Miniatures and my players

[MerricB]

The other day, I forgot to bring the dry-erase pen I needed for my battlemat. Well, no matter - we were running the final two encounters of Keep on the Shadowfell, and they already had maps. However, they took less time than was available in the session so we started on Thunderspire Labyrinth. In normal circumstances, I'd draw out the map for it.

However, I decided just to wing it - to run 4e without miniatures. I've run every edition of D&D without miniatures at some point (about 50% of 3e, more of earlier editions). However, as I described the action, the players just set up the miniatures on the mat, imagined where the walls were, and went from there.

Well, that was fine, and we had a good combat and then some roleplaying after it.

However, this is just one of my two groups, and the one that is the most action-orientated and least roleplaying inclined.

So, what do my other group think of minis? Well, for Bradford, my most rules-challenged and roleplaying-gifted member of the group: miniatures all the way. They help him visualise the action. And the reaction is the same from most of the group: they prefer miniatures.

(Bradford's a great player, who doesn't like overly complicated rules. He's found 4e to be a great, great improvement from 3e: easy to create characters, easy to play).

I've no doubt that the way abilities and combat are structured in 4e (and, to some extent, 3e) has a great effect on this. When there are mechanical implications to your position, you tend to want a more accurate way of tracking it. I also feel that miniatures, at least to my game, have a detrimental effect on great descriptions during combat. Mind you, I'm not big on descriptive passages anyway.

However, are those great descriptions during combat just a way of making the combat more interesting without the miniatures and manuevering rules making it more interesting? Certainly, a lot of AD&D combats really boiled down to "I hit. You hit" with nothing more significant going on. If the players' attentions are being focused on avoiding being pushed into a pit and getting into the best position to aid their fellows, are we really losing that much: the game is equally fun, but the fun is coming from a different source?

Cheers!

 

[Fenes]

I don't use miniatures. They turn the game too much into a boardgame, in my experience - colored by the Mechwarror roleplaying game though. Too much distance measuring, hex counting, etc. for my taste, and too much of a "bird's eye view". Also, the limits inherent to the system - "two characters can't be in this place, only one square here" - reduce my immersion.

 

[wedgeski]

4E on the whole has improved my own descriptions of combat, but I couldn't comment on the effect miniatures have because I can't think of a single version of AD&D where we haven't tracked party locations on a map of some kind, whether it's a hex grid, a white-board, or just a bit of scrap paper where 'x' marks the spot. It's simply the way we've always rolled.

Particularly for us, this edition more than any other divides the game into two 'modes': the combat mode, and the roleplaying mode. Oh, the combat has good descriptions and character beats, and we all do our best, but like it or loathe it (and we like it), 4E combat plays like a tactical game-within-a-game. When we're all wrapped up in strategy and -for-tat maneuvering, roleplaying inevitably takes a slightly back seat. This is not to the detriment of the game in the slightest, because the other half of our game time is spent with the dice back in the bag and the rule-book effectively shut. In essence we feel we're getting the best bits of a varied diet.

 

[Shades of Green]

However, are those great descriptions during combat just a way of making the combat more interesting without the miniatures and manuevering rules making it more interesting? Certainly, a lot of AD&D combats really boiled down to "I hit. You hit" with nothing more significant going on. If the players' attentions are being focused on avoiding being pushed into a pit and getting into the best position to aid their fellows, are we really losing that much: the game is equally fun, but the fun is coming from a different source

It depends on the DM and the players. Running an interesting battle without miniatures requires some thinking outside of the box on both sides of the gaming table, some DM fiat and a certain level of acceptance of DM fiat among the players.

Describing "props" in the battle area works very well towards this goal - for example, a room with a table, chairs, chandelier and an open fire pit is far more interesting to fight in than a 10m by 2m empty corridor. But using those "props" requires active thinking outside of the box both by the DM and the players: if the scenery is ignored it'll devolve into a "I hit - You hit" affair. The DM's monsters have to use the scenery to their advantage (say, throwing the chair at someone, or trying to push someone into the fire pit) and so do the players' PCs. And it needs on-the-spot rulings, as not every prop and every creative use for it is described in the RAW.

Monsters should also make the best use (to the limit of their intelligence) of their abilities and magical loot. A group of several types of monsters with varied abilities working as a team would work great here.

Tactics are also useful, and without miniatures many creative tactics require on-the-spot rulings (especially in pre-3E games).

And, last but not least, the DM should give detailed descriptions of combat actions (which are best accompanied by gestures) - instead of "your hit kills the Orc" he should say "your well-aimed sword slices off the Orc's head, and its lifeless body collapses in a fountain of dark-red blood". Instead of "the Orc hits you for 5 damage" he should say "the Orc delivers a sharp and painful stab with his spear, bypassing your shield and cutting through your armor; he damages you for 5 HP". Instead of "the Orc misses", he should say "you block the Orc's blow with your shield". And so on.

 

[S'mon]

When I run tabletop I use miniatures; when I run PBEM I use evocative description, or try to. The nice thing about miniatures is that even if I'm having an off day or moment, the minis are still there, looking pretty and showing the players what's going on. So they can take a burden off the GM, in a way.

 

[Mephistopheles]

However, are those great descriptions during combat just a way of making the combat more interesting without the miniatures and manuevering rules making it more interesting? Certainly, a lot of AD&D combats really boiled down to "I hit. You hit" with nothing more significant going on. If the players' attentions are being focused on avoiding being pushed into a pit and getting into the best position to aid their fellows, are we really losing that much: the game is equally fun, but the fun is coming from a different source?

I don't think edition has much to do with it; the older edition equivalent of "I hit. You hit" in 4E is "I use X power. You use Y power", likewise movement and miniature shuffling when described as "I slide you 2 squares and follow you" is no more interesting to me than both of us standing still.

Having finally played a session of 4E with a new group I felt that the only thing that stopped the combat from devolving into a babble of power names and game mechanic terms was the group itself. In the same way that a group can make combat in older editions more interesting than "I hit. You hit" a group can make combat in 4E more interesting than the mechanical procedures that are going on.

 

[satin]

I played and DM'ed 1E & 2E without minis, started playing with minis partway through 3E. Didn't think that much of them then but I really like them in 4E.

The tactical stuff is fun, but I find having the minis (and those gorgeous poster maps) actually helps my immersion. I can visualize the scene much better and there isn't that jarring moment when I realize that something about the battle conflicts with how I thought things were.

As a DM it helps prompt me with some ideas about what the various monsters should be doing next, depending on where they are. Heck of a lot better than trying to mentally track a dozen minions.

I can see how it can stifle some roleplay though if some people get very focused on the tactics part.

 

[Cadfan]

I don't think edition has much to do with it; the older edition equivalent of "I hit. You hit" in 4E is "I use X power. You use Y power", likewise movement and miniature shuffling when described as "I slide you 2 squares and follow you" is no more interesting to me than both of us standing still.

Having finally played a session of 4E with a new group I felt that the only thing that stopped the combat from devolving into a babble of power names and game mechanic terms was the group itself. In the same way that a group can make combat in older editions more interesting than "I hit. You hit" a group can make combat in 4E more interesting than the mechanical procedures that are going on.

By contrast, I find the most ornately described generic sword attack to be still just another generic sword attack. The absolute, utter same-ness of 3e melee combat killed my willingness to keep coming up with descriptiosn for Yet Another Full Attack Action.

Meanwhile, 4e has taken some of that work off my hands. First of all, different powers have different descriptions, giving me something to work with. Material and inspiration! Very important over the long term. And perhaps more importantly, there's less work to be done- part of the reason to constantly come up with flashy descriptions in 3e melee is because there's nothing else going on except a repeated trade of hit points. "I push you two spaces and follow you" might not have a lot of description in it inherently... until it meets the tabletop and I'm pushing you two spaces closer to a river of lava. This adds a certain degree of inherent tension that otherwise wouldn't exist.

 

[Fenes]

By contrast, I find the most ornately described generic sword attack to be still just another generic sword attack. The absolute, utter same-ness of 3e melee combat killed my willingness to keep coming up with descriptiosn for Yet Another Full Attack Action.

Meanwhile, 4e has taken some of that work off my hands. First of all, different powers have different descriptions, giving me something to work with. Material and inspiration! Very important over the long term. And perhaps more importantly, there's less work to be done- part of the reason to constantly come up with flashy descriptions in 3e melee is because there's nothing else going on except a repeated trade of hit points. "I push you two spaces and follow you" might not have a lot of description in it inherently... until it meets the tabletop and I'm pushing you two spaces closer to a river of lava. This adds a certain degree of inherent tension that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords took that problem away for me, during 3E times even.

 

[WhatGravitas]

The tactical stuff is fun, but I find having the minis (and those gorgeous poster maps) actually helps my immersion. I can visualize the scene much better and there isn't that jarring moment when I realize that something about the battle conflicts with how I thought things were.

Same here, mainly because it sort of syncs our imagined scenes - and with the miniatures and emphasis on tactical combat, you can actually imagine more.

It only breaks, if you do it poorly - that's the problem with miniatures. A badly drawn battlemap with silly miniature stand-ins hurts imagination more than it helps (I reckon this may be origins of the idea that minis stifle imagination).

If you do it right and have approximately correct miniatures, it adds a great deal of atmosphere.

Cheers, LT.