times in the past.

However, depending on your style of play, having a grid and minis can really help things flow along smoothly, and help prevent tactical misunderstandings or disputes.

 

[EditorBFG]

But you decide the distance between characters arbitrarily. There is no reference for you to reference, other than a blank map of a dungeon, if even that.

This is a good point. I do not game with a GM I do not trust to make decisions "aribtrarily." I have to trust the GM to make the best decisions to make the game progress.

I really don't need miniatures. I don't need Attacks of Opportunity or tactical movement. I understand the attraction of these things, but personally I have wargame/boardgame type things to scratch hat particular itch. Or strategy-based PC games. And I lug around enough stuff to role-play already that a bunch of little hunks of metal isn't worth it.

But that's me. People want different things from the gaming experience.

I wish WotC weren't trying to coerce me into having the experience their way, or the way that makes me spend more moeny, but I understand their obligation to increase profits. I also understand taht, in my case, it doesn't work. I haven't bought a WotC product of any kind since Unearthed Arcana. I but plenty of rpg products, just not from them. I don't find any of their products useful anymore. I also know that I am in the minority.

 

[Crothian]

I wish WotC weren't trying to coerce me into having the experience their way

How are they coercing you? In the suppliments I have gotten this year not one of them seems to require minis any more then the core game.

 

[bytor4232]

I DMed for 15 years without minis. When I started with 3rd edition, I picked up a new group of gamers, and they all wanted to use miniatures. I fought it, but they pretty much insisted. So its either use minis, or not play at all.

I have quite a few minis now, thou. I've even taken to painting miniatures. The Reaper line is my favorite. I'm not very good at it, but its a fun hobby nonetheless. Mostly for monsters thou I use the dollar store bags of critters.

 

[EditorBFG]

3.5 in general seems to want minis a lot more. So I guess maybe my problem is with the current version of the core game. It starts with the changes from 3E to 3.5 in the PHB/DMG/MM, but to my mind everything they publish seems more and more bogged down in tactical minutiae.

I buy more Green Ronin, Malhavoc and RPG Objects stuff the last few years, and just page through the WotC books in the store. WotC just doesn't do it for me anymore. I have been tempted by Eberron material, and I intend to get the new Stars Wars RPG, but their other books are not doing it for me at all.

But like I said, I understand why WotC is doing it, I know I am in the minority, and I am not calling for a change.

Still, the fact that someone is asking if gaming without miniatures is "okay" seems to underscore my point.

 

[Gort]

I like using minis. It takes a little more time to set stuff up, but I find that it really helps to illustrate the scene you're trying to put across. Of course, there are situations where it's a bit of a waste of time to use a mat and minis - situations where you don't expect any combat to occur, situations where there is only one monster and the terrain is open and generally featureless, and so forth - in these situations using the mat and minis is a waste of time because they're easy or unnecessary to visualise.

However, if you're not using a mat in a twenty-man battle and the GM keeps telling you your rogue can't get into a flanking position or any area of effect spells your wizard is casting will fry half of your allies, it often feels like you're being shortchanged.

With a mat you can use clever tactics in the game (as others have said, sort of like a game of chess) without GM approval - you've thought of something, now the enemy must react. He can't just dodge by saying, "Oh, something you were unaware of scuppers your clever plan".

I think it's a very good thing for both players and GM to be clear and in-sync about the situation they are in, and a mat really helps with that and gets rid of any arguments.