Wherefore "mini-less" D&D assumptions?

[Scribble]

4e: The only games of this I ran we used minis; I have yet to see a session where people do not use minis. The rules, as written, imply that minis are absolutely required and that lack of minis will mean the game is unplayable. At absolute minimum, some sort of counters are required -- the tone of the rules now is that no minis = no D&D = no game.

From a editor's point-of-view, the requirement of miniatures has been ramped up dramatically with each edition through word choice, diagrams, and the like.

It's the addition of extra tactical positioning bonuses and penalties that really push the minis issue.

What I find interesting is the "base" rules for 4e are closer to older editions in that they really only concern themselves with the basics. Do you hit, do you miss, and a few relatively simple options.

It's only when you add the powers on that it picks up the game based tactics, and physical positioning becomes more important.

If you wanted to play 4e as a miniless game, I think it would be pretty easy- just use the base level rules, and only really use the powers as "guidelines."

You wouldn't get all the precise tactical bonuses and penalties- no +1 here or +2 there, or definite Opportunity Attacks and what not- but I really doubt any DM in the past ever calculated exact precise bonuses and penalties for actions on the fly with miniless combat.

 

[the Jester]

I only skimmed a portion of this thread, so someone else may have already pointed this out, but the example of play in the 1e DMG uses miniatures.

I agree that the focus on minis is nothing new, but I also agree that said focus is more encouraged than ever. Miniature use also enhances the game more than ever imho.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I'm currently playing a 4E game by Skype without minis (at least until we can convince the DM to learn maptools).

You can do it fine, but you lose a bunch of options and often times placement in a battle is muddled, to say the least.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have never played a D&D campaign without minis. Oh sure, I've played for large stretches of game time without them, even participated in combats without them (as DM and player), but ultimately, somewhere along the way, minis got used.

Heck, even my very first game session used minis- a Ral Partha Elf and a Grenadier Human Fighter that I still have to this day, 32 years later.

 

[Ariosto]

the example of play in the 1e DMG uses miniatures.

Not exactly, methinks.

DM: "What are you going to do now?"
LC: "Light our torches, and go down the steps!"
DM: "Fine, but I'll need the 'marching order' you will be in." (At this point the players either write down the names of characters with each in its respective rank, or place their painted miniature figures in actual formation ...)

Golly, even 4e does not absolutely require painted figures!

After ploying the figures into "marching order", everyone in the example seems to forget about them -- which was pretty much par for the course in my experience back then.

 

[Shemeska]

I started in 3e and have never used minis, either as a DM or as a player.

However as 3.x progressed, it seemed to me that it increasingly pushed towards the use of minis (presumably since WotC was trying to sell prepainted minis). I've only noticed this trend increase and from what I've seen, 4e all but demands that you use minis, such are they built into its core assumptions and rules.

 

[avin]

We always used counters, since 2E, even for GURPS, Mage, Deadlands, Vampire or Shadowrun.

Miniatures I started using on 4E.

My very personal opinion is that faceless counters improve game immersion while miniatures facilitate the "who is who" on the battlemat.

 

[Umbran]

So, when it's mentioned that 4E requires minis, and this being mentioned as a megative point, I wonder if some people were just dumping a good quarter of the 3E combat system to avoid minis - Op attacks, spells and class abilities that affected 5-foot steps, bull rushes, armor speed reductions, Huge Monster threat ranges, etc. For that matter, even back in 1E, a large portion (or maybe even the majority, from informal polls I've seen) of AD&D gamers used minis, or some form of spatial representation in order to play.

I have to wonder - I know AD&D1 and 3E can be played without minis with plenty of trust in a DM (and even 4E could, too), but did so many people swim against the current that 3E was perceived by many as a "mini-less" game?

In my experience, "some form of spacial representation" and "minis" are in no way equivalent. When one mentions minis, the general assumption that matters isn't the minis themselves, but the grid underneath them.

I recall a campaign ending combat, in which the DM put down a slice of cantaloupe ("This is the dragon"), some mini peanut butter cups ("These are some giants and ogres"), M&Ms (orcs) and other assorted candies/snacks for other monsters. The PCs were various characteristic dice. The point was merely to keep the action vaguely logically consistent - making it clear that to reach the dragon you had to go through the other critters (and allowing us to eat the corpses of our enemies).

That experience was a far cry from using a grid to keep details accurate to within 5'.

When I run 3.x, I use a battlemat for only the larger, complicated combats, where people (including myself) would get confused about relative positions. But I kept the full field of options (like AoO, and so on) open to the players.

4e simply has more explicit references to position in the character powers, and requires greater detailed knowledge of position to make decent use of those powers than previous editions. I don't think I'd feel comfortable running any but the most simple combats in 4e without a battlemat.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I recall a campaign ending combat, in which the DM put down a slice of cantaloupe ("This is the dragon"), some mini peanut butter cups ("These are some giants and ogres"), M&Ms (orcs) and other assorted candies/snacks for other monsters. The PCs were various characteristic dice. The point was merely to keep the action vaguely logically consistent - making it clear that to reach the dragon you had to go through the other critters (and allowing us to eat the corpses of our enemies).

You need to be careful when using minis like these. The players will take to a new form of metagaming and attack the most delicious enemies first.

 

[Voadam]

You need to be careful when using minis like these. The players will take to a new form of metagaming and attack the most delicious enemies first.

I was in one when we were fighting a bunch of giant chaos slugs. The DM used potato wedges from the dinner he had ordered. At one point an astral dreadnought (the thing from the 1e and 4e covers of the Manual of the Planes) warped in and scooped up two of them, quickly devouring them. The DM reached down, scooped up two of the wedges, and ate them. We proceeded to fight the dreadnought as well. I was never sure if he had it show up just because he was hungry.