Do Miniatures Detract from Immersion?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

I'm wondering if anyone else feels that miniatures and battlemats, while sometimes fun, reduce the player immersion and imagination. I've noticed that on play by post games, and times when the GM is describing events without the miniatures I sometimes feel more immersed in the story.

I'm curious what others think of this.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Deleon wrote:

I'm wondering if anyone else feels that miniatures and battlemats, while sometimes fun, reduce the player immersion and imagination. I've noticed that on play by post games, and times when the GM is describing events without the miniatures I sometimes feel more immersed in the story.

I'm curious what others think of this.

The only time I've seen minis and battlemats reduce player immersion and imagination is when completely inappropriate minis and battlemats are used. In all other cases I've seen they actaully ENHANCE play, since using minis and battlemats lets a lot of the technical aspects of combat such as positioning and range and line of sight and all that be easy to track.

A much GREATER enemy to reducing player immersion is when players don't pay attention and carry on side conversations. You know who you are. (Narrows eyes and stares at certain Paizo employees...)

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:

A much GREATER enemy to reducing player immersion is when players don't pay attention and carry on side conversations. You know who you are. (Narrows eyes and stares at certain Paizo employees...)

At my table, these conversations are invariably about anime. I. HATE. ANIME. FOR. THIS. EXACT. REASON.

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

I think the only time minis and a mat detract is when the GM allows it to. Instead of saying, "The barbarian roars menacingly and brings everything he has to bear as he swings his great axe at you," the GM will point at a mini and say, "This guy power attacks you." The players will merely fall in line with this method of playing, and the game simply becomes a minis game.

Also, I don't think minis and a mat should come out unless the stage is fully set and initiatives have been rolled. Otherwise, those tools become an indicator that "fight time" is about to begin. Alternatively, make sure that minis and the battle mat are out regularly, even if there won't be any combat. That will keep players from assuming.

Last, when using a mat, make it look cool. If you just use a black marker to squiggle "general" lines in "roughly the right place," it's not very exciting. Using different colored markers to draw in shrubbery, water or rubble will enhance the map and make it visually appealing. Or, use Dungeon Tiles and 3D effects like toy trees and dollhouse furniture. That makes for some cool looking battle maps.

Otherwise, I fully agree with James. Make certain you're using as accurate a mini for the bad guy as you can. There's nothing quite like a GM putting out a poker chip on a blank battle mat and telling you it's a war dog attacking you in a swamp to keep you from being immersed in the game.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think they do. I'm as pro combat as anyone but I not big into playing with toys on a gameboard kind of defeats the whole purpose of gaming in the first place. I think it really detracts from immersion. That being said if the campaign was a giant dungeon delve like 'World's largest...' or something I wouldnt have a problem with it. And some players are just into wargaming with mini's like warhammer. I'm just not into that; its not something I enjoy but i don't look down on those people in anyway.

At one point I had a large 4'x12' that I made and covered with 2 large battlemats for the purpose of gaming. But after years of gaming I see miniatures as the mark of amatuers and inexperienced gm's and players.

This is one of the reasons that brought me to pathfinder instead of 4th ed - because 4th ed isnt mini intensive its mini mandatory.

Quote:
"I think the only time minis and a mat detract is when the GM allows it to. Instead of saying, "The barbarian roars menacingly and brings everything he has to bear as he swings his great axe at you," the GM will point at a mini and say, "This guy power attacks you." The players will merely fall in line with this method of playing, and the game simply becomes a minis game"

I think this is a big part of it. And I think this is inevitable.


We used to play without minis. Frankly it was more confusing than anything else.

"Am I within 30ft of the enemy?"

"Can I get there from here?"

"Where's the wall relative to me?"

Frankly without minis the physicality of where my PC is becomes completely abstract, existing only in the DM's mind. Note that: the DM's mind. Not mine.

It's like playing a first-person-shooter game blindfolded and having someone else tell you what you "see". No thanks.

If I was given an ultimatum and told to go back to mini-less games I'd abandon the hobby. No matter how good the DM, a picture is worth a thousand words


Anguish wrote:

We used to play without minis. Frankly it was more confusing than anything else.

"Am I within 30ft of the enemy?"

"Can I get there from here?"

"Where's the wall relative to me?"

Frankly without minis the physicality of where my PC is becomes completely abstract, existing only in the DM's mind. Note that: the DM's mind. Not mine.

It's like playing a first-person-shooter game blindfolded and having someone else tell you what you "see". No thanks.

I've played with minis and without, my current Kingmaker campaign in its early stages will likely use a combination of both methods depending on the combat. Our last campaign we never used minis, other campaigns we've used them for every battle.

I really find mini-less combat moves pretty quickly and there aren't nearly as many questions as one would think. Why? Because once the scene was drawn it was in everyone's mind, not just the DMs. Sure you might need to ask once early on, so how close am I to so and so. But from there even the player could track the movement. The map doesn't get redrawn from scratch each round, so things you learned in the previous round are constant.

Now I totally agree this experience can vary depending on the group, so while playing mini-less works fine for our group, it may not for another.


I think it almost completely depends on how well the GM describes the action. I've had games that used just a pencil and graph paper, others where I used different colored and sized glass beads, and still others where I used actual minis. My impression over the years is that minis, or markers are best used as an organizational tool to help facilitate the game and nothing more. But it certainly doesn't hurt if the props you're using resemble the creatures and environment. When using minis in particular, the only thing I find that doesn't work well at all is, if you use a mini of a particular creature that is totally different from the one encountered, the visual of the mini really interferes with visualizing the creature in your mind. In such cases, you're better off using a non-descriptive prop to represent the creature IMO. One of our groups favorite battles was using a pair of snow pants as a prop for a colossal carrion crawler. It moved and swayed and everything!

In the end, I like using proper minis and will use them in preference to mere props, but only just so. My set of glass beads was actually a great tool in they didn't resemble anything (except maybe a slime or pudding I suppose). That forced the players to visualize the game in their minds.


Personally I like the gaming mats and Minis. In combat they are needed for casters to pick range and such. Also seeing the layouts of the buildings helps keep everyone together. For the record, our DM normally has us use maps, regardless of combat or not. And as a note, in an RPG you should be ready to roll INT at the drop of a pin.

Overall, I think they help. But I think I look at Pathfinder, and DND as wargames. So much rules on combat, and you are complaining that a mat that shows everyone’s positions is bad?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I would say yes and no. I think it depends on the group for one and how it is done. A DM can make it help or hurt. Depending how they do it. My only problem with mini's is to take the time so they add to the immersion slows things down to much. But then to me combat is a means to a end. It is something that happens during the story but is not the focus.


I don't think they detract, no, but I've found that, at least in my experience, battles work differently without minis. Mini and mat battles seem to be a very tactical affair, or have been for me, with everyone very careful about positioning and whatnot, whereas non-mini battles tend to be more narrative, with people simply describing what they do and rolling to do it. But it also reduces the effects of having fast movement, all but eliminates AoOs, and so on.


DrowVampyre wrote:
I don't think they detract, no, but I've found that, at least in my experience, battles work differently without minis. Mini and mat battles seem to be a very tactical affair, or have been for me, with everyone very careful about positioning and whatnot, whereas non-mini battles tend to be more narrative, with people simply describing what they do and rolling to do it. But it also reduces the effects of having fast movement, all but eliminates AoOs, and so on.

QFT

Liberty's Edge

I'm a visual person, and the mat and minis actually help me by taking a load off of my mind having to imagine where everyone is relative to one another at all times. It lets me focus my brain power on figuring out what actions are going to be taking place if I am the GM or what action I'll have ready for when I'm playing.

I also have an artistic flair, and I like to use large pads of presentation graph paper or a mat to draw out all kinds of detail. Also, Paizo makes some pretty cool GameMastery flip mats and cards. It helps me feel more immersed when I can see the market stall full of apples or the temple full of lit candles. Those little touches really help set the mood.

I also like to use music while playing, and will often have selections of music made for particular scenes set up ahead of time. The whole combination makes the game far more immersive.


anthony Valente wrote:
DrowVampyre wrote:
I don't think they detract, no, but I've found that, at least in my experience, battles work differently without minis. Mini and mat battles seem to be a very tactical affair, or have been for me, with everyone very careful about positioning and whatnot, whereas non-mini battles tend to be more narrative, with people simply describing what they do and rolling to do it. But it also reduces the effects of having fast movement, all but eliminates AoOs, and so on.
QFT

Agreed.


I find choosing my mini and painting it up for my PC helps the immersion as I now have (even) more emotional investment in the character.


IronWolf wrote:
Why? Because once the scene was drawn it was in everyone's mind, not just the DMs.

"So where is the Orc now?"

"How large is the hut in square feet?"
"How high is the roof?"
"Is the statue big enough to hide behind?"
"Can I fit a large creature through the door?"
etc

Scarab Sages

Cartigan wrote:
IronWolf wrote:
Why? Because once the scene was drawn it was in everyone's mind, not just the DMs.

"So where is the Orc now?"

"How large is the hut in square feet?"
"How high is the roof?"
"Is the statue big enough to hide behind?"
"Can I fit a large creature through the door?"
etc

Whats wrong with asking these questions and then having the GM answer them?

Or, better yet, as the GM lays out the scenario, presenting the exact picture. Just from the above...

"Gorlag bravely peeks his head around the corner of the door opening. Inside the dimly lit hut, you see an orc, his back turned going about his daily tasks, right now shucking corn and puttering around a small camp fire boiling water in a large pot suspended over the coals. The inside of the hut is 20 feet diameter in a roughly circle shape, poorly built with mud and sticks, evidence of the orc's ineptitude at building it. On the left side of the opening, a statue stands against the wall. Its an effigy of their foul god, covered in rotting meat and other various offerings. Its 5 1/2 feet tall, and just big enough for Moochie the halfling rogue to hide behind, but Gorlag you would be too large. Here at the edge of the circle, the roof is only 6 feet off the ground, Gorlag you would have to duck to get through, even if you weren't mounted. The roof slopes upward to a peak just over 15 feet high, and is supported by a wooden pole 3 inches thick, from which a small oil lamp is suspended on a crossbeam. The doorway is 3 feet wide, big enough for one of you to charge through, but certainly not big enough for a mass bullrush. The orc putters around, now chopping up carrots for his stew. He seems to be humming an out of tune ditty, the words too quiet even when he grunts them. His ears perk, and he sniffs loudly, then, chuckling to himself, he leans over the cauldron boiling over the fire and inhales deeply...he seems to have no idea you are there....WHAT DO YOU DO????"

There, questions answered in about 2 minutes of reading.


I use minis and mats (dry erase paperthin sheet 3' x 4'). For me it's because I don't get the visual without some sort of representation. I was playing a game of Vampire once and the ST described the scene very well, great ST. Regardless I asked like probably 3-4 times to tell me again where everything was (the alley, the creature, the other players, to 2 other vampires) after the last time I just asked him to draw it. Every time after that he drew the scene for me so the repeating the description every time someone went didn't detract from the immersion.


I guess what concerns me is that the minis can limit the imagination. As a DM, if I tell a player that a decrepit, foul corpse comes to life and reaches towards her and set a mini of a zombie on the table, then the monster has been defined for the player by that mini. Whereas, if there were no mini or only a very abstract one, she would envision that zombie in her mind and perhaps imagine something far more terrifying and dramatic.

However, I do understand that the mat makes combat more clear and more tactical. That being said, one of the reasons I prefer Pathfinder to 4e is because the PC's and monsters have fewer HP's; therefore, the encounters are over quicker and the game gets back to roleplaying.


Bomanz wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
IronWolf wrote:
Why? Because once the scene was drawn it was in everyone's mind, not just the DMs.

"So where is the Orc now?"

"How large is the hut in square feet?"
"How high is the roof?"
"Is the statue big enough to hide behind?"
"Can I fit a large creature through the door?"
etc

Whats wrong with asking these questions and then having the GM answer them?

Or, better yet, as the GM lays out the scenario, presenting the exact picture. Just from the above...

"Gorlag bravely peeks his head around the corner of the door opening. Inside the dimly lit hut, you see an orc, his back turned going about his daily tasks, right now shucking corn and puttering around a small camp fire boiling water in a large pot suspended over the coals. The inside of the hut is 20 feet diameter in a roughly circle shape, poorly built with mud and sticks, evidence of the orc's ineptitude at building it. On the left side of the opening, a statue stands against the wall. Its an effigy of their foul god, covered in rotting meat and other various offerings. Its 5 1/2 feet tall, and just big enough for Moochie the halfling rogue to hide behind, but Gorlag you would be too large. Here at the edge of the circle, the roof is only 6 feet off the ground, Gorlag you would have to duck to get through, even if you weren't mounted. The roof slopes upward to a peak just over 15 feet high, and is supported by a wooden pole 3 inches thick, from which a small oil lamp is suspended on a crossbeam. The doorway is 3 feet wide, big enough for one of you to charge through, but certainly not big enough for a mass bullrush. The orc putters around, now chopping up carrots for his stew. He seems to be humming an out of tune ditty, the words too quiet even when he grunts them. His ears perk, and he sniffs loudly, then, chuckling to himself, he leans over the cauldron boiling over the fire and inhales deeply...he seems to have no idea you are there....WHAT DO YOU DO????"

There, questions answered in...

Of course you are making up a scenario to answer the specific questions asked in an attempt to make a point. Would you or anyone have described everything that specifically in the initial creation and run through of the material?

Scarab Sages

I believe the answer to this question is obvious, but let me answer thus: Those that have replied to the thread in the positive with regard to NOT using minis probably do, or have a GM who does.

To whit...yes, this is usually how I describe a scenario.

***EDIT***

I would point out too that this is probably true for people who do not use speciffic campaign guides or APs. Most of these GMs would probably run a very free form game, even if based in Golarion using cities/towns out of the campaign guides.

One need not play the Darkmoon Dale AP to enjoy the setting, and adventure in the forest there.


Bomanz wrote:

Or, better yet, as the GM lays out the scenario, presenting the exact picture. Just from the above...

"Gorlag ... hut, ... orc, ... the hut is 20 feet ... a statue .. Its an effigy .. Moochie .. to hide ... Gorlag ... too large. ... the roof is only 6 feet ... The roof ... just over 15 feet .. a wooden pole 3 inches ... on a crossbeam. The doorway .. big enough ... you to charge ... for a mass bullrush. The orc ... chopping ... out of tune ... when he grunts ... he sniffs ... he leans ... over the fire .. to have no idea you are there....WHAT DO YOU DO????"

There, questions answered in...

No one is a worse player for wanting/needing a visual, what's the harm in adding one?

P1 goes
Player needing visuals: how big is the effigy again?
P2 goes
orc goes
Player needing visuals: You said there was a pole right? it was 3 feet?
DM: No the pole was 3 inches, the door was 3 feet
Player needing visuals: Okay so was the orc to the left or the right of the pole?

Sure, looking up at a text it's easy to go over where each thing was, but being explained all that at once is where some people need repeating. It doesn't matter what the subject if someone read something to me It just doesn't click unless I read it for myself. Sometimes there can be detail overload. Since I know I need minis for someones description, I have minis for others in case they need them. Doesn't hinder my game or my descriptions, just help clear up all the numbers and positions.

EDIT: I want to thank you Deleon for using a Fact (the HP are higher)as your reason for bringing up 4E as a bad thing. As opposed to otherwise (minis are NOT mandatory).


Cartigan wrote:


"So where is the Orc now?"

He's right there (points to dot on the map)

"How large is the hut in square feet?"

Well, each square equals 10 feet.

"How high is the roof?"

Hmm… it's about 12' high.

"Is the statue big enough to hide behind?"

(decides to roll a d10 to determine statue's height) Nope. It's only 3 feet tall

"Can I fit a large creature through the door?"

Well, it's a standard sized door. Lini's pet tiger can tramp through easily enough, but Ezren's charmed ogre is going to have to stoop and squeeze to get through.

etc

In my earliest days of D&D, we just had a penciled in map (no minis or props). Each method does have its charm.

The Exchange

The only part that used to bug me about miniatures and battlemats was that players would be able to position their blast markers/templates so precisely so they could target enemy squares but completely avoid players. That tended to annoy my sense of immersion a little.

Then I realised my NPC's could do it as well and I just got over it I guess.

One thing it has done in my games unfortunately is to lower the number of "cool" actions my players would try. Very little jumping over chasms and swinging from chandeliers any more from my guys, but then they tend to prefer simple hack n slash nowadays to the older problem solving games we used to try. I think as we're getting older we're getting a little lazier :)

Cheers


Aardvark Barbarian wrote:

No one is a worse player for wanting/needing a visual, what's the harm in adding one?

P1 goes
Player needing visuals: how big is the effigy again?
P2 goes
orc goes
Player needing visuals: You said there was a pole right? it was 3 feet?
DM: No the pole was 3 inches, the door was 3 feet

Player needing visuals: Okay so was the orc to the left or the right of the pole?

Sure, looking up at a text it's easy to go over where each thing was, but being explained all that at once is where some people need repeating. It doesn't matter what the subject if someone read something to me It just doesn't click unless I read it for myself. Sometimes there can be detail overload. Since I know I need minis for someones description, I have minis for others in case they need them. Doesn't hinder my game or my descriptions, just help clear up all the numbers and positions.

To be fair, you'll get these types of questions regardless of whether or not you use minis and battle maps. The minis and battle maps eliminate nearly all creature specific questions about location and distances however, and some obvious size related questions (how long is the hallway?).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

At the moment I have access to a university lecture theater where I can project a map on a white board and then draw in the players on the board. It's a very, very fun set up. Considering the look of dread on their faces when I drew up a skeletal hydra rising up from a dark pool of still water. I'm going to say that player immersion is dependent on the players.


In my experience, the feel you get from using minis versus pure description is similar to watching a movie versus reading a book.

Neither one is really better than the other, and there's some things you can do better in one than the other, etc. What I'm talking about is the sensation you get from using your eyes to see what's going on, and using your imagination to see what's going on.

Pros and Cons:

Using Minis
Pros
- Less questions about distances, range, positions.
- Lower chance of forgetting aspects of the description of the environment.
- Less disagreements between players and DMs about what's happening.
Cons
- MUCH longer to set up an encounter.
- With everything set in stone, less leeway for those that like to use player narrative control.
- When even part of the description is defined for you, you lose some of the sensation you get from coming up with an image in your head. When you think of the environment, your mind calls up the picture of the grid and tokens over (or alongside) the imaginary view you might have come up with (first person view or aerial, etc).

Not Using Minis
Pros
- Freedom to define how the area looks in your mind. When you think of the encounter or environment, you will more likely picture what you imagined, instead of the grid.
- No setup time, other than how fast and how much a DM is willing to describe.
- In a more collaborative game (DM is working with the PCs, instead of playing like it's a competition against the PCs), it is easier to allow more cinematic/freeform encounters, where the DM can decide on the fly if a PC can pull off a "cool maneuver".
Cons
- If DMs are being adversarial, or derelict/inconstant in their descriptions, it can cause conflicts between the people playing.
- Situations or mechanics that require fairly precise numbers on range/distance/position can cause hiccups, delays, and potential arguments.
- Player memory and attention is more important, because they can't glance at a mat to quickly assess a situation. "Reassessing" requires a full rundown description of events by the DM and other players, taking time and causing aggravation.

_____

My preferred method of gaming is to have visual aids (in the form of maps, etc.. even those handdrawn on the spot by the players as the description is given out), to point to to "get an idea" of the area.
After that, going by description alone.

As long as the DM is capable of giving out good description, and the players and DM are willing to work with a bit of question and answer (and there's complete trust in the DM), then everything can go quite smoothly. You don't even nee to drop things like Attacks of Opportunity as long as the DM is very familiar with the rules.

I also like letting my players come up with solutions that go beyond strict, grid-tactical options. Want to dive over the bar, roll to the ground drawing both your weapons, and still attack someone?
With a grid and minis, the answer depends on exact positions, how much movement you have, how high the bar is, etc.
With narrative, the DM sets the acrobatics DC and says go to town! (This is where collaborative play and trust in the DM kicks in).

However, there are times where I might prefer using minis. Large scale combat (a recent encounter with waves of 20-30 enemies, with different sizes and abilities, comes to mind), or combat with lots of area issues (traps, pitfalls, cliffsides, etc), can be much more entertaining with minis.
There a visceral feeling the players get (usually manifesting by a Gulp!) when they see 30 tokens plopped onto the table, some in different colors or taking up more squares.

The way I see it, each has it's good points, and it's always best to use the right tool for the job.

Silver Crusade

I find the use of miniatures and battle maps helps my immersion. I can imagine the scene better and understand the flow of a battle. I would recommended them. As stated above, having appropriate miniatures and battle maps help.

Sovereign Court

I played D&D without much minis for years (that is we had minis, but we followed no strict guidelines). And we loved it.

Then came 3e, and due to LGH play, we adopted minis. And we still enjoy it.

One thing though that is annoying in the 3.x combat system, is that players for a long while seemed to be happy drawing battlelines :

One straight line of PCs vs one straight line of monsters. That was mainly IMo because of the attacks of opportunity, as players were afraid to take one, even though these are usually minor nuisances.

After a while that was starting to get old.

I think PFRPG is doing better in that respect, as there are more feats encouraging moving around the battlefield.

Such as step up against the five foot steps, the repositioning one, the one that cancels difficult terrain. All of these are the right direction.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Sorry about that everyone. Clearly my phone is cursed.


till now I've only used minis once, they didn't really distracted from immersion. However I tought it was too much work setting them up, and moving them around.
I stay open minded if my players want to use them, but I don't have any, and won't invest.

It probaby depends on how good the GM can depicture the situation, and the players understand his description and have more or less a mental picture. And if something is unclear, if the players respect their GM's decision, or if they think he has unfairly ruled them too far away from monsters, or too close, or if there is a possibility to cast a fireball, so that only the ennemies get hit.

However, sometimes making a little map, with points and so, everything 2D, can help, but I only use that for 1 complicating round or so.

Dark Archive

I prefer minis.

I don't care either way, and love playing games like Vampire, or Mutants & Masterminds, which generally have no use for a map or figures (my speedster ends his turn in Tahiti, no, I don't need a map), but some of the people I game with have some sort of freakish ADD, and if they don't have something to stare at, forget where their character is, what it is doing, if it has gone yet, or even which character they are playing...

Plus, a few of them are talented figure-painters, and it helps get them invested into the character if they spend a few hours picking out the perfect figure and painting it up.

Number one distraction with a bullet is those damned computers. 'Oh, I have a program that will roll initiative, it will save *so* much time!' Fiddle Fiddle. Hmm. What's your network connection? Fiddle Fiddle. Check your firewall. 30 minutes later. 'Really, it's awesome, also, check out the 'This is War' fan video for the new Star Wars MMO!' Grr. Angry luddite smash puny computer!

1 to 50 of 314 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Do Miniatures Detract from Immersion? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.