"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?"
A lot of these questions could just as likely be asked in a game with minis. In either case, questions aren't a bad thing in either scenario and most of those questions you have listed seem like reasonable questions in either mini or mini-less scenarios.
Play what works best for your group is my opinion. I've played both ways and will likely be even mixing styles in my freshly started Kingmaker campaign. Neither playing with minis or mini-less is wrong.
They clearly detract from immersion.
Until the ability to project our whims as holographs on a surface comes about - outside of an incredible expense of time and money - miniatures will always represent a half-measure towards representing what's going on in a game.
More importantly, once the minis come out, the shift from left brain to right brain is often audible. People stop thinking RPG and start thinking tactical wargame.
However, that I'm not misunderstood, there are other elements of play that minis improve. For instance, most of the discussion here seems to focus on how miniatures are excellent at reducing <i>confusion</i> or speeding play. So it may prove that the loss in immersion is made up in other aspects. I'm pretty much in this boat in terms of actual play.
There's also some question as to how you define "immersion." If you're thinking of it as 'simulation,' miniatures probably do improve immersion. But I think of it more as 'in-character involvement,' which isn't.
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.
I think that yes, they often do harm immersion. It places a lot of the focus on the tactical and encourages a "distancing" where you analyze the map like a board game, as opposed to a more in-character "mass of chaos" model.
In 2e and early 3e, I seldom used minis. They'd only get pulled out when there was a specific complex terrain kind of thing, and even then we would sometimes just use a football style X's and O's map. And it flowed more organically - I like the "fog of war." But as 3e progressed and AoOs and other stuff became more important you pretty much had to. People now place fireballs so that they immolate up through the front row of enemy combatants but never touch the PCs in close combat with them. I don't believe in that degree of accuracy in real combat and I think the 'god's eye view' of combat can't help but harm immersion.
When you don't have the exact minis for what you're doing, I find that hurts player conception of the opponents. It can maybe help if you have the exact one, but even in my group where people have huge fricking tubs of D&D Minis that's rare.
I will note that in the action RPG Feng Shui, Robin Laws specifically gives the advice to NOT use maps and minis - there's an entire section entitled "The Map Is Not Your Friend" which in part reads:
If you haul out a map at the beginning of a fight scene and lay it on the table, you're causing your players to stop focusing on the action scene in their heads and instead directing them to a dead, lifeless piece of paper; now they're like a bunch of football players planning a play on a chalkboard instead of a bunch of football players running like crazy and tackling like mad.
Therefore I consider maps/minis to be a necessary evil that the 3.5 rules semi-mandate. They do make nice revenue stream though.
I've tried both. Apparently, my descriptive talents are lacking, as my players begged for a map with minis to help them understand what was going on.
I can take or leave the actual miniatures. But a picture is worth a thousand words!
Assume you're told, "the shambling, undulating, pulsating, green blob oozes it's way towards you reaching out with a sussarassing ephemeral tendril which stinks of disease and rot". If you have a battle mat in front of you, you are going to be thinking "okay, it's 15 ft away from me, it's got a reach of 10, I hold my action".
Don't tell me that doesn't impact immersion.
I've never read an H.P. Lovecraft story that said something like this:
"Arthur tried to run away, even though it was clearly impossible because the tendril was blocking the door. For some reason he didn't realise that (his view of the room was a bit muddled, apparently), so the tendril grabbed him and choked him to death.
Actually, once it was explained to him that the tendril was in his way, it turned out that he didn't try to run away at all. Instead he did something completely different."
I've definitely run into that situation in D&D, though.
|
Assume you're told, "the shambling, undulating, pulsating, green blob oozes it's way towards you reaching out with a sussarassing ephemeral tendril which stinks of disease and rot". If you have a battle mat in front of you, you are going to be thinking "okay, it's 15 ft away from me, it's got a reach of 10, I hold my action".
Don't tell me that doesn't impact immersion.
It doesn't impact immersion.
I don't think that is really the battle mats fault. I think it has everything to do with the player. A player wanting to overcome challenges is going to be framed in 'is it close enough to hit? can it hit me? how much effect am I having on it?' Meanwhile the player wanting to play a character is going to frame it 'how is my character reacting to this? what action would he take given what he is presented with?'
Yet again, all a matter of playstyle. The battle mat certainly affects this, but is not the root cause.
Assume you're told, "the shambling, undulating, ...
Player: "Wait, start over again, what is it?"
Sorry, verbal description by itself is often not enough for someone like myself that is very visual to get a grasp on what is being discussed.
For me, having a miniature that is fairly accurate to the being presented, gives me a starting spot to imagine from. Suddenly those adjectives have something to hang on and I can then visualize the creature coming to life. A string of adjectives with no concept of what they are applied to, breaks me out of character mode every time, because now I am spending all my time trying to imagine what is being discussed.
As was said earlier, a badly representing miniature though can make it worse than no miniature.
If you're going to insist on hard, fast, objective reach, then I can see a reason to have hard, fast, objective measures of that reach.
But when I said that miniatures and battle mat detract from immersion, I mean, as well, that hard, fast, objective reach detracts from immersion.
So, your statement, "For some reason he didn't realise that (his view of the room was a bit muddled, apparently), so the tendril grabbed him and choked him to death." is a non sequitor.
I don't know what to tell you. I've had many games where I wanted to do something, the DM pointed out the dire consequences (which would have been made clear with a simple diagram), and I instead picked a different action. I find that much more damaging to "immersion" than having a handy diagram.
I don't think that is really the battle mats fault. I think it has everything to do with the player. A player wanting to overcome challenges is going to be framed in 'is it close enough to hit? can it hit me? how much effect am I having on it?' Meanwhile the player wanting to play a character is going to frame it 'how is my character reacting to this? what action would he take given what he is presented with?'Yet again, all a matter of playstyle. The battle mat certainly affects this, but is not the root cause.
Bull.
Anyone playing a COMBAT game and IN COMBAT and who is NOT thinking "is whatever attacking close enough to hit me" or "is it close enough to hit" is playing the wrong game. Actually, THEY are the ones screwing up immersion. Watch the Discovery Channel for a while. Being able to attack or AVOID being attacked is the prime thought of any competent person in the area. Susy Homemaker thinking "what is my character doing?" instead is being eaten because they are an idiot.
Some people don't play this game for the combat. Strange and alien thinking, I know. But it is there.
Good thing I made the point of saying "in combat" for all you people role-playing school teachers.
Way to pick on my wording and not my point.
Your point is irrelevant because I made my point specifically.
IF you are IN COMBAT and playing a combat game and NOT thinking "can I hit it or can it hit me," you are dead.OR, you are the bad role-player. You know how your character is reacting to running into something trying to eat you? He is thinking "can it hit me" or maybe "can I hit it" if he isn't a school teacher strolling through the Hundred Acre Woods you seem to insist your RPs exist in.
How did you invalidate my point of 'battlemats are not the root of immersion-breaking'? Isn't that the point you just made, that it's the players and not the mat?
Then I disagree with the bent of your statement. And additionally with your implication that the battlemat fuels the "bad role-playing" of people trying not to get killed.
Edit: Way to critique my playstyle with zero information provided on it.
Then next time don't make a barely disguised judgment on what is the proper playstyle.
Some people don't play this game for the combat. Strange and alien thinking, I know. But it is there.Good thing I made the point of saying "in combat" for all you people role-playing school teachers.You also said, "anyone playing a combat game". Since we're talking about PF, it's a safe assumption you're implying that PF is a combat game.
Some people don't see it that way.
Yes. Combat never happens in Pathfinder. There totally isn't a huge book FULL of monsters that exist in Pathfinder or anything.
There are also plenty of character concepts where their number one thought isn't going to be about hitting or being hit.
Then there are plenty of characters playing a version of Pathfinder where they are running a general store in the safest city in Golarion.
|
|
How did you invalidate my point of 'battlemats are not the root of immersion-breaking'? Isn't that the point you just made, that it's the players and not the mat?Then I disagree with the bent of your statement. And additionally with your implication that the battlemat fuels the "bad role-playing" of people trying not to get killed.
Level of immersion is a playstyle preference. Some people want to be IC all the time, others want a tactical board game. I made no claim of one or the other being objectively worse.
Edit: Way to critique my playstyle with zero information provided on it.Then next time don't make a barely disguised judgment on what is the proper playstyle.
Way to be oversensitive enough to perceive slights where none exist.
Level of immersion is a playstyle preference. Some people want to be IC all the time, others want a tactical board game. I made no claim of one or the other being objectively worse.
Whether you are playing an adventurer or a shopkeep, a battlemat and miniatures remove the need to describe the details of an area that are entirely relevant and necessary but otherwise minutiae and unnatural in description.
|
|
Whether you are playing an adventurer or a shopkeep, a battlemat and miniatures remove the need to describe the details of an area that are entirely relevant and necessary but otherwise minutiae and unnatural in description.
Level of immersion is a playstyle preference. Some people want to be IC all the time, others want a tactical board game. I made no claim of one or the other being objectively worse.
I don't even know why we're arguing any more, since we seem to be on the same side.
|
I don't even know why we're arguing any more, since we seem to be on the same side.Whether you are playing an adventurer or a shopkeep, a battlemat and miniatures remove the need to describe the details of an area that are entirely relevant and necessary but otherwise minutiae and unnatural in description.
Level of immersion is a playstyle preference. Some people want to be IC all the time, others want a tactical board game. I made no claim of one or the other being objectively worse.
It's the internet. Pretty much explains it.
I don't even know why we're arguing any more, since we seem to be on the same side.Whether you are playing an adventurer or a shopkeep, a battlemat and miniatures remove the need to describe the details of an area that are entirely relevant and necessary but otherwise minutiae and unnatural in description.
Level of immersion is a playstyle preference. Some people want to be IC all the time, others want a tactical board game. I made no claim of one or the other being objectively worse.
I decided to deviate from the deviation and go back to the topic.
|
I don't think that is really the battle mats fault. I think it has everything to do with the player. A player wanting to overcome challenges is going to be framed in 'is it close enough to hit? can it hit me? how much effect am I having on it?' Meanwhile the player wanting to play a character is going to frame it 'how is my character reacting to this? what action would he take given what he is presented with?'Yet again, all a matter of playstyle. The battle mat certainly affects this, but is not the root cause.
Bull.
Anyone playing a COMBAT game and IN COMBAT and who is NOT thinking "is whatever attacking close enough to hit me" or "is it close enough to hit" is playing the wrong game. Actually, THEY are the ones screwing up immersion. Watch the Discovery Channel for a while. Being able to attack or AVOID being attacked is the prime thought of any competent person in the area. Susy Homemaker thinking "what is my character doing?" instead is being eaten because they are an idiot.It's a good thing then that Pathfinder wants to be a ROLE PLAYING game and not a tactical COMBAT game.
A tactical COMBAT game tries to be more realistic. So, comparing it to the Discovery Channel makes sense. A ROLE PLAYING game tries to be more mythic - comparing it to the Discovery Channel is ludicrous. A ROLE PLAYING game goes by the rule of cool. A tactical COMBAT game does not.
ROLE PLAYING games can have combat, but you don't spend your time thinking about how many hexes you are from your target or how to use the Pythagorean theorem to move at an angle. You move according to what the table thinks makes for the best story.
Instead of rules lawyering your way through a mountain of books to find out how to squeeze another + to your to-hit score, you think about what action you can do which is going to have the highest coolness factor.
If this is the case, why do so many people seem to hate the idea of wielding Large-sized weapons?
As for the map and minis issue, I like my map and minis for DnD and DnD-derived systems. Systems that I and my friends all define as TACTICAL games. Games where the difference between twenty-five feet and thirty-five feet actually have a significant impact. Games that have Attack of Oppurtunity rules. Like DnD and Pathfinder. However, I still follow the rule of cool, and always some form of Action Points or Hero Points and a stunt (from Exalted) system, regardless of system. To reinforce the idea that I like the "rule of cool". But the fact remains that if you want to adhere to the rules, you kinda need some sort of visual combat tracking mechanism, most commonly represented by a map and minis.
Now, I also have run (what I and my friends call) CINEMATIC systems, like Mutants and Masterminds, where you can have a movement speed of 10,000 miles per round, you can throw a dude several counties over, and then with perfect accuracy you can leap into the air and land directly on top of him. In these games, the idea of using a map and minis is downright laughable.
So it completely depends on the system in use.
having played 1e without minis (we had a map, but it was a 1/4" to 10' scale, pretty worthless for combat), we ended up with alot of arguments, such as player 1 hits orc with sword, player 2 shoots firball at orc. dm adjudicates that player 1 was in blast of fireball (since he is standing right next to the orc)
player 1 and player 2 NO WAY, it doesnt hit me/player 1!!!
combat ends up being a series of dice rolls, no movement. i hit orc, orc hits me, i kill orc, i attack next orc.
with minis and a battle mat, you dont have the placement issues. there are lots of combat rules that cant really be played without them, Oportunity attacks are one of them. The combat is tactical.
In live combat, i make decisions based on what i see, i would be calculating ranges in my head, i would move to areas with the greatest amount of cover and concealment. i would shoot at targets that are the biggest threat to me, i would not throw grenades at my opponents if a friendly were too close to them. Hand to hand combat is exactly the same, its a game of positioning, power, and tricking your opponent, and reacting to the opponents next move. Live combat requires a battlemat, and minis.
if your combats end up being just two lines of antagonists, like 18th century warfare, just hitting each other, you dont need them. if your combats are fluid, moving from place to place, being executed at range, if cover and concealment are important aspects, if line of sight is important, then you need a mat and minis.
if the number of pages in the 3.5 phb are any indication of the amount of pages that are dedicated to combat in pathfinder, with the same style of combat then they are needed to stay within the parameters of the rules.
The nature of the rule set is that actions are adjudicated based upon the results of a d20 plus/minus modifiers. with the addition of the skills ruleset, then the d20 has invaded your roleplaying as well, if, in your game, a d20 is used at all, then i feel it is imperitive to use a battlemat and minis.
ROLE PLAYING games can have combat, but you don't spend your time thinking about how many hexes you are from your target or how to use the Pythagorean theorem to move at an angle. You move according to what the table thinks makes for the best story.
Instead of rules lawyering your way through a mountain of books to find out how to squeeze another + to your to-hit score, you think about what action you can do which is going to have the highest coolness factor.
I think you confuse the d20 system with the storytelling system.
|
I think you confuse the d20 system with the storytelling system.
ROLE PLAYING games can have combat, but you don't spend your time thinking about how many hexes you are from your target or how to use the Pythagorean theorem to move at an angle. You move according to what the table thinks makes for the best story.
Instead of rules lawyering your way through a mountain of books to find out how to squeeze another + to your to-hit score, you think about what action you can do which is going to have the highest coolness factor.
Hey, I use minis and a mat in Werewolf, which is a storytelling system game. And I run combats without minis in Pathfinder. Does it make me CRRRRAZY yet ? :)
if your combats end up being just two lines of antagonists, like 18th century warfare, just hitting each other, you dont need them. if your combats are fluid, moving from place to place, being executed at range, if cover and concealment are important aspects, if line of sight is important, then you need a mat and minis.
See now, this is exactly opposite of my experience. Mat and minis battles seem to be very stationary, in the games I've played (ok, not completely stationary, but much more of that "battle line" thing), whereas non-minis ones are more cinematic, running around and doing crazy stuff.
Thing is, if you want to not use minis, you basically have to be willing to gloss over a lot of the rules (especially AoOs). If you're fine with doing that, then, at least from what I've seen, you're gonna get a lot more "exciting" battles, if you want to call them that, whereas if you want to stick to all the rules and have the minis, it becomes a very tactical affair.
Funnily enough, the "executed at range" part of what you said is like...by far the easiest thing to do without minis. All you need to know is if its in range (which you probably have to ask even with a mat, if there's any question at all, given the extremes of range), not its exact position or anything.
Not at all. I said Pathfinder -wants- to be a ROLE PLAYING game. I'm aware that the d20 system is on the line between being a ROLE PLAYING game and being a tactical COMBAT game.
Obviously because a game can't be a tactical role-playing game.
It's worth noting that if you look at the games which are more role playing - centric (Feng Shui, Everway, etc.), they don't use battle mats or minis and it would take effort to use minis with them.
That's lovely but how is it in anyway relevant?
|
Yes. Combat never happens in Pathfinder. There totally isn't a huge book FULL of monsters that exist in Pathfinder or anything.Some people don't play this game for the combat. Strange and alien thinking, I know. But it is there.Good thing I made the point of saying "in combat" for all you people role-playing school teachers.You also said, "anyone playing a combat game". Since we're talking about PF, it's a safe assumption you're implying that PF is a combat game.
Some people don't see it that way.
Am I missing something or isn't the game called PFRPG and not PFCG?
It's the opposite of my experience too. It's been my experience that the more dynamic, chaotic, and exciting the combat is, the more the battle mat gets in the way.
IME, that's less an issue of the battle mat, and more an issue of AoO and not being able to full attack and move in the same round. I've run 3.5/PF without AoO. Half of my players got it, and they regularly moved, vying against the monsters for flanking, higher ground, et cetera.
I'm seriously considering retooling PF combat to get a more swords & sorcery feel. Scrap AoO based on movement (at a minimum). Scrap movement more than a 5-foot step making full attacks impossible.
But I digress.
IME, the other ways the battle mat and minis diminish immersion are these:
1. Square-counting, usually to avoid AoO. "Now, wait. If you move here, then there, you'll still get flanking, but won't provoke."
2. The time hiccup. "You encounter the drow priestess and her bugbear zombies. Move your sheets and dice so I can draw the scene."
3. The lack of narrative. "I take a 5-foot step and attack." instead of "I dodge to the left, looking for an opening, and then thrust my longsword at its belly!"
Of course, none of these are a necessary consequence of the battle mat and minis, but, IME, battle mats and minis encourage such behaviors.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
What's your definition of a 'tactical role playing game'?
Not at all. I said Pathfinder -wants- to be a ROLE PLAYING game. I'm aware that the d20 system is on the line between being a ROLE PLAYING game and being a tactical COMBAT game.Obviously because a game can't be a tactical role-playing game.
It's worth noting that if you look at the games which are more role playing - centric (Feng Shui, Everway, etc.), they don't use battle mats or minis and it would take effort to use minis with them.That's lovely but how is it in anyway relevant?
Let's see. A role-playing game with tactical combat as opposed to completely fantastical combat?
Am I missing something or isn't the game called PFRPG and not PFCG?Yes. Combat never happens in Pathfinder. There totally isn't a huge book FULL of monsters that exist in Pathfinder or anything.Some people don't play this game for the combat. Strange and alien thinking, I know. But it is there.Good thing I made the point of saying "in combat" for all you people role-playing school teachers.You also said, "anyone playing a combat game". Since we're talking about PF, it's a safe assumption you're implying that PF is a combat game.
Some people don't see it that way.
You are correct in assessing Pathfinder as not a card game. Congratulations.
IME, the other ways the battle mat and minis diminish immersion are these:1. Square-counting, usually to avoid AoO. "Now, wait. If you move here, then there, you'll still get flanking, but won't provoke."
..being part of the game. A lack of a "square-counting" results in an entire slew of game rules and features being COMPLETELY discounted. Attack of Opportunities? Useless along with every class ability, spell, and feat related to it. Same with increased speed. Reach. Flanking (as written). Etc
2. The time hiccup. "You encounter the drow priestess and her bugbear zombies. Move your sheets and dice so I can draw the scene."
1) Get a bigger table
2) Have players keep their stuff not on the battlemat3) Be organized.
3.a) Have the map prepared ahead of time.
3. The lack of narrative. "I take a 5-foot step and attack." instead of "I dodge to the left, looking for an opening, and then thrust my longsword at its belly!"
I asked Morbo the Newsmonster and he said: "THOSE EVENTS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE."
That would have been PFCCG. Just sayin'.
No. The prefix denoted what KIND of card game it is. TCG: Trading Card Game. CCG: Collectible Card Game