Poll: Minis, battlemats and interpretation thereof

Poll: Minis, battlemats and interpretation thereof


Thurbane

First Post
Just quick 'lil poll:

When you use miniatures and battlemats, do you consider the placing of the miniatures as a literal interpreation of where everyone is, or as a more absrtract picture to help people visualize in their heads what's going on...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I don't think the options are quite accurate, but it is certainly closer to literal than abstract.
As with a vast number of other aspects of D&D, there are grey zones and that is where judgement and a good DM come in.

I'm not saying that an abstract system is wrong. Heck, you can play a great game with no minis at all. But based on how the system exactly as written plays, it should be as literal as reasonable.
 

As literal as possible, given that sometimes the Battlemat is showing different areas of action at the same time (that are removed from each other).

That's the whole point of using a Battlemat and minis, right? To avoid the "I wasn't there, I was over there" syndrome. I mean, in my opinion, that's the biggest value using a map and minis has.
 

Kinda in the middle but I voted abstract.
As a DM I just say "The creatures are in this area" and place the minis there.
Sometimes my players get very literal on their placements but not too often.
Mostly comes up when an area of effect spell is cast. ;)
 


It's literal in that the character is mostly somewhere in that 5' sq area. It's abstract in that he doesn't take up all that space himself.
 





Remove ads

Top