D&D 5E Review of New Players Handbook Posted at Acts of Geek...

[KarinsDad]

As I read it, the vagueness referred to is not in the rules, but in their application in actual play - that is, without a grid it is not clear who is within 5', or 10', or whatever, of whom. Similarly, I think this is why the reviewer thinks that the cover rules create "more room for arguing". The arguments that are anticipated are arguments about who is how far from what.

This.

It happened in our Starter Set session. I told players to ignore the square grid and put their PCs where they wanted them to go. Since miniatures were all over the place, there were a few times where it was difficult to tell if a close miniature was actually an adjacent miniature.

In theater of the mind, this would be a nightmare for my group (especially between my wife and myself who can misinterpret each other merely from tone of voice ). I can totally understand how the reviewer could anticipate arguments within theater of the mind with 5E rules.

 

[Bumamgar]

If someone thinks that "theatre of the mind" in a system where movement, ranges etc are defined down to 5' increments, and which has OA rules based on those increments, involves vagueness and nebulousness, I don't think your example is going to change his/her mind. I think they'd take it to prove their point!

Good point. I also tend to not worry about things to the level of 5' increments, regardless of how the rules are written or the edition we're playing. To me, the various concepts of facing, 5' steps, precising flanking and positioning are all too simulationist / wargamy to bother with. Our group much prefers just getting on with the action and the story rather than measuring out movement on a grid. I still use the various rules for things like disengaging, allies within 5' for sneak attack, etc. We're just not that precise about it, meaning that generally it is assumed that monsters and characters in melee are within 5' of each other and therefor required to disengage if they want to avoid opportunity attacks, and that unless something specific and unusual is going on, the rogue in a grand melee with allies also in melee is going to be able to get sneak damage every round. Accordingly, the mage is also pretty much guaranteed to hit their allies with a fireball cast into melee as well.

I spent years playing 3.5 and then 4e with precise grid-based combat, and frankly, it just got to be very tedious. It also led to a lot of what I considered to be cheese (ie: dropping a fireball in melee, but with such precise positioning that it would hit a monster in melee with an ally but not the ally as well) More time was spent plotting and planning positioning on the battle grid than declaring actual actions. It also meant combat took forever! Too each their own, but it's just not a style that our group enjoys.

 

[KarinsDad]

First off, as a GM, after the Player described their actions, I would ask some clarifying questions to ensure that the Player's idea of the scene matched mine.

Trust me. You've never done theater of the mind with my wife.

There are some DMs who cannot give a good enough description (myself), there are some players who don't get it, even if the DM is good at it, and there are some players who go to the bathroom and need the description all over again.

Theater of the mind just does not work for some groups.


I personally prefer miniatures and grids (although I am switching to hexes for 5E), just so that all of that location information is instantaneously derived by the DM and all of the players without the need for more detailed descriptions and for clarifications. The DM still has to describe what the miniature represents, but he doesn't even have to state how many miniatures are there. The players can see that for themselves.

To me, creature location and movement clarifications are a waste of time.

 

[variant]

Just to be clear - you're saying that, in a context in which everything is worked out simply by description, you can't imagine someone being unclear about whether a particular PC is 5' or 10' from a particular enemy, or a particular pillar?

I've had no problems when I've DMed and with the number of DMs I've played with.

From that description, how many of the dozen or so goblins can see the character without moving? Against how many does the PC have half or 3/4 cover? How many pillars are between the PC and the entrance? Between the PC and the nearest goblin? Between the PC and the furthest goblin?

The description does not provide enough information to answer any of those questions. That is the "vagueness and nebulousness" that the reviewer is referring to. The potential for arguments arises when the player starts debating with the GM exactly how many goblins his/her PC has cover from.

First I would always recommend players to ask questions for more details that would pertain to what they have in mind and be forthright with what their character does and his intentions/objectives. "I watch closely, what are they doing?" "Are any goblins watching the door?" "Can I get close enough without getting in their reach?" "I want to toss this item in the midst of them without them seeing me."

Second recommendation is for the DM to explain details that may hamper their actions before they take them and ask questions in return if there isn't enough information provided by the players. "What's your objective?" If there are going to be obvious difficulties in their actions, I tell them straight out. "The pillars are wide enough for one person at a time to hide behind. The shadows on the right side aren't as dark as the left, but there are more goblins facing towards the left."

Thirdly, whether they ask questions or not, that is going to be some kind of stealth check against perception based on their choices and the circumstances of the encounter.

Fourth. Give them a chance via their skills to notice certain things that may help them out, even if they don't ask for details.

An argument is most likely to occur if the player believed that his/her action declaration satisfied both these descriptions - (i) my PC has moved as far into the room as s/he can while staying out of reach of the goblins, and (ii) my PC has cover from all the goblins - while the GM believes that, precisely because (i) is true, so (ii) must be false. The GM might reach this belief because s/he is envisaging the leftmost (from the PC's perspective) of the dozen-odd goblins actually has a clear line of fire to the PC hiding behind the left-hand pillar; or because s/he is envisaging the PC hiding directly behind the pillar (rather than to its left) and hence being exposed on her right flank to a goblin who is on the right side (from the PC's perspective) of the group of goblins.

There are ways of avoiding such arguments, of course. One is that the player just acquiesces to the GM's ruling. But that reduces immersion and player agency, as the player has in effect been led into a choice which makes no sense from his/her PC's point of view (because, after all, the PC could judge which goblins would have LoS to him/her, to what degree, by taking up a particular position behind a particular pillar).

Another is to allow takebacks based on clarification between the GM and player as to what exactly the player was hoping to achieve, and what the GM's conception of the ingame situation is (eg the GM explains that, to establish cover against all the goblins the PC will have to stay closer to the entrance of the hall, rather than closing as far as the initial action declaration suggested). But takebacks can be clunky in play, they obviously slow things down, and for some players they are also problematic for immersion.

Another is to use an imagined visual depiction: the GM describes the scene with geometric precision (ie quite unlike my example above), and everyone remembers and acts upon that description in making and adjudicating action declaration. But this is not really "theatre of the mind" in any meaningful sense - it is to an actual grid as blindfold chess is to chess played on an actual board. Of course, often the GM will be using an actual visual depiction, but just not making it public - in which case the "theatre of the mind" is purely in the players' minds, but not in the mind of the GM, who has some external visual representation (eg markings on a dungeon map).


I'm guessing that the reviewer doesn't find any of the above-mentioned approaches satisfactory except perhaps for the last.

I would take the players at their word that they wanted to move as far into the room as they can while staying out of reach. If they couldn't, I would tell them unless there are specific reasons why I wouldn't (ie Just rolled a 1 on a Wisdom check and they don't notice that the pillars in the room actually grow thinner as they get further into the room).

It needs to be understood that a character cannot have a battle awareness to always anticipate whether their planned action can be accomplished or done. Just as in real life a character doesn't have the ability to see the entire field of view from above. They are limited to their perspective.

Players need to go with the flow just as DMs need to go with the flow.

 

[Bumamgar]

Trust me. You've never done theater of the mind with my wife.

There are some DMs who cannot give a good enough description (myself), there are some players who don't get it, even if the DM is good at it, and there are some players who go to the bathroom and need the description all over again.

Theater of the mind just does not work for some groups.

I personally prefer miniatures and grids (although I am switching to hexes for 5E), just so that all of that location information is instantaneously derived by the DM and all of the players without the need for more detailed descriptions and for clarifications. The DM still has to describe what the miniature represents, but he doesn't even have to state how many miniatures are there. The players can see that for themselves.

To me, creature location and movement clarifications are a waste of time.

To each their own

Some players prefer a tactical game and don't enjoy theater of the mind style play. It's really just a playstyle preference and neither right nor wrong. However, I'd argue that if the group is trying to play via theater of the mind, but is worrying about precise positioning as well, then they are probably doing it wrong and should stop trying to play in the theater of mind style.

I'd also say that it generally takes a lot more time to prep for and setup grid / miniature based battles than it does to provide the occasional location and movement clarifications. In other words, I'd claim that miniatures and grids are a waste of time I only have a finite budget of time to use for prep work. With grid based combat, I'd generally spend most of that time prepping the battlemap (either planning out the various dungeon tile layouts, or drawing a map in Photoshop for VTT usage). With theater of the mind combat, I spend my prep time on designing the encounter and story instead. My group much prefers our D&D game to be about the story than the tactical combat. For me it also helps prevent DM burnout. Nothing worse than spending hours setting up a battlemap, only to have the players avoid the encounter entirely. Especially since not only was the time I spent in prep wasted, it also often meant I hadn't had time to prep alternative scenarios Granted, there are ways to alleviate some of that by using dry-erase markers and paper tokens rather then dungeon tiles and miniatures, so my example might be a tad extreme. Guess it's my OCD kicking in, but if we're going to play with a grid and miniatures, well, time for me to bust out the paints and dungeon tiles! I'm an all-or-nothing kind of guy, I guess

 

[variant]

However, I'd argue that if the group is trying to play via theater of the mind, but is worrying about precise positioning as well, then they are probably doing it wrong and should stop trying to play in the theater of mind style.

I agree with this. I think many try to play with a grid and miniatures without the actual grid and miniatures.

 

[Dausuul]

Theater of the mind certainly does not work for everybody, and in D&D it often requires some effort to clarify who is where doing what to whom. At my table, what happens is a player declares an action; I warn of a consequence to that action; the player decides whether to carry on or do something else. This would be typical:

Player: "I move up and attack the lich."
Me: "If you do, you'll provoke opportunity attacks from two of the skeleton warriors."
Player: "Crap. Those guys hit way too hard."
Other Player: "We really need to take down that lich, dude. I can't take another of those fireballs."
Me: "The lich looks pretty beat-up. Half his ribs are gone and there's a big hole in his skull."
Player: "Is there any way I can circle around the skeleton warriors?"
Me: "Sure, but you'll have to spend your action moving. You can get next to the lich, but you won't be able to attack this turn."
Player: "I'll do that, and then I'll Action Surge and attack."
Me: "Sounds good. Go for it."

This approach only works if a) the players are willing to trust the DM rather than argue over positioning details, b) the DM is willing to be reasonable, and c) the DM is careful to always warn players when they're doing something with possible unforeseen consequences. If the DM tries to play "gotcha" games--just having the skeleton warriors take OAs instead of warning the player--then it's going to go badly. But "gotcha" games tend to go badly anyhow.

It's worth noting that 5E does contain some significant changes from 3E in order to aid TotM. The two big ones are a) you only trigger OAs when moving out of somebody's reach, instead of any time you change squares, and b) flanking is no longer a thing. The effect of these is that you no longer need to know exactly which square somebody's on; you only need to know who's in melee range (except where reach is involved).

A review that delved into these issues would be very interesting. Sadly, this was not that review.

 

[drjones]

I spent years playing 3.5 and then 4e with precise grid-based combat, and frankly, it just got to be very tedious. It also led to a lot of what I considered to be cheese (ie: dropping a fireball in melee, but with such precise positioning that it would hit a monster in melee with an ally but not the ally as well) More time was spent plotting and planning positioning on the battle grid than declaring actual actions. It also meant combat took forever! Too each their own, but it's just not a style that our group enjoys.

This totally, my group started out playing D&D minis and are very tactical players. BUT if you want to have more than one fight in a 4 hour session you can't be obsessing over every square of movement when the upshot of the whole thing is "Fighter swings sword, goblin dies".

So what I am doing is 90% ToTM. Range is pretty inconsequential, you are in melee or not, if not you are 30 feet or 60 or something. If you want to move behind the bad guy or leap over the crates hes hiding behind or something just say that is what you are doing and I will let you know if it's possible (it usually is). In this way most fights (which are more about attrition and quick bursts of action) go by in 10-15 min or occasionally one round. Big set-piece fights against BBGs or with a lot of environmental effects and numerous monsters, those we can bust out the grid for so the tacticians get a chance to do their thing now and then.

You CAN do both. So far my group loves it.

 

[wedgeski]

You CAN do both. So far my group loves it.

Agree totally (in fact, after recently running some AD&D for the first time in years, I felt inspired to write a couple of articles on my blog). Don't sweat the details. Keep the game moving. Encourage drama. If you're worrying over 5-feet distances, just get the battle-mat out already!

 

[KarinsDad]

To each their own

Some players prefer a tactical game and don't enjoy theater of the mind style play. It's really just a playstyle preference and neither right nor wrong.

Agreed.

But for me, it's not a matter of tactics (and in fact, 5E removed a ton of 4E waste of time tactics). It's a matter of information.

I can listen to a book on CD, but a movie supplies me with a lot more instantaneous information. I can get the emotions of the actor by watching him, I do not have to have it described which takes more time.

However, I'd argue that if the group is trying to play via theater of the mind, but is worrying about precise positioning as well, then they are probably doing it wrong and should stop trying to play in the theater of mind style.

I'd also say that it generally takes a lot more time to prep for and setup grid / miniature based battles than it does to provide the occasional location and movement clarifications. In other words, I'd claim that miniatures and grids are a waste of time I only have a finite budget of time to use for prep work. With grid based combat, I'd generally spend most of that time prepping the battlemap (either planning out the various dungeon tile layouts, or drawing a map in Photoshop for VTT usage). With theater of the mind combat, I spend my prep time on designing the encounter and story instead. My group much prefers our D&D game to be about the story than the tactical combat. For me it also helps prevent DM burnout. Nothing worse than spending hours setting up a battlemap, only to have the players avoid the encounter entirely. Especially since not only was the time I spent in prep wasted, it also often meant I hadn't had time to prep alternative scenarios Granted, there are ways to alleviate some of that by using dry-erase markers and paper tokens rather then dungeon tiles and miniatures, so my example might be a tad extreme. Guess it's my OCD kicking in, but if we're going to play with a grid and miniatures, well, time for me to bust out the paints and dungeon tiles! I'm an all-or-nothing kind of guy, I guess

With dry markers, I can probably draw a room while describing it just as fast as you can describe it.

Prep time is only necessary if you make it necessary.

I do agree that I waste time looking for the proper miniatures

But that is because I only organize my miniatures about 2 or 3 times a year (I'm lazy) and the rest of the time, they start getting clumped together in my trays. I would like to thank you for discussing miniatures because that reminds me that I do want to go organize them in the next week for our first real 5E game.