"Theater of the Mind" or Map and Minis?

[ccs]

I hate TotM mainly because when I play characters that don't want to get hit, the grid makes sure there are no shenanigans from the DM to put something in front of me that shouldn't be there. I have a very tactical mind and need to see where everything is.

Well, we don't always get what we want....

Besides, it's not the thing that "shouldn't" be in front of you these characters need to worry about. It's the thing you're backing up into.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Count me in on the "I voted Other because I make it depend on battle".

Switching between theater of mind and grid-based seems the most fun and keeps days with many battle more interesting too. Theater of mind also allows various interesting variations ranging from only keeping track of the distance in ranged combat (so basically 1D combat) to having certain "nodes" (e.g. East, West, North, South, Center).

 

[Ath-kethin]

I still have my old HeroQuest boardgame from the early 90s, and no matter what the differences may be in rules set, battles on a grid always feel like playing that game.

I do TotM exclusively, and I have for 25 years.

 

[Harzel]

I use a grid, but am trying to move to gridless battlemap. Currently mainly 2D, but would like to use 3D representations because I think it greatly enhances players' (chances for) tactical thinking. To me, relying solely on verbal descriptions seems to result in either an impoverished* environment or really lengthy descriptions, and to disadvantage players who do not visualize well. (However, it also seems clear that for some groups those issues are not big concerns.)

I am confused by people saying there are encounters in which there is "nothing interesting" about the environment as if that was something that occurred naturally. Unless your setting is a featureless plain, there's always going to be something that the PCs might find useful if only they knew that it was there.

*Ok, "impoverished" might not be a really good word choice, since many DMs can provide, do provide, and pride themselves on providing a lot of nice evocative detail in their environmental descriptions. It's just that it is generally going to narrow in on what the DM thinks is interesting, whereas the construction of a concrete visual representation generally forces the inclusion of a good deal of additional detail that the DM may consider random or uninteresting, but which the PCs might find useful. Of course, it is still a matter of degree - even a lavish 3D construction will still omit many possibly interesting details. Also, I'm not suggesting that maps or constructions can replace a good verbal description - they're just a highly valuable (IMO) complement.

 

[JonnyP71]

Other.

Mostly use a whiteboard, minis, just a rough sketch of the current area, no grid, no measuring, no fussing about 5' here and there, no counting squares.

We play quite a few games TotM too.

Never a grid. Hate the things.

 

[Morrus]

Both. Depends on the situation, size of the encounter, how important/tactical it is, whether the terrain is important, all sorts of things. Basically I use the best tool for the job at hand.

 

[Shiroiken]

IRL games I normally prefer TotM, with sketch maps as needed to describe the area. Battlemaps can take a while to set up and break the flow of the game.

On Roll20 we almost always use a grid, since it comes with one. Little to no time is needed to set it up during the session (since it's all done before the game), and you can flow from exploration to combat and back with little transition time. For overland travel, we use a hex-grid, but it take so much more effort to properly draw a hex battlemap that it's not worth it.

 

[fjw70]

Other.

Mostly use a whiteboard, minis, just a rough sketch of the current area, no grid, no measuring, no fussing about 5' here and there, no counting squares.

I have started using this more over the last couple years. I prefer it to a grid but my best dry erase maps are gridded.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I like grids. My players like grids. Every edition of D&D was designed to accomodate for grids. If an encounter is small, basic, and doesn't require a grid, it's probably not an interesting encounter and I don't bother players with boring stuff.

Interestingly enough, I have no problem running more narrative-based games without a grid or map. To me, D&D has always been a more tactical game (or at least, it is an attractive feature).

 

[Warpiglet]

I voted "other" as I'm torn with this question. I live painting minis but find grid combat inconvenient and/or time consuming where as theatre of the mind seems so freeing. I'll be running CoS in the fall and so I've been watching DCA and Chris Perkins does a real great job of theatre of the mind. The rogue even does tactical moves. I can only hope I can replicate that.

Exactly. We do a mix. We have minis and standard cut walls labelled 5, 10, 15, 25, 50, 90, 100 feet respectively. When combat happens, we eyeball it and DM says close enough or whatever consensus is and it plays fast but we have some eye candy as well.