What's wrong with Mini-Centric?
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
cignus_pfaccari
First Post
Hobo said:
I have to say, I don't get this.
3.5 is not hard to run w/o minis. We do that a good chunk of the time, because we're too lazy to draw things out. It is more work on the DM to provide accurate descriptions of where stuff is and spatial relationships, since everything is in his/her head...you may have thought you weren't standing right next to someone, but he did, etc.
I don't imagine that 4e will be any harder to run w/o minis. I personally prefer using them, because, to be frank, I rather enjoy representing my rogue tumbling around the map by having the mini do cartwheels as I move it.
Brad
WizarDru
Adventurer
There are few thoughts that come to mind:
1) D&D minis are relatively inexpensive, fairly sturdy, some are quite attractive and all of them are accurate per D&D (many sculpts being based directly on specific artwork). Metal miniatures, while not as widely available as in the past, still exist for the painter/modder to do his thing with. For visualizing purposes, it's very attractive to be able to put an actual beholder down against the player's avatars. We have quite a few Dwarven Forge and Hirst Arts pieces...not because we need them, but because they're FUN. It's cool to build a dungeon diorama, and cooler still to actually use your pieces with it. While it may not float some folk's boats, it's a lot of fun for us, sometimes.
2) Miniatures allow, in my game, for a better visualization of a combat experience. Sometimes this is unnecessary or more of a burden than a boon...when this occurs, we simply don't use them. However, during our last session, while playing a battle in a glass factory against some goblins (Pathfinder Adventure Path, btw), as the DM I was having trouble tracking the PCs relative positions and the 12 goblins locations within the room. Miniatures would have made it easier to run from that perspective. Even so, we had AoOs, move distances, bull rushes, charges, range increment determinations and other actions without using miniatures. No obscure house-ruling was required (though the bull-rush did require looking up the action on a battle-card). Miniatures don't involve trust issues, they're a handy reference tool.
3) The amount of combat or miniatures use has no bearing on our role-playing, neither it's quantity nor it's quality. A large part of role-playing, however, is generally beyond the scope of the rules. There are rules for skill resolution in D&D and tactical interaction, be it combat or social...but there are no rules for properly portraying your character a specific way...because there don't need to be. While we use miniatures as often as not, we have had combat-free social sessions fairly often or sessions where the combat is PART of the role-playing. But this is still a game of killing things and taking their stuff...and a lot of folks, such as myself, LIKE that.
4) 3e/3.5e has more consistent tactical options, but the insinuation that somehow previous editions didn't have equally focused tactical games or that they were somehow rare goes directly counter to my experiences. I remember players being very cautious about their movement, speeds and other details when in combat...moreso, in fact, than they would be in decades afterwards. I eventually discarded large portions of the initiative system, weapons speeds and goofy ranges, as they ended up being counter-productive to the AD&D games I was running. We spent too much time trying to understand and intepert the rules and not enough time playing. The biggest difference to me is that in 3.Xe, I've never had to do that. Although I hasten to point out that for some folks, that's where the fun is...in the tactical combat simulation. Clearly folks mileage varies on that, but enjoying a solid tactical battle does not preclude good roleplaying.
1) D&D minis are relatively inexpensive, fairly sturdy, some are quite attractive and all of them are accurate per D&D (many sculpts being based directly on specific artwork). Metal miniatures, while not as widely available as in the past, still exist for the painter/modder to do his thing with. For visualizing purposes, it's very attractive to be able to put an actual beholder down against the player's avatars. We have quite a few Dwarven Forge and Hirst Arts pieces...not because we need them, but because they're FUN. It's cool to build a dungeon diorama, and cooler still to actually use your pieces with it. While it may not float some folk's boats, it's a lot of fun for us, sometimes.
2) Miniatures allow, in my game, for a better visualization of a combat experience. Sometimes this is unnecessary or more of a burden than a boon...when this occurs, we simply don't use them. However, during our last session, while playing a battle in a glass factory against some goblins (Pathfinder Adventure Path, btw), as the DM I was having trouble tracking the PCs relative positions and the 12 goblins locations within the room. Miniatures would have made it easier to run from that perspective. Even so, we had AoOs, move distances, bull rushes, charges, range increment determinations and other actions without using miniatures. No obscure house-ruling was required (though the bull-rush did require looking up the action on a battle-card). Miniatures don't involve trust issues, they're a handy reference tool.
3) The amount of combat or miniatures use has no bearing on our role-playing, neither it's quantity nor it's quality. A large part of role-playing, however, is generally beyond the scope of the rules. There are rules for skill resolution in D&D and tactical interaction, be it combat or social...but there are no rules for properly portraying your character a specific way...because there don't need to be. While we use miniatures as often as not, we have had combat-free social sessions fairly often or sessions where the combat is PART of the role-playing. But this is still a game of killing things and taking their stuff...and a lot of folks, such as myself, LIKE that.
4) 3e/3.5e has more consistent tactical options, but the insinuation that somehow previous editions didn't have equally focused tactical games or that they were somehow rare goes directly counter to my experiences. I remember players being very cautious about their movement, speeds and other details when in combat...moreso, in fact, than they would be in decades afterwards. I eventually discarded large portions of the initiative system, weapons speeds and goofy ranges, as they ended up being counter-productive to the AD&D games I was running. We spent too much time trying to understand and intepert the rules and not enough time playing. The biggest difference to me is that in 3.Xe, I've never had to do that. Although I hasten to point out that for some folks, that's where the fun is...in the tactical combat simulation. Clearly folks mileage varies on that, but enjoying a solid tactical battle does not preclude good roleplaying.
danbuter1
First Post
In my experience, minis turn DnD into a boardgame, at least in feel. We had a bunch of guys who would argue over every frigging square, and make weird round-about circles in order to engage targets without attracting AOO's. I mean, in a fight, are you going to charge straight at a badguy or go left 10', forward 10', right 15', then forward 5'? This happened a LOT, and changed the whole attitude of the game. Not to mention the time lost as the players charted their course to where they wanted to be. It was like chess, where the move doesn't count until you let go of the piece.
Simia Saturnalia
First Post
:\ Wait...three 90 degree turns in a charge? He knows you can't do that, right?danbuter1 said:
I mean, unless he's sunk the feats into it (aren't they Psionic feats?), in which case I'd do it all the time. I paid for the ability, after all.
Thurbane
First Post
Nothing wrong as such, but if the game starts to rely too heavily on minis, it seems to start edging away from being a FRPG and moves closer to wargaming territory. Not that using minis precludes roleplaying in any way, but in my practical experience it does seem that the two are somewhat mutually exclusive. Compare the following:Hussar said:
"Igvald the Fearless advances on the foul troll, raining a thunderous blow down upon it with his axe, Glimmerkeen! Though the beast swipes it's dirty claw in an attempt to stop him, he nimbly dodges it blow and drives home his weapon deep into it's unclean flesh!"
"Igvald the Fearless can move 4 squares and still attack right? 1-2-3-4, there we go. Oh crap, I forgot it's got reach! Have your AoO, but remember I've got the mobility feat, OK?"
...again, I strenuously point out that the two do not need to be mutually exclusive, just that in my own experience, the more reliant the game becomes on minis, the more the roleplaying aspect diminshes.
The upside of minis and battle mats is that it does cut down the number of "No way you're close enough to do that!" type arguments...
Hussar said:
Its true that 1st edition had some rules in it (like the " sign being used for distances) that were legacies of wargaming (and therefore implied miniature use). The big difference between 1st ed. and 3.x ed is that the 1st ed ruleset was modular. It was easy to ignore rules you didn't like, and insert houserules. 1st edition in general was less a finished game and more of a toolkit to be used by a DM in creating a game experience. 3.x edition is a complete set of self-referential rules, and if you ignore one part it will have unexpected repercussions elsewhere. For instance, play without miniatures and you really can't adjudicate Attacks of Opportunity. Discard Attacks of Opportunity and many feats must be discarded, and some monsters must be re-written.
1st edition had real problems, such as a completely unworkable unarmed combat system. You HAD to houserule 1st edition to play it. That was actually the fun of it for creative DMs. Nonetheless, I think that streamlining the rules with a single resolution mechanic was good. I just think that WOTC took their great idea and screwed up its implementation. So I play C&C rather than 1st edition AD&D or 3.x edition D&D, in order to have the best of both worlds. One can play C&C with or without miniatures, but the rules never assume you will be using them.
Shortman McLeod
First Post
Clavis said:
There are many folks who will say, "Not true! You can adjudicate AoO using your imagination!!!!"
I'm not one of them.
Similar Threads
