Tell Me About Your Experiences with Theater of the Mind 5E

[Li Shenron]

I get that a lot of people have different preferences, I've just never played with a DM that was able to run complex combats that didn't use some kind of grid.

Not to contest your opinion, but I would like to highlight again that the crux of the matter is not really the grid but the tokens/minis. It's the visual aid that makes positioning and distance/area measurements easier to track, therefore enabling highly complex battles, not the fact that the battlemat is divided into squares (in fact the mass battles of miniature games are normally played on a gridless mat).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That means when 75% of the move and positioning is done TotM i dont sweat at all whether or not another bit is precise or "objective".

The thing about D&D, at least since 3E, is that grid play isn't really any more precise than TotM. As far as the rules are concerned, the only thing that a grid does is narrow your position down to a 25 square foot area. You probably used greater precision than that to describe their positions when the players first walked into the room.

So, i dont get hung up on recreating the same direct play as grid but on creating as much dynamic and choice driven within the TotM.

I guess that explains your perspective, but it does mean you have essentially two different games that you're playing. One in-game reality could resolve in two different directions, based solely on your out-of-game decision about whether to bother with miniatures for this fight.

 

[5ekyu]

The thing about D&D, at least since 3E, is that grid play isn't really any more precise than TotM. As far as the rules are concerned, the only thing that a grid does is narrow your position down to a 25 square foot area. You probably used greater precision than that to describe their positions when the players first walked into the room.
I guess that explains your perspective, but it does mean you have essentially two different games that you're playing. One in-game reality could resolve in two different directions, based solely on your out-of-game decision about whether to bother with miniatures for this fight.

Re the first graph... I honestly cannot make sense of it....

When we play on a grid, movements are precise - specific route to specific points around specifically placed objects. The **same kinda of choices are made** but they are made by specific patterns on the grid. AoEs are placed with precision. Lines of fire may intersect for cover **leading to decisions being made" that create or escape such conditions.

So, not really seeing the whole "not any more precise" than TotM or down to 25' square thing.

As for the second graph, yes and sort of.

Its certain that the in-game sequence of events may play likely will play differently based on which "game system" we use to resolve the combat. We expect that. Just like it might play out differently for many other factors.

But the key is the kinds of decisions are much the same between the two so the same kinds of choices matter - the difference being are the "triggers" derived from the positions on the grid and shown on the grid or are they derived from the choices expressed.

On a grid I may shift 5' in melee to give the archer on the ledge a tougher shot due to cover from the guy I fight. On the grid, my enemy may on his turn shift to open that line up. These can be done movement, no statement of intent.

In TotM each can state that intent state that goal and get a sure, no or a yes but choice (if we are focused on a more grid-like result) or it can be handled as an opposed check of athletics to determine which of the melee combatants gets to decide for this exchange.

 

[Oofta]

Not to contest your opinion, but I would like to highlight again that the crux of the matter is not really the grid but the tokens/minis. It's the visual aid that makes positioning and distance/area measurements easier to track, therefore enabling highly complex battles, not the fact that the battlemat is divided into squares (in fact the mass battles of miniature games are normally played on a gridless mat).

Using the term "grid" may have been a little misleading on my part, although the vast majority of time we have used a grid. I've also done games where we just drew on something and had a scale (say 1 inch is 1 foot). A lot of war games work that way, you just have to be ready to whip out the tape measure/measuring string once in a while.

Just giving an alternative viewpoint on all of this. While I can envision things well in my head, I am more of a visual person. Even at work if we're discussing something complex i use a whiteboard 80% of the time, it just helps me keep track of things and explain what I'm thinking.

If I did TOTM I'd probably have a whiteboard so that I could sketch out the location Of course then I'd want those multi-colored magnets to indicate people/monsters positions as they move around. Some easy way of measuring distances might be nice ... wait a minute ... it would be easier if the white board was on the table and people could just move their own token. Hmm.

 

[robus]

Works best with smaller groups (usually 3), because more than that and people start forgetting who's fighting who and where. Also, give a lot of latitude to player's ideas and actions, since they're automatically going to be rough descriptions.

It does require a DM who is prepared to narrate the combat in and out of turns so that the players are continuously updated as to the state of play. The AngryGM has an excellent post to that effect: https://theangrygm.com/manage-combat-like-a-dolphin/

 

[Retreater]

I had gotten very tired of the grid combat that was the focus of 3.x/PF. Since I had started DMing in 2nd edition without a battle grid, I was excited to get back to "theater of the mind."
It went okay for a few months, then I found out a few things. My groups consisted of no one who had played AD&D. Everyone came from a background of 3.x, 4E, or was new to D&D altogether. They had difficulty understanding where creatures were. What their options were. Who was attacking whom. Theater of the mind actually slowed down the game as I had to explain everything on every player's turn, sometimes multiple times. And then we'd argue about it. Most times I would have to sketch out a map anyway just to clarify things.
This wasn't happening in a solitary gaming group either. I run 5e for three different groups.
So then I got out the battle grid, the minis, 3D terrain. The level of excitement among the players exploded. Combats are faster, played with greater use of tactics, positioning arguments fell by the wayside.
While I think theater of the mind is great for investigative games where you're not supposed to fight (Call of Cthulhu comes to mind), I think any game system that focuses on combat and adventure (which I would say D&D is - at least for me) benefits from battlegrids.

 

[S'mon]

I have had great and bad experiences with both grid and totm so I cannot say one is better. TOTM works best if you avoid thinking of n/pcs as being in any precise location and embrace the continuous fluid nature of combat. It works best with side based initiative. If you try to visualise a grid and stop motion combat in TOTM it will be bad.

 

[pogre]

TotM is great! As I said I have played that way many times. But, the TOYS are so much fun!




It's all entirely unnecessary - I fully acknowledge. However, I also reject the notion that using minis and the like reduce roleplaying at the table. That's not true at all in my experience.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

When we play on a grid, movements are precise - specific route to specific points around specifically placed objects. The **same kinda of choices are made** but they are made by specific patterns on the grid. AoEs are placed with precision. Lines of fire may intersect for cover **leading to decisions being made" that create or escape such conditions.

I mean, you say they're precise, but they aren't really. D&D miniatures rules don't allow for precise positioning. They only allow for positioning within 5 feet, which is a huge range.

If you look at fireball placement, for example, some people find it unrealistic that you can line up a fireball so that it hurts the area next to your fighter ally but doesn't hurt that ally at all. (And then they introduce house rules for scatter, or Arcana checks to aim correctly, or whatever.) What they don't understand is that it only looks precise, in the simplified model with the miniatures. Within the reality of the game world, the edge of the fireball doesn't brush right up against your fighter's feet; if you were actually looking at the scene, you would see the edge of the fireball stopping like 2-9 feet away from the fighter.

Likewise, if the party enters a room, and you describe a kobold in front of the far door, then you've already described the kobold's position with greater precision that what the grid says. In theater of the mind, you know that the kobold is in front of that door; but if you translate it into grid play, you only know that it's somewhere within a huge 25 square foot area.

 

[Campbell]

My own experience with 5e is that it is ill suited for Theater of the Mind. We are talking about a game that has extremely variable movement ranges (our current party ranges from 20 ft to 35 ft), a host of knock back effects, auras of varying ranges, area of effect attacks of varying ranges, and effects that key off of proximity. I mean if you don't care about getting this stuff right it's not a big deal, but that's the case for any game. The only real support for Theater of the Mind in 5e is them telling you it is supported.

I don't want this to come off as an attack on the game. I really do think 5e is a pretty well designed game for the most part - just not one that works well without a grid. This is particularly the case when you look at games like Unity, 13th Age, Fate, Dungeon World, Exalted 3e, and Edge of the Empire that have been designed from the ground up to be played without a grid.