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

[The Crimson Binome]

You mention AoE spells. I do like how 13th Age does it, where spells and target "Up to two nearby enemies" or "1d4+1 nearby allies". Perhaps a guideline to convert AoEs to that format would be useful.

There are issues with that approach, where you may end up with details that over-constrain the reality on the ground. If the wizard hits three enemies with their burning hands, and then the sorcerer ends up fireballing the whole group (including the wizard) but misses one of the enemies and hits another enemy that's further away, then it can be hard for someone following along to figure out where anyone really is at any point.

The basic assumption of 5E is that the only difference between TotM and grid play is whether the DM keeps the picture in their head, or whether they draw it out for everyone to see. The 13th Age seems to be written under the assumption that miniatures cannot be used, because defining such positions would contradict their targeting conventions. Do you know if they have optional rules, to reconcile the two by defining more concrete shapes for their effects?

 

[robus]

You mention AoE spells. I do like how 13th Age does it, where spells and target "Up to two nearby enemies" or "1d4+1 nearby allies". Perhaps a guideline to convert AoEs to that format would be useful.

I really need to pick up the Roshambo approach.

The PDF is only 4 pages and half of that is example scenarios Perfect thing to peruse over a coffee.

 

[Oofta]

I'm going to be a contrarian here ... and just throw in my two cents of why I don't like TOTM.

A little background first. I started playing D&D with the brown box set, but we quickly transitioned to the basic rules and AD&D. We didn't have any minis and for a while used TOTM but we found that things got quite confusing whenever we tried to run more complex battles. So we created tokens from pieces of paper to show relative positions. Eventually I moved on from paper tokens (although I still use them from time to time) bought a grid and painted a bunch of minis. I never looked back.

The thing for me is that I like to vary encounters. A lot. Occasionally the PCs may be fighting a single monster, but it's just as likely they'll be fighting a dozen or more, potentially coming in waves from different directions while the building is on fire because the mage decided a fireball in a warehouse was a good idea.

It simply gets to be too much to keep track of. For combats that are simple enough and easy enough that I don't need to care, I probably wouldn't even bother to run the combat. Maybe part of it is that I don't want to broadcast the difficulty of an encounter before it starts - if easy/simple encounters are TOTM while tougher fights use a grid, the players will know when we start what kind of encounter they're getting.

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.

 

[Blue]

There are issues with that approach, where you may end up with details that over-constrain the reality on the ground. If the wizard hits three enemies with their burning hands, and then the sorcerer ends up fireballing the whole group (including the wizard) but misses one of the enemies and hits another enemy that's further away, then it can be hard for someone following along to figure out where anyone really is at any point.

The basic assumption of 5E is that the only difference between TotM and grid play is whether the DM keeps the picture in their head, or whether they draw it out for everyone to see. The 13th Age seems to be written under the assumption that miniatures cannot be used, because defining such positions would contradict their targeting conventions. Do you know if they have optional rules, to reconcile the two by defining more concrete shapes for their effects?

The do not have any optional rules for areas of effect, nor any of the assorted supported miscellany such as precise movement speeds, or weapon ranges besides "nearby" and "far".

But you can get a magic missile like spell targetting "one nearby or far away enemy" (with increases in targets but no need for grouping), or burning hands targetting "up to two nearby enemies in a group". The "...in a group" is seems to address what you are talking about. (Or the related "one or more enemies engaged with you").

If you are looking for highly tactical crunchy combat, 13th Age isn't your game. It specializes in fast moving, anti-grind*, epic action** combat.

* Anti-grind - the game mathematically starts players in a bit of a hole, but after the first round end it introduces the Escalation Die, which climbs each round until it's 6. PCs (and some types of foes, like dragons), add this to their attack rolls. (Saves are attacks vs. alternate defenses, like in 4e).

** Epic Action - there are a lot of features to give PCs actions beyond just the dice. For example a rogue might have a talent that allows a Swashbuckling move once per combat - which is a guaranteed successful cool move, like swinging on chandeliers or whatever. Attacks aren't guarenteed. A ranger could have a terrain stunt where they get somethign special and extra out of the terrain int he same way. Wizards can take a talent to let them customize their spells in non-numeric ways each time, etc.

 

[5ekyu]

I am tired of grids and miniatures and fiddly tactical rules. In days long gone, we used to play D&D without any of that. I think I have forgotten how.

Tell me about how you have succeeded (or failed!) with no grid/table/squares combat in 5E. Do you reduce the importance of combat generally? Do you just wing it, or do you use a "concrete" TotM system? Do you sometimes use minis (for "important battles, for example) or have you sworn off them entirely? Have you changed the combat rules in other ways to enhance the use of TotM? Have you changed the non-combat rules of the game as well? What do you do about "builds" (such as they are in 5E) that rely on 5 foot squares and other gridded movement/fighting rules bits?

Thanks!

I think the key to TotM is descriptions presented in terms of choices, not measurements.

Do not say someone is 40 feet down the corridor but "a quick dash" etc. Someone closer is "close by" and right next to you is "on top of you" etc.

When a GM presents scenes and describes positions and locations scenery and moves, do so in a way that make options clear.

When it's on a grid, numbers are fine, but TotM you really need a vocabulary of options and choices.

Spell distances most of the time work out ok, 10, 30, 60, 120 etc fit in nicely with the usual 30' movement blocks, reach and melee. You can present them in choices as well.

A good resource is the dmg chart for expected aoe targets by shape and size - then adjust up or down for tight and spread out.

That's my experience... using TotM for even big dncounters.

Oh and one more thing... do the same with scenery... think about it when you add scenery - what can it do or be used for - and then describe it in ways to make those options clear or at least noticable. Not just tall bookshelf but a tall thin bookshelf way overloaded and overstuffed with tones and scroll that creaks and wobbles at most any disturbance.

It's also good to foreshadow... a prior library with similar shelves where they saw them fragile or fallen means they dont hav yo guess about these in the room with the fight.

Foreshadowed also allows you to contrast - unlike the other room, these shelves...

 

[Burnside]

As a DM, I ran all of Lost Mine of Phandelver, as well as Death House and several other adventures, entirely ToTM. I ran Sunless Citadel more or less completely with minis, and am currently running Curse of Strahd with a mix of ToTM and minis. I had zero issues running 5E ToTM and very much believe all 5E adventures could be run that way. Combat works fine. Engagement still happens. Attacks of opportunity still happens. Cover still happens.

I find using minis for combats to be very fun in some situations. But I think it's a little strange when people feel they need to have minis and grids. I think all the published adventures are pretty much written with the assumption you'll be running them ToTM, and that is how Chris Perkins runs them himself.

Props, maps, minis, etc. can be really fun and can absolutely enhance a game. But for me part of the beauty of D&D is how little you really physically need to play it. If you don't "need" minis, you can play on a train or plane, on the phone or via audio-only Skype or Discord, with limited space, with limited money, etc. And you're less bound by what is pre-planned and what is physically present in terms of available maps, minis, and props - it's sometimes more liberating, particularly in a sandbox adventure, not to be bound by those things.

 

[5ekyu]

Opportunity attacks only occur when you leave someone's reach, which is an obscure condition that is unlikely to show up in most combats. If both melee groups just run at each other, and the ranged people hang back, then nobody will be in a position where they would provoke an opportunity attack anyway.
It's somewhat more difficult than not using the rule, since now you need to describe those exact positions you see in your head, instead of just saying whether or not someone is within reach. I mean, that's the sort of information which is much more easily conveyed with miniatures.

Likewise, if everyone has a reason to care about being in the exact right position (because of flanking), then you're more likely to provoke an opportunity attack as you move into that position. It can get very complicated very quickly, as compared to melee people only moving close enough to attack and never having a reason to leave an enemy's reach.

Well, AO are not as rare in combats in my games as you seem to describe them. The easy ones of "i leave your reach after starting in it" they are easy but at times its also a case of rushing past someone to get to someone else.

Again to me this comes back to choices... make it clear when someone moves into a given position that they are cutting themselves off from the shaman or putting the other melee in between them and the shaman or they are moving in between... basically let each change of position be one where *if you see it as an issue** you give them choices.

if you let the three battles move into place without telling anyone "are you willing to move in between..." or something like that, then its a clear shot.

Make complications a choice or a defined thing *before* the moment comes up. To me that at the heart of TotM - no surprise "oh but you last move now prevents..." that would lead to "but i would not have done it..." issues.

For flanking, my rule was if two of you get on someone and stay there, once both of you have started a turn with both of you there (IE both had a chance to adjust and position) you get flanking. That replaces the problems of actually getting in there the first turn with and keeping it with a delay to position.

The trap IMO is to play an abstract scene with abstract guesstimate positions and suddenly drop into non-abstract specifics that depend on positions to the specific facing etc.

That way lies "disgruntled" players.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Again to me this comes back to choices... make it clear when someone moves into a given position that they are cutting themselves off from the shaman or putting the other melee in between them and the shaman or they are moving in between... basically let each change of position be one where *if you see it as an issue** you give them choices.

Okay, but how do you objectively determine whether or not something would be an issue, if you aren't perfectly visualizing the entire grid in your head? Do you just wing it?

For flanking, my rule was if two of you get on someone and stay there, once both of you have started a turn with both of you there (IE both had a chance to adjust and position) you get flanking. That replaces the problems of actually getting in there the first turn with and keeping it with a delay to position.

When I've played through these kinds of combats on a grid, I've noticed that moving to flank will often provoke an opportunity attack from one of the other enemies. Are you accounting for that?

One of the big dangers of using TotM, and one of the reasons I don't use the flanking rule, is that I don't want the outcome of a fight to be any different as a result of that choice. TotM is supposed to be faster than using miniatures, because you're not taking the time to draw it out, but it shouldn't change any of the decisions that the characters make. It's a map and territory issue, and if changes to the map impose changes on the territory, then that would be very weird.

Make complications a choice or a defined thing *before* the moment comes up. To me that at the heart of TotM - no surprise "oh but you last move now prevents..." that would lead to "but i would not have done it..." issues.

I think I kinda get what you're saying. When I'm tracking everything on my mental map, if someone winds up in a situation where they would have moved slightly differently if I had described things better, then I give them the benefit of the doubt and update my mental map. If someone thinks that they're close enough to throw a javelin, and they would have moved closer if there had been a grid to show them the exact distance, then I'll let them retroactively have moved closer.

 

[5ekyu]

Okay, but how do you objectively determine whether or not something would be an issue, if you aren't perfectly visualizing the entire grid in your head? Do you just wing it?
When I've played through these kinds of combats on a grid, I've noticed that moving to flank will often provoke an opportunity attack from one of the other enemies. Are you accounting for that?

One of the big dangers of using TotM, and one of the reasons I don't use the flanking rule, is that I don't want the outcome of a fight to be any different as a result of that choice. TotM is supposed to be faster than using miniatures, because you're not taking the time to draw it out, but it shouldn't change any of the decisions that the characters make. It's a map and territory issue, and if changes to the map impose changes on the territory, then that would be very weird.
I think I kinda get what you're saying. When I'm tracking everything on my mental map, if someone winds up in a situation where they would have moved slightly differently if I had described things better, then I give them the benefit of the doubt and update my mental map. If someone thinks that they're close enough to throw a javelin, and they would have moved closer if there had been a grid to show them the exact distance, then I'll let them retroactively have moved closer.

Let me start with a concept i borrow from science of "false precision" where my take on it is "if i am gonnacmeasureone or two ingredients based on heapingbucketfulls, deciding to use a milligram scale on a third ingredient is wasted precision.

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".

So with me TotM is not about objective or precise recreation of grid play, its about choices and letting choices matter.

When i set up a scene on grid, if there is a gap or a qurstion i try to think who decided this went here and so that guides my choice on where in the grid it occurs.

Same with TotM but instead of choice drivong dedign then they choosing how to exploit, its more about direct choice.

So i do not worry about objectively picking if two things are in the way... I ask myself "is anyone intentionally wanting to put it in the way or intentionally not?"

Basically i tend to ignore the "by accident we managed to get in the wsy" with TotM and focus more on letting intention be more front and center.

As for the AO on approach, i am ok with not doing that since i am applying an extra delay of both characters starting a turn with both in range. It works close enough.

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.

 

[Shiroiken]

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.