Combat Mats and Minis?

So, I know that so many of my friends don't have combat mat or minis. To this end, what are people ideas about them. Are a table top and random items a suitable substitute? Are dice okay to use on a combat mat when there are no minis at hand? What is your preferences?

Being a tabletop wargamer I obviously have a love for minis, but in roleplaying games I prefer the abstract nature of theatre of the mind style play. That being said I have used crude maps and dice or counters on the table to clarify and I do own a battle mat and many many miniatures, just not D&D specific ones.

Battle grids aren't necessary in most cases, but sometimes can come in handy..say in a dungeon with traps on specific tile sets.
That being said, if someone has a desire to see things on a grid, and has one handy, thats not a problem usually. Sometimes the visual aid can be very helpful, especially with mass combat

One reason I quit playing D&D was because I was sick of the map, sick of the "tactical battle simulation" and sick of how much it drew attention to combat and away from story development and characters. Now, I use a scrap of paper to help give visuals of relative positions or a few minis that I put in front of the players (so, if player A is engaged with 2 goblins I put the 2 goblin mini's on the table in front of them). Mostly we use descriptions, and a white board to draw diagrams of battlefield etc. if necessary.

With all the groups I've been in, even the ones primarily driven by combat, have we ever used a battle grid exclusively for every combat scenario. Typically, if a group uses one, it's because the situation called for pretty exacting details on positions due to areas of effect, traps, reach or the like.
Calling an rpg a "tactical battle simulation" if it has combat that can be expressed this way is like saying i don't like numbers that can be expressed at fractions. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it has to be.
If your group focuses that much attention on combat and strategies and not on story that's not actually a problem if they enjoy it.

Up until the past year or so my groups never used minis or maps. If combat need clarification a quickly drawn map with X's and O's as baddies and PCs always sufficed. However when my group decided to try out Pathfinder we also tried out the minis and combat maps. At first this was exciting and new, but as a GM I quickly noticed a change in how people played. Combat became less interesting, less imaginative. The tactical nature of the added game aids started to change even the most normally roleplay minded players into simple 'I move here, and attack" players. Frankly it destroyed my enjoyment of the game. As a result Pathfinder (which is very tactical minded) lost its luster for me. I would be hesitant to bring miniatures back into a roleplay environment. Leave them to the wargamers I say.

So until last summer, I've never had or played with minis. My game group, who have been played mostly online for over a year, got together for a live game (one of our number is in Texas). Everyone bought a mini before hand, some painted before hand, but most of us met up before the game start time and spent the morning painting/learning to paint. It was an awesome experience. Then playing on a board with minis was great.

I can def get why mapping and squares annoys people, but that doesn't remove how great playing with minis can be. Even abstractly, I think having a mini that represents you and your character adds a lot to a game. As for mats, I think they're neat, but by no means necessary or even warranted. I can always draw a square grid on paper.

And I don't think there's ANY problem using random objects for minis. I've played with dice, bottle caps, coasters... Friends and I used to play 40k using mostly poker chips and random objects (plus one broken Dreadnaught). It was great.

Most of the battles I've played have been with quickly-sketched maps and lego minifigs. ^_^ The most map/mini-centric game I ever played was a PbP, where the GM used NeverwinterNights to render the battlefields and updated them round-to-round.

In my own GMing, I usually just wing it, even in D&D and related systems that are relatively strict. A quick sketch to show people the area, and then we just talk about where we are and where we're going. You have to be a little forgiving of AoOs, but it's rarely that relevant.

One reason I like Numenera is that it has actual combat mechanics, but abstracts away the map, so that you're just in close/medium/long range with enemies, and can attack anyone within your range.

I don't have a problem with maps when I'm at the table. Tactics don't interfere with my game, because I minimize the incentives for using tactics. There's no downside to deciding quickly on the basis of what would be cool and in-character and just doing that.

Maps are intended as a stand in for trust. I don't have to trust a player that their character can reach a given location, and they don't have to trust me if it can't. In practice, I've found, that avoids a lot of certain kinds of questions being asked, which saves time. Unfortunately, that time just tends to get filled back up with other questions, which get asked because people have incentives to squeeze every last advantage out of a situation, and avoid avoid giving the tiniest bit of advantage to their opponent. The only way I've found to get that time back is just to reduce those incentives.

These days I mainly play 4th Edition in play-by-post, and I run it without a map. Partly that's because I hate making and dealing with online maps, but partly it's to show that it can be done.