Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Adamquest64 02-26-08, 10:35 PM	Hey all, I'm new to these forums and D&D. I live in a rural area and for the past year I have been trying to assemble a gaming group but have had no luck. Anyway, about miniatures... is it best to play with them for the standard D&D game version 3.5 or without? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
rjsilverthorn 02-26-08, 10:43 PM	Its really a matter of personal preference. We always use mini's for combat, but there are those that feel that they interfere with the flow of combat and that the system wasn't originally designed with mini's in mind. I find it makes certain things a heck of a lot easier though. Figuring out area of effect spells, line of sight, flanking and attacks of opportunity can all be done at a glance. Of course, unless you really go all out on your gaming area, you can find your battlefields a little constrained by your available table space. It works for us, but you'll have to try it to see how it works for you.
Sildatorak 02-26-08, 10:49 PM	For 3.5 and its heavy reliance on the grid system, I would recommend the use of something physical to represent characters and their locations. It doesn't need to be minis, spare change works well, as do those half-melted glass beads that are flat on one side, buttons, bottle caps, etc. I had one DM who had a bunch of pennies onto which he had glued brown paper cut from grocery bags. He used a sharpie to number them 1, 2, 3, etc. on one side with a big X on the other. That let him remember which monster was which when we were fighting large groups and let him keep track of downed foes pretty easily by flipping the coin over.
ciaran 02-26-08, 11:04 PM	Minis. All the way. I personally feel it makes it more fun for Dm and PCs alike. DM still has final say regardless.
Orenmir 02-26-08, 11:23 PM	With all the complex combat and movement rules since 3.0 compounded with feats and abilities that refer to movement and spacial relationships, using minis is much easier and more fair than trying to imagine it all in your head. If you're a spacial tactician or enjoy the visual puzzle-solving in such games like chess, you will probably prefer using minis and grids. If you play D&D purely for the role-playing and imagination and enjoy "picturing" every aspect in your head, feel free to leave the minis and grids out. This was much easier in 2.0 than 3.0, but rather enjoyable and induces better role-playing IMO -- it forces players to imagine and use their creativity more than pure tactics and predetermined strategies.
mplindustries 02-26-08, 11:36 PM	I HATE MINIATURES IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE. I have always been disappointed by the reliance on miniatures thats built into the system. Even 4e looks to make this worse, as they have abilities that talk about squares and not even feet. Good things about miniatures: 1) I think the biggest one is area effects. It takes an experienced DM to keep a good mental picture of what is going on and express that to the players. Otherwise, you get "how many can I hit with a fireball?" asked almost every round (of course, I find no issue with that...I don't like primary spellcasters in D&D anyway). 2) Combat is more concrete. It is clear who can hit what, how they enemy is arranged, and where cover is in relation to things. 3) It opens up things like reach weapons and AoO focused feats. Those are next to useless in freeform, but they are complete winners with a map. Bad things about Miniatures: 1) It favors tactically minded players and rules lawyers. Its going to be extremely hard for a first time player to know where to move and what path to take to get there. Its a lot easier to say "I hit him" than moving yourself in a zigzag to avoid AoOs on your way. 2) It makes area effects, reach, and attacks of opportunity way too powerful. Sneak attacks become almost impossible, and two weapon fighting without pounce is problematic at best. 3) It makes medium and heavy armor really suck bad. Lack of movement really hurts on a map, and heavy warriors, who are "supposed to" have the best ACs end up with terrible ones because they have to charge everywhere. Tumbling is almost required as well 4) Non-spell ranged combat is a pain, because you have to find angles to shoot past allies. 5) Here's the most important one: it disconnects the player from their character. "Your turn, what do you do?" "I do X" is a lot more immersive than "Your turn, what do you do?" followed by sliding a little figure around a bunch of boxes. The figures are distracting, and it could be expensive, too, unless you are A) lucky B) based a character on a miniature or C) bought a specific miniature to match the character. I have run D&D for years with no map, and it was always very fun. After meeting a new group, who uses a map, I can't tell you how much I hate it (and not just for the sake of hating change, either). Its confining, it takes power away from the DM to make judgement calls and allow things that make sense in a cinematic drama, but not on a well laid out map. It gives spellcasters a huge edge over melee, and regular-type melee a huge edge over sneak attackers. It makes people less inclined to pay attention on someone else's turn. They can zone out and have other discussions and still look back to the map when they have to go. It takes time to set up maps, as well. In a mapless game, it can be "He attacks! Roll iniative and lets go." With a map its, "He attacks! Roll iniative and take a short break while I draw the battlefield and figure out where everyone is on the map. The map is convenient, but it is a crutch. You may need it, but it takes one step away from roleplaying, and one towards a tactical war game. If you can at all avoid using it, I would, because its very hard to break someone of the habit of using a map. Anyway, I know I'm the minority, but, I don't know, suggesting using the map makes my skin crawl. Edit: If you're a spacial tactician or enjoy the visual puzzle-solving in such games like chess, you will probably prefer using minis and grids.I disagree. I love those things and still hate the map. I am very good at the tactics, and in a way, that makes it less appealing, because it means I have a huge advantage over those who are not. Its hard to dumb down my tactics so the players can actually win like they are supposed to. Many people say using the map is "more fair" because you can adjucate the rules uniformly. But I find quite the opposite. (For one, the rules are horribly written and broken in many places and are designed to favor a play style I hate but thats besides the point). If you play with someone who has no interest in spatial puzzles or things of that nature, it is a lot more fair to just describe and go with it, as they will be greatly disadvantaged with a battlemap.
Adamquest64 02-27-08, 02:13 AM	Thanks for all the input. To those that support Minis: My main game is Warhammer40k. Personally, I find the art of creating models and terrain to be an important part of the game, and it seems that D&D players are not very passionate about this area of gaming. But I've decided to learn to roleplay now instead of focusing on Warhammer, because I never can seem to meet with people that have 40k armies. At first, I thought my Version 3.5 handbook as telling me that I HAD to have miniatures. I bought all of my friend's monster miniatures for 5o bucks. I painted two Reaper miniatures, my friends painted one a piece, and my girlfriend painted one. It was a good time, as I love creating models. Eventually with some pondering, and hearing other peoples'opinions, I started to think maybe D&D wasn't intended to have minis and might be better without it. To those that support No Minis: After reading some replies, I think this might be the best method; 1) I don't think pre-painted miniatures are that cool 2)If I am ever a DM, I don't want my battles to be limited to how many of each monster miniature I have bought. And if some characters are symbolized by actual minis and some are symbolized by pennies and stuff, I'm afraid it might mess up my mental image of the battle. 3)I'll never have enough miniatures for every town and NPC my party is going to come across. Since this is a fact for almost everyone, it might be best that miniatures were never introduced to the game. Having no minis would result in a seamless imaginary vision of the settings. In conlusion, perhaps I will save the miniature stuff for Warhammer.
Beware of Kobold 02-27-08, 03:43 AM	you will find that 3.5 requires miniatures and assumes that miniatures are being used. A majority of feats, class features, and combat options are simply meaningless without the use of miniatures. If you choose not to use them you will quickly find that you are forced to constantly answer questions about placement of characters, distance from enemies, location of obstacles, etc. and that attacks of opportunity become impossible to adjudicate. The advantage of reach will be forgotten, denying some monsters of their most useful aspects, and the area that spells affect will be chosen largely at random. If none of that makes any sense to you, then imagine trying to play 40k with no minis. That's what it will be like. Constant arguments about whether your character was were the DM thought it was, misunderstandings about just where in the room a door was, etc. Unless the DM has utter totalitarian rule and the players simply accept his decrees like mindless sheep, I wouldn't even think of trying to play 3.5 without minis (not that I would want to play in a game with a Facist DM and mindless players, but I think you get my point)
Shadowhowler 02-27-08, 08:30 AM	I have played RPG's for over 15 years without using maps or mini's. That being said... 3.5 is VERY diffcult to play wihtout a grid map of some sort, and a mini or some token system to reflect the creatures on the map. Why? Becuase, as it says stright out in the Player's Handbook... this version of the game has been designed around the use of the miniatures and the 5ft grid system... and thus all the mechanics are directly related to it. It would be very, VERY hard to effectivly run a game in 3.5 without it. This is comming from a guy who is a heavy Roleplayer and LARP fan. I have run LARP games with over 100 players. I am all about immersive roleplay. In the 3.5 system, it's just too damn hard to figure things out without the grid and representation... it's just too deeply built into the rules. Try and change it, and you might as well just use a differant system. I have found that instead of taking AWAY from immersive gameplay tho... for me, the map and mini's actualy HELP. No longer do I have to wonder if my mental image of everything and the DM's match... I can SEE what my character can see, in physical representation. This means I spend less time trying to puzzle out the situation... and more time thinking about how my character would react. The only drawbacks I have really found with mini's are as follows: 1. Set up time. This *IS* a pain in the a$$, no two ways about it. It takes time to draw out maps and set up mini's... and this is time either taken out of the DM's life before game, or time taken out of everyones game if done during the game. Either way, it's a pain. 2. Cost. Mini's cost money. D&D mini's don't end up costing as much as Warhammer mini's (at least, not for normal players) but it is an added expense. So... basicly... it breaks down like this. I would probably not try and play 3.5 without a grid and mini's... I think it would be just to akward... but I do find the set up annoying and wish there were a quicker way.
rjsilverthorn 02-27-08, 09:18 AM	Thanks for all the input. To those that support Minis: My main game is Warhammer40k. Personally, I find the art of creating models and terrain to be an important part of the game, and it seems that D&D players are not very passionate about this area of gaming. But I've decided to learn to roleplay now instead of focusing on Warhammer, because I never can seem to meet with people that have 40k armies. At first, I thought my Version 3.5 handbook as telling me that I HAD to have miniatures. I bought all of my friend's monster miniatures for 5o bucks. I painted two Reaper miniatures, my friends painted one a piece, and my girlfriend painted one. It was a good time, as I love creating models. Eventually with some pondering, and hearing other peoples'opinions, I started to think maybe D&D wasn't intended to have minis and might be better without it. To those that support No Minis: After reading some replies, I think this might be the best method; 1) I don't think pre-painted miniatures are that cool 2)If I am ever a DM, I don't want my battles to be limited to how many of each monster miniature I have bought. And if some characters are symbolized by actual minis and some are symbolized by pennies and stuff, I'm afraid it might mess up my mental image of the battle. 3)I'll never have enough miniatures for every town and NPC my party is going to come across. Since this is a fact for almost everyone, it might be best that miniatures were never introduced to the game. Having no minis would result in a seamless imaginary vision of the settings. In conlusion, perhaps I will save the miniature stuff for Warhammer. Well here is the thing, if you are unsure, its better to start without and save yourself the expense. Its not like its a one way street, you can always change your mind if you find it doesn't work for you. We generally only use real minis for our characters and most of the time we just use numbered glass counters to track the monsters. The DM will occasionally pull out a mini for a particularly important enemy. A dragon is far more intimidating on the board than a counter is.
mplindustries 02-27-08, 09:56 AM	you will find that 3.5 requires miniatures and assumes that miniatures are being used. A majority of feats, class features, and combat options are simply meaningless without the use of miniatures. If you choose not to use them you will quickly find that you are forced to constantly answer questions about placement of characters, distance from enemies, location of obstacles, etc. and that attacks of opportunity become impossible to adjudicate. The advantage of reach will be forgotten, denying some monsters of their most useful aspects, and the area that spells affect will be chosen largely at random. If none of that makes any sense to you, then imagine trying to play 40k with no minis. That's what it will be like. Constant arguments about whether your character was were the DM thought it was, misunderstandings about just where in the room a door was, etc. Unless the DM has utter totalitarian rule and the players simply accept his decrees like mindless sheep, I wouldn't even think of trying to play 3.5 without minis (not that I would want to play in a game with a Facist DM and mindless players, but I think you get my point) Its only hard if you let it be hard. Just abstract stuff in your mind. Who cares what inch of floor the orc is standing on if you can hit him? Playing with no miniatures does absolutely diminish the use of reach, AoOs, AoE effects, and all the things you mentioned. Thats not necessarily a bad thing, its just a different thing. If you are an open DM, one who actually wants the players to succeed (I'm thinking this might be a rarity for some reason...) you're going to let cinematic action happen and not worry too much. For example, "I move to flank him" is sufficient in my mind. There is no question to anyone whether or not that enemy is flanked. It makes no difference about the literal exact placement of the flank though. Its really only a problem if you try to enforce the specific miniature rules on non-miniature play. So, does it involve ignoring/downplaying a bunch of rules? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No, especially because the immersion is worth it.
Sildatorak 02-27-08, 10:12 AM	My main game is Warhammer40k. [snip] 2)If I am ever a DM, I don't want my battles to be limited to how many of each monster miniature I have bought. And if some characters are symbolized by actual minis and some are symbolized by pennies and stuff, I'm afraid it might mess up my mental image of the battle. I just wanted to point out one of the main differences between Warhammer and D&D related to miniatures. With Warhammer you are supposed to have the exact pieces to represent your army. For D&D the main thing you need them for is just to track where things are. What they are doesn't really matter that much. Several of my friends just love to paint miniatures so they have decent collections. When picking which miniatures to use (I typically DM), I just go with whatever is closest. Orc figures could easily be thuggish dockworkers or hobgoblins. One thing that they do take pride on, though, is their large number of kobolds, so I try to oblige him. 3)I'll never have enough miniatures for every town and NPC my party is going to come across. Since this is a fact for almost everyone, it might be best that miniatures were never introduced to the game. Having no minis would result in a seamless imaginary vision of the settings.Don't worry about minis for non-combat interactions. When exact location doesn't matter then their isn't as much need for them. 1) It favors tactically minded players and rules lawyers. Its going to be extremely hard for a first time player to know where to move and what path to take to get there. Its a lot easier to say "I hit him" than moving yourself in a zigzag to avoid AoOs on your way.And lack of a map favors those who have enough visual-spatial intelligence to keep the locations of multiple opponents in their head. The solution I've found for this is for the less tactically minded players to get a little help from the others in terms of asking "I want to close with this guy, but I don't want to take any AoO's" and the rest of the players helping to point out potential paths. 2) It makes area effects, reach, and attacks of opportunity way too powerful. Sneak attacks become almost impossible, and two weapon fighting without pounce is problematic at best. [snip] 4) Non-spell ranged combat is a pain, because you have to find angles to shoot past allies. Considering that the system is balanced on all those assumptions, it seems like a good thing to me. I also disagree with your assessments of "way too powerful" and "almost imposible." Sneak attacks are not intended to be usable every time you have two people fighting an enemy, they're meant to be used whenever you can set up a flank. Without a map, I don't see a fair way of adjudicating when the opponent has managed to outmaneuver those trying to flank him and when the opponent is going to get shish kabobbed. 3) It makes medium and heavy armor really suck bad. Lack of movement really hurts on a map, and heavy warriors, who are "supposed to" have the best ACs end up with terrible ones because they have to charge everywhere. Tumbling is almost required as wellWho is moving all over the map? If you've engaged an opponent they either are going to continue to fight you and take AoOs when they move away, or they're going to withdraw.
Sildatorak 02-27-08, 10:19 AM	For example, "I move to flank him" is sufficient in my mind. There is no question to anyone whether or not that enemy is flanked. It makes no difference about the literal exact placement of the flank though. What about when the PCs have earned the ire of the thieves' guild? How do they take it when 4 rogues all move to flank one of them and there is no maneuvering in the world they can do to stop it? So, does it involve ignoring/downplaying a bunch of rules? Yes. Is that a bad thing? No, especially because the immersion is worth it.I don't find this style of playing more immersive; I find it irritating as both a player and a DM. I dislike having so much of whether or not you can reach a particular foe being up to DM whim, and I dislike having players realizing that much is being left up to DM whim and trying to wheedle their way into a better combat situation.
Orenmir 02-27-08, 10:33 AM	I don't find this style of playing more immersive; I find it irritating as both a player and a DM. I dislike having so much of whether or not you can reach a particular foe being up to DM whim, and I dislike having players realizing that much is being left up to DM whim and trying to wheedle their way into a better combat situation. To each his own, of course. I agree that it is nearly impossible for a DM in 3.5 to keep a fair track of 30 combatants on the ground and in the air on a multi-leveled playing field with doors, hallways, obstructions, and pits. This scenario is a nightmare without minis and a grid... "Now, who was affected by that area spell?" "Do I have a straight line to charge here?" "Am I still on higher ground?" Sure, the DM can answer all these questions; but, it leaves an uneasy feeling with the players wondering what kind of proof the DM has to back up the answers. For example: a PC could be trying to a perform a tactical maneuver that relies on a specific spacial relationship between himself and his foe; then the DM decrees that the relationship is no longer valid, but can't provide proof (because there are no minis) -- very frustrating for the player of that PC. That being said, I did enjoy the days of 2.0 when the absence of minis and grids was not a pain at all. Instead of keeping my eyes on the grid and minis, I easily imagined the combat in my head and allowed my creativity to conjure up what the bad guys looked like, what the surroundings looked like, and what the action felt like. Both methods are fun - just different types of fun, IMO. I haven't played 3.0 or 3.5 without minis. I imagine it would alter everybody's feat and spell choice to play without them, since so many feats and spells rely on a concrete interpretation of movement and spacial relationships.
key 02-27-08, 10:42 AM	No. If you have the itch to buy a Hasbro doll, get a GI Joe or Transformer.
Beware of Kobold 02-27-08, 11:52 AM	Its only hard if you let it be hard. Just abstract stuff in your mind. Who cares what inch of floor the orc is standing on if you can hit him? Playing with no miniatures does absolutely diminish the use of reach, AoOs, AoE effects, and all the things you mentioned. Thats not necessarily a bad thing, its just a different thing. the use of reach, AoOs and AoE effects are not simply optional things in 3.5 D&D. They are intrinsic to the system. It's like saying "playing with no dice diminishes the use of attack rolls, saving throws and skill checks. That's not necessarily a bad thing." It is bad thing because you radically alter the balance of the rules, in either case. If you are an open DM, one who actually wants the players to succeed (I'm thinking this might be a rarity for some reason...) you're going to let cinematic action happen and not worry too much. For example, "I move to flank him" is sufficient in my mind. There is no question to anyone whether or not that enemy is flanked. It makes no difference about the literal exact placement of the flank though. but by moving to flank him, did you move through the threatened areas, provoking AoOs? if you are a halfling, with a speed of 20, is your DM going to tell you 33 percent of the time that since you are 33 percent slower than everyone else that you didnt have enough move to get to a flanking position? If this is completely ignored, you make halflings and dwarves and other slow races more powerful than usual, and monks and barbarians lose some of their power. The disadvantages of heavy armor become meaningless. Once again you are affecting game balance. Its really only a problem if you try to enforce the specific miniature rules on non-miniature play. there are no specific miniature rules. just the ordinary combat rules. There are no sections singled out with headings that say "for miniature play only". 3.5 is simply a miniature game. So, does it involve ignoring/downplaying a bunch of rules? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Yes, because then you're playing half a game.
vagabonvoid 02-27-08, 11:52 AM	I find it funny that d&d evolved out of a miniature war game. Every edition has included rules on using miniatures. Miniatures keep things balanced from a player/GM standpoint. I cannot recall how many times my AD&D group spent thirty minutes per combat trying to figure out whether or not we were able to cast a fireball because an ally may be in the way-even though we were no where near melee when the GM described the scene... Most of the time, things came down to using pennies and proxies on a makeshift grid. My GM was reluctant to use miniatures, until I brought in some custom painted reaper minis fort the heroes and the players all chipped in for a booster box each. We still had to use proxies but this replaced the usual thirty minutes of trying to figure out who was where when combat started. Total cost $5 per hero, $15 per booster... I know people who have dice sets that cost more. Now we go on ebay and order singles for multiple npcs (damn kobolds...) We generally use the cheap plastic for the unimportant bad guys and bystanders while the heroes and the BBEG is usually a custom pewter mini... I would say if anything, the miniatures helped immersion. The GM would describe the scene, place the miniatures as he saw fit, and combat would start... Simple and clean, 3 minutes tops... Instead of a combat lasting all night because we didn't know who or what was where, we would have it done within thirty minutes (and thats for a battle)... Then we could get back to the role-play part of the game.
Beware of Kobold 02-27-08, 11:55 AM	No. If you have the itch to buy a Hasbro doll, get a GI Joe or Transformer. GI Joes and Transformers are far too big to use on an ordinary grid mat, unless all your PCs are large or bigger, and if that's the case then your game has bigger problems than layout of battles.
edventure 02-27-08, 11:56 AM	Our group uses a white board hung from the ceiling and dry erase markers. It's quick to sketch a map and you don't have to worry about how many orcs you brought. Green for the PC's, black for the walls/terrain features, red for the baddies. It's simple, cheap, and it works for us.
rjsilverthorn 02-27-08, 12:10 PM	Our group uses a white board hung from the ceiling and dry erase markers. It's quick to sketch a map and you don't have to worry about how many orcs you brought. Green for the PC's, black for the walls/terrain features, red for the baddies. It's simple, cheap, and it works for us. A friend of mine has a DM that uses a laptop and an LCD projector on the wall, which is neat, although a little tough to do with mini's without some velcro :)
Rakor 02-27-08, 01:29 PM	I prefer to use a battlemap but I don't use minis. I just buy loads of d6s in different colors and then label the bad guys. So I'll have red 1-6, blue 1-6, black 1-6, white 1-6. That allows me to run 24 monsters and keep easy track of who is who.
Cartigan 02-27-08, 02:02 PM	GI Joes and Transformers are far too big to use on an ordinary grid mat, unless all your PCs are large or bigger, and if that's the case then your game has bigger problems than layout of battles. Have you seen GI Joes? Not the dolls, but the 3" high toys. If you could make them stand, then you could use them. But not including miniatures in the game is not only going to alter the balance, but seriously slow it down. "Ok, I get ranged sneak attack/manyshot/point blank shot/etc when I am within 30 ft, does he look like he is 30 feet away?" "Is he within 10 feet of me so I can hit him with my *reach weapon*?" Etc. The game is built around specific numbers and a grid basis and you really need something to represent distance. Well rather, if you are actually playing the game you do. If you are one of the "role-play v roll-play" people, I suppose you can argue it interferes with role-playing. Well great, but that isn't true D&D.
Kursk 02-27-08, 02:06 PM	Anyway, about miniatures... is it best to play with them for the standard D&D game version 3.5 or without? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. To successfully implement the 3.5 combat (weapon & spell) rules you must use mini's or a substitute with a grid. Not possible without these.
mplindustries 02-27-08, 08:40 PM	All these responses against my anti-mini stance seem to be coming from very bitter people who must have terribly awful experiences without maps. I am very sorry for your bad time. However, the stories/attitudes everyone is relating are very strange to me. First, if your GM is trying to screw you over--if he tries to deny you use of your abilities, or anything of that ilk--thats a bad GM. Its not the lack of a map's fault, its the GM's. The GM's job is to make the players win in such a way as to make them feel as though they might not. It seemed very frequent that people claimed that without a map, the GM has no "proof" when he says you can't do X. First, I'd say with a good GM, if he ever says "You can't do X" he should immediately offer a way to pull it off. Secondly, the GM should never need "proof." If you feel he needs proof, it sounds like you have an adversarial relationship with him, and I think you should probably address that. As far as "balance," it really doesn't come up. Everything falls into place with no map, trust me. Things balance better. For one, spells and melee become much closer. Boring lockdown stuff such as long reaches with Stand Still or tripping and Crowd Control spells like Evard's Unfair Tentacles are greatly diminished. Sneak attack actually does something, since abstracted, you can flank someone, and then they're flanked. Realistically, if you're out in the open, guess what, you lose if you fight two people who are even vaguely coordinated, so I don't see that as a problem either. Even Tome of Battle evens out because full attacks are easier to get, and frequently outdo manuevers. Am I saying spells are terrible? No, area spells are weakened slightly, which honestly brings them in line with the rest of the game. What was that quote I've seen? "Melee characters play D&D from level 1-20, but spellcasters only play D&D for half the game before they move up to Bazooka tag." It was something like that. Here are some specific responses: And lack of a map favors those who have enough visual-spatial intelligence to keep the locations of multiple opponents in their head.Their locations are largely irrelevant, as its more important that they are in X general area rather than in specific square. If you are trying to picture everything in your head divided into squares, you're doing it wrong. Without a map, I don't see a fair way of adjudicating when the opponent has managed to outmaneuver those trying to flank him and when the opponent is going to get shish kabobbed.Is the fight in an enclosed space? How close to a corner is the enemy? If he's not terribly close to one and doesn't have tumble, he's out of luck, unless he wants to eat AoOs to get away. Plus, in a lot of cases, I'd rather be flanked than backed into a corner (not mechanically, just in general). Honestly though, its the rogue's only offensive class feature. Why shouldn't it apply much of the time, especially considering how much is immune to it? What about when the PCs have earned the ire of the thieves' guild? How do they take it when 4 rogues all move to flank one of them and there is no maneuvering in the world they can do to stop it?First, they're players. They are supposed to win, after all. Second, if you are surrounded by four guys, you're probably getting skewered. How do you stop them? Group together. Four players together can't usually be flanked. Plus, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If they can flank easily, why can they complain about being flanked easily? You're also assuming I just run this game to kill them, which I actually try to avoid.I find it irritating as both a player and a DM. I dislike having so much of whether or not you can reach a particular foe being up to DM whim, and I dislike having players realizing that much is being left up to DM whim and trying to wheedle their way into a better combat situation. Its not the DM's whim, its the situation he describes. If he's not describing, thats a bad DM, not a whim. Secondly, if someone wanted to get to a foe, and it seemed reasonable (and I would absolutely cut them slack on that), then they could. Period.Sure, the DM can answer all these questions; but, it leaves an uneasy feeling with the players wondering what kind of proof the DM has to back up the answers. For example: a PC could be trying to a perform a tactical maneuver that relies on a specific spacial relationship between himself and his foe; then the DM decrees that the relationship is no longer valid, but can't provide proof (because there are no minis) If the DM does his job correctly and describes things, there should be no need for proof, as it was already explained. The DM needs to be a little more permissive on moving around, thats about it. Very simple adjustment I think. "Now, who was affected by that area spell?" "Do I have a straight line to charge here?" "Am I still on higher ground?" Who was affected? Whatever seemed reasonable, based on the description of their formation. Usually the answer should not be "all of them" unless it was described as them being bunched up. Do I have a straight line to charge? Who cares? Am I still on higher ground? If you were before, why wouldn't you still be? but by moving to flank him, did you move through the threatened areas, provoking AoOs?Who cares? Additionally, it would depend, but its highly likely that for every set up, there's a way around the movement AoOs. And if you have the tumble skill relatively high, its even less relevant.if you are a halfling, with a speed of 20, is your DM going to tell you 33 percent of the time that since you are 33 percent slower than everyone else that you didnt have enough move to get to a flanking position?If you play a halfling in my game, I will make fun of you. Regardless, no, it all depends on encounter distance and how it was described. If I say "They are 30' away" and you're a halfling who doesn't want to charge, then you're out of luck this round. Its not as complicated as you're making it seem.there are no specific miniature rules. just the ordinary combat rules. There are no sections singled out with headings that say "for miniature play only". 3.5 is simply a miniature game.No, but there are aspects of the rules with infinitely more impact on the game with a map than without. I consider mention of "squares" instead of abstract space or feet pretty specific to the grid.I cannot recall how many times my AD&D group spent thirty minutes per combat trying to figure out whether or not we were able to cast a fireball because an ally may be in the way-even though we were no where near melee when the GM described the sceneBad DM then. Guess what I'd have done...I hope its obvious by now: "Yes, cast the damnable fireball already and quit bickering about who is in the way." What purpose does it serve to wonder if people are in the way? Is it more fun for people if someone is in the way? No. Is it less fun? Yes. Ok, problem solved, because its a game, and its supposed to be fun. The GM would describe the scene, place the miniatures as he saw fit, and combat would start...Simple and clean, 3 minutes tops I've had entire combats start and end in a couple minutes...for my mapless games (even with people I'm trying to ween off the map), the big slow down is people who can't add dice fast enough, not deciding who can do what, because in general, people can do whatever they can describe that isn't ridiculous. Instead of a combat lasting all night because we didn't know who or what was where, we would have it done within thirty minutes (and thats for a battle)I don't know why you need to know exactly who was where. You need to know what you're fighting, the general layout of the area, and the general formation (if any) they are in. Thats pretty much it. "How many goblins are left?" "Four" "I hit one" Done and done (though hopefully with more description in reality).But not including miniatures in the game is not only going to alter the balance, but seriously slow it down. "Ok, I get ranged sneak attack/manyshot/point blank shot/etc when I am within 30 ft, does he look like he is 30 feet away?" "Is he within 10 feet of me so I can hit him with my *reach weapon*?" Those are disappointingly passive players. The correct thing would be "I try to get within 30 feet so I can use sneak attack/manyshot/pbshot/etc." or "How far away is he?" Is it really that hard to keep mental track of general encounter distance? If I say, "you're 30' away." Anyone who doesn't move in, is 30' away. Everyone who moves in is whatever their reach is away. I think everyone is overcomplicating this.To successfully implement the 3.5 combat (weapon & spell) rules you must use mini's or a substitute with a grid. Not possible without these.I have never run a roleplaying game with a battle grid until this past year when I met a new group of people who are slaves to it. I hated it. I have run games for years, and am even currently running two with no map, and even the people who love the map are doing just fine. Its about your attitude really. Everyone who roleplays ever should at least read, and maybe play Feng Shui at least once. Its not that great as a game, but the concepts in it are wonderful. The rules don't (and shouldn't) care how you do something. They should only be concerned with what the effects of that action are. If you shoot someone in the chest, you roll against their defense and it does damage based on your gun. If you shoot a chandelier down onto someone, guess what, you still roll against their defense, and it still does damage based on your gun. The game doesn't care how you hurt him, just that you did. Likewise, D&D shouldn't care about the exact path you took to dance among AoOs. It should only care that you did it. It doesn't need to know exactly what spot you're standing to flank, it just cares that you are flanking. It doesn't care that a snake who is prone doesn't actually look any different, it just cares that the snake has a -4 to hit, etc. Rules are abstract, so why do you need make it needlessly concrete?
Orenmir 02-27-08, 11:20 PM	Hey, if it works for you -- more power to ya! Seriously. I would love to do away with minis too, but it seems like utter confusion would incur with a combat scenario like I suggested in post #14 and the game would come to a screeching halt. Yet, I'm an optimist... I would love to watch/listen to you DM that scenario for inspiration and education.
Cartigan 02-27-08, 11:42 PM	Those are disappointingly passive players. The correct thing would be "I try to get within 30 feet so I can use sneak attack/manyshot/pbshot/etc." or "How far away is he?" Is it really that hard to keep mental track of general encounter distance? Your characters must be some bloody good trackers being able to estimate exact distance at a whim. The problem with the role-playing crowd is they arn't playing D&D; those people are playing an offshoot of D&D with all the mechanics stripped out so they don't interfere with the generic role playing.
Sildatorak 02-28-08, 12:25 AM	However, the stories/attitudes everyone is relating are very strange to me. As are your bad experiences with maps to me. I find the grid system of 3e to work much better than my 2e days with no maps and as well or better than my 2e days with some maps. The biggest thing I find is that it simply avoids any argument about who is where, whether someone is within reach, and the consistency with which the rules are applied (including, but not limited to, terrain effects on movement, higher ground bonuses, flanking, and line of sight). I only have one player (out of the 10ish people I play with in various groups) who is, as you said, a slave to it, trying to eke out the best possible route and make sure every move is the most advantageous one. Everyone else is still moving quickly, spending more time thinking about what action they will do than how specifically they will accomplish that. Used well, the battle map can also allow for more interesting battles if your players are interested in using the terrain to their advantage (and enjoy the challenge of foes who will do so as well). Even without utilizing terrain fairly, it can be an aid in keeping track of locations and enable you to run more complex combats without getting mucked up in preventing accidentally teleporting PCs or enemeies.
Beware of Kobold 02-28-08, 12:29 AM	mplindustries, you clearly don't understand 2 things: 1. points being made about balance. 2. what kind of game D&D 3.5 is. and its obvious that no amount of proof or reasoning is going to convince you. Not every DM or player is as "good" as you yourself seem to think you are, and spatial combat system is meant to fix that problem somewhat. I find your definition of "good" and "bad" DMing highly flawed, in that a "good" DM lets the players win and do whatever they want as long as it looks cool and "is fun". I would label that DM exactly the opposite, plus I wouldn't want to play in his game for the abuse of the rules that would surely crop up. Like I said in my earlier posts, a game with no map would only work under some totalitarian DM with players who simply accept all his decrees mindlessly without question, which sounds to be exactly what you've described in your examples. So it seems we are in agreement after all then. If that's how your game is and you enjoy it, then good for you, but you really aren't playing D&D 3.5, just your own heavily house-ruled version of it.
Adamquest64 02-28-08, 01:15 AM	Now that I think about it, I guess it would be annoying to have to overlook a lot of rules because I chose to not use miniatures. And it sounds like one would have to do that. I like going by all the rules in every game, so I'll have to give it some more thought.
mplindustries 02-28-08, 01:38 AM	...you really aren't playing D&D 3.5, just your own heavily house-ruled version of it. /agree And I highly recommend it. I really don't understand talking about totalitarianism in this. If the DM places enemies 30' away or says "they are 30' away" I see no difference...except that of little miniatures that turn it into a tactical combat game instead of an immersive roleplaying game. Do not get me wrong, I like tactical combat games as well. Its just not the same. I think you're jumping to conclusions about what goes on and I am perhaps not explaining it well. And to clarify, yes, you should be lenient on things that bring more fun for everyone. The players should win, after all they are the main characters. However, the trick is not letting them know that. They need to feel the danger as much as possible or it won't be as fun. Its pretty clear many disagree and it seems angrily so. Its admittedly not really worth it to me to sit and defend the way I play. I provided my suggestion for a new GM, then when people didn't like that he agreed with me, I clarified points people seemed to misunderstand. If its still misunderstood, I don't think there's anything I can do. Oh, and I've been wondering from the start...why is this post here and not in maybe the "What's a DM to do?" forum or whatever it is?
key 02-28-08, 09:01 AM	GI Joes and Transformers are far too big to use on an ordinary grid mat That was sort of my point. Playing D&D and playing with dolls should be two distinct activities.
Kursk 02-28-08, 09:56 AM	All these responses against my anti-mini stance seem to be coming from very bitter people who must have terribly awful experiences without maps. I am very sorry for your bad time. However, the stories/attitudes everyone is relating are very strange to me. ?? I don't know what you are getting at. But, make you a deal. We run two duplicate combat scenes in 3.5. You without mini's, counters, etc. Me with. Within a few rounds you won't be following and implementing 3.5 combat rules. Nothing wrong with that. It's just that you can't do it accurately.
Orenmir 02-28-08, 10:02 AM	I don't know what you are getting at. But, make you a deal. We run two duplicate combat scenes in 3.5. You without mini's, counters, etc. Me with. Within a few rounds you won't be following and implementing 3.5 combat rules. Nothing wrong with that. It's just that you can't do it accurately. I know what you're saying; but, I think you should steer away from using absolute statements like that. Excluding minis seems to work for him and his group, and it sounds like they are having fun too. Maybe the rules are getting bent a little; maybe they're not. We really shouldn't judge. I, for one, would be very interested to try out a session of 3.5 without minis and grids -- just to see what it's like. I'm quite confident it would take a very experienced DM to pull off successfully.
Kursk 02-28-08, 10:14 AM	I know what you're saying; but, I think you should steer away from using absolute statements like that. Excluding minis seems to work for him and his group, and it sounds like they are having fun too. Maybe the rules are getting bent a little; maybe they're not. We really shouldn't judge. I, for one, would be very interested to try out a session of 3.5 without minis and grids -- just to see what it's like. I'm quite confident it would take a very experienced DM to pull off successfully. I've DMed since '78. I gave the example because I've tried it. 3.5 combat system is too dependent on absolute position of combatants to accurately run with no physical representation. AoO rules alone preclude doing it. As I stated in my 1st post. Can't be done while following the rules. I have nothing against using no mini's.
Ecalsneerg 02-28-08, 10:53 AM	That was sort of my point. Playing D&D and playing with dolls should be two distinct activities. So say your battle mat is coins and grid paper, would you be OK with that?
key 02-28-08, 11:29 AM	So say your battle mat is coins and grid paper, would you be OK with that? Most likely.
Beware of Kobold 02-28-08, 11:32 AM	That was sort of my point. Playing D&D and playing with dolls should be two distinct activities. well you can stick to playing with dolls and I'll keep playing D&D with miniatures
vagabonvoid 02-28-08, 11:52 AM	Bad DM then. Guess what I'd have done...I hope its obvious by now: "Yes, cast the damnable fireball already and quit bickering about who is in the way." What purpose does it serve to wonder if people are in the way? Is it more fun for people if someone is in the way? No. Is it less fun? Yes. Ok, problem solved, because its a game, and its supposed to be fun. May I come play with you??? I'll Play a fighter with in a group of wizards and run into melee as they cast fireballs at the enemy. :p: :p: :emp: :fight!: :p: :p: :mage: :mage: :mage: Your logic doesn't work out... Are you meaning to say that if I'm within melee, that I won't be hit by a fireball because it isn't fun to be hit by a fireball???:confused:
Kursk 02-28-08, 12:05 PM	Are you meaning to say that if I'm within melee, that I won't be hit by a fireball because it isn't fun to be hit by a fireball???:confused: No, what he's saying is that as he makes up everything on the fly it doesn't really matter what the actual scene is or what players have their characters do. He as the DM just makes up the outcome as he sees fit. If he thinks you should get hit by the fireball you do. As no one in the game (including the DM) CAN know what is going on, he as the DM just makes it up as he sees fit.
Orenmir 02-28-08, 12:21 PM	No, what he's saying is that as he makes up everything on the fly it doesn't really matter what the actual scene is or what players have their characters do. He as the DM just makes up the outcome as he sees fit. If he thinks you should get hit by the fireball you do. As no one in the game (including the DM) CAN know what is going on, he as the DM just makes it up as he sees fit. Have you ever played without minis? Have you ever even watched a game without minis? Have you ever played in or watched one or mplindustries games? You are passive aggressively and maliciously interpreting how he DMs his game. Has he done the same to you? Also, what has warranted your attack on him? Are you jealous that he can DM without minis? Why the hostility? It's his game.
Kursk 02-28-08, 12:24 PM	Have you ever played without minis? Have you ever even watched a game without minis? Have you ever played in or watched one or mplindustries games? You are passive aggressively and maliciously interpreting how he DMs his game. Has he done the same to you? Also, what has warranted your attack on him? Are you jealous that he can DM without minis? Why the hostility? It's his game. Yes, I've played and DM'ed 3.5 without mini's. You can't do it while ACTUALLY following the 3.5 combat rules. I thought I accurately described how he runs the game based on his explanation. What points are in error?
vagabonvoid 02-28-08, 12:26 PM	No, what he's saying is that as he makes up everything on the fly it doesn't really matter what the actual scene is or what players have their characters do. He as the DM just makes up the outcome as he sees fit. If he thinks you should get hit by the fireball you do. As no one in the game (including the DM) CAN know what is going on, he as the DM just makes it up as he sees fit. Based on what he said earlier, he doesn't care whether any allies are in the way... Because it isn't fun, not because he is making it up on the fly. Also, a DM not knowing what is going on in their own game is a Bad DM. To each his own... All I know is once all my groups implemented miniatures for combat, it made the game quicker and easier, especially 3.x. Also, we don't have the problem of "You/I was standing there...". This problem not only came from the DM, but the players too... I agree, miniatures/counters need not be used all the time... If you are fighting a single/multiple mooks... Just hit them... done... But if you are facing down a BBEG with several troops, with spells and abilities... You need something to keep track of all that is going on. It saves from the hassle of not knowing...
key 02-28-08, 12:32 PM	well you can stick to playing with dolls and I'll keep playing D&D with miniatures This proves my point. Generally, people above a certain age are embarassed to be associated with doll playing.
Orenmir 02-28-08, 12:36 PM	Yes, I've played and DM'ed 3.5 without mini's. You can't do it while ACTUALLY following the 3.5 combat rules. You're statement is absolute. Can you prove it? I thought I accurately described how he runs the game based on his explanation. What points are in error? The word "accurately" is subjective. I would not agree that you accurately described his game. And, you can't prove me wrong or yourself right. That's the nature of a subjective adjective. Your point that he is breaking the rules is unproven. Until it is proven, I can claim that point is in error. Now, why are you attacking him? He runs a game without minis -- so what? Like I said before... Maybe he breaks some rules, maybe he doesn't. You can't prove it. And, why should it matter to you? You're not in his game.
Kursk 02-28-08, 12:48 PM	You're statement is absolute. Can you prove it? Yes, Run the experiment as I explained. Your point that he is breaking the rules is unproven. Until it is proven, I can claim that point is in error. Now, why are you attacking him? He runs a game without minis -- so what? Like I said before... Maybe he breaks some rules, maybe he doesn't. You can't prove it. And, why should it matter to you? You're not in his game. Just describing his game. Have no personal animosity towards him. Not using rules is the same as breaking them. As far as proof, run the experiment.
Cartigan 02-28-08, 12:53 PM	Now, why are you attacking him? He runs a game without minis -- so what? Like I said before... Maybe he breaks some rules, maybe he doesn't. You can't prove it. And, why should it matter to you? You're not in his game. At the very least, he is breaking movement rules. Probably actions per round as well. This is taken just from his own statements. What Halfling is going to describe himself as - "I move towards the guy, but never get there" is never going to be said, it will always be "I move up to the guy and hit him" even if he is more than 20 feet away (he did imply he keeps up with range increments).
Orenmir 02-28-08, 12:56 PM	As far as proof, run the experiment. Actually, I think that would be a great "experiment" we could all learn from. But, until then... you're claims are unproven.
Orenmir 02-28-08, 12:59 PM	What Halfling is going to describe himself as - "I move towards the guy, but never get there" is never going to be said, it will always be "I move up to the guy and hit him" even if he is more than 20 feet away (he did imply he keeps up with range increments). A good DM would say: "He's too far away. You can't reach him in one turn." Whether or not mplindustries is that DM, doesn't really matter. The point is: that scenario is possible to run without minis and abide by the rules.
Kursk 02-28-08, 01:02 PM	Actually, I think that would be a great "experiment" we could all learn from. But, until then... you're claims are unproven. It's been proven, you just weren't present. I think Newton's laws are unproven as I wasn't there when the experiments were run. Seriously though, if you run the experiment with the usual encounter scenarios you fairly quickly get out of sync with the "control" battle mat.
Orenmir 02-28-08, 01:30 PM	It's been proven, you just weren't present. I think Newton's laws are unproven as I wasn't there when the experiments were run. Pick up keyboard. Drop Keyboard. You just proved one of Newton's theories by experiment. Seriously though, if you run the experiment with the usual encounter scenarios you fairly quickly get out of sync with the "control" battle mat. "Out of sync" doesn't prove rules are being broken. Theoretically, I completely understand what you're saying. During a massive and complex combat situation, it would be extremely difficult (arguably, impossible) to adhere to all the rules when not using minis. Well, the same thing could be said about a DM that accidentally leaves his MM behind -- sure, some mistakes might be made. My point is that your argument can not be absolute. There are too many unknown variables involved. Such as: the DM might have a 200 IQ, or be a savant that can handle such complexities!
Kursk 02-28-08, 01:36 PM	Pick up keyboard. Drop Keyboard. You just proved one of Newton's theories by experiment. Good. So just run the experiment yourself. During a massive and complex combat situation, it would be extremely difficult (arguably, impossible) to adhere to all the rules when not using minis. That's my only point. I'm not commenting on anything else.
Orenmir 02-28-08, 01:49 PM	Good. So just run the experiment yourself. I can't right now; and, it would be difficult for me to arrange (/convince my group to do). My experiment was easy and achievable to anyone at anytime. That's my only point. I'm not commenting on anything else. Incorrect. Your point includes an absolute. Mine doesn't. It may seem like a subtle difference, but it most definitely is not. Especially to the person you are arguing with. There's a big difference between telling a mountain climber: "You can't summit Everest" and "It would be very difficult, arguably impossible, for you to summit Everest." Big difference.
Kursk 02-28-08, 01:51 PM	I can't right now; and, it would be difficult for me to arrange (/convince my group to do). My experiment was easy and achievable to anyone at anytime. So, that one experiment is fast and easy has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Incorrect. Your point includes an absolute. Mine doesn't. It may seem like a subtle difference, but it most definitely is not. Especially to the person you are arguing with. There's a big difference between telling a mountain climber: "You can't summit Everest" and "It would be very difficult, arguably impossible, for you to summit Everest." Big difference. Do the experiment.
Orenmir 02-28-08, 01:57 PM	So, that one experiment is fast and easy has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You brought up Newton. Do the experiment. That's not a retort to my counterpoint. Should I accept it as a concession?
Wharin 02-28-08, 01:59 PM	Unless there is only, like, one villian who happens to be the same size as we are, and terrain isnt important, our group almost always uses minis and an erasable battle grid. It usually only takes a few minutes to set up and as a player, I find it really useful, as I typically envision things different from my DM, and a battlefield doesn't need to be repeated over and over again. Back when we were poor, and miniatures only came in the pewter and lead based vareity, i would draw insy winsy little dudes on paper, carefully cut them out, and then glue them on pennies, so that they could stand up without being blown over by a heavy sigh from a player or DM. We liked them, as they were as close to free as you could get, and actually captured their characters likeness.
Kursk 02-28-08, 02:12 PM	You brought up Newton. That's not a retort to my counterpoint. Should I accept it as a concession? Grasshopper, speak not again of this until you have done the experiment. Then, true enlightenment will be yours. ;)
Shadowhowler 02-28-08, 02:23 PM	I've DMed since '78. I gave the example because I've tried it. 3.5 combat system is too dependent on absolute position of combatants to accurately run with no physical representation. AoO rules alone preclude doing it. As I stated in my 1st post. Can't be done while following the rules. I have nothing against using no mini's. I have not been DMing quite that long... (maybe 91 or 92) but I have run all kinds of games... AD&D, Cyberpunk, White Wolf, Rifts... and I have even run LARP games that had over 100 players. In all that time... I never used grid maps or mini's. The most I ever did was, in a really tricky combat, I'd rough-draw it out on a whiteboard. That being said... I would still NOT try to run 3.5 without a grid and tokens or mini's of some sort. The system is just WAY to map/mini intigrated for it to work IMHO. Also, I have to admit, I like them. I was really put off by how the system required the map and mini's when I first started playing 3.5... but I quickly saw that it actauly HELPED me with game immersion... becuase clearling seeing the layout ment less time thinking about it, and more time playing. It also removed the old 'How did he hit me with that spell? I was on the other side of the Tavern!' now, it's clear how all the mechanics play out, so you don't have to worry/argue about them.
Orenmir 02-28-08, 02:36 PM	Grasshopper, speak not again of this until you have done the experiment. Then, true enlightenment will be yours. ;) I don't have to do the experiment. I know what the outcome would be. Without minis, the DM would most likely make more mistakes. That doesn't matter -- DMs make mistakes all the time. Just because a DM chooses to implement a method that enables him to make more mistakes doesn't warrant a statement from you saying he can't do it. It's simply rude on your part. Let him make his mistakes. I ask a third time... Why do you care?
Cifer 02-28-08, 02:36 PM	Have you ever played without minis? Have you ever even watched a game without minis? Yes and yes and it was a very different (and in some cases much worse) experience from normal D&D. There's nothing wrong about roleplaying without miniatures. A lot of systems support it, but D&D isn't one of them. If you play D&D without miniatures, I daresay you can rip out about a third of the pages of the books and use them as toilet paper. For comparison, there is a german RPG called Engel in which you play as (surprise!) angels in a postapocalyptic and somewhat dysfunctional world. About 90% of the core book is purely about the setting, the several orders and the traits of the angels and barely 10% rules. It's neither inherently better nor inherently worse than D&D, but if you buy D&D and try to run it like Engel (or Feng Shui or WoD, for that matter), you're wasting the capabilities of the system.
Kursk 02-28-08, 02:44 PM	doesn't warrant a statement from you saying he can't do it. You can't do it and follow the RAW. If you couldn't tell that's what I was saying I can't help you.
Orenmir 02-28-08, 03:00 PM	You can't do it and follow the RAW. If you couldn't tell that's what I was saying I can't help you. I wasn't asking for help; I know what you're saying (as I've stated before). You can do it and follow the RAW. Doing it simply enables more opportunity for error, confusion, and stalling. There are other implementations that enable the same opportunities, such as: an inexperienced DM, using 3rd party sources, playing while stoned. Should we not let inexperienced DMs DM? Ban all 3rd party sources? Never play high? Just let it happen, mistakes will be made, and everybody will still have fun. Don't chastise.
Shadowhowler 02-28-08, 03:01 PM	Gezz... Enough guys, please. if you are just going to post/counterpost this argument over and over again every few minutes... would you please take it into private messages so the whole thread dose not get bogged down with it? Thanks
Orenmir 02-28-08, 03:07 PM	Gezz... Enough guys, please. if you are just going to post/counterpost this argument over and over again every few minutes... would you please take it into private messages so the whole thread dose not get bogged down with it? Thanks I think mplindustries needs and deserves to see all this. Plus, I'm very curious about his response.
Kursk 02-28-08, 03:11 PM	I think mplindustries needs and deserves to see all this. Plus, I'm very curious about his response. Since it is totally germane to the OP's question it should be visible. Saying, "I & my players like playing this way." would be a totally valid response...
mplindustries 02-28-08, 04:49 PM	Breaking rules, bending rules, and downplaying rules are three different things. I don't do the first in my games, unless you are talking about houserules (which I think everyone likely has a few of). I probably do the second, though, and I definitely do the third. So here's the logic for various gridless adaptations. As far as movement is concerned, someone with a 20' movement doesn't get to move further because they say they do. If the enemy starts 30' away and nobody has moved yet, they need to charge or they don't get to attack. I don't see why this is controversial, or what basis people have for thinking I'd ignore distance that was clearly laid out when the scenario was described. For AoOs, let me put it this way: in most situations, it is possible to maneuver in a way that avoids provoking. Is this a fair assumption? I'd wager that there are only a few circumstances that would be pretty obvious right away, and in those circumstances, in my gridless game, people still provoke. For example, moving up to attack someone who has reach when you don't provokes if you don't have tumble. Period. Leaving melee without withdrawing (or tumble) provokes. Period. Its not a question of needing proof or anything like that. Those circumstances are easily picturable by just about everyone. In other cases, its usually possible to avoid AoOs, so we don't worry about it. Oh, for the fireball thing someone brought up...the example I was responding to was not about whether someone in melee would get hit by a fireball, it was about someone who had not charged ahead yet who may or may not be in the way of the little bead (and if not, thats how I perceived his example). However, in a similar vein to the AoO issue, figuring out how to hit enemies while avoiding allies is usually possible. its a geometry puzzle that not every enjoys, but its frequently solvable. A 20' radius effect has stepped edges in a grid, but its round in reality, so with no grid, its a lot easier to hit something standing in between allies for example by setting it 20' behind or above the fight or something like that. This is not breaking the rules, because the rule is "20' radius." It is probably bending them a bit, though. There are certainly circumstances when its impossible, but it doesn't require "proof" or "making it up on the spot." It should be immediately obvious. Deciding how many people that would get hit is a bit harder, but it'd be based on how it was described initially. People seem to think I'm making things up on the spot, but its really all based on the initial description, which is exactly the same as when you set up the map initially. They have to trust you're drawing the map honestly just as they have to trust I'm describing it honestly. And thats it. Its about player/DM cooperation. Anyway, I appreciate the defense. As for the "experiment" in question, I'd be more than willing to do it. However, it wouldn't really prove anything because it would show which way was "better" not actually if one was "correct." Something could turn out worse without being wrong. I also have no doubt that for many, the gridless system would be worse, as they have no experience with it. If you do it enough, it gets easy, and eventually better, especially for people who aren't tactically minded (I am, but the majority of my players are not). Just because the game is written with miniatures assumed does not mean its the only way you can do it. The game also assumes you use dice, but using a random number generator or other similar computer program could function just as well. Its the same kind of thing.
Sildatorak 02-28-08, 06:41 PM	As a science teacher, the bit about dropping a keyboard proving "one of Newton's theories" made me die a little inside. Anyway, the whole argument about "proof" has nothing to do with the OP's question. The D&D 3.5 rules were written with a grid in mind. They can be adapted to a hex grid, non-grid (similar to wargames like Warhammer) or to a no-map style, but each will diverge from the RAW by varying degrees. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. If you add in the assumption that the RAW are the only way to play the game properly, then there is something wrong with these other ways of playing. I find the tactical aspect of D&D combat enjoyable, and I like complex combats. I find that my combats are often complex enough that utilizing a map aids in their smooth running. YMMV. That is all.
Orenmir 02-28-08, 07:27 PM	As a science teacher, the bit about dropping a keyboard proving "one of Newton's theories" made me die a little inside. I was just trying to make a point with flavor more than substance. You mean Newton did not invent gravity? ;) Oh, you mean he proved gravity! ;) :P No, No - He improved gravity, right? :banghead: :nonono: :hides:
Sildatorak 02-28-08, 08:42 PM	You mean Newton did not invent gravity? ;) Oh, you mean he proved gravity! Invent is the better description for what he did; for him to prove it, the idea would have to be preexisting. Also it wasn't ever a theory (which explains how something occurs), but rather a law (which is a statement of an observed relationship). Hmmm...I couldn't spot the "teach" emoticon, so here is Boba Fett :fett:
Shadowhowler 02-28-08, 10:35 PM	Hmmm...I couldn't spot the "teach" emoticon, so here is Boba Fett :fett: Priceless. I didn't know that Boba Fett was a synonym for 'Teacher'. :D
Cartigan 02-29-08, 09:21 AM	As far as movement is concerned, someone with a 20' movement doesn't get to move further because they say they do. If the enemy starts 30' away and nobody has moved yet, they need to charge or they don't get to attack. I don't see why this is controversial, or what basis people have for thinking I'd ignore distance that was clearly laid out when the scenario was described. So you spend precious time telling each person exactly how far away each other person on the board is at the beginning of their turn? Or do you do this at the beginning of area and people have to keep track of their new distance from each person every time they move?
Kursk 02-29-08, 12:40 PM	So you spend precious time telling each person exactly how far away each other person on the board is at the beginning of their turn? Or do you do this at the beginning of area and people have to keep track of their new distance from each person every time they move? This is a good example of just one MAJOR problem a DM would encounter. Will be interesting to see how he solves this. I'd like to know in case I run a small combat without mini's.
mplindustries 03-01-08, 04:55 AM	So you spend precious time telling each person exactly how far away each other person on the board is at the beginning of their turn? Or do you do this at the beginning of area and people have to keep track of their new distance from each person every time they move? (Edit: Quick sidenote - mentioning "on the board" suggests to me that you don't really have the concept firmly in your mind's eye. Characters don't fight on a board, they fight in the woods, or in a cavern, or something like that. Relative distance is infinitely more important than absolute distance, and its also much easier to remember.) This is a good example of just one MAJOR problem a DM would encounter. Will be interesting to see how he solves this. I'd like to know in case I run a small combat without mini's. I'm sorry, I just don't see this as a big problem. To be honest, I had to really think about this to answer, since I never considered I'd have to explain it. Maybe I just have a mind for this stuff? So I guess first would be the "encounter distance," i.e. how far people are from the enemies when combat starts. That sort of depends on terrain and who is the aggressor. If the aggressors are the players, and they can get the jump on the enemy, I basically let them set the distance (assuming they can Hide/Move Silently well enough). I find most players like 30' due to the ability to make a partial charge on a surprise round, and the vast number of ranged abilities that function only at point blank range. If the enemy has the drop on the players, then I choose based on what they can do, again, usually 30', if possible. 60' is another common distance, if there is some kind of mutual awareness, just because its charging range for most people. If its farther than 60', it could get trickier to remember, but its usually only for one or two rounds that it matters while people close. I just don't see people being aware of needing to attack someone else at much more than 100-200 feet, but again, it could get harder the further away everything starts. Once you've described the scene and told everyone the distance, you go ahead and fight. The key here is, you usually only have to know one distance, maybe two. This is hard to explain with just typing... If you start 30' away, melee guys are going to rush the other side, so you basically have two sets of guys: those in melee range, and those 30' away. Even if people spread out, they'll generally spread in a circle around and keep the same distance. If a player strays further, which is rare, I would think it easy enough to remember one additional distance. Likewise, if you start 60' away, the same charging in is going to happen, but this time you might have people close to 30' as well. Then you have to know two distances: 30' or 60' (well and melee range, but I don't think that counts). So, do I have to call out their distances? Usually no, but if someone wasn't paying attention, I will. It doesn't take very long to say a distance, so I wouldn't think I'm "wasting my precious time", and I don't personally find it difficult to keep track of how far people move. The vast majority of people move at 30', and the majority of the rest move at 20'. I find the rare exceptions easier to remember, just because they are exceptional. My players mostly trust me to know, if they lose track, but the "proof" is available to anyone else who could keep it straight. If all else fails, and a disaster happens and we all forget, rather than dwell on it, I tend to just decide what would be best for their character (I can't recall a time when I had to do this, but it is what I'd do were the situation to arise). I guess the golden rule I follow with movement that might bend some things, is that while the players may not know the best way to move tactically, the characters damn sure do. Thus, I assume they do so, and fix the errors of their players. I don't know if this was informative, it was honestly difficult to word, but if you have a refined question, I could explain better. Oh, and as a final note, though I generally don't, not having a grid doesn't mean you don't have paper to remind yourself of things. Most GMs I know who aren't me have someone keep a list of initiative scores written down somewhere. Would it be that much harder to include ranges next to that?
Kursk 03-01-08, 09:59 AM	(Edit: Quick sidenote - mentioning "on the board" suggests to me that you don't really have the concept firmly in your mind's eye. Characters don't fight on a board, they fight in the woods, or in a cavern, or something like that. Relative distance is infinitely more important than absolute distance, and its also much easier to remember.) Thanks, yes it was helpful. I think I get feel of how to do it.
Cartigan 03-01-08, 10:39 AM	(Edit: Quick sidenote - mentioning "on the board" suggests to me that you don't really have the concept firmly in your mind's eye. Characters don't fight on a board, they fight in the woods, or in a cavern, or something like that. Relative distance is infinitely more important than absolute distance, and its also much easier to remember.) You know what I meant, dodging the question doesn't get use anywhere. Oh, and as a final note, though I generally don't, not having a grid doesn't mean you don't have paper to remind yourself of things. Most GMs I know who aren't me have someone keep a list of initiative scores written down somewhere. Would it be that much harder to include ranges next to that? Then why not use a board :rolleyes:
mplindustries 03-01-08, 04:23 PM	You know what I meant, dodging the question doesn't get use anywhere. I didn't really intend to be snarky, I was serious. I don't think of things "on a board" and using that phrase is a lack of immersion. I did still answer your question, or at least I thought I did, during the entire rest of the post. Then why not use a board :rolleyes: Well that depends on what your goal is when not using a board. Mine is immersion. Miniatures take people away from their characters. I know it happens to me the rare times I play in someone else's game, and I've known other people to make similar comments. (not a real conversation) "I'm a 6 foot tall human guy with long braided brown hair and an athletic build [insert more description here], and I dual wield kukris." "Ok, well lets see what dual-wielders I have...oh you can be this elf chick. I know she has boobs the size of her head, but her hair is long and she's holding two daggers." "Uh..." "I also have an orc with two scimitars." I know its just a figure representing you, but its still a barrier to overcome, which is not good for people who haven't been roleplaying their entire life (I only play with one guy other than myself who grew up with this stuff). In a way, using pennies or colored paper or something would be easier to get into it. As for other reasons to use gridless system: Simplicity (it is easier for me, though if you need paper to track distances, it might cut down on this feature) Lack of space (Maps are huge) Lack of time (Honestly, it goes a lot faster when this stuff is abstract) There are other reasons, but it really seems some(one?) of you are more interested in parsing words and deciding I'm a tyrant/idiot rather than accepting that it works or even just trying it for a while.
Cartigan 03-01-08, 08:32 PM	I didn't really intend to be snarky, I was serious. I don't think of things "on a board" and using that phrase is a lack of immersion. I did still answer your question, or at least I thought I did, during the entire rest of the post. Well that depends on what your goal is when not using a board. Mine is immersion. Miniatures take people away from their characters. I know it happens to me the rare times I play in someone else's game, and I've known other people to make similar comments. (not a real conversation) "I'm a 6 foot tall human guy with long braided brown hair and an athletic build [insert more description here], and I dual wield kukris." "Ok, well lets see what dual-wielders I have...oh you can be this elf chick. I know she has boobs the size of her head, but her hair is long and she's holding two daggers." "Uh..." "I also have an orc with two scimitars." Since you are so imaginative, why not imagine up a way to use miniature that look like your characters? Draw them up and make stands for them so that they fit in a grid. Look, that took me all of 3 seconds and I lost my imagination to video games. Imagine (pun intended) what you guys could do. Lack of space (Maps are huge) A point you yourself made irrelevant when you said you only really deal with distances during combat so as all the numbers don't get too complicated. Lack of time (Honestly, it goes a lot faster when this stuff is abstract) From my experience, descriptions take far longer than moving a character 3 blasted inches. I'm not saying that is all you should do, but I'm saying you could do that as part of the description.
Drackthor 03-01-08, 08:42 PM	I personally use minis because they serve the mechanical purposes of showing where the characters are, spell and other area effects, etc. etc. but mainly because I like having a figurine representing with a physical, visual representation of how I view my character.
Drackthor 03-02-08, 02:56 AM	Priceless. I didn't know that Boba Fett was a synonym for 'Teacher'. :D If I may, sir? He taught the world how to be a total and complete badass.
Shadowhowler 03-02-08, 12:37 PM	If I may, sir? He taught the world how to be a total and complete badass. Touche'
thephantom 03-02-08, 03:39 PM	I didn't read all the posts, but I must say that, although I hate miniatures, they're extremely useful in D&D, but they leave little to no space for representing uneven terrain or differences between creatures' altitude positions.
Cifer 03-02-08, 08:40 PM	I didn't read all the posts, but I must say that, although I hate miniatures, they're extremely useful in D&D, but they leave little to no space for representing uneven terrain or differences between creatures' altitude positions. Cartographers manage this kind of stuff all the time, don't they? Uneven terrain = two or three strokes with your pen on your erasable battle-mat Different altitude = three or four strokes with another colour of pen to mark where one altitude level begins and another ends. It only gets difficult when you get to flying creatures, but there, stacking coins under the miniatures usually works, especially since you usually only need "hovering over the ground", "5 feet above ground", "10 feet above ground", "15 feet above ground" and "pretty high" and "really, really far up". However, since the flight rules of D&D are a little too detailed for me and require too much bookkeeping (so... in what direction has this harpy flown in the last round? How much movement does she need in order to turn around and make a fly-by?), I admit that I usually evade them...
deathbane 03-02-08, 08:53 PM	Simple combat can be done without minis, but once your players want to tumble, flank and you have monsters with reach, and archers, and spells and 25 minis on the board unless there are a group of Einstein's at the table it will be impossible to remember where everyone is supposed to be, and follow the rules. I think the guy who opposes mines just wants to have fun and if that works for him it is ok, but if you want to follow the rules or unless you have very simple combats with much of the above mentioned things minis are required. Well I should not say minis, but at least something to represent each creature on the board even if you only have coins, and spare dice, which is what I used before I had money to buy minis.
mplindustries 03-02-08, 11:35 PM	Simple combat can be done without minis, but once your players want to tumble, flank and you have monsters with reach, and archers, and spells and 25 minis on the board unless there are a group of Einstein's at the table it will be impossible to remember where everyone is supposed to be, and follow the rules. I think the guy who opposes mines just wants to have fun and if that works for him it is ok, but if you want to follow the rules or unless you have very simple combats with much of the above mentioned things minis are required. Well I should not say minis, but at least something to represent each creature on the board even if you only have coins, and spare dice, which is what I used before I had money to buy minis. 4 of my players right now have reach weapons (three polearms and a whip dagger), 2 of them are archers, one is a blasting wilder, and the last is a monk. At least half of them tumble, they frequently flank, and I often use large groups of enemies. In fact, during the last session I ran, one encounter was against 30 enemies, and another was against two large creatures with reach and improved grab. Considering I'm "that guy who opposes minis," I can say its doable. And yes, I do follow the rules, I simply downplay some. As I've explained before, its honestly not that hard to remember. You simply have to adjust your focus away from absolute location and just think of relative location. Since you are so imaginative, why not imagine up a way to use miniature that look like your characters? Draw them up and make stands for them so that they fit in a grid. Look, that took me all of 3 seconds and I lost my imagination to video games. Imagine (pun intended) what you guys could do.First, I am not artistically inclined. I'd rather not make ugly looking little drawings and play with them. Second, I believe I mentioned that it was possible to get past the barrier of wrong looking minis, but it was still a barrier that my players have to overcome. Third, I'm not really sure what purpose you have in trying to convince me to use miniatures? I'm not simply arguing that miniatures are negative, I also believe no minis to be a positive. Lack of space (Maps are huge)A point you yourself made irrelevant when you said you only really deal with distances during combat so as all the numbers don't get too complicated.Uh...what? Does this make sense to anyone? Lack of time (Honestly, it goes a lot faster when this stuff is abstract) From my experience, descriptions take far longer than moving a character 3 blasted inches. I'm not saying that is all you should do, but I'm saying you could do that as part of the description.Then you obviously have very decisive players, or maybe you've experienced people who describe too much or talk too slowly. Again though, I really have no clue what you're going for here, Cartigan. What is your goal? To convince me I should use minis? To make me look foolish for not using them? I don't really get it.
deathbane 03-03-08, 12:05 AM	4 of my players right now have reach weapons (three polearms and a whip dagger), 2 of them are archers, one is a blasting wilder, and the last is a monk. At least half of them tumble, they frequently flank, and I often use large groups of enemies. In fact, during the last session I ran, one encounter was against 30 enemies, and another was against two large creatures with reach and improved grab. Considering I'm "that guy who opposes minis," I can say its doable. And yes, I do follow the rules, I simply downplay some. As I've explained before, its honestly not that hard to remember. You simply have to adjust your focus away from absolute location and just think of relative location. How do you follow the rules and downplay the game? When I say follow the rules I mean exact location. It is not hard to remember that someone is about 30 feet away, but to remember that someone is 3 squares ahead and 2 off to the left(may not equal 30 feet) is hard to do with a large number of creatures and different types of movement, and deciding who gets caught in spells. I could keep the 30 enemies in the same area so that when the AoE is cast I know it got all of them, but that detracts from their usage. I see no way to handle complex battles without minis the way they should be done. I tried it one time because I had forgotten my minis, and was to lazy to go back and get some, and I vowed to never do it again. There was only one mix-up and I directing 4 pc's and about 20 npc's. I am not saying minis are needed for every battles, but it is better to have and not need than it is to need, and not have, and even though your rules and system works for you there is nothing that will convince those that use minis otherwise unless you break things down to them so they don't need minis, and telling them to ignore certain rules wont work.
mplindustries 03-03-08, 01:19 AM	How do you follow the rules and downplay the game? When I say follow the rules I mean exact location. It is not hard to remember that someone is about 30 feet away, but to remember that someone is 3 squares ahead and 2 off to the left(may not equal 30 feet) is hard to do with a large number of creatures and different types of movement, and deciding who gets caught in spells. I could keep the 30 enemies in the same area so that when the AoE is cast I know it got all of them, but that detracts from their usage. I said this before, but I guess its buried right now. The rules for AoE, lets say fireball as a classic example, are that it has a 20' radius spread. There are certainly rules about how to apply a radius to squares, but without squares, its infinitely easier, and actually less abstract. If someone is 20' away from an enemy, and someone drops a fireball on one of them, they both get hit. Its not a question of which square they are in, as some squares 20' away will not be hit, but others will. They just both get hit. And for the record, I don't have large groups cluster around each other so they can eat aoe. It depends on the enemy. Most, if they know someone can AoE, will likely spread out. Oh, and for the last time: downplay does not equal ignore. Again, I have said it before, but most people, given time, will find a way to avoid most movement generated AoOs. In situations where it is literally impossible (such as moving up and attacking with a non-reach weapon against an opponent with reach or running away without withdrawing), you absolutely provoke. If its just regular combat and you're not doing something weird like running down a hallway full of enemies or something, its just easier to assume that the character can move tactically, and thus avoid provoking, even if the player couldn't figure it out. Now, don't get me wrong. You can fail miserably at a mapless game. However, the easiest way to do so is to actually try and picture the grid while you're playing. I played in a game like this. I expressed dislike of minis, but agreed to play anyway. Then he tried to run it without a grid despite my suggestion that he should do what he was used to... Well it was a disaster. He kept trying to picture exact locations and over-described everything. He couldn't keep track of everything (because he was trying to picture spaces on a map), and got annoyed when I had no problem reminding him where things were (because I used relative direction and distance to remember). Of course that was also the game where I basically had to remember all of the other characters' stats and attack rolls and call them out for them because they were falling asleep and not used to D&D bookkeeping. One buff and they calculated for 10 minutes every turn to find their numbers... So, if you're set in your ways with maps, don't go cold turkey. This whole thread, however, was actually about someone new with a new group and I simply thought it was better to learn and get used to the miniless way. If you've done it without a grid, you can certainly do it with one. However, it seems a lot harder to go the other way. Edit: Am I really the only one who plays with no minis? I appreciate the people who are willing to give it a try, or who can at least accept its viable, but seriously, does nobody else do this? I'm shocked.
Shadowhowler 03-03-08, 02:33 AM	Edit: Am I really the only one who plays with no minis? I appreciate the people who are willing to give it a try, or who can at least accept its viable, but seriously, does nobody else do this? I'm shocked. As I said in an earlier post, (which by now has been drowned out by the mini/no mini argument) until I started with 3.5 about a year and a half ago, I *NEVER* used maps or minis. In over 15+ years of playing/running games I never used minis. However... upon learning the 3.5 system... I use minis and maps when running/playing 3.5. I find the system is so deeply rooted in using 5ft squares. so many abilities, spells, feats, and core movement and combat rules center around the 5ft squares that I honestly just can't figure how I would do it without minis and NOT be forced to make major modifications to the rules. Also, I am a immersive style player. I have had to quit 3 D&D games in the past year and a half becuase there just was not enough focus on roleplaying for me, and the games were just rife with metagaming and hack and slash. I do not like and do not play wargames. My first reaction to the map and mini heavy system of 3.5 was that I thought it would detract from immersive roleplay and degenrate into a wargame. I discovered it actualy had the opposet efect on me. I found that seeing everything laid out so clearly ment I spent LESS time trying to picture the logistics of eveything in my head, which made it easier for me to think 'in character' about situations. However, D&D 3.5 is the only game I play where I use the maps and minis... and only becuase the system is so heavily built around it. I still play White Wolf Games, I play Cyberpunk, I try to play AD&D 2.5 when I can (which is only when I visit my old gaming buddies) and whenever I play these other games I don't use maps and minis. For 3.5 D&D, tho, I find them nessacary.
deathbane 03-03-08, 03:26 AM	I said this before, but I guess its buried right now. The rules for AoE, lets say fireball as a classic example, are that it has a 20' radius spread. There are certainly rules about how to apply a radius to squares, but without squares, its infinitely easier, and actually less abstract. If someone is 20' away from an enemy, and someone drops a fireball on one of them, they both get hit. Its not a question of which square they are in, as some squares 20' away will not be hit, but others will. They just both get hit. to remember exactly where everyone is from a certain creature is hard to do without some type of book keeping, and there are times when the best way to apply the AoE is to drop it on a square if you want to affect the greatest number of squares, and the one creature that you don't kill/harm by dropping it on a square could be the one to kill you. And for the record, I don't have large groups cluster around each other so they can eat aoe. It depends on the enemy. Most, if they know someone can AoE, will likely spread out. They most likely wont find this out until it is to late. They can guess at who might be a caster but then they just wasted a move action for nothing if the caster has no AoE's prepared Oh, and for the last time: downplay does not equal ignore. Again, I have said it before, but most people, given time, will find a way to avoid most movement generated AoOs. In situations where it is literally impossible (such as moving up and attacking with a non-reach weapon against an opponent with reach or running away without withdrawing), you absolutely provoke. If its just regular combat and you're not doing something weird like running down a hallway full of enemies or something, its just easier to assume that the character can move tactically, and thus avoid provoking, even if the player couldn't figure it out. Pretending a player can always not provoke an AoO is bypassing the rules. It is not hard to trap someone so they will provoke one, but your play throws that out of the window I got more to say, but I also have to go...to be continued.
mplindustries 03-03-08, 09:06 AM	Pretending a player can always not provoke an AoO is bypassing the rules. It is not hard to trap someone so they will provoke one, but your play throws that out of the window For the record, a trap like that would provoke. I did mention in situations when it'd be impossible not to provoke, they did. Its just during normal movement...the kind when someone could move tactically to avoid an AoO, but doesn't usually because they don't think about it or are lazy.
deathbane 03-03-08, 03:15 PM	For the record, a trap like that would provoke. I did mention in situations when it'd be impossible not to provoke, they did. Its just during normal movement...the kind when someone could move tactically to avoid an AoO, but doesn't usually because they don't think about it or are lazy. I don't think either of us will convince the other that the other's way is easier so I guess we might as well agree to disagree. We just have different DM styles.
mplindustries 03-03-08, 07:37 PM	I don't think either of us will convince the other that the other's way is easier so I guess we might as well agree to disagree. We just have different DM styles. Its true, but I think the main point I was making was not that my way was better (of course I think that, but I don't care if you don't), but rather that its even possible. Most seem to be telling me not just that its easier to run with minis, but that its actually not doable at all without them. A lot of people play with minis and are perfectly happy. Nothing wrong with that.
deathbane 03-03-08, 10:11 PM	Its true, but I think the main point I was making was not that my way was better (of course I think that, but I don't care if you don't), but rather that its even possible. Most seem to be telling me not just that its easier to run with minis, but that its actually not doable at all without them. A lot of people play with minis and are perfectly happy. Nothing wrong with that.I thought you were saying overlook certain rules for sake of "ease of play". It can be done without minis, but I think once certain factors come in saying you tactically moved from point A to B won't cut it when you may have to move through and/or around enemy squares. There will be tumble checks and such. I am also not the best at giving detail so my players may misunderstand certain situations if I try to explain it. If I draw on the map, and place minis it is also faster than me talking. I think you focus more on the fun factor, which I do beleive is important, but I focus on the challenge of the game(which is probably why I insist on the minis). I make my players earn almost everything. I do throw the occasional easy battle in because every player feels good when he gets to run through the occasional encounter without breaking a sweat, and when every fight is a fight for your life the game is not as much fun.