This topic came up on the 2 GMs, One Mic news thread and starting it here so we don't derail it.
Basically I have always found miniatures disruptive to immersion. I just get hung up on those little pieces at the table and my imagination simply goes on autopilot or something. This isn't something I believe everyone has a problem with, I lots of gamers who find miniatures help them get into the game. For me they shift my mind just enough that it becomes a barrier.
I shall repost my opening argument then:
QuoteI find it very odd - when I was younger, I did consider "minis" to be fit but for the foolish games of DnD, and that real RPers need not such things. Now, I consider them a great aid - and it's a bit weird for me, BB, no offence. Character sheet gives you no problem with immersion I presume, and that's after all just another piece on the table.
Quote from: Rincewind1;520055I find it very odd - when I was younger, I did consider "minis" to be fit but for the foolish games of DnD, and that real RPers need not such things. Now, I consider them a great aid - and it's a bit weird for me, BB, no offence. Character sheet gives you no problem with immersion I presume, and that's after all just another piece on the table.
No offence taken:)
I am not sure I have a well thought out response to this. It isn't an issue I thnk too much about, just something I have noticed pretty consistently. When I first started we used miniatures a lot, but when we stopped for a while I noticed I just got deeper into the game somehow. Over the years I have played a lot. Some campaigns used miniatures, some didn't and some were a mixture. But without fail when the miniatures go on the table I get really focused on the miniatures themselves and less focused on the imagined reality they are markers for.
I suppose character sheets are another piece at the table, but you reference them sporadically and they don't physically resemble anything going on inside the gameworld, so that is probably why they have never presented an issue for me. Miniatures indicate something pretty concrete: where your character is physically. The other part of it is there the act of shifting from non combat to combat becomes more strongly split by miniatures. It feels like one moment everything is going on in my head, but the moment combat starts we start managing things on the table with the minies.
Again, I don't doubt that others are fine using miniatures and not getting tripped up like me. This has just always how they end up impacting my experience of the game.
No worries Brendan - I think this is mostly a matter of taste anyway. This however struck me kinda interestingly, and pardon my play at armchair psychologist:
QuoteI am not sure I have a well thought out response to this. It isn't an issue I thnk too much about, just something I have noticed pretty consistently. When I first started we used miniatures a lot, but when we stopped for a while I noticed I just got deeper into the game somehow. Over the years I have played a lot. Some campaigns used miniatures, some didn't and some were a mixture. But without fail when the miniatures go on the table I get really focused on the miniatures themselves and less focused on the imagined reality they are markers for.
Perhaps this has to do with Pavlov conditioning, so to speak?
The first GM I saw use minis, was also one of the best I played. I also played a lot of NWN, with a lot of great GMs, which coded a bit in me that graphic aides help a lot, so to speak, but they aren't necessary and they do not choke the imagination.
On the other hand, you say "When I first started" - our first games quite often are not too well. Perhaps you simply had a chance to play in better games where there were no minis (because of better players/GMs), and you wired the idea that "No minis = good games" somewhere? Kinda like I played one terrible WoD larp, and played 2 - 3 bad WoD games, and wired myself "WoD = TERRIBLE".
Of course, this theory will fall like a house made out of cards, if you say that first games were just as awesome ;).
And I think that minis can indeed "choke" some of the games - CoC being one such an example to me.
Quote from: Rincewind1;520061No worries Brendan - I think this is mostly a matter of taste anyway. This however struck me kinda interestingly, and pardon my play at armchair psychologist:
Perhaps this has to do with Pavlov conditioning, so to speak?
The first GM I saw use minis, was also one of the best I played. I also played a lot of NWN, with a lot of great GMs, which coded a bit in me that graphic aides help a lot, so to speak, but they aren't necessary and they do not choke the imagination.
On the other hand, you say "When I first started" - our first games quite often are not too well. Perhaps you simply had a chance to play in better games where there were no minis (because of better players/GMs), and you wired the idea that "No minis = good games" somewhere? Kinda like I played one terrible WoD larp, and played 2 - 3 bad WoD games, and wired myself "WoD = TERRIBLE".
Of course, this theory will fall like a house made out of cards, if you say that first games were just as awesome ;).
And I think that minis can indeed "choke" some of the games - CoC being one such an example to me.
the games themselves were pretty good. So i dont think that was the issue. And many of the games I have been in since that used miniatures have been excellent as well. Just something about the miniatures i think.
I know exactly what you mean and experience the same thing. In fact any kind of tactical game disrupts my immersion in the imagined space and makes me think in terms of the game on the table. I've found the best systems for preserving immersion simply dictate the final outcome and allow the players to role-play to it in whatever fashion they deem best.
When it comes to miniatures on the table, there are degrees. In the 4e game I'm in now, we use a slide projector and the character and monster tokens are pretty abstract--they're just a coloured circle with the initials of the character or monster on them. I actually find this less disruptive to imagining the events than more detailed figures. Something that often happens when using actual figurines is that the specific figurine for a given opponent isn't available. A random monster of the appropriate size must substitute for the actual monster being used. This always seems like an especially difficult hurdle to overcome.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;520062the games themselves were pretty good. So i dont think that was the issue. And many of the games I have been in since that used miniatures have been excellent as well. Just something about the miniatures i think.
I suspected so - so much for my RPing a psychologist :D. It may be something with the miniatures, as well as "immersion threshold" - at which point, due to amount of factors, our immersion will break to the point we no longer enjoy the game so much as we'd otherwise, if we're all about immersion.
For some that's minis, for some - that's narrative mechanics. For me...well, hard to say. I think too crunchy mechanics combined with foolish GMing.
No, they do not disturb my immersion. I can imagine what my character sees from his standpoint, and "be him" as he is represented on the diorama, IF the rules themselves allow for that space to exist in my mind.
What disturbs my immersion is gaming the system extensively or having tactical rules that actually do not represent the game world in meaningful ways, including effects and decision-making that only makes sense from the rules' standpoint. i.e. I want to think tactically about the game world, not the rules.
One aspect of being a referee is about effectively communicating the details. While there are some broad generalizations that are useful everybody works different in listening as well as describing.
For me, miniatures work great in conjunction with a verbal description. The miniatures, which includes props like tables, allow me to describe area in greater detail in less time it would be verbal only. It has the added advantage of being a persistent reference point.
However it not as simple as bringing a box or bag of miniatures to the game. It how I use miniatures that makes it work for me. In general, I have a small number of generalized pieces. A standard guard, table props, livestock miniatures, boxes, chests, etc. I am very selective about what goes into this and honed it over 30 years of refereeing. Outside of this I have somewhat large collection. The PC miniatures are mainly for the use of my players and the specialized monsters I try to pick out before the session begins. Due to running my games as a sandbox sometime I have to go and pick out a different selection because the players did Y not X.
In general I aim for setups that can be completed in the time it takes me to normally describe the scene verbally. In most cases there very little time added. Also I selectively use miniatures, my sessions are a mix of verbal only and miniature setups.
Once in a great while I will do an elaborate miniature setup and there is a good reason for this.
Again the advantage of miniature isn't to play a tactical boardgame but rather to clearly denote everybody's position and as aid to remember the description of the room.
This is not for everybody. Some may feel better to rely on miniatures to a greater degree than I do. Some find the verbal only effective. The fallacy is to assume that one methods works for all people and all situations.
And like tactical combat details, it is better from a design standpoint for a tabletop RPG to have miniatures as an option than make them part of the core rules. It easier to tack on miniatures than it is to take them away.
When you "use minis", are they well-painted minis that accurately reflect what your character looks like or are they a 20-year old hunk of lead that gets grabbed out of a shoebox? I find for me that makes a difference.
Quote from: CRKrueger;520068When you "use minis", are they well-painted minis that accurately reflect what your character looks like or are they a 20-year old hunk of lead that gets grabbed out of a shoebox?
See, that doesn't make any difference in my mind because the imaginative component is there. I can abstract the placement of miniatures or caps on the table to imagine what's going on as my character. As long as I can do that, and describe what's happening and what I do as my character meaningfully without the rules themselves representing an obstacle to that immersion, I'm good as gold.
I sometimes use dice if no minis/pogs are available. For me, it just helps with referencing where the enemies are, rather then visualisation aid, so to speak.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;520054Basically I have always found miniatures disruptive to immersion. I just get hung up on those little pieces at the table and my imagination simply goes on autopilot or something.
As long as the minis are just used for a battle order display and aren't constantly being fiddled with, they don't bother me much. But actually using minis (or tokens or whatever) on any type of tactical display for combat or the like where they become the focus of what's going on and I loose immersion (and usually shortly thereafter, loose interest).
Quote from: Benoist;520066What disturbs my immersion is gaming the system extensively or having tactical rules that actually do not represent the game world in meaningful ways, including effects and decision-making that only makes sense from the rules' standpoint. i.e. I want to think tactically about the game world, not the rules.
And here I don't find this doesn't matter to me at all. Once i'm thinking in terms of bonuses or penalties to the roll, moving pieces around on a grid, and etc, it really makes no difference to me whether the rules are associative or dissociative. In both cases, the tactical aspect must be stepped around in order to get to the imagined events. I suppose this is why i'm so flummoxed by people who complain about the transition between 3e and 4e. To me, they both "felt" the same in terms of interacting with the rules, but the imagined events in 4e were much more dynamic and entertaining.
I think they work best when there are very many available to choose from so that a horse is not being used as a dragon or the same cleric used for the last twenty priests. One may as well use dice as figures in those cases.
More importantly I don't think they should be used fussily or with exact placement on battle maps or grids. The reality of action in the game is much more fluid so place them representatively on large sketch maps and move them around *randomly* each round to get across the chaotic movement of a fight.
I have found that players like looking at them and fidgeting with them during play the way one might handle an album cover while listening to it.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;520054This topic came up on the 2 GMs, One Mic news thread and starting it here so we don't derail it.
Basically I have always found miniatures disruptive to immersion. I just get hung up on those little pieces at the table and my imagination simply goes on autopilot or something. This isn't something I believe everyone has a problem with, I lots of gamers who find miniatures help them get into the game. For me they shift my mind just enough that it becomes a barrier.
The answer is NO. I never let a piece of metal or simple plastic interfere in my game whatsoever...
If you let it become a barrier, then it is because you made it an issue, not the miniatures themselves.
Quote from: CRKrueger;520068When you "use minis", are they well-painted minis that accurately reflect what your character looks like or are they a 20-year old hunk of lead that gets grabbed out of a shoebox? I find for me that makes a difference.
While I do have hunks of 30 year old lead. Sometimes they don't turn out too badly.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rpISehAfgSU/Tk8CDG145xI/AAAAAAAABXE/440YaqQ3pso/s320/orc_misshapen.jpg)
Quote from: estar;520082While I do have hunks of 30 year old lead. Sometimes they don't turn out too badly.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rpISehAfgSU/Tk8CDG145xI/AAAAAAAABXE/440YaqQ3pso/s320/orc_misshapen.jpg)
Strip it down and repaint... The only purpose that thing is good for is a sling bullet...
Different approaches and all, I suppose. Using miniatures in 3rd ed games didn't create any problems of immersion as long as I was pointing out point blank "this here on the table is an abstraction. This is NOT what 'really' happens in the game world. Try to visualize what's going on, and not think in terms of the rules. Tell me what you do, and we go from there." All the players were noobs and it worked like a charm. I later switched between 3D dioramas, 2D mats, no mat at all, and no miniatures at all between sessions. It worked for them and me.
Now, I wouldn't use anything approaching 3rd ed's complexity in terms of tetrapyloctomy on the battle mat (I'm thinking of stuff like 5 foot steps, diagonal movement and hell, any "square" movement, attacks of opportunity and so on). I'd rather something (still) associated, fast, with some tactical component to it I can either use for miniatures game play, or entirely use/tune off in my mind, as warranted by the feeling of the day.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;520054This topic came up on the 2 GMs, One Mic news thread and starting it here so we don't derail it.
Basically I have always found miniatures disruptive to immersion. I just get hung up on those little pieces at the table and my imagination simply goes on autopilot or something. This isn't something I believe everyone has a problem with, I lots of gamers who find miniatures help them get into the game. For me they shift my mind just enough that it becomes a barrier.
Actually, I am quite the opposite I like them because I have terrible spatial abilities and it helps me if I visualize things and to conceptualize what's going on far easier. It actaully is a physical problem for me given it is how cerebral palsy effects how your brain is "wired" and spatial awareness or lack of is a condition quite commonly affected by that handicap.
But like Ben I definitely do not need or like 4e's levels of complexity in their use. 3e is a little better but I really don't like the focus on tactics in that game either even though I love the system.
Yes indeed! Minis screw up my immersion royally. The game goes from "Character Centric" - what is going on around my guy - to "Mat Centric" - where is everything in absolute coordinates. This means stop action - nothing animates smoothly in my mind. I'm looking at my character from on high rather than seeing through his eyes. Cuts things dead for me.
-clash
They do a bit. I think it's ok for certain battles where the emphasis is on big-picture strategy and I've always used them as such. Mind you, I've never used actual minis because of $$; I've always used counters or drawn it out. I can draw, and fast, so it's not a problem. That said, most recently I've taken a page from roguelike computer games and started using letters to denote item and character locations abstractly. This actually helps a bit with immersion (as many roguelike players will tell you) because once you're used to it your mind starts to process the abstract information to create a mental picture: it's like a half-textual medium.
Quote from: RandallS;520073As long as the minis are just used for a battle order display and aren't constantly being fiddled with, they don't bother me much. But actually using minis (or tokens or whatever) on any type of tactical display for combat or the like where they become the focus of what's going on and I loose immersion (and usually shortly thereafter, loose interest).
I feel much the same way. If I'm going to play a role-playing game, and you tell me minis and tactical maps are required, I'm going to say "no thanks."
I admit 90% of my gaming is without minis, but sometimes I do like them. Things like marching order, camp site layout, etc. But I won't get all tactical with them.
Oh, and for the rest of you, be nice to the badly painted 30 year old minis :)
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g141/rajzwaibel/SNC00026.jpg)
Minis do not disrupt immersion for me.
They actually help me with immersion by showing the relative position of my character to everything else going on around him.
That said, I'm just as comfortable when the GM is using a grease board or scratch paper and some basic sketches.
I do like using minis with systems that have a lot of tactical options.
Seeing the pieces on the board helps me envision exactly where everyone is in my imagination, and that helps immersion, doesn't hinder it.
Quote from: flyingmice;520091Yes indeed! Minis screw up my immersion royally. The game goes from "Character Centric" - what is going on around my guy - to "Mat Centric" - where is everything in absolute coordinates. This means stop action - nothing animates smoothly in my mind. I'm looking at my character from on high rather than seeing through his eyes. Cuts things dead for me.
-clash
Samesies.
Although I will note that it's not that I can't enjoy miniatures or use of visual aids. It just puts me in a different stance/headspace/whatever. I think the variety of stances makes things more enjoyable for me. But then I also like GMing more than playing, so I may just naturally like looking at the game in different ways.
Minis don't disrupt my immersion.
Counting squares or hexes on a battlemat disrupts my immersion.
Quote from: flyingmice;520091Yes indeed! Minis screw up my immersion royally. The game goes from "Character Centric" - what is going on around my guy - to "Mat Centric" - where is everything in absolute coordinates. This means stop action - nothing animates smoothly in my mind. I'm looking at my character from on high rather than seeing through his eyes. Cuts things dead for me.
-clash
Same here, plus I rarely can find miniatures that look like my PC's. Ever. Once in a while I get close but it is very rare. When I GM its worse, as many of my villains have similar problems.
Interesting range of responses. I am seeing four camps so far:
1) miniatures disrupt immersion
2) miniatures assist immersion
3) miniatures don't disrupt immersion
4) miniatures dont dsrupt immersion except when combined with things like indepth tactical mechanics
No, minis do not disrupt my immersion.
I have not always liked minis and have only grown fond of them with the advent of prepainted minis, because I am a terrible painter.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;520116Interesting range of responses. I am seeing four camps so far:
1) miniatures disrupt immersion
2) miniatures assist immersion
3) miniatures don't disrupt immersion
4) miniatures dont dsrupt immersion except when combined with things like indepth tactical mechanics
Yeah it's crazy. It's almost as if immersion is highly personal and subjective and trying to use it to divide RPGs into various camps is an exercise in futility.
Quote from: jeff37923;520117I have not always liked minis and have only grown fond of them with the advent of prepainted minis, because I am a terrible painter.
Yeah. There is that too.
Pre-painted minis were just what I needed.
Candy and beer-caps is where it's at. If your friends like those Smirnoff coolers, the different colors come in handy, too, and the bright colors are easy to distinguish when on the table. It's easy to glue them together to make larger bases, and they hold well since they're light.
Oh, on that note, and to bring it back to the topic at hand, I find that the more detailed the visual aids, the more my mental image is messed up, because the detail in the aid may conflict with my own mental image of the imaginary stuff. This is regardless of the type of immersion, too, so even when I'm GMing or I'm playing a more narrative oriented game, it just bugs me. Using minis/visual stuff at all kicks me out to a different stance, but detail just messes with the imagery altogether.
Anyone ever use donut holes as monster minis and then whichever Player killed the monster gets to eat the donut hole?
(Yes. It was a fun one-shot. :D )
Sound yummy!
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;520054This topic came up on the 2 GMs, One Mic news thread and starting it here so we don't derail it.
Basically I have always found miniatures disruptive to immersion. I just get hung up on those little pieces at the table and my imagination simply goes on autopilot or something. This isn't something I believe everyone has a problem with, I lots of gamers who find miniatures help them get into the game. For me they shift my mind just enough that it becomes a barrier.
Miniatures/tokens/coins/chits are the devil. They are the source of all evil.
They are not allowed at my table.
Ever.
Immersion killer. Big time.
They snuck in during the 3.0 era, under one of the DMs in my group. I started to wonder why I was hating D&D so much. Then, it came to me -- it's the grid and the coins.
Quit that group.
Never again.
The reason D&D became big was precisely that it was NOT a wargame with miniatures or another boardgame with pieces, but rather that it was a game that took place inside your imagination. (Read the cover of the original Red Box).
5e needs to reclaim this in order to have any sort of success.
The most recent Red Box was just another boardgame.
Make a new Red Box like the original Red Box -- NO BLOODY MAPS AND MINIATURES/POGS/TOKENS. NONE! CAPICHE?!
IN YOUR IMAGINATION. GET IT?
Quote from: jeff37923;520123Anyone ever use donut holes as monster minis and then whichever Player killed the monster gets to eat the donut hole?
(Yes. It was a fun one-shot. :D )
One-shot...shot...ohhh.
It may be an absolutely terrible idea, but shot glasses instead of minis could be fun. Or horrible. This may require testing!
In answer to the subject line's question, I find miniatures and other visible representations improve immersion. They remove a lot of ambiguities about an area's description and therefore allow easier visualization. I always keep a couple of Gundam action figures and toy aircraft at the game table so maneuvers and relative positions can be demonstrated. In that way, everyone is on the same page and visualizing the same scene. I find an erasable battlemat nearly indispensible to simply draw complex rooms and spatial relations rather than struggle for an extended period of time trying to explain the setting.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;520054Basically I have always found miniatures disruptive to immersion. I just get hung up on those little pieces at the table and my imagination simply goes on autopilot or something. This isn't something I believe everyone has a problem with, I lots of gamers who find miniatures help them get into the game. For me they shift my mind just enough that it becomes a barrier.
The problem I have is with inappropriate miniatures. I'd rather simply use counters or dice (which is what my group has generally done) than have a skeleton miniature representing an orc or a PC being represented by a miniature that looks nothing like the character. The big problem there is the dissonance between what I'm seeing on the table and what I'm imagining.
Quote from: 1989;520127Miniatures/tokens/coins/chits are the devil. They are the source of all evil.
They are not allowed at my table.
Ever.
Immersion killer. Big time.
They snuck in during the 3.0 era, under one of the DMs in my group. I started to wonder why I was hating D&D so much. Then, it came to me -- it's the grid and the coins.
Quit that group.
Never again.
The reason D&D became big was precisely that it was NOT a wargame with miniatures or another boardgame with pieces, but rather that it was a game that took place inside your imagination. (Read the cover of the original Red Box).
5e needs to reclaim this in order to have any sort of success.
The most recent Red Box was just another boardgame.
Make a new Red Box like the original Red Box -- NO BLOODY MAPS AND MINIATURES/POGS/TOKENS. NONE! CAPICHE?!
IN YOUR IMAGINATION. GET IT?
(http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/images-signs/get.gif) (http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/images-signs/help.gif)
I have lots of minis. Shit I spent a fair chunk of my student grant on them one year. But that was because were were doing a lot of battlesystems stuff.
When we use them for rping they just get left in a marching order in the middle of the table and we all forget about them.
When I run a fight my dice box has a bunch of game pieces from warrior knights (just little stand up shields with stickers on) and we use those if we need to and a bit of paper with the layout drawn on. And we only do that because I am famous for forgetting the doors :)
So I am agnostic. However, at cons where I always try to play in savage saturday night with the pinicle guys some of their mini set ups like the giant 4 level pyramid are awesomely cool and make me want to play their games although I find SSN is more combat and beer and not so much rping
I am thinking about offering to run a savage strontium dog game at gen con using the mod I knocked up but the faff of carrying a load of game props to the US puts me off, whereas for an amber game I can run it without even the rule books just a character sheet for each PC.
Quote from: 1989;520127Miniatures/tokens/coins/chits are the devil. They are the source of all evil.
They are not allowed at my table.
Ever.
Immersion killer. Big time.
They snuck in during the 3.0 era, under one of the DMs in my group. I started to wonder why I was hating D&D so much. Then, it came to me -- it's the grid and the coins.
Quit that group.
Never again.
The reason D&D became big was precisely that it was NOT a wargame with miniatures or another boardgame with pieces, but rather that it was a game that took place inside your imagination. (Read the cover of the original Red Box).
5e needs to reclaim this in order to have any sort of success.
The most recent Red Box was just another boardgame.
Make a new Red Box like the original Red Box -- NO BLOODY MAPS AND MINIATURES/POGS/TOKENS. NONE! CAPICHE?!
IN YOUR IMAGINATION. GET IT?
Lame... ROFL...:rotfl:
Nah, I dig minis. Used to HATE them for YEARS...but I find that it seems to help most of the folks I play with do more than "I'm trying to hit that guy" *roll dice*...and since most of the gaming I have done lately is trying to teach my son RPGs, I find that he responds to some kind of tactile element like minis way more than he does when we play without.
Eh. Either way. I use'em, but mainly for marching order, or the odd combat where ranges are important. Or not, we don't need'em if they're not there. (I should point out that I ran 3e just fine without minis for most of the combats - if it's not a super-involved battlefield, it was never an issue.) Most of my crew plays skirmish games like Mordheim, anyway - we don't have any problem changing gears and leaving that stuff where it belongs.
I like minis... for wargames. I do have more warmachine minis than any sane person should have.
But I dislike minis for RPGs, they are for me the worst immersion killer ever. They are even worse than most combat systems.
I don't find them disruptive to immersion BUT I find the ancillary effects of using them to be disruptive to immersion, such as:
- the time they can suck up with finding them, laying them out, laying out terrain, putting them back, etc.
- the "real estate" concerns; the time spend moving all the table crap out of the way, worrying about dice blitzkrieging through miniatures and terrain, etc.
- people focusing on and being distracted by the miniatures as discrete entities as opposed to being part of the game.
Plus, I find, as a DM, that combat is more fluid and action packed without them. You have a "imaginative space" for lurid combat events.
It was a sad day when I realized that I preferred DMing without them, as I've spent thousands on miniatures and terrain. At least it all has a good home at our gaming space and gets used for other GM's games.
I love the art of miniatures and terrain, both the sculpts and the painting; I used to love making scratchbuilt dungeon & terrain pieces. But in the end, personally, I found them to be an inconsequential ephemera to my personal gaming experience.
I should also add that, as often as not, my players literally forget the minis are there. I guess they're somewhat immersed. ;)
Switching to minis has improved my ability to add character mobility and spatial variety into battle a lot.
Finally ditching them after six years of playing that way has allowed me to be even more fluid and add a 3d component to what's going on - nowadays, I sketch out the battle location, and let players and NPCs run away with the possibilities (our last session featured a very 3d battle in a crumbling pleasure-palace; with its parapets, rooftops, galleries and ground level wings, all played fairly abstractly).
So, in my case, it has been an important transitory step. But I have given away most of my miniatures now, and am also happy I don't have to lug a boxful of them around anymore.
***
BTW, delver, please remove that table-breaking image.
I find minis do tend to disrupt immersion, though I use them.
Quote from: two_fishes;520063When it comes to miniatures on the table, there are degrees. In the 4e game I'm in now, we use a slide projector and the character and monster tokens are pretty abstract--they're just a coloured circle with the initials of the character or monster on them. I actually find this less disruptive to imagining the events than more detailed figures.
I was playing 4e D&D last night with the circular 2D 'pogs', and I too found that this abstract representatin was more immersive than when using lovingly detailed 3D minis.
On Sunday I'll be GMing Pathfinder Beginner Box with 2D cardboard stand-ups, I'll see if that has the same effect.
Miniatures prevent what I call the collapse of the spatial wave function. As Melan says, true freedom 3D is better achieved with sketches in conjunction with descriptions.
But using grids and tokens guarantee the affair stays at least two dimensional. Whereas descriptions alone very easily collapse into the one-dimensionality and linearity of language.
Thus is the nature of the discretization of space.
Yes, that's what I meant to convey. Thanks.
Miniatures (or dice, erasers, bottle caps, etc.) placed on the table to represent marching order, or the general disposition of combatants in a particularly complex situation, do not disrupt my immersion.
Miniatures deployed on a grid to satsify complex tactical rules totally break immersion for me. If a battle takes longer than real time, and features frequent breaks to discuss tactics, analyze a grid, and read rules, I'm no longer making a movie in my head, but playing a tactical wargame. And I have shelves full of tactical wargames for when I want to game that way.
Which is one of the reasons I like Warhammer Fantasy 3E; it supports abstract combat, without the need for miniatures and grids.
Not at all. When I started gaming in 82, I gamed with the kid whose father was the high school art teacher(different school system). He was very into historicals, trains, and RPGs, so we had a huge collection to choose from. We were probably one of the very few who had correctly sculpted creatures. He even had mix tapes of sound effects that we would use. It wasn't until after high school and into college that I learned otherwise. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc5BJBj3cnc)
From what I have experienced, the DMs who are adamant about shitting on miniatures have sucked at DMing. Anything to get your players involved into the game should be used.
Quote from: Benoist;520066No, they do not disturb my immersion. I can imagine what my character sees from his standpoint, and "be him" as he is represented on the diorama, IF the rules themselves allow for that space to exist in my mind.
What disturbs my immersion is gaming the system extensively or having tactical rules that actually do not represent the game world in meaningful ways, including effects and decision-making that only makes sense from the rules' standpoint. i.e. I want to think tactically about the game world, not the rules.
Pretty much this.
The minis themselves are not a distraction, the tactical board focus of some rulesets ARE.
I enjoy using minis for B/X games. The grid is a reference for range and such but not too terribly important. Minis can be standing across a couple of squares or plunked right down on the intersection of four, who cares?
Its just fun to play with toys and have a nice looking reference to where everything is in relation to other things.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;520249Pretty much this.
The minis themselves are not a distraction, the tactical board focus of some rulesets ARE.
I enjoy using minis for B/X games. The grid is a reference for range and such but not too terribly important. Minis can be standing across a couple of squares or plunked right down on the intersection of four, who cares?
Its just fun to play with toys and have a nice looking reference to where everything is in relation to other things.
Yes, I completely agree with all this. Minis might also be a great way to introduce the game to some non-gamers. I can't tell you how many times discussions about RPGs started when I showed the minis I painted to people I invited over for reason X or Y. Particularly women, actually, for some reason (maybe just a fluke, I have no idea, but the women I introduced to RPGs seemed to be generally interested, or puzzled at least, in the craft/doll aspect of the miniatures and quite a few gave the game a try from there. A bit like it makes them think of a "game" more than some weird "theater thing where they'd have to unveil themselves to complete strangers" kind of thing, so they feel better about the idea to try the game from the get-go, see what I mean? Interesting, in any case).
Quote from: Melan;520183Switching to minis has improved my ability to add character mobility and spatial variety into battle a lot.
Finally ditching them after six years of playing that way has allowed me to be even more fluid and add a 3d component to what's going on - nowadays, I sketch out the battle location, and let players and NPCs run away with the possibilities (our last session featured a very 3d battle in a crumbling pleasure-palace; with its parapets, rooftops, galleries and ground level wings, all played fairly abstractly).
So, in my case, it has been an important transitory step. But I have given away most of my miniatures now, and am also happy I don't have to lug a boxful of them around anymore.
I'm actually very interested in introducing more sketching / illustration into my game. I'm finishing up an "Intro to Drawing" class right now that's gotten me back on the art horse, it'd be pretty cool to have a sketch pad and art pencils on hand in-game to bang out some quick architectural sketches while we play.
A whiteboard is one of the most amazing RPG aides I have ever used and I would take one over miniatures any day.
I found it really engendered folks, both artistic and non artistic, producing awesome illos.
Ditto. A white board is an excellent thing, whether you use miniatures or not.
I'm with Brendan and Clash. Miniatures are killing my immersion big time, good miniatures and bad ones all alike. I'm fine with a white board/draft paper to display how buildings and people are approximatively placed in the imaginary world, because it's something I can glance at and not obsess with.
I wonder if this issue is related to the kind of fiction/movie people like the most? Do miniature enthusiast prefer movies/books that deal with detailed tactical stuff? Do miniature haters enjoy fictions that are vague about tactical position and stuff? My intuition is that they're not correlated, but who knows?
PS: Fuck large pictures that make threads difficult to read. Delver please remove it.
Quote from: Peregrin;520130One-shot...shot...ohhh.
It may be an absolutely terrible idea, but shot glasses instead of minis could be fun. Or horrible. This may require testing!
For some reason, that scene when the guy draws the beer out in that French take on The Gamers came to my mind.
"What are you doing. It's a serious game."
Quote from: boulet;520277I'm with Brendan and Clash. Miniatures are killing my immersion big time, good miniatures and bad ones all alike. I'm fine with a white board/draft paper to display how buildings and people are approximatively placed in the imaginary world, because it's something I can glance at and not obsess with.
This post makes me suspect that a lot of people in this thread are seeing "miniatures" and reading "battlemat" - which, even in and of itself, doesn't have to be used as a "snap-to" playspace. I use the grid (or, actually, the hex side) for a scale reference, there's no requirement to have figures occupy one space or another.
I don't think I ever used grid, and I use a lot of minis.
Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;520299This post makes me suspect that a lot of people in this thread are seeing "miniatures" and reading "battlemat" - which, even in and of itself, doesn't have to be used as a "snap-to" playspace. I use the grid (or, actually, the hex side) for a scale reference, there's no requirement to have figures occupy one space or another.
Sorry, but at least in my case you are incorrect. I have been running games since 1977, and only times I tried running a roleplaying game with minis was without a battlemat, way back in AD&D 1e days. I have *played* using a battlemat with minis using 3.x, which was worse, but the miniatures alone are enough. BTW, I came into RPGs through wargaming, so it's not like I can't understand or don't like using minis. I just find that they negatively affect
immersion, which is why I play RPGs.
Immersion is a highly subjective thing, and each of us reacts differently. I do not doubt that for some people, using minis enhances their immersion just as others are unaffected, and still others, like me, are adversely affected. What works for you will not necessarily work for me, and vice versa.
-clash
Quote from: Benoist;520066No, they do not disturb my immersion. I can imagine what my character sees from his standpoint, and "be him" as he is represented on the diorama, IF the rules themselves allow for that space to exist in my mind.
What disturbs my immersion is gaming the system extensively or having tactical rules that actually do not represent the game world in meaningful ways, including effects and decision-making that only makes sense from the rules' standpoint. i.e. I want to think tactically about the game world, not the rules.
This.
I'm cool with pencil scrawl and pocket change or a full diorama, but once the rules directly shape my options -- I'm out. I'm playing another game then. I can't help it, I lapse into Tactics Mini mode. Love both, but they can't share the same space with me.
Quote from: flyingmice;520304Sorry, but at least in my case you are incorrect. I have been running games since 1977, and only times I tried running a roleplaying game with minis was without a battlemat, way back in AD&D 1e days. I have *played* using a battlemat with minis using 3.x, which was worse, but the miniatures alone are enough. BTW, I came into RPGs through wargaming, so it's not like I can't understand or don't like using minis. I just find that they negatively affect immersion, which is why I play RPGs.
Immersion is a highly subjective thing, and each of us reacts differently. I do not doubt that for some people, using minis enhances their immersion just as others are unaffected, and still others, like me, are adversely affected. What works for you will not necessarily work for me, and vice versa.
-clash
I've done both, but I find the miniatures more damning than the mat. I can sometimes still use the mat to map out things for players to see things for themselves, without breaking immersion to much.
Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;520299This post makes me suspect that a lot of people in this thread are seeing "miniatures" and reading "battlemat" - which, even in and of itself, doesn't have to be used as a "snap-to" playspace. I use the grid (or, actually, the hex side) for a scale reference, there's no requirement to have figures occupy one space or another.
This is one of the reasons I liked that 1e
AD&D used "tabletop inches" as the unit of measurement, 'cause I was comfortable using a tape measure and protractor from tabletop minis wargames.
Counting squares turns a roleplaying game into
Candyland for me.
The tactical grid needs to be an OPTION in D&D Next included in a "tactical module" or something. For those that need it, while we could just avoid that BS altogether.
I got nothing against stuff like attacks of opportunity and the like IF I can play them without any spatial representation on the table whatsoever.
If the game assumes I'm using a fucking grid, it's over, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm DONE with grids.
/rant
Quote from: Benoist;520369The tactical grid needs to be an OPTION in D&D Next included in a "tactical module" or something. For those that need it, while we could just avoid that BS altogether.
I got nothing against stuff like attacks of opportunity and the like IF I can play them without any spatial representation on the table whatsoever.
If the game assumes I'm using a fucking grid, it's over, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm DONE with grids.
/rant
This. As I said far earlier in the thread I prefer using mini's but only in relation to big picture things, marching order, where are you generally, that kind of thing, once it gets all tactical I zone out. It causes tactile/sensory overload for me, not the good kind.:)
Quote from: Black Vulmea;520366This is one of the reasons I liked that 1e AD&D used "tabletop inches" as the unit of measurement, 'cause I was comfortable using a tape measure and protractor from tabletop minis wargames.
This was what I was talking about above, where I referred to running AD&D 1e games with minis and without a battle mat - and not enjoying the experience. We used string and a ruler, which is directly from mini wargames. I have no problem running wargames with minis, because there is no immersion to be affected.
-clash
Quote from: Melan;520183Switching to minis has improved my ability to add character mobility and spatial variety into battle a lot.
Finally ditching them after six years of playing that way has allowed me to be even more fluid and add a 3d component to what's going on - nowadays, I sketch out the battle location, and let players and NPCs run away with the possibilities (our last session featured a very 3d battle in a crumbling pleasure-palace; with its parapets, rooftops, galleries and ground level wings, all played fairly abstractly).
So, in my case, it has been an important transitory step. But I have given away most of my miniatures now, and am also happy I don't have to lug a boxful of them around anymore.
***
BTW, delver, please remove that table-breaking image.
Quote from: Settembrini;520192Miniatures prevent what I call the collapse of the spatial wave function. As Melan says, true freedom 3D is better achieved with sketches in conjunction with descriptions.
But using grids and tokens guarantee the affair stays at least two dimensional. Whereas descriptions alone very easily collapse into the one-dimensionality and linearity of language.
Thus is the nature of the discretization of space.
I started another thread about this stuff. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=22156) I wish to hear more about it.
While I do understand and can even experience the immersion hit of using counters or miniatures on a map board, the reason I still prefer them (though sketches can also be fine for a lot of things) goes back to the old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. I find GM bandwidth to be one of the biggest constraining factors for how fast a game runs (one of the reasons why I've been involved in several dual-GM games, both as player and GM) and it just seems easier for the GM to accurately convey the scene with a map and some markers rather than just trying to describe it all verbally.
Late to the party: No, miniatures do not disrupt my immersion. In fact, if anything, they add to my immersion as their use aids me in visualization of the situation at hand.
Quite often I'll hear from people something to the effect of, "Of course minis and battlemaps should be part of D&D, because D&D has it roots from mini wargaming."
I think that statement misses the very important fact that one of the whole points of having D&D created in the first place was to implement a role-playing aspect and get away from the tactical maneuvering aspect. If minis and battlemaps were meant to be part of D&D as a "core" aspect, then the creators wouldn't have omitted them in the first place.
Quote from: Drohem;520519Late to the party: No, miniatures do not disrupt my immersion. In fact, if anything, they add to my immersion as their use aids me in visualization of the situation at hand.
Wow mate, it's good to see you around!! :) :) :)
Quote from: Benoist;520538Wow mate, it's good to see you around!! :) :) :)
Thanks! :)
I use wood craft spools, and so far as I can tell we do okay.
Quote from: Drohem;520519Late to the party: No, miniatures do not disrupt my immersion. In fact, if anything, they add to my immersion as their use aids me in visualization of the situation at hand.
Same here.
Probably I would not like very detailed rules for movement, but yesterday night we were playing CoC and we had a very confusing firefight in a cave between Serpent Men and the PCs, and the minis added a lot to the tension of the fight, as I let them only see the Snake counters when they could see them. Minis may solve a lot of doubts and help people visualize the scene.
I can't see any big deal with them aparts from the logistics of moving them around. Of course, we play at my place :D
In my experience one of the biggest disconnects between players at the table is that everyone visualizes things differently, and the use of miniatures helps to lessen that gap in visualization.
Quote from: Drohem;520595In my experience one of the biggest disconnects between players at the table is that everyone visualizes things differently, and the use of miniatures helps to lessen that gap in visualization.
I've experienced the same thing, even when not using a 1" grid to place the minis on.
Quote from: Drohem;520595In my experience one of the biggest disconnects between players at the table is that everyone visualizes things differently, and the use of miniatures helps to lessen that gap in visualization.
It's definitely the reason I prefer them, grid not needed even!
Minis yes! This helps speed play immensely. Grid or hexgrid optional. We used rulers back in the day, a handspan 8" or so combined with swag, works just as good now. I'm more about having the players describe in detail the tactical moves they are attempting...
I personally find they disrupt my immersion tremendously. Not only by the fact that they encourage a wargaming mindset and thus often lead to the game slowing down due to unnecessary tactical rules; but also from the perspective that the mini's (and the backdrop) make my own visualisation more shallow.
Quote from: DrohemIn my experience one of the biggest disconnects between players at the table is that everyone visualizes things differently, and the use of miniatures helps to lessen that gap in visualization.
I actually welcome the fact that everyone visualises differently, it is a strength rather than a weakness - much like the deeper experience I get from
reading a book, rather than watching the movie of it.
An example of this may be me describing an aerial battle: the PCs, mounted upon dragons, are engaging in a dog fight with dozens of feathered demons - when suddenly the dark storm clouds start to whirl together at preternatural speeds and form into the physical incarnation of the evil deity Tashxan, whom proceeds to try and swat them out of the sky with clawed hands the size of buildings...
Then I pull out a handful of mini's and painfully attempt to represent what is going on from a tactical perspective. Bam! The magic of the moment is flushed away.
Thus I never use minis in my games. The only place I find problems may occur is if a player challenges the GM's visualisation (I thought those guys were over there!) which is the result of either two things. Poor description from the GM, or not enough trust/respect from the players towards the GM. Neither of which are problems with the groups I play with.
Quote from: Pete Nash;520755I actually welcome the fact that everyone visualises differently, it is a strength rather than a weakness - much like the deeper experience I get from reading a book, rather than watching the movie of it.
This. The core RPG experience for my group is generating our own unique movies in our heads. Not rules mastery. Not character builds. Not tactical challenge. And my core skill as a GM is describing what is happening.
A couple of my players spend most of the session sketching out scenes from the gameplay, occasionally interrupted by rolling dice. If it was a good session, our memories of the session will not be guys sitting around a table looking at a grid and minis; the memories will be in the in-game settings and actions, and those memories will be different for everybody.
I have a very large gaming group, and in my experience minis makes everything better.
Maybe when I have like four players, or even six or so, I'd go without. However, I have 14 players in my current WFRP 2e.
Yeah.
personally I don't have much of a problem with the use of miniatures, though I don't care for it myself and very very rarely ever used them, I don't think that having miniatures on the board alone will affect immersion. Other factors connected to the type of gameplay that people who use minis tend to engage in might, however.
RPGPundit