What's wrong with Mini-Centric?

[Desdichado]

There are many folks who will say, "Not true! You can adjudicate AoO using your imagination!!!!"

I'm not one of them.

You can, but I defy these people to tell me that it's not harder. It is, IMO, very obviously and quantifiably more difficult to run D&D combat as written without a battlemat than with one.

 

[Maggan]

There are many folks who will say, "Not true! You can adjudicate AoO using your imagination!!!!"

We adjudicate AoOs using my DM experience, the players experience and verbal descriptions of the relative positions of the combatants. It works. And the PCs placement during combat is the least of my worries adjucating AoOs.

The group is fine with not using minis, and we help each other keep track of who's fighting who and the relative abstract positions of the combatants involved.

/M

 

[ruleslawyer]

:\ Wait...three 90 degree turns in a charge? He knows you can't do that, right?

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.

I think he meant that the PC was moving around and making turns *instead* of charging.

 

[AllisterH]

I think he meant that the PC was moving around and making turns *instead* of charging.

This is what I don't understand.

Why is it considered *good* that people IGNORE the terrain/situation and just attack? In the real world, if you try to attack the back lines while totally ignoring the front lines, you're going to get massacred.

So why is this considered *realistic* if the same situation occured in a D&D game? Are the characters somehow immune to this?

 

[Hussar]

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.

*snip*

You do make a point. Many people simply ignored the mini-centric rules that existed in 1e, but, that certainly doesn't mean they weren't there. Space requirements, shield rules, facing, all there. Change of scale for indoor and outdoor, yup. But, like you say, we ignored it.

Thus, we were playing a different game than those who didn't ignore it. Why not do the same in 3e? So you lose some feats and some monsters get wonky? Oh well. This is not a big deal. It's no different than what we did back then either.

 

[Thurbane]

You can, but I defy these people to tell me that it's not harder. It is, IMO, very obviously and quantifiably more difficult to run D&D combat as written without a battlemat than with one.

Agree 138%.

 

[cougent]

"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?

Discuss.

The difference is between *using* minis and *requiring* minis. I think the complainers (not me) are saying that it is leaning that way, and that eventually they will be mandatory.

Take out the word mini and substitute "video game" and you will get the same pro / con argument going.

I welcome *options* in addition to the tabletop, whether I ever use them or not (I use minis occasionally for effect); but I am dead set against changing the game into either a *mini required* or *DI required* form of the game.

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

Ever heard of the Charge of the Light Brigade? They charged straight at the bad guy. Most of them died, and those that didn't, retreated. A French Marshal said at the time "It is magnificent, but it is not war. This is madness."

 

[pogre]

"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?

Discuss.

I love minis. There a major part of the hobby to me. I enjoy painting, I like making 3d terrain - it's part of the reason I play D&D. D&D combat is much tougher to run without minis and a grid of some sort. I'm not big on the grid stuff - it leads to silly stuff like a horse taking up a 10' x 10' square. I can certainly understand the frustration of those who do not enjoy minis.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why is it considered *good* that people IGNORE the terrain/situation and just attack? In the real world, if you try to attack the back lines while totally ignoring the front lines, you're going to get massacred.

So why is this considered *realistic* if the same situation occured in a D&D game? Are the characters somehow immune to this?

You can easily simulate terrain and situation in abstraction.

I dislike minis simply because it adds so much realism that it removes the cinematic craziness, and not enough realism to make it really real and prevent weirdness like ten-foot horses and to be able to accommodate 3-D battlefields with different elevations and things like flying or swimming.

In abstraction, the movement becomes a challenge to overcome, another cycle of risk and reward.

"I want to run up and attack him!"
"Okay, there's some furniture in the way -- give me a Dex check to get through it."
*rolls well*
"Good! You leap upon the table, flourishing your blade, knocking over a stool as you run up to him! This gains you higher ground! Go ahead and roll the attack, +1 bonus."

On the grid, this becomes more mathmatical, more of a calculation.

"Those squares with furniture count as obstructed, right?"
"Right, they cost double."
"Okay, then I can't quite make it to him...instead I'll throw my dagger."
"The furniture gives him some cover -- take a -2 to hit."

I'm not a fan of the grid for a lot of reasons (including cost and set-up issues), but the strongest is that it marries my mind to the board, rather than letting it free to come up with all sorts of weird ideas.

I'll admit, the abstraction is a "mother may I" game for a DM. I have my own problems with that, but I'm much more comfortable telling DMs to "Make things interesting by introducing the occasional (but not constant) need for a skill check to navigate difficult terrain. If the character succeeds, they should gain some sort of bonus" and then giving them some examples, than I am with measuring things out.

Accuracy be damned. I shoot magic missiles and fireballs and holy lightning. I fade from your sight, and I can slay an army of orcs. I can raise the dead, or kill you with a thought. I should not be confined to a CAGE made of little black lines and filled with plastic men.