Minis and Grids, do you use them?

[Andre]

Actually, so far in this pole it is less then 8%...it tragic so few people can use their imagination...

Umm...maybe I've misunderstood your post, but the poll doesn't mean that at all.

Imagination is not an all-or-nothing proposition. I can exercise my imagination just fine with minis and a battlemat, thank you very much.

For me at least, these aids are just tools to help me play the game well, just like character sheets with all my attacks pre-figured, electronic programs to help me manage information, and so on.

 

[Morte]

I've never found much need for them in Traveller, where most of the combat is with guns. Drawing dots on a sketch map works fine.

 

[was]

We use them for nearly every combat now. Thus, there is no arguing where pc's 'really' were in relation to their foes.

 

[mcrow]

I would prefer not to use minis, but D&D has so many feats & other rules that relate to the battle grid that keeping track of things exactly is a requirement(IMO). It is much easier on my old beater of a brain to use minis and have to remember less info.

 

[Desdichado]

I almost always do, even though I'm not really happy about it. It's easier than the alternative, for the most part. Either alternative--take your pick--adjudicating combat without a battlemap of some type, or playing a different system that doesn't require minis. Both are equally difficult relative to just throwing down the mat and some minis.

 

[ARandomGod]

Somewhere between answer No. 1 and No. 3. We use them pretty much all the time for combats and for some complex rooms/dungeon areas/traps/dangerous situations. But there are some sessions we don't use them at all.

I'm somewhere around there. Now, for a good contrast, I recently played in a game where it was all kept in the GM's head, no map. A lot of my 'feats' were completely useless. Combat reflexes... Why did I take that? When do I get the extra attacks, exactly? Apparently never. The mage almost always had to make a concentration check. What, he was constantly surrounded so that he couldn't take a five foot step back? I've got point blank shot and precise shot. But how would we determine when it wasn't needed? And that was only for a third level character.

 

[ARandomGod]

Actually, so far in this pole it is less then 8%...it tragic so few people can use their imagination...

It's more that 3.X is designed as a miniatures game. So many rules and feats and skills (and therefore PrC's) require the mat.

I like the basic mat free game style. But you can't really play that in 3.X and use the 3.X rules effectively. The game assumes you're using a mat/grid/etc. And if you play without it the game system doesn't mesh with all the rules. Like in my comment above... I played with a (3rd level) character who had +3 mod to dex and combat reflexes in a recent mat free game... Other characters (I was the newbie in this group) picked things like rapid shot/flurry/two weapon fighting. We got into a mass melee, basically a low level army with opponents everywhere. I only got one attack per round, they all got two. But I had the 'potential' for four attacks per round. In a melee with everyone moving around/etc (as was described) I definitely should have gotten more.

Was this the GM's fault or the playstyle's fault? In part... I don't think anyone in his games had ever taken combat reflexes (why should they? It's useless!) I don't think he looked at it. I'm sure he would have done something to take it into account if I'd brought it up, but I didn't know how. In fact, there were a couple of battles that my character sat out completely and just watched, because he wasn't sure what was happening, or that he was supposed to be involved... I imagine if I keep playing with them I'll bring up the CR issue (I took it because it's a prerequisite of a PrC I wanted in), and I'm sure there will be a reasonable ruling.

But without a battlemap what could that ruling be? A simple +1 attack per round? I've got +3 to dex so that's quite concevable as an average... But wouldn't they sometimes use tactics to get around that? But wouldn't I use countertactics? On a map, yes. Completely in the air? Impossible to really determine. I can't see really taking that feat in that style of game.

And that's just one example. I'm positive there are many others (I can already think of more than it's worth the effort to type in)

 

[mcrow]

It's more that 3.X is designed as a miniatures game. So many rules and feats and skills (and therefore PrC's) require the mat.

I like the basic mat free game style. But you can't really play that in 3.X and use the 3.X rules effectively. The game assumes you're using a mat/grid/etc. And if you play without it the game system doesn't mesh with all the rules. Like in my comment above... I played with a (3rd level) character who had +3 mod to dex and combat reflexes in a recent mat free game... Other characters (I was the newbie in this group) picked things like rapid shot/flurry/two weapon fighting. We got into a mass melee, basically a low level army with opponents everywhere. I only got one attack per round, they all got two. But I had the 'potential' for four attacks per round. In a melee with everyone moving around/etc (as was described) I definitely should have gotten more.

Was this the GM's fault or the playstyle's fault? In part... I don't think anyone in his games had ever taken combat reflexes (why should they? It's useless!) I don't think he looked at it. I'm sure he would have done something to take it into account if I'd brought it up, but I didn't know how. In fact, there were a couple of battles that my character sat out completely and just watched, because he wasn't sure what was happening, or that he was supposed to be involved... I imagine if I keep playing with them I'll bring up the CR issue (I took it because it's a prerequisite of a PrC I wanted in), and I'm sure there will be a reasonable ruling.

But without a battlemap what could that ruling be? A simple +1 attack per round? I've got +3 to dex so that's quite concevable as an average... But wouldn't they sometimes use tactics to get around that? But wouldn't I use countertactics? On a map, yes. Completely in the air? Impossible to really determine. I can't see really taking that feat in that style of game.

And that's just one example. I'm positive there are many others (I can already think of more than it's worth the effort to type in)

I agree, it is not the lack of imagination but as said above the system makes it so that is very difficult to use without the grid. Many feats become useless as well as other rules.

 

[barsoomcore]

My mat use goes up and down. I create a number of scale maps, as well, which is fun for my inner cartographer, but buying minis just isn't my thing. I bought a box of D&D Minis and so it's, "Okay, this hobgoblin thingie with the axe is the lich, the dire weasel is the were-leopard and this guy with the bow is Elena." I certainly don't worry about having appropriate minis.

I find running combats EASY, frankly, with or without the mat. Unlike fu, I'm blessed with a VERY spatially-oriented brain, and maintaining and communicating position has always been really easy for me. It's one of the chief joys of the game for me, really.

I like mats or scale maps for scenarios where the terrain presents unique challenges, like different levels, or narrow passages or whatever.

 

[Smart]

Well, until a year or so ago I had never used a battlemat and miniatures.. but now they're a fixture for all combats in games our group plays. Our group didn't realize what we were missing out on. I was the exclusive GM for our group for years, and we had never used anything but dice and imagination until 3.x came out.

My group has decided that the battlemat and minis have facilitated a smoother and less frustrating play experience. Imagination play works, but is very subjective. The GM and players must move the battlemat and minis into the shared imagination space when not using the physical accoutrements (in some form - even if it's not a "map and minis" that are imagined), and when the GM's version of the battle and one or more PC's versions don't match in that imaginary space, problems can result. We have found that the map and minis are better for us in combat. We have found that M&Ms help keep the arguments to a minimum because combat is plainly layed out in an easy to understand format in front of the players.

This equates to a more fun experience for our group, and for me as a GM.