Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nor'Morgwae 04-30-05, 05:37 PM	I remember way back in 2nd ed that I never used to use miniatures. we did from time to time, but as a rule it was all description. Now I know (or at least think I know) that most people use miniatures but I want to hear from the people who don't. Who plays 3.0 or 3.5 without miniatures? What adjustments have you had to make? I really get tired of carting these things around and am seriously considering going back to not using them. So, what I want is feedback from people who don't use miniatures and techniques you have for playing that way.
Cyra 04-30-05, 05:47 PM	well I tried it once one day because I forgot to bring my oodles'o'minis. It went swimmingly until combat were I had to remember spatially where everyone was and feet in between and what not. I guess if I had some scratch paper and such it'd go easier but tactics would be much harder. Therefore I choose to use minis because my brain can't wrap itself around an imaginary grid that easy
The Weave05 04-30-05, 05:50 PM	well hello, I thought I was the only one..... Ok I'm afraid that I cannot help you on this one because I,too, have to resort to minis....I tried it for about two yaers and had the players keep track of when and if and where they move to in the battlefeild I describe to them, but when it comes to a dragons breath, charging, and flanking etc. its just too much. I'd also like to see if anyone knows how to do this. One of my PCs took a level in the Tactical Soldeir Prc. the first ability is called flanker and if you dont use tiles and stuff then it really doesnt make much sense?(speaking of which, not to go off topic here, but can someone explain that ability to me??) So ya, come post cause I need help too!
Santrilla 04-30-05, 05:58 PM	We don't use minis. We're never incredibly tight on the combat system anyway. Occasionally we'll use coins or something when it matters, but aside from that we pretty much play it by ear.
The Listener 04-30-05, 06:06 PM	My group just uses extra dice to mark off where we are relitive to each other, and simply eyeball the distances instead of using a grid. We usually don't need to be any more precise than that.
Draco Strang 04-30-05, 06:19 PM	I envy you guys....we're grid *****s.
Nor'Morgwae 04-30-05, 06:26 PM	Wow, my threads never get responses this fast, thanks guys. Also, If anyone care to know Monte Cook wrote a short article about this on his site 2 years back: Running a 3e game without Miniatures (http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly21.html) If the link doesn't work, here's the url : http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly21.html
Alex Warlorn 04-30-05, 06:36 PM	I once bought a much of minis . . . and never really used any of them . . . I just got caught up in the hype. I've realized since then that colored glass beads (squashed marbles) work just as well for marking whose who on the combat board. And a flew globs of reusable clay works perfectly well for the monsters your heroes will have to face off against. After all, this game is supposed to be about imagination right?
MasterRookie 04-30-05, 06:42 PM	Well you can't really beat the whole battle grid. You can use other things as minis. I've heard of using candy (which you can eat once you defeat them) There's also random objects that can be found anywhere you play. You can also get a dry erase board and just mark where they are.
Riznar 04-30-05, 06:48 PM	I have three players who can work on descriptions, and two who insist on using at least extra dice on a grid. I could do without it, but I admit it is handy. My problem with grids is I never have anything handy to represent big monsters...and I only have a handful of actual miniatures. Besides I don't think there is mini for a huge sized living spell (Dictum)...
DM Denubis 04-30-05, 08:29 PM	I use miniatures mainly because of my players. See, I can keep a grid in my mind fairly easily. It's not hard for me. However, my players like to say that they're out of areas when they want to be. You'd think they teleported as a free action every round. So I mainly use a grid to keep them under control.
invisble1 04-30-05, 08:49 PM	we NEVER use minis. for combat we have a whiteboard in the middle of the table.
Count Arioch the 28th 04-30-05, 08:57 PM	I remember gaming at the local store a while back. When it came for the first combat, everyone had all these detailed minis for their characters, and I pickd up my D12 to represent me. Apperantly, one of the other players objected, and insisted I borrow one of her spares next session.
Paradisio 05-01-05, 12:59 AM	I can't honestly see how you can feasibly do combat and keep track of everyone in any moderately sized group without a grid, unless you only fight one enemy at a time. Heck the group today fought only 2 creatures, but since they kept backing off and firing again, it made keeping track of combat near impossible.
Riznar 05-01-05, 01:13 AM	I don't know why some people can and other's can't, but I can keep track of quite a number of combatants in my head. I simply keep track of an idea of where everyone is, and then remember the distances between combatants. Not all combatants mind you, mostly the nearest ones. I can calculate other distances by forming triangles. It REALLY helps that D&D uses 5' units though, I don't think I could be more precise than that. This breaks down at about 9 combatants though, unless the battle area is confined (but with that many it usually isn't)
Nor'Morgwae 05-01-05, 01:43 AM	When I say "play without miniatures" I mean play by description alone. I know glass counters and dice and whatnot can substitute for miniatures. I want to hear from more people who don't use the miniatures system, translating it all into narrative style. Stuff like "three gnolls emerge from the trees to the northwest bearing longspears and snarling viciously. Nathiel and Luminar are on the ground by the fire pit. Foster the Nible is in a tree not 5 feet from the gnolls heads and Gritz, who should be on wach, is off in the woods to the south heeding the call of nature. Roll initiative." All without pulling out little figures and placing them on a mat. I used to use this style a lot, and it adds a lot more flexability to the scenerios, but is also less structured and requires a lot more communication between DMs and Players. But thanks to everyone who has posted so far. And if you "just have to post you minis substitute idea or you're going to explode" go ahead. I'll take no offense. :P
Wyrd Bearer 05-01-05, 01:52 AM	Mini-a-tures? What are they? ;) We rarely resort to visual means for keeping track of combat and such. However, sometimes there is just so much going on that there is no choice but whip out some grid paper or my Warhammer mini's to keep track of things. Like that time we did the old Dragon Mountain module for 2ed.... and the party chose to stay and defend the village from the kobolds. :nonono: 2000 kobolds vs. 10 PC's. And the only wizard was an illusionist who refused to use spells like fireball. It was not a good day.
Tenzhi 05-01-05, 02:07 AM	I don't use miniatures (or any derivative thereof) in my games. I also ditched AoOs altogether, pointless complication that they are. By association that eliminated the need for Reach and Threatened areas. All of which makes combat go smoother and greatly lessens the need for a visual representation of tactical situations.
Nytmare 05-01-05, 02:47 AM	The easiest way to drop the visual representation is to also get rid of a goodly chunk of the tactical bits from the combat system. It's all fudgery and common sense. Trying to implement too many exacting measurements and ranges and areas isn't worth the headache. Just keep the combat simple, descriptive, and flowing. Though I prefer to use minis for 3rd Ed, I've run a handful of mini-less games since 3rd Ed came out. Most of the time the players were fairly new to role playing, in the grand scheme of things, and had never had to deal with the concept of going through combat without grids and rulers. By far, the hardest part was trying to break them out of insisting that I describe things to them numerically. "They're pretty far away." "Well how far is far?" "The archers by the trees are about half as close to you as the man in the robes. You think you might be able to rush them and get there before they were able to bring their bows to bear on you." "So you're saying they're 65 feet away?" Granted a large part of it might also have been that they were mostly engineers, but their minds just seemed to balk at not having a physical representation of the world around their characters sectioned off into little one inch squares.
Jacilla 05-01-05, 06:32 AM	To Mini or not to Mini, depends a lot on the players. If you have a group that doesn't pitch a hissy fit if you have them closer than they thought they were, no mini's is fine. If the players whine every time they get hit and swear they were "over there" not "over there" Mini's at least keeps them honest. But really that's about all Mini's are good for, otherwise I feel they detract from the imagination and creativity of play, but then so do a lot of the rules. The bottom line is, if you can run a game without them and enjoy it, then do so.
Enialis Galadonels 05-01-05, 08:00 AM	I/we have never ever used Minis, and I do not inted to do it ever. I think I even have no idea how does the Mini looks. Just play by the ear. Very rarely I or players draw something like battlemap - in cases if there are many and different opponents. But usually it's like: - How far is the archer? - Roughly 100 feet. and it could be 80 or 130 feets. Nobody's perfect.
Ut-Napishtim 05-01-05, 09:18 AM	Yeah, I use miniatures. I'm not particularly fond of the new rubberized miniatures WOTC has come out with, but I'm a pretty avid leadhead with probably over 100 pounds of miniatures. Heck, I've got boxes of them sitting in my closet I haven't even opened yet. Although if they had come out 8-10 years ago I probably would've loved them since I couldn't paint back then, and had not yet discovered miniature wargaming. Anyway, I don't use a grid when I DM. I have tons of miniature wargaming terrain so I set up a little field with trees, hills, and all sorts of stuff. Normally distances are ballparked based on figure bases and such, but I still use the combat rules. I just got some molds from Hirst Arts for my birthday so I can start making my own dungeon terrain instead of using my kids' blocks. Personally I like the visual effect created by the well painted models and terrain features. I'd imagine not every player I've ever had loves it, but I've never had any complaints either.
Jodjod 05-01-05, 02:47 PM	Dry wipe grid. Dry wipe marker. Have fun. ;)
gleep 05-01-05, 05:03 PM	I didn't start to use minis until I recently joined a 3.5 game. My friends and I had plenty of minis, but we didn't use them for representations in combat. Much less anythign so fancy as a battle grid, and most times not even a map. Heck, it wasn't until the last few years that I had the opportunity to play most games around an actual table. :) That'd be about, oh, a fifth to a fourth of my total gaming-time. Whether I use them in my games or not depends a great deal on circumstance, local, and the desires of the players. I think, in most cases, my players would prefer I not use minies. Not because they have an easier time playing without them, but because when minies are involved their opponents seem to be much, much more deadlier. Precision and visualization cut both ways. While it is easier for the players to coordinate their actions, it is also easier for the DM to coordinate their opponents' tactics. When not using minies, we don't need much more than a few notes and occasionally a scribbled-out map. Most of the game tactics work just as well without as with and if I'm unsure of the positioning for something critical I just fudge in favor of the players (though I don't tell them this, of course! ;) ). I like to draw, so quite often I'll sketch out a quick map of the situation (usually postcard-sized, although sometimes I'll use a whole sheet of paper). Some of the other DMs in the group just describe the situation and let fly. Other than that, I like to keep a simple record of the actions the combatants take. Nothing more than a list of names in initiative order and a few notes on what each did during the round. It's workd just as well for a mass combat involving an army in the hundreds against the PCs as smaller encounters. The most important aspects to playing without minis are trust, cooperation, and a flair for the dramatic. There has to be a level of trust between everyone at the table that positions will be reasonably accurate. Everyone at the table has to cooperate in that they all have to be willing to play in this manner, and when things go awry not to worry about it too much. And that flair for the dramatic isn't just for the DM; everyone needs to use it. The combat is now just as descriptive as a RP encounter. It's that last aspect that makes gaming without miniatures more fun for me. There is a different feel to a game where miniatures are used than those where they are not. It is much easier to imagine Brak the Barbarian's expression, his yell of rage, and the fury of his eyes as he goes charging across a campire to smash into the goblins when the player describes it than when his player pushes a miniature across a map reciting a litany of combat options. Players don't tend to describe what their characters are doing when they can just push a figure around. When using miniatures, I've also noticed play tends to get bogged down in specifics, making combat take quite some time (several hours for just one combat instead of the "tens of minutes" that I'm used to). Eh, whatever. Your experience may vary with this. I'll just say that games with groups that regularly use minitures (of whatever variation) are quite different from those that don't. :D --gleep
Patheros 05-01-05, 05:12 PM	I don't use them. I started just ignoring positons but that usualy doens't work. A lot of graph paper and an eraser can work as long as you don't move a lot. I've printed out incons on cardstock and then cut them out. Thats like minatures but it a lot less to cary. I've tryed a blackbard but that was hard to erase (probably because I was using a crapy eraser). I would imagine that a whiteboard wouldn't be too bad. However my Cardstock idea think is my best. I print out scaled maps and rows an rows of colored dots. I would suguest cutting the scale in half. If I recal corectly the minature scale is 1in to 10 feet. I belive I used 1in = 20 feet. It makes for small dots but that way most battle fields can be printed out on an 11 1/2 by 8 page. The only problem I could see is when you start working with small or tiny things. One benifte of my method is that the players can make their own pieces if they want. Just another thing for them to customize.
Sarella Starshine 05-01-05, 05:22 PM	i tried a game without mini's. was semi-hard to do. especially when i wanted to ambush the party because not only did i not know where everyone was in relation to everyone else, but also they did not know either. it resulted in mass confusion (we also played on the internet using mirc, so i could not use mini's anyways). my new game uses mini's and a battlemap (a semi-fancy one that uses the wet-erase markers (aka the over head ones)). combat is alot clearer. ambushes are easier to set up, etc. i guess i am not a tactical minded person (can't visualize battles in my head), but i do spend hrs and hrs writing and rewriting the backgrounds of the NPC's they meet, the town they are in, the world they are in, etc. (i think i am at the 4th incarnation of the world). i guess its a matter of knowing your strengths or weaknesses (if you admit to having any). a person that can visualize battles will have less of a use (not saying that they won't or can't, but for them, its not necessary) for minis than someone that can't.
Baned 05-01-05, 05:28 PM	We don't use minis, but we do use the concept of a battle grid of one-inch squares thatrepresent a 5x5 feet space. We use a laminated map that came with the 3.0 Adventure Game and the 3.5 DMG (same map, basically). We tried using Lego guys for the PCs, but the players got distracted with them. So now we just dry erase markers on the above map. Black for dungeon walls and other features. Red for enemies, blue for PCs.
Raesene_Andu 05-01-05, 06:47 PM	I have never used minitures in any of my campaigns, and I would probably find it difficult to adjust to using them. Some aspects of combat are difficult to use without minis, but if need be I will use a piece of graph paper to note down everyone's location in combat. So far, in over a year in this campiagn, no one has complained.
Siduakal 05-01-05, 08:16 PM	I am thinking we should start using cockroaches, worms, spiders, flies, etc.. I mean, lets just let the minis determine what the enemies do! Use Lizards for dragons.
Swashbuckler 05-01-05, 10:52 PM	Long ago we faced the need for actual map representation of where everyone was and what they were doing. Second only to initiative, where someone is determines what they can, can not, and want to do in any given encounter. TO those of you who do it in your head, my mind boggles; unless a lot of combat takes place like a video game without a lot of tactical movement or use of terrain. If you can do it, great, I don't see how it can be justly done personally. Because of that, we turned to using a dry erase board for battles. (Since then we have been using the dry erase board for maps as well) As we experimented with it. We have recently added a grid to our "battle board", This we drew on with a yard stick and two different colored sharpies, (lt blue and lt green). One inch green squares, half inch blue squares equalling 10 and 5 feet respectively. Now just use other dry erase colors for your world. Black for walls and such, pick a color for the PCs, and a color (or more colors) for bad guys and now you have a great battle map. Need a big dragon, just draw him out. Easy, neat, less cumbersome than a sack of minis, cheaper too I would think. Also, any obstacles can be drawn on as needed. Orange marker rough circle for a camp fire, black circle for an open pit in the floor, blue line for rushing stream, ect. Just use numbers for the PCs, or a letter/initial. Numbers work good for NPCs, or lettered numbers for mixed groups; ie g1, g2, g3, o1, o2, o3 for goblins 1-3 and orcs 1-3. Of course, you could just list them as 1-6, but you would have to clarify what numbers were gobos and which were orcs to keep the confusion down. Keep it on an easle where everyone can see it and there you go. Someone mentioned on the table top, whatever works. Anyway, that is my two coppers on the subject. As to the original question of how to not use some sort of representation of space within the game... I have no idea, sorry. There is no way that two people are going to imagine the same described spacial relationship exactly the same and interact with it without something to focus on. At least that was my/our experience years and years ago. We have been using the dry erase battle board for... eek... 15 years now. :eek:
Paradisio 05-02-05, 12:56 AM	I agree completely with swashbuckler... but if the question is, do I use specifically the official miniatures? Yes, they are a little overpriced IMO for something not of great quality (cost about 15 bucks here), but they are pretty nifty, even though I never have the creatures they are actually battling, I am up to the point I can give a decent representation. Guess I should hop on ebay and just cough up the money for a case
Luni 05-02-05, 03:12 AM	I prefer miniatures in larger combats. If the party is only fighting 2-3 trolls, a battle map is probably not that important. But when the party, is fighting off anothter adventuring band, in the middle of a forest, it's a lot easier to draw the terrain, then trying to get everything sorted out in my head. I also find that spell effects that are lines, are very hard to do in your head. Fireball, no problem baddies 1-5 are hit. Lighting Bolt, umm, baddies 1, 4 and 7 are the only ones that line up. To those of you that can do everything in your head, I'm impressed. My opinion on the D&D Miniatures. I collect them, because I like to play strategy games, and D&D Mini's are a fair bit cheaper than the paper Skaven Army I want to build in Warhammer.
Zyfax 05-02-05, 06:05 AM	well, I can't really use miniatures, because some people would freak out. I have a group in which some people do not know the rules, and one girl are even nonproficient in english. (dyslectic, guess that focusing on your native language only makes it easier). whenever i use battles, 1-2 per 6h session i have a clear vision in my head of what the battle consists of, and so is the case with the other dm:s in the group as well. using miniatures would destroy that image, since no miniature will ever look like one of my characters. a fair bit of common sense are the ruling. i've tried using a battlemap once, with markers. it worked, but nobody cared, so it was unnecessary.
Cardinal Teplin 05-02-05, 07:18 AM	I play with several different groups. Some use minatures, some never use minatures. Minis start to become important if you have a lot of players, or a lot of people to keep track of, but there are other ways of dealing with that. I don't particularly mind playing or running a game with minis, but I wouldn't do so by choice.
Krelios 05-02-05, 07:52 AM	It all comes down to... Do you care about tactical combat? Or don't you? It's a preference thing... Me? I like the tactical aspect so minis are a must, and everyone I know who "doesn't use minis" that has used them in a game of mine, has never looked back. It makes everything clear and consistent. If you don't care about that, then congratulations!
Rim-Soulfang 05-02-05, 09:15 AM	Small battles: No grid or miniatures or anything working like them. Large battles: Squared paper and a pencil.
clarkvalentine 05-02-05, 09:28 AM	I like minis. I'm hooked on painting them, I like how they look, and my players like tactical combat. That said, I've run games without, and they go just fine. I just fudge it. Rogue wants to flank? Sure, you can try to flank the evil warlord - make a tumble check. You want to get someplace safe to snipe with your bow? Uh... There's a balcony over to the right. Make a climb check. You have Great Cleave - sure, of course there's another orc standing next to the one you just finished off, make your free attack.
Cardinal Teplin 05-02-05, 09:58 AM	It all comes down to... Do you care about tactical combat? Or don't you? No, it doesn't. I'm quite happy running or playing tactical combat without minatures. It isn't as hard as it might seem. No, I'm not using some kind of weird varient, or meaning something different than you by 'tactical'. Yes, I am using all the flanking, AOO, reach, 5ft step rules and similar. What it really comes down to is, use what you want to use. I had one group that really couldn't play without detailed pictures of their characters, and another that couldn't play if they had to share dice. There's nowt particularly wrong with minatures and battlemat, but I'm happy enough playing without.
sherretz 05-02-05, 10:47 AM	We used to play it pretty loose when in combat. This last session I suggested minis to help figure out tactical situations. This was mostly because I wanted to start utilizing my rogue/assassin in combat situations through flanking, so I would be doing a lot of tumbling and whatnot. So far, it hasn't helped too much, but we now know we have the resource if we need it. Mostly, we just would start combat and throw in a map if we start asking specific position questions. We're never that descriptive in combat, so maps and minis only matter in specific circumstances.
Thoronmir 05-02-05, 11:00 AM	No, it doesn't. I'm quite happy running or playing tactical combat without minatures. It isn't as hard as it might seem. No, I'm not using some kind of weird varient, or meaning something different than you by 'tactical'. Yes, I am using all the flanking, AOO, reach, 5ft step rules and similar.Every game I’ve seen run that tried to retain all of 3.x’s tactical options without any graphical representation of the combat results in slow, confusing battles. To truly take advantage of 3.x’s combat rules, details matter … distance, angles, obstacles, positioning, size, etc., cannot be “guesstimated.” If you’re able to keep track of everyone’s exact position on a 5-foot grid in your head, congratulations. As someone who likes to play archers, I’d be besieging you with questions before every action to make sure I’m aware of all my options before I attack. That’s what causes such games to slow down … the DM usually has to “reset” the scene each round. In my experience, playing a description-based game is most successful when the group agrees to simply chuck most of 3.x’s tactics. Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with doing so and some people prefer that style of game. As is often the case, the success of any system depends greatly on the skill of the players. Most of the players in my group know the combat rules pretty well. We rarely dive into the books during battles. We use basic 3.5 rules with minis and grids and our encounters proceed at a lively pace. If a group isn’t very proficient with the rules, using minis and grids will slow to a crawl as well. In the end, it's a matter of skill and preference.