D&D 5E Battlemap Vs. Theater of the Mind

[Sage Genesis]

First of all, let me remind that that I said:
"Note that I'm not saying that everybody must play the game like this, only that the game presents itself like this."


But second, the fact that you have to say "you can get four of the orcs" itself takes time, plus it means someone was asking the question and before that wondering about it. All of which takes maybe a few seconds, not a huge deal. But it's still time and it all adds up. If you're playing 13th Age that question would not even get asked - the spell itself immediately gives you the answer without much room for questions like these. Have you played it? Or The One Ring? Because if you haven't then, respectfully, you're not really in a good position to compare the two.

Also, saying a manticore is at 100 feet is not the same as saying it's far away. Because if you have a spell with a range of 90' (e.g. Hex) then you first have to move forwards, which under the circumstances may be tricky. But if you want to use a spell with a range of 60' (e.g. Polymorph) then you first have to move forwards twice and you may need to revise your plan entirely. 13th Age only recognizes three ranges: Engaged in melee, nearby, and far away. If you think that doesn't shave off a lot of time then I urge you to actually play the game some time because you might be in for a pleasant surprise.

 

[Grainger]

First of all, let me remind that that I said:
"Note that I'm not saying that everybody must play the game like this, only that the game presents itself like this."


But second, the fact that you have to say "you can get four of the orcs" itself takes time, plus it means someone was asking the question and before that wondering about it. All of which takes maybe a few seconds, not a huge deal. But it's still time and it all adds up. If you're playing 13th Age that question would not even get asked - the spell itself immediately gives you the answer without much room for questions like these. Have you played it? Or The One Ring? Because if you haven't then, respectfully, you're not really in a good position to compare the two.

Also, saying a manticore is at 100 feet is not the same as saying it's far away. Because if you have a spell with a range of 90' (e.g. Hex) then you first have to move forwards, which under the circumstances may be tricky. But if you want to use a spell with a range of 60' (e.g. Polymorph) then you first have to move forwards twice and you may need to revise your plan entirely. 13th Age only recognizes three ranges: Engaged in melee, nearby, and far away. If you think that doesn't shave off a lot of time then I urge you to actually play the game some time because you might be in for a pleasant surprise.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. No, I haven't played them (and doubt I will get the time/chance in the foreseeable future), but that's all clear.

 

[Mercule]

Ever since I started playing D&D with the blue box, grids or battle mats help end arguments. I call it an equal trade.

This. I can't even count the number of times TotM has ended up with two (or more) different plays happening at the same time. If the rules/genre call for tactical play, battle mats are very helpful.

We tried TotM for a bit during Phandelver. There was a strong consensus (with pitchforks) for going back to mats. I've considered trying gridless mats, though. I also still use TotM for encounters I expect to be a PC showcase.

The above only goes for D&D. I can't imagine pulling out a mat for, say, Mage. Maybe a back-of-napkin drawing of the room, but nothing more. I've also run low-combat D&D games where a mat would've gotten in the way.

 

[Grainger]

Also, saying a manticore is at 100 feet is not the same as saying it's far away. Because if you have a spell with a range of 90' (e.g. Hex) then you first have to move forwards, which under the circumstances may be tricky. But if you want to use a spell with a range of 60' (e.g. Polymorph) then you first have to move forwards twice and you may need to revise your plan entirely.

Actually, thinking about this some more, I stand by what I said, but I think we're talking at cross purposes. What you say is true enough, if you slavishly follow the measurements and movement rate in the rules, but I don't do that: I just use them as a rough guide:

Player: "The manticores are just out range. Can I move forwards to get the manticores in range?".
Me: "Yes".

Job done. And it's no different at all to the player saying "can I move from long range to medium range?" and me saying "yes".

I seldom have encounters where distances matter very much (pretty much like a game where you only deal with ranges in terms of "short", "medium" and "long" in fact).

Actually, now I think of it, every D&D game I've played in (note: none of them are 3e or 4e) used Theatre of the Mind, and none worried too much about ranges. So in my experience, miniatures are a rarity, as is worrying about measured distances; I am actually the only DM I've encountered who uses grids at all, and I only do so in exceptional circumstances!

And herein lies our disagreement, I think, because we have different assumptions about what "off grid" means. My way of playing is pretty quick - negligibly slower than using "long", "short" etc. as ranges. [and come to think of it, I have played a game with vague range bands - the FFG Star Wars RPG - and yep, it was pretty much the same as how I've always run (and played) D&D].

As far as I'm concerned, the measurements are in the D&D rules are there for people who (optionally) play on a grid. Otherwise, IMO you shouldn't fret about them too much. No wonder, though, "Theatre of the Mind" seems confusing, or takes too long, if people are measuring things to the foot and trying to keep that all in their heads! And no wonder they're giving up and "going back" to grid style play. Crikey, that's way too much work when you're running an encounter. Do people really use the distances and movement speeds religiously in Theatre of the Mind?!

I feel like the scales have fallen from my eyes. All those people saying - when 5e came out - that they'd need to remember how to play gridless, or that they found it too hard - now makes sense!

I don't want to say BadWrongFun, but... why make it unduly complicated, and have to give up and go to grid-style play*?



*There's nothing wrong with grid-style play if you want a more tactical experience, of course, if that's what you actually want, rather than feeling that you need to use it, because theatre-of-the-mind is somehow too difficult or slow.

 

[iserith]

To me, there is little worse than the DM framing up an exciting moment and asking the player "What do you do?" only to have that player start in with questions before acting. When I see/hear this happen in podcasts, it drives me up a wall. Nothing ruins scene-building and storytelling worse than players asking questions of the DM in my view. Having a grid helps with this, and the group needn't be sticklers for exact positioning, hard corners, diagonals, or what have you.

This mini-game of 20 Questions that seems to be so common these days can be mitigated in ToTM play by good re-framing of the scene by the DM prior to each player's turn and allowing players to answer their own questions. But a grid is best in my view for eliminating this issue.

 

[halfling rogue]

I was introduced to D&D with 3.5 and had no idea that the game could be played without a battle mat. I just assumed that was how the game worked. But as I went on I discovered that in the days of yore some folk actually played using only their imagination. But it never seemed like it could transfer to the game I was playing. Then 5e happened and it all clicked for me.

Now I run the game with a heavy emphasis on TotM but I do use visual reference. Normally a sheet of paper and draw out the scene rather haphazardly. Mostly indicating the characters/monsters by initials or numbers or X's and O's. Sometimes we use distance if it seems necessary, but other times we revert to "long way off". If it's a busy fight we might visually track it like a football play. I've only used mini's and a large grid just once during 5e and game play was just as fun. So while I really like the flex and freedom the TotM+paper offers, I'm cool with whatever everyone has the most fun with.

 

[Grainger]

To me, there is little worse than the DM framing up an exciting moment and asking the player "What do you do?" only to have that player start in with questions before acting. When I see/hear this happen in podcasts, it drives me up a wall. Nothing ruins scene-building and storytelling worse than players asking questions of the DM in my view. Having a grid helps with this, and the group needn't be sticklers for exact positioning, hard corners, diagonals, or what have you.

This mini-game of 20 Questions that seems to be so common these days can be mitigated in ToTM play by good re-framing of the scene by the DM prior to each player's turn and allowing players to answer their own questions. But a grid is best in my view for eliminating this issue.

I don't see why a little back-and-forth is so bad, but it doesn't really happen a lot during combat in my games anyway. I just describe the situation (briefly), and we just get stuck in... It's pretty rare that ranges come into it, and when they do, one or two questions clear it up. I'd much rather that than a grid which IMO reduces immersion far more (see my earlier post for several reasons why I think this is so).

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I was introduced to D&D with 3.5 and had no idea that the game could be played without a battle mat. I just assumed that was how the game worked. But as I went on I discovered that in the days of yore some folk actually played using only their imagination. But it never seemed like it could transfer to the game I was playing. Then 5e happened and it all clicked for me.

Now I run the game with a heavy emphasis on TotM but I do use visual reference. Normally a sheet of paper and draw out the scene rather haphazardly. Mostly indicating the characters/monsters by initials or numbers or X's and O's. Sometimes we use distance if it seems necessary, but other times we revert to "long way off". If it's a busy fight we might visually track it like a football play. I've only used mini's and a large grid just once during 5e and game play was just as fun. So while I really like the flex and freedom the TotM+paper offers, I'm cool with whatever everyone has the most fun with.

I've seen a hybrid method like this work very well. IMHO, it encourages more improvised, heroic actions than a straight grid does. Grids tend to lend themselves to using 'standard' movements and actions. Providing a drawn example of the scene and scale lends itself to the DM and players all getting a common impression of the situation, which helps remove the 20-Questions effect and speed up play.

 

[Grainger]

To me, there is little worse than the DM framing up an exciting moment and asking the player "What do you do?" only to have that player start in with questions before acting. When I see/hear this happen in podcasts, it drives me up a wall. Nothing ruins scene-building and storytelling worse than players asking questions of the DM in my view. Having a grid helps with this, and the group needn't be sticklers for exact positioning, hard corners, diagonals, or what have you.

This mini-game of 20 Questions that seems to be so common these days can be mitigated in ToTM play by good re-framing of the scene by the DM prior to each player's turn and allowing players to answer their own questions. But a grid is best in my view for eliminating this issue.

Also, I don't think either method is quicker than the other.

A - the DM says "almost before you can react, you hear a loud roaring, a rushing of wings, and a red dragon is upon you... it's about 50 feet away, and it looks like it's going to breathe... roll initiative". Bang, you're in combat, but players might have questions re. range, or where they can hide, etc.!
B - the DM says the same thing, but then sets up minis or counters for a while, and then says "roll initiative" (or, at best, has them roll while he/she sets up the minis, but there's still a delay). However, the players probably have fewer questions in their first turns (but they might think of some!).

To me, A is far more fluid initially, and it allows ad-hoc encounters far better. But I don't think either is inherently more fluid overall - it just depends on whether you want a very quick transition into the first player's turn, or whether you'd rather each first turn was quicker.

 

[iserith]

I don't see why a little back-and-forth is so bad, but it doesn't really happen a lot during combat in my games anyway. I just describe the situation (briefly), and we just get stuck in... It's pretty rare that ranges come into it, and when they do, one or two questions clear it up. I'd much rather that than a grid which IMO reduces immersion far more (see my earlier post for several reasons why I think this is so).

I heartily recommend trying out a game where there are no such questions. Where the DM's description flows right into the players' description and back again unabated. Where everyone has situational awareness and the narrative control to answer their own questions and act freely. I don't spend much time worrying about immersion because it's something I can control internally, but if you're one to have your immersion affected by external factors, I bet a "No Questions" policy (outside of character dialogue) would be something you'd find quite immersive. You can even read the transcripts from my game if you like.

This is a bit off-topic, of course, but it's a reason why I think a grid is a boon.