Who uses Miniatures?

[ledded]

Chalk another one up to miniatures use, no matter the system - except for Feng Shui. Feng Shui is so fluid and placement has so little to do with the action that I don't bother.

However, with D&D, Modern, or even games like GURPS, placement can be important to understanding how someone does something, what order something occurs, etc. For us it HELPS the descriptions rather than impedes them, because we can understand who is hit with what area effect, etc. Usually too many disruptions emerge when someone disputes where their character would have been.

I agree with Henry whole-heartedly.

The miniatures (and scenery/terrain/vehicles) are a big part of the hobby for me though, I really enjoy getting some paint on them and building things for our table.

As far as the many comments I've heard from people who disparage the use of miniatures as purely 'wargaming' I have really only this to say: that is a problem with your players, not minis. Our group is actually *more* likely to describe some very nice move or roleplay some exciting action sequence with the miniatures on the table, and the GM is more likely to rule quickly and effectively, because both can visualize it rather nicely. Sometimes someone might get bogged down with indecision on their turn, trying to figure out the perfect move, but usually the GM will give them a quick '6 seconds, player' if it gets to that, and they act quickly and move on.

I played without them mostly when I was younger, and it is far more easily visualized now with the rich variety of miniatures and terrain we have. Not all games benefit, but many do.

IMO, if your game turns into a dry dice-fest wargame when you break out miniatures, that's a problem with the GM or the players, or both. Most people I game with don't play or never have played wargames and love to roleplay rich and varied characters, and really enjoy the added aspect of having visual aids. Sure, we can and often do play sequences without hitting the minis, because a lot of game is solved through roleplaying and not rollplaying, but if it's a situation where position or surroundings are important, we break out the minis.

 

[tensen]

I find that miniatures improve the speed of the game. The importance is that players don't just assume that whatever mini is out there is the whole of the description. It also falls on the DM to correct that issue. Since sometimes players have the habit of responding based on seeing a mini with a bow and no melee weapon, and just charging. Or not bothering to charge against the mini with a spear out (only to find that it had no spear.. just a meager dagger.)

 

[baileyrecords]

I love miniatures. They're great to collect, paint, mod, and play with!

Some of my players - ahem - make using miniatures a mandatory element of RPGing simply because they "can't" totally grasp and envision all the elements of the story without some visual aides.

Now... if only Chris West would put out poster-sized, 1" square, play maps for sci-fi miniatures games... I wouldn't have to break out my crayon box and grid paper every month!

- Stratos

 

[HellHound]

TOTALLY depends on the session.

I've run months of sessions without a battlemat, minis or anything else except for the maps.

I've also run several games where the minis were integral.

 

[D+1]

Nope. I've found since using miniatures that the games are more like a wargame, less descriptive, less enjoyable and less fun. Players take their figure and move their 5ft step, rather than describing themselves leaping across tables, swinging from ropes or whatever.

IME that's only because it becomes redundant - everyone has already SEEN the character leap across the table, swing from the rope, or whatever because those things have been placed on the table as props or drawn onto the Battlemat, etc. Even then, people STILL describe their actions when it's technically unnecessary. Even though the placement of the table is well established next to their miniature, when they take a 5' step and move on top of it they'll still say, "Aha! I leap onto the table with a flourish and attack."

YMMV of course. But to repeat, IME miniatures (along with battlemats, what-have-you) have never subtracted anything from a game I've ever been in. On the contrary, they have added much to visualization, immeasurably eased the job of explaining position and room details to players (especially the MORE detailed, complex, and/or crowded the room is), and generally facilitated the roleplaying aspects of the game by removing so much of the verbal gruntwork from the players and DM. A picture is worth a thousand words. If you can save 750 by SHOWING other players the mere basics of where things are and what happens instead of laboriously describing it all, how can that be a bad thing? If you insist on voicing another 750 words it can all be TRULY descriptive rather than explanatory verbiage of rock-basic positionings and distances.

If you have players who completely clam up because they can move a miniature 5' instead of verbally stating it and describing it the problem is NOT with miniatures but with a player. I would even go so far as to risk speculating that such a player came to rely upon the mistakes and confusion of purely verbal play to manipulate things to their personal advantage and amusement. Having lost that avenue of exploitation their reaction is to say nothing unless it is to voice subtle complaints about "disadvantages" of miniatures. But given time I'm sure they'd come back around.

Honestly I cannot see a GAME-functional disadvantage to miniatures. Their sole drawbacks are meta-game: miniatures cost money, may take time and drudgery to paint, and some people can mistakenly get it into their heads that unless you have a SPECIFIC miniature for any monster/character you're using that you're not doing it right.

Certainly that last one holds no water with me. I've used miniatures for D&D since Day-1 some 25+ years ago, so my perspective here is undoubtedly biased somewhat in their favor. But down through the years we've used and re-used miniatures almost more often for what they are NOT than what they are. In fact we had a stock phrase back in the earlier days of our gaming: "Are them what they are?" Because we'd have to substitute miniatures we'd still have to explain that, "the Ral Partha orcs are actually orcs, the LoTR orcs are orcs with bows, and the goblins are actually kobolds," or that, "the Red Dragon is NOT a dragon, it's simply a large McGuffin about the size of this dragon miniature."

Okay I'm rambling now; the engineer has derailed my train of thought. I think I need a nap.