[Poll] Who DOESN'T use minis?

[WinnipegDragon]

Re: Re: [Poll] Who DOESN'T use minis?

I've been using them since 1E!

Well, I've been using them from... umm... Birth!

 

[JoeGKushner]

I use them all the time. I'm not talking about just miniatures or counters though. Whatever we have for multiple monsters like orcs, kobolds, skeletons, etc..., we often use dice or something else.

Combat can be pretty complicated at times, especially with spells and I find it leads to many degenerations when a spell is cast and player hits feels that they weren't hit, etc.. etc... etc...

 

[Aitch Eye]

Though I checked the third answer, our complicated combats are usually either too complicated or at least a hassle to do with miniatures.

If we need a visual representation, it's generally scribbled out on pieces of scrap paper. Occasionaly we'll use dice or knick-nacks. The closest to actual miniatures we've used is Weapons & Warriors figures.

I've nothing against miniatures as such, but I would never use them in conjunction with a grid in an RPG. That's can be enjoyable with a miniatures game -- or Q-Bert -- but having our characters hopping around from square to square, zig-zagging because they can't move in a straight line and everything else is just ridiculous and no fun. If it were done with rulers or bits of string, it wouldn't bother me so much, but it would still be too much trouble in most situations.

 

[WinnipegDragon]

I assume when you say minis you mean any character representations that can be moved or placed on a map or other surface to indicate relative tactical position.

So counters on a battlemap count as minis, as do a few dice or M&Ms set down on graph paper. Or a couple of pencil marks on a graph paper sketch, for that matter.

Or did you mean to restrict the poll to lead/pewter miniature representations of characters and monsters?

Fair enough. I think saying 'Minis' may have been misleading. Let's be more accurate and say 'any character/NPC representation on a grid or hex map for the purpose of applying rules and calculating ranges'. Basically, do you treat combats as a tactical tabletop game?

I guess I like minis and think that when you have a combat situation, seeing it tactically doesn't draw anything away from the RP aspect of the game. I like to think that they can co-exist happily, and some others really seem to resent the idea.

 

[Crothian]

I usually don't use them but I don't mind them. Some big complicated battles seem easier with minis but the small stuff I perfer a quick description.

 

[WinnipegDragon]

Re: What Minitures ????

I would agree with Bleys on this, as our group has been playing for nearly 20 years and has never had to rely on mini's in a combat situation, no matter how large or complicated. I think it stems more from practice than anything else though really. Also when we have experimented and gone thru the expense of organising and purchasing minitures, we have always found that it sort of got in the way of playing the game, having to worry about if your mini was in the right place or not etc....

I'm not trying to be negative or anything here, but how can this possible work given the issue of spell radius and ranges? I just don't see anyone propertly adjucating whether a pack of four orcs are all 'within 15 feet of each other' without putting down on paper at least.

Perhaps it's a question of group composition? If I, as the DM, arbitrarily ruled that a particular player's wizard couldn't target all four with Magic Missile, some players would accept it, and others would argue it. Representing all of the bodies on the table makes my life easier in these regards, but if all my players were of the first type, maybe it would work?

 

[Zappo]

I don't use minis, but I do use a whiteboard and erasable markers.

 

[LGodamus]

We only use them sporadically....sometimes we use em for complicated things and sometimes not...just depends...kinda chaotically I guess

 

[Lamoni]

We never do combats on a grid (battlemap, graph paper or squares of any kind).

The more complicated battles will be drawn on lined paper (blank would be probably be better, but there is more lined paper available). Just saying where the opponents are with regard to obstacles in the room and where we are.

it's a question of group composition? If I, as the DM, arbitrarily ruled that a particular player's wizard couldn't target all four with Magic Missile, some players would accept it, and others would argue it. Representing all of the bodies on the table makes my life easier in these regards, but if all my players were of the first type, maybe it would work?

In our games, what the DM says is always accepted at face value. If the DM says that the spell would only hit 3 of the 4 opponents, the players say OK, and we proceed from there. If he says that it would take two rounds to reach the opponent instead of one, we don't argue. Everyone sees the DM as being fair, and we don't question his decisions... we only complain occasionally when we have bad luck.

Maybe we have better imaginations than most? Maybe we just don't care if we are off by 5-10 feet occasionally... sometimes it benefits the players, other times it doesn't, but we just don't care too much. We just have a lot of fun.

 

[Darrin Drader]

The only time I don't use minis is when the group isn't exploring anything or isn't in combat. Every actual game session I can remember has made liberal use of minis.