Poll: Minis, battlemats and interpretation thereof

[megamania]

Fairly exact with the exception of obstacles that take up some space and seating arrangements at tables.

 

[Vegepygmy]

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.

I chose Option #1, on the assumption that it really meant this.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I agree in general with what everyone else is saying, literal moreso than abstact. However I think that things become more abstact once melee combat is entered.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Hussar]

In a combat system that is entirely abstract, why would exact positioning possibly be a part of it?

The placement of a mini simply represents that character existing somewhere in that space, or as has already been QFT'd twice:

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.

 

[Thurbane]

Wow, I never thought what I said could be interpreted so many diferent ways.

Um, yeah, lets just assume that I mean within the 5ft square, I didn't mean that your character is perpetually frozen in the same pose as your miniature.

 

[Hussar]

Hey, this is the Internet. Misinterpretation is what we're all about.

 

[Gold Roger]

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.

What he said.

 

[WayneLigon]

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.

Said it better than I could. If I didn't consider it somewhat literal, there would be no point in using a battlemat and minis/counters/tokens/whatever.

 

[Odhanan]

Closer to literal than abstract, even though things don't look exactly as they appear on the battlemat. I.e. characters move, the orc fig might represent a hobgoblin instead, that kind of thing. It's an impressionist representation of what's happening in the game, but the positioning ain't completely abstract (besides the fact that 5-ft. grids don't appear on every single floor everywhere in RL).

 

[Henry]

I think of it as more abstract, more like "snapshots in time". In my mind, if you took the round-by round action and mapped it out, and compared it to what "actually happened" as if in real time, with people chaotically running hither and yon, casting spells, yelling and barking orders, diving for nearby cover, etc. they would follow the same path. It would show you what each person did in order, etc. But how it all meshes together would "look different."

Even somebody taking a give foot step each round isn't practically standing still; they'r darting left and right, dodging blows and arrows, looking for openings, etc. From the air, it would almost look like a spastic dance across the battlefield, a "cha-cha for your life" situation.