Quote from: wombat1;984256I have the good fortune of being the least talented painter of miniatures in a wargame and roleplaying club which has members (plural) that can do this routinely.  (Those aren't mine--they come from the most talented member of the club.)

So lots of miniatures of all sorts available and I try to find lots of excuses to use them.  I will do theater of the mind if I find something unexpected breaking out, or if I don't want to spend a lot of time on a particular combat.

We used to play WFB and 40K in high school, and I had a neighbor who was fantastic at painting minis and making terrain, and he loved doing it. Any time I bought new minis, I could drop them off at his place and wait a week for them to come back looking perfect.

Quote from: Panjumanju;984258As far as I can tell all of these are usually necessary for a well-rounded RPG experience. Some systems lend themselves more to one than the other. Some systems might exclude one or the other. I have a personal preference for theatre of the mind. But - you do whatever best serves the system to create the best results for players.

Very true. While I am generally theater of the mind, I love playing with minis when Savage Worlds is used, and I can't imagine ever using minis with Call of Cthulhu.

Personally I find anything other than theatre of the mind terribly destructive to immersion. As minis and terrain I'm a miniatures wargamer and can craft terrain and paint as well as the next guy but there is NEVER enough to provide for an RPG. Tried it once 30 or so years ago but never again.

I've been using Miniatures for combat since pretty much 3rd Edition. Had a few in AD&D 2e but I didn't play that much to really get into it. I like the visual representation and like to see where everyone is when I make decisions on who to attack or where to cast spells.

Theater of the mind I guess. I don't use minis, and I don't use graph paper. But then again, I don't run D&D, so no big whup.

Quote from: rgrove0172;984218Title says it all. What's your preference? Got a main reason or is just what you prefer?

I prefer pitting real players with real weapons against real monsters in a Thunderdome type of arrangement.

Why? BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!

Even when I use a grid, I don't use painted miniatures.  Sometimes, I'll use Lego figures with appropriate weapons in hand.  That's as close as I'll get to an accurate portrayal of the characters, as it leaves room for imagination.  

Well, that and because I'm so bad with glue and paint that if anyone knew, I'd be banned from painting miniatures in 22 states.

Come on, Clash. Why does it matter whether you're running D&D or not? You've got games with squad-level combat, no? So how do you handle--and communicate--positioning? Traveller/Snapshot used maps and counters--it's not unique to D&D.

I love the minute strategizing that comes from playing on a grid with very specific rules for doing so, when I'm playing a board game. To that end, let me know if you want to play some Stratego.

For D&D, sticking to a first-person point of view maximizes immersion for me, and that's my main goal. Unless the character is flying high above, a birds-eye view is a third-person view. And it's the view of a bird, not of the character!

That view makes it difficult or impossible to act with agency but without metagaming ("I randomly move to the right 3 squares, when lo! I can now see my friend in trouble, and take action. What luck!"). Note here that intentionally disadvantaging your choice is still metagaming, and that randomizing your choice lacks agency. Whether I'm trying to use or ignore the extra information, it's invariably a distraction for me.

As far as old-school vs new-school goes, I'll add that the more abstract combat is supposed to be in the rules, and the longer the rounds, the less valuable specific representation of position is. In fact, my experience is that miniatures used with old-school combat frequently introduce the issue of players overvaluing their specific placement on the table from moment to moment ("Look though, I have a clear shot to the enemy right here"). In newer additions with shorter rounds (that is, the closer it gets to why I play board games), that exact position may be more relevant each round.

Quote from: Arminius;984298Come on, Clash. Why does it matter whether you're running D&D or not? You've got games with squad-level combat, no? So how do you handle--and communicate--positioning? Traveller/Snapshot used maps and counters--it's not unique to D&D.

I know it's not unique to D&D, and I ran D&D for 20 years without minis or graph paper. I just meant most people here are running some version of D&D so anything I can say wouldn't mean much. I know D&D 3 and 4 really WANTED you to use minis or at least graph paper - it made things a LOT easier. I have no idea about D&D 5.

I like both. But I tend to play 95% of the time without minis. I will though hand out some for players to show marching order positions for example.

Otherwise its all theater of the mind and I keep track of positions mentally.

Sometimes the thought process in a round will be "Ok, the forward rush of three orcs are 50 ft away. This round they will cover 30ft and if any players advance too then they will be in melee. This guys here, this ones here, and this ones here."

Mostly keeping track of ranges and things like flanking or other maneuvers.

One of my friends though is very minis oriented. But uses a computer program to track and show the map and positions.

Either theatre of the mind, or we can bring out the replica weapons, thanks:).

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;984246Both, switching back and forth as required.

We're sort of like this. We use a grid and 6mm miniatures, but we have a lot of description and imagination in the combat descriptions, both from me (the GM) and the players.

I lean more towards Theatre of the Mind when I run games. But I'm open to minis and terrain in some types of Rpgs. I'm just more inclined to use rough range bands, and eyeball things than count squares or use detailed tactical rules with minis.

Quote from: Zalman;984315That view makes it difficult or impossible to act with agency but without metagaming ("I randomly move to the right 3 squares, when lo! I can now see my friend in trouble, and take action. What luck!"). Note here that intentionally disadvantaging your choice is still metagaming, and that randomizing your choice lacks agency. Whether I'm trying to use or ignore the extra information, it's invariably a distraction for me.

Isn't that what most of the info from the DM is for? Don't people ask the DM questions during combat using Theater of the Mind? I know I sure did. "can I get to my ally without getting smacked by an enemy?" "Can I hit the three orcs in the room with my 10' halberd?" "If I run between past the raging Ogre will he get a swing on me before I can stab him?"

I like looking at minis from an artistic point of view. Some of them are beautiful.

But personally, I would never use them. Once I see a table with minis it pulls me to right out of the game. I much prefer to have it in my head like reading a good book where I visualize everything.

This can lead to a few misinterpretations but I find it a rare occurrence to be fair. Especially if players and the GM are used to playing through visualization. Anything too problematic and I can just do a quick map and send it through skype.

Again, nothing wrong with them, just not my thing...