Poll: Minis, battlemats and interpretation thereof

[Starglim]

An abstract depiction that is literal and accurate for rules purposes.

By that, I mean that two fighters might be circling each other between a 2-foot scrimmage and 8-foot retreat at any time in a round, making lunges and ripostes and moving all around the place, but for purposes of AoO, targeting and everything else, they act as if they were static in the middle of the same two squares 5 feet apart.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I take the map and minis to be as accurate a representation of what's going on as the Ptolemaic model of the solar system was. It works, kinda, but it ain't accurate--at all.

Dave

 

[Wombat]

We try to keep battlemats and minis to an absolute minimum, but when we do use them, we assume they are an abstract representation.

 

[Mark CMG]

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

Try making a poll with two options . . .

 

[Roadkill101]

I voted for the literal aspect, as that is my intention for using them during tactical situations. Though actual use tends to swing between the literal and abstract aspects. The poll could've used a "bit of both" option.

Too many times, I'd have something like a 20x30 room with ten to fifteen inhabitants and furniture (beds a a largish table and seating at least). Only to have a group of eight to ten characters charge into the room. Some of the actions that would take place in the ensuing battle should never have been allowed.
I like a healthy dose of realism in my campaigns. Especially for spatial matters, and have turned to mini's and battlemats to provide a modicum of realism for such matters.

 

[Len]

Both.

During combat, the minis indicate the characters' positions as precisely as the rules require, i.e. each character is in a particular 5' square.

Outside of combat, not so much. For example we'll shove all the miniatures into a room without worrying about exact placement. The rogue's player doesn't have to walk his mini across each square as he searches for loot. Or, if there's no combat in a location (e.g. in a tavern before the inevitable fight breaks out) the DM doesn't draw a floorplan and there's nowhere to put the minis.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

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.

Huh, I chose the second option with this reasoning. Someone starts flinging the word "literal" around, I assume they intend precision...

One of my pet peeves is the overuse of "literal/literally". Right up there with "actually" or "basically"... *cringe* ... anyway...

 

[BryonD]

Yeah, I think this poll has turned out to more one of how people read the question than how they use minis. I voted "literal", but I pretty much agree with the points made by the abstract side. It doesn't change my answer. But it makes it clear to me that it is a matter of how you look at it.

Which, I think, is a good thing.

 

[RFisher]

I would've voted abstract, but it's been a long time since I used the battlemat, & I envision that trend continuing.

 

[harperscout]

If you don't use the battlemat, how do you orchestrate combat efficently? I am not saying that it can't be done, or that you are doing it wrong. I am actually just interested in how you use the mat in a "less than literal" sense.