What's wrong with Mini-Centric?

[Darkwolf71]

to the "becomign more miniatures based" argument-

plese, enough of that, tha game was miniatures based on day 1. Everyone recall movement scores were listed in "Inches" ? Those were table top inches. sure 2nd edition has more abstract values...the same exact ones they just turned 12" into 12, the same score derived from/for miniatures use. The unique nature of the game allows one to not bother with a game board or miniatures if they wish but they were there and the rules were written with their presence in mind.

Ahhh, no.

At 'day 1' minis were useful for arbitrating certain situations. They were not required for play. I played D&D all through high school and the navy without ever using them at all.

Enter 3rd ed. Along with it, the five foot step, the attack of opprotunity, the ability to flank. (Not to mention the 'need' to flank for much of the rogues new 'sneak attack' that replaced 'backstab'. The the traditional 'Thief strikes from the shadows' fell to the wayside in favor of the much easier to achieve flank.) No, in 1st and 2nd ed. Minis were useful but completely optional. In 3.x they are required unless you houserule to make the game mechanics function without them.

 

[Darkwolf71]

I may also get this moved to House Rules.

It's not actually a houserule discussion. They have been mentioned, they are not what the convo is about.

 

[Rechan]

I don't use minis - I game online. And let me tell you, it's a real pain in the arse to try and explain where everything is and 5' steps and etc etc etc in just text.

 

[Umbran]

Using minis as a means of keeping things straight and recalling and tracking where everything and everyone is at is very convenient. (I'll even use the mat out of combat in cities to remember which groups are together.)

But what I hated was how the rules in 3.5 moved from rules that relied on the GM's or designer's interpretation of the situation (e.g., the cover and concealment rules) to rules that had you tracing lines on the battlemat. A tracing lines on a battlemat simply cannot capture nuances like "the kobolds shooting from behind a barricade of rotted timbers", etc.

This captures some of it. Others points include:

A battlemat and minis take time to set up. For some situations, it can take more time to set up the battlemat than to resolve the encounter - but when the rules for the abilities that enable that resolution are tied to the mat, sometimes you might have to take that time regardless.

The battlemat encourages folks to think more about the fiddly-bits. Instead of a dramatic, "I charge up and hack the kobold cheiftan in two!" it can end up more, "Okay, I move one square forward...two... one to the right... no, wait, that's not good, I'll go left-diagonal..." It takes time to deal with the increased precision enabled by the mat, and that can slow down combat tremendously.

Also, there are folks who don't relate to battlemat-style wargaming as a representation and rules-style for role-playing. Moving minis around on a mat does not invoke adventure in their minds - it can make the game seem more like chess or Wharhammer or Squad leader (lots of numbers), and less like your swashbuckling hero dashing across the deck to save the princess (lots of Eroll Flynn)...

 

[Hussar]

Ahhh, no.

At 'day 1' minis were useful for arbitrating certain situations. They were not required for play. I played D&D all through high school and the navy without ever using them at all.

Enter 3rd ed. Along with it, the five foot step, the attack of opprotunity, the ability to flank. (Not to mention the 'need' to flank for much of the rogues new 'sneak attack' that replaced 'backstab'. The the traditional 'Thief strikes from the shadows' fell to the wayside in favor of the much easier to achieve flank.) No, in 1st and 2nd ed. Minis were useful but completely optional. In 3.x they are required unless you houserule to make the game mechanics function without them.

That depends on how closely you cleaved to the RAW in 1e actually. Considering some people played with protractors and string back in the day, you could certainly make the case for needing minis in 1e. If you used the rules that pertained to them - like facing, shield rules, space requirements for weapons and the like.

OTOH, if you were like me, you chucked all those rules and played without minis.

I find it rather interesting to contrast the opinions in this thread with the opinions in this one about 2d and 3d terrain.

Obviously a case of varying mileage.

 

[DarkKestral]

Myself, I'd much rather see spell radii and ranges done in feet or meters (in-game measurements, mind you) with angles. Not done as a X by Y in squares option. I'd also like to see rules that allow for the classic wargaming use of a ruler, and maybe a protractor. (I don't think it's THAT hard to set up a scale and then simply mark out feet on the ruler...) If done right, it certainly would avoid some of the 'tactical chess' that happens nowadays. Maybe I'd do something like make a little paper template to describe a threatened area, and you could see at a glance what you're likely to suffer, and point placement's not as much of an issue when you have a template that matches your fireball...

At the same time, for some games, that wouldn't work, because even that would run counter to the spirit of the game. Courtly intrigue games, for example, or some beer-and-pretzels fights. For a major fight, you'd break out the more detailed description of the battlefield, but for some fights, you shouldn't NEED to break it out to say "we fireball the orc horde. how much damage did we do?" And sometimes, you need that cut back to our reality, if only to gather that sense of scale. A speed of 5 squares/rd. tells me little. A speed of 30'/rd. tells me quite a bit.

So a game that requires minis and battlemat affects certain gaming styles pretty negatively, or at least forces them to require some houseruling. I'd like a system that makes a battlemat and minis useful, but not required.

 

[werk]

What's wrong with using minis in D&D?

Mini-centric is not roleplaying, it's a board game. Many people play role-lite, hack and slash dungeon crawls every time they play, and that's fine. It's possible to do both, or lean heavily to one side or the other.

It's just a preference thing.

I also think that if you are just going to do mini combat, you might as well do it on a computer to save on cost and effort. Combat is easy to translate, real roleplaying, basically impossible.

 

[Fifth Element]

Mini-centric is not roleplaying, it's a board game.

You may not have intended it this way, but this is a potentially inflammatory comment. Some people prefer to use minis in combat; that does not make their D&D a board game. There's all kinds of role-playing that goes on outside of combat, and even some in combat.

"Mini-centric" role-playing is not the same thing as a board game. Perhaps if it were "mini-only" role-playing, you could start to make that argument.

 

[Deset Gled]

Cost and portability. I'm a cheap customer. I'm simply not interested in spending money for minis. And I certainly don't want to carry around a backpack full of figures to play D+D. It's easier and cheaper for me to use graph paper, coins, chess pieces, or Heroscape figues when I need to.

That being said, I can completely understand that minis are a huge force in keeping D+D alive. Books are (in most cases) a one time buy. Once WotC has your book money, they're not going to see your income again for awhile. Minis that are released over time and come in collectible randomized boxes gives WotC a source of continuous income, which is absolutely key in today's business market. I believe this is also the basic strategy behind the Digital Initiative and the PHBx books being released each year. It may piss off the cheapskate in me, but it's a necessary evil to keep the brand alive.

 

[DragonLancer]

"The game is becoming more mini centric" is a complaint I've hear a number of times. I don't understand it though. What's wrong with using minis in D&D?

Nothing is wrong providing that the game doesn't base its mechanics on it, and unfortunately 3.X does this in spades. Everything from movement to combat, to how certain feats work...etc, are all based on the idea that the group will be playing with miniatures.

While I will on occasion dig out the mini's, I prefer my D&D to be in the imagination, not being played as chess on the table.