So I'm interested to know everyone's. I've played both ways and have no real opinion either way.

If you have the money or had some already from past sets, games, it can really add something to the game...hearing of a huge dragon with a high AC and not dropping after 25 hits can be somewhat scary but seeing a dragon that is bigger than if you added all your characters together and then tripled their mass and it's still bigger than you....

Imagination is always great, as long as a basis/description of the thing you are fighting is well done...The new 4th edition lacks this, so that's why I enjoy some of the older descriptions in the old Monster manuals...so descriptive!

One of my DM's has a real affinity for painting minis and can be really creative, having created some custom miniatures for spell effects...i.e. bigby's, flaming sphere, etc.  SO it really did add a great deal to the game.

Interesting note, the original Dungeons and Dragons was described on the cover as:

Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper Pencil and Miniature Figures

Though until the coming of the internet I didnt have access to enough figures to reasonably work it. I remember wanting to play warhammer when it came out but thought who can afford that many minis!

I'm torn on the minis issue.  I'm generally a non-mini guy.  In a best case scenario the description of a GM and the colors of imagination beat out a map and minis by a mile.  Using maps and minis kind of take away from the story telling aspect of the thing.  It becomes more of a war game that a RPG.  But I have found times when minis have been useful.  Still lean toward the no minis but am starting to be a bit of a convert.