Miniatures and Role-playing games

[Wicht]

I like minis, like painting them, like using them for combat, and find they add an extra layer of appeal to the game. Its important though to know when not to use them in game, and just because they are available for part of a game does not make it necessary to use them for every encounter or interaction in the game.

 

[jasper]

Depends on the person and the game style. I have one gamer who can with his eyes closed tell how may centimeters the monster is out range without minis. I have another gamer who could be place in an exact one to one three d model of the room, with circles and arrows, laser lights and photograph of each monster still have trouble knowing the orc eating her face off is within striking range.

 

[darjr]

Personally I prefer 'Theater of the mind' without mini's. I think it makes the imagination more vivid and the game less tactically or bloody detail minded during combat. Plus I find players trying much more wackier stuff. I'll play either way however, and either can be a ton of fun.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I played most of my gaming career without minis, and only adopted minis and a battlemat with 3E. Personally, I think minis enhance the gaming experience, specifically because they provide precise visualization which allows full use of tactical options that would be much harder to exercise effectively otherwise. I enjoy the tactical wargame aspect of D&D combat in 3E and 4E and think it improves with the use of minis or something else -- tokens, M&Ms, gummi bears -- for representation. I will acknowledge that minis can detract from imagination, and can sometimes slow the game down if players get overly focused on fiddly precision and optimizing a tactical option. But given the choice, I now prefer to play with minis.

That said, I also think the playstyle that doesn't use minis is perfectly valid and can be equally fun. There's no right or wrong answer here -- it depends on your playstyle, what you want to emphasize in your game, and what you *don't* want to emphasize.

 

[Nytmare]

I am of the opinion that they can add OR detract, depending on the game, and (more importantly) the people playing. It's not a black or white kind of thing.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Yup. Given that the AD&D PH refers to distances in inches, it is pretty much talking about using miniatures and a map of some sort (gridded paper usually). Any talk of the purity of D&D without miniatures is revisionist history.

In point of fact if you look at the DMG pp 10-11 it speaks specifically about the use of miniatures and their advantages. D&D developed out of wargaming... wargaming with miniatures amazingly enough. The idea that it was ever supposed to be played without miniatures is rather boggling. That people can and do play without use of miniatures is great! Outstanding! Miniatures can be very expensive to accumulate and lots of people have no time or talent for painting them, etc. Those people can still play D&D and that's awesome. But yeah, the "purist" idea that real D&D doesn't use minis is amusing.

 

[tangleknot]

It depends entirely on your gaming style.

I prefer to play without miniatures. I think they restrict my players imagination to the point that they only attempt to do actions that are written on their character sheet. When I play this way I'm usually running a very heavy role-playing type of game White wolf, 7th sea, even D&D (with an emphasis of role-playing).

Playing with miniatures example:

GM: "why don't you Swing on the rope to the other side of the room, kick the goblin in the head while doing so... "
Player: "Wheres the rope? It does make a perfect diagonal, there's not swing check, can't do it"
"I'll just run up and hit it."

However for hack'n slash/ dungeon dwelling games miniatures are great. In this instance your not roleplying as much but instead using rules and tactics to overcome your opponents. This is why I have 500+ miniatures, scenery, and soon Dwarven forge dungeon tiles!!! In this instance the miniatures help immerse players in the rpg experience. However by this point, the game has been reduced to essentially a board-game with a paper thin plot, so it doesn't take much to "enhance" the experience...

Often times I'll do a mix of the two. Most of our games are Theatre of the mind, but every now and then we whip out the miniatures for tactics-like combat.

 

[Chris Knapp]

But yeah, the "purist" idea that real D&D doesn't use minis is amusing.

So true. We always use Ral Partha leads as soon as we could afford them. before that, it was coins or paper. But it was a lot more free-form, and we never used a tape measure or compass like we did when we played Napoleonics. Accuracy just wasn't as necessary.

My opinion is mini use in newer editions is so prevalent because the rules seem to expect them. The 3E & 4E rulebooks are filled with references to them, and when your listed action economies default to scales of movement geared to minis, its hard to separate them out. When the rules give you options of a 5 foot step or 1 sq shift, and the rules also specify that the default battle map is 1" = 5 ft, and the scale of the current FRPG minis is 1" bases, how can someone not expect to use them?

 

[Alan Shutko]

So, I DM RCD&D....

Simple combats? I don't bring out the minis. Not worth it. Players meeting a bunch of chumps, we freeform it and things die.

Set piece battles get minis, and they often also get terrain. The bads are all painted, the PCs are painted (whether by me, or by the players), and we take an entire night working out one battle. Sometimes you WANT a battle to last a night, and when we want that, we go for minis.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think they're a distraction. Wargaming is a hobby unto itself. So is crafting and detailing figurines. Neither of those has anything to do with roleplaying. I'll occasionally use a grid for complex battles with whatever's handy as markers, but I hate doing that. The goal is for everyone to imagine what is happening. On that level, miniatures are a crutch, and like a crutch they are not conducive to normal utilization of one's ability.

I also find that the grid takes a lot of time, and encourages a certain metagame tactical approach. The character does not have a bird's eye view of the scene. He should be making a snap decision on limited information, not plotting his next move like a chess piece. I'd rather play fast and loose and get to the parts I want to rather than worrying about exactly how many feet everyone is away from each other.

To top it off, miniatures cost money, and a large part of the attraction of this hobby is its inherent independence from financial considerations. They also take up space, and are frankly an eyesore. I wouldn't want to bring guests to my place and have them see a giant collection of little figures.

I never understood what the upside is of using miniatures in a D&D context.

As to the "purist" idea, I know that D&D and miniature wargames have a shared heritage and I understand why people have tried to use them. So I don't think that D&D sans miniatures is more "authentic" or anything. Having tried myself, I just think the game plays better without them. I look at them as an anachronism. No one would say that tennis with wooden rackets isn't real tennis, but we're kind of beyond that now.