D&D is a broad church, and if a particular group enjoys tactical board-gaming it, that's fine. However, my beef is that the grid seems pretty ubiquitous, and this forces a playing style on the game. I view grid play as much less flexible than non-grid. I will set out my reasons for why I don't like the grid, and why I think it's a shame that so many games default to using it.
I never used minis back in the day (80s and 90s), and never encountered a group who used them. However, the players mapped out dungeons as they explored, so we did have something visual (which was closely tied to what the characters knew, as they mapped it themselves). It never occurred to us to use minis, and when players did buy minis to represent their characters (although finding one that actually looks right is next to impossible anyway), we never put them on the map. What was the point? Using minis was always what non-players thought you did (D&D must be a "board game").
Having tried minis in the late 90s, I still don't see the point of using them. It just turns the game into a tactical minis affair every time there's a fight. Yes, if you're obsessed with the precise locations of actors in a combat, then it's essential, but you don't have to worry about that. If you want to, that's fine - but I worry that a lot of players think you
have to do it, and that it has become the de-facto default. Indeed, much discussion online indicates that many players are mystified as to how you could ever do D&D without the grid. To me, non-grid is just the intuitive way to play - it's easy. There's no "how do I?" about it - just stop using it and relax about the precise locations of things.
In addition to slowing down the game every time combat occurs, it drops you into (what is IMO) a shallow "move and roll" tactical game instead of an RPG. I say this as a board wargamer, who loves (good) combat-based board games.
Other problems:
- It puts the game into another "mode" when combat starts (I realise that is inevitable as soon as the DM says "roll for initiative", but it exaggerates the effect). Like a computer JRPG, it makes me think of a dissolve, then everyone appears on a literal board. Instead of flowing naturally into combat and non-combat (you might run off - that's still part of the combat) - you're locked into combat mode, tactically and in your imagination.
- Visually, the grid puts players in the gods'-eye position (it takes them still further out of character). For me, an RPG should put players into their characters, whether they are a full-on role-player type or a tactician. Giving them a gods' eye view fights against this.
- If using purchased terrain, this constrains what the DM can do with his/her layouts and also forces a particular aesthetic on the campaign.
- It reduces the enemies in stature. Large monster minis (anything maybe Ogre-sized or bigger) do look impressive IMO, but human-sized foes look insignificant. Instead of facing down a roaring, slavering Orc, you're looking down at a little guy on the battlefield that people are literally picking up with their thumb and forefinger.
I get that some people love painting minis, but that's a separate activity. I might like knitting, but it doesn't mean I should put a pair of socks on the table every time we play. Likewise, there are plenty of tactical minis games out there, and dungeon-crawl type board games if you want to do that. It's a different thing from an RPG (even though D&D emerged from a tactical minis game, the point is that the early players evolved it away from that).
I'm very glad that non-grid is the default in 5e, but I'm somewhat alarmed at how popular the grid still seems to be.
