Is gaming without map and minis really bad?

[Raven Crowking]

My previous post has examples of more control by the DM. The first being the DM wanted our ambush to fail, and it did. If there were minis, the ambush would've been much more successful.

No minis = more DM control.

Tony M

You're right....the DM couldn't simply add hp to the guys you're ambushing equal to the amount of damage you do, thus creating exactly the same situation no matter how many rounds of fire you got. Minis prevent this completely.

Seriously, No minis =/= More DM control, though minis might create the illusion of player control. If you trust your DM, not an issue. If you do not, why are you playing in his game?


RC

 

[Professor Phobos]

I'm struggling to even see what the value of miniatures would be for my game...(not including the fact that we do it via a chat room...)

I mean, combats are over so fast, and are generally so cinematic and loose, that I doubt there'd be any use for them.

But I'm not playing D&D. If I was, I'd probably want to play with miniatures- the game is very tactical, very crunchy, combats take a while and positioning really matters. I can see great utility in miniatures for that sort of game.

If your game doesn't need or want miniatures, you shouldn't add them in "Just to keep people honest." If you need to keep people honest at all, your game has bigger problems than miniatures can solve. If you want miniatures 'cause they're fun, then add 'em in. If you want 'em because it adds to the tactical experience (not really my bag, but hey, whatever), then add them in. But don't insist on playing with them because you can't trust the GM. If you can't trust your GM, don't play with him in the first place, or work things out, or change your perspective, whatever. A battlemap and a styrofoam cup with "Kobold!" scrawled on it in magic marker will not turn a bad DM into a good one.

 

[maddman75]

Sometimes I use minis, sometimes I don't. Depends on the game that I'm running.

If I'm running a tactical game, then exact positioning is important. The locations of the combatants relative to each other and terrain features is important. The outcome of the fight should in some part rely upon the players' tactical choices, and the minis make that easier. If I'm running 3e D&D I'll generally run a somewhat tactical game, because 3e D&D is really, really good at that.

On the other hand, if I'm running a more cinematic game, then minis are useless. Actively harmful in fact. In this case the exact positioning and terrain is irrelevent. They are as close or far away as they need to be, and I'll freely let players add terrain features - (Is there a chandalier over the bad guys? Sure, if you spend a Hero Point). If I try to run a cinematic game and use minis then my players and myself are going to feel constrained. Further, in a cinematic game the outcome of a fight generally doesn't depend on tactics by players. It depends on style and dramatic consequences.

The conflict comes in when someone plays in a cinematic game and expects a tactical game. If I'm running a game without minis I do *not* have an imaginary grid in my head that I try to convey to players. If that is needed, I'll use a grid. Or a sketch or something. If I'm running such a fight, I don't *know* how far it is between the PCs or how far the bad guys are from each other. It doesn't matter.

Let's take tonym's example - one PC is badly hurt and another wants to heal him before he loses consciousness. In a tactical game, this depends on the distance between them, the terrain, the locations of the enemies, and so on. If all these things are the determining factor, then some physical representation should be used. If you're playing a cinematic game, then these are not the main determinants. In this case I would most likely simply say yes. If I thought not, there were bad guys in the way, the player could use a metagame mechanic to do it anyway, such as a Drama Point in Buffy or a stunt in Exalted. Or I could present them with choices. Yes you can heal him, but when the troll that's been beating on him goes after you, you won't be able to dodge. Or Yes you can get over there, but that will let the orcs get past you and get to the mage. That way the player is making a choice about what (and who) is more important to him.

Minis aren't 'good' or 'bad'. They're good for some kinds of games, bad for other kinds of games. If I'm running D&D I'll use minis because it works good with them and I like minis. If I'm running AFMBE I'll generally sketch things out. If I'm running Buffy or Exalted though I wouldn't dream of using miniatures.

 

[Riley]

Different situations call for different levels of mini use. Sometimes it's whole-hog miniatures with terrain constructed especially for the occasion, sometimes it's a battle map, sometimes a few PC minis sitting on the table to remind us who's bringing up the rear, and sometimes no minis.

We try to switch freely between formats on a regular basis - between sessions, or during - to keep things from getting boring.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not sure that the original post and the thread title make much sense. Currently, we use minis and a battlemap because we have them and D&D is easier to play with them.

For other games, we don't. Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of minis and battle maps for a roleplaying game, but I've come to terms with it as a element of d20 that's hard to work around. However, before we had all these minis that only one or two guys in our group have gotten into, we just used counters, extra dice, etc. and it worked just as good.

 

[Janx]

I've found minis help on two fronts:

1) attention span. Having minis on a mat helps players figure out what's going on for their turn, with very little questions. This helps for players who don't pay attention when it isn't their turn (happens with large player count or very tired players).

2) providing practical limits on what can happen in the fight. I've got one friend who suffers from "being everywhere" in the fight. He's grabbing gold from the chest at the end of the room, and getting the final hit on the dragon in the next round. Having minis on a mat helps minimize that. It's less about "keeping people honest" and more about establishing what the situation is in a framework everyone can see and agree on. Otherwise, folks don't have a common understanding of what the scene is.

 

[Jemal]

Well, this "To Mini or not to Mini" argument is really going hot, isn't it? This is like the 3rd or 4th thread I've seen on the subject lately.
Personally, I don't like Mini's all that much, but if you really cared about my opinion, I've posted it in about 3 places now, and don't want to review it.
I would like to say, however, that I just came from the most recent Gygax Interview, and here's his take on the subject:

Actually, I am noit much given to employing miniatures when playing an RPG. I agree with Plato's assessment of spectacle being the least element of tragedy...

What I really do enjoy, however, is tabletop combat with miniatures; and pre-painted is the way to go as far as I am concerned, as I no longer have the desire, time, nor eyeseight to manage a proper job of painting myself.

Cheerio,
Gary

So for what it's worth, I'm confused. On the one hand, he doesn't use mini's in RPG's (D&D is an RPG). On the other hand, he really enjoy's using them for tabletop combat (which happens a lot in D&D)... Perhaps he was reffering to Wargaming...

 

[Grazzt]

I play without maps or minis and I like it fine. Sometimes, if we can't figure something out, the GM scribbles a little picture.

Same thing here. We've played for many years (all editions of D&D and AD&D) with and without minis/map. Never had an issue (even in 3.x where minis are "required").

 

[Umbran]

Playing any role playing game without minis has the burden of players and GMs not sharing the same image of the action, which can create, "I didn't think I/it was there!" moments, leading time used readjusting to make sure everyone is on the same page, or leave a player feeling like they're getting hosed for things they didn't intend. Miscommunication happens.

Minis help alleviate that problem, because it gives the players and GM the same basic image of the battlefield. Mind you, the battlemat takes time to set up, so there is a tradeoff. The battlemap gets used when the time to set up and use it is less than the time and frustration that may result if you don't use it. For fast or simple battles, the map is probably unnecessary. For complicated battles, it is probably very useful. A picture can be worth a thousand words - which means that if you're only saying 20 words, the picture is overkill.

How much a stickler you are for the rules associated with map movement is a partially separate question. Using a map and counters does not mean you use every single little rule that's commonly associated with them.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

You're right....the DM couldn't simply add hp to the guys you're ambushing equal to the amount of damage you do, thus creating exactly the same situation no matter how many rounds of fire you got. Minis prevent this completely.

Seriously, No minis =/= More DM control, though minis might create the illusion of player control. If you trust your DM, not an issue. If you do not, why are you playing in his game?

It does give him MORE control.

With minis, the DM has control over the creatures stats (and maybe his die rolls if he rolls behind a DM screen).

Without minis he has control of all of the same things as with minis PLUS he can now change distances between objects, arbitrarily decide whether someone has cover or not, and add in or remove obstacles from round to round, and decide what the players see.

With minis, you can look at a map and say "Ok, I'm 30 feet away from the enemy, I can make it there this round". Without minis, the DM may decide you are 50 feet away this round. I've actually seen distances between things change from round to round (and even from player to player), and not because the DM was purposefully making it harder or easier, but simply because he forgot what number he said 5 minutes before hand.

Plus, miscommunication happens all the time just because people view things differently. For example:

Player: "We hide in the alley on opposite sides of the streets and pull out our bows ready to ambush them when they get in sight."
DM: "Ok, they are in sight, and they take attacks of opportunity on you for using your bows on them."
Player: "What? We're in the alleys, hiding!"
DM: "The street is 5 ft wide and the alleys are 5 ft long. You should know all streets in the country of BLAH are narrow and the buildings small."
Player: "We didn't know that!"
DM: "Well, too bad, you said you were taking the action and you are!"

There was a related discussion about this in a thread from a long time ago. Basically, there are hundreds and hundreds of different "powers" in the game. Some of the above are examples: Being able to decide a monsters hit points, deciding what ac the monsters have, deciding where the lantern is, deciding what dice to roll to hit, etc.

Each "power" either falls into the DMs control, the Player's control, or the Rules' control.

Using minis is just one way to move some "powers" from the DM to the rules. Thus making it more "fair" since all of the players and the DM should be able to agree and understand the same thing more easily.

You have to trust that a DM won't blatantly cheat or you are right, there's no reason to play. However, I don't trust DMs to be perfect and never make a mistake. If using minis, I know there are now 5-7 people looking at the movement to make sure none of the enemies move too far or double move then attack. The DM is less likely to make a mistake.