Battlefields versus the 5' dungeon.

[Reynard]

I am not entirely sure how to label this, so I'll just explain: it occurred to me while running Pathfinder recently that we were moving through the dungeon in 5' squares, creating a sort of "game board" as we went. As opposed to moving through the dungeon via description and mindspace, and then drawing or pulling out the battlefield once initiative is rolled.

There are advantages to doing in in the "game board" fashion. There is a constant accurate positioning should things get suddenly tactical. It makes mapping easier for the players.

However, it creates some problems too. I came up with BECMI and we never, ever used a grid. Even when 3E first came out, I only used the grid when it seemed necessary. Over the years though, I have made more and more use out of the grid. I'd like to pull back. At the same time, I understand that the combat part of the game is built around tactical positioning, and you have to work harder to eliminate the grid than to embrace it.

Going into "grid mode" at the outset of tactical movement and combat makes sense to me then, but as usual I am trying to preemptively figure out what the problems would be that I don't see right now. One big one is -- how do you determine where everyone is once the grid comes out and combat starts. Can I do it randomly, within reason (i.e. "You were searching the east half of the room, so we're going to roll a d4 for which N-S axis square you're in and a d3 for which E-W axis square)? Do I let the player's pick? Before or after the enemies or whatever are revealed?

What are your thoughts? Do you use a "game board" method or a "battlefield" method?

 

[Argyle King]

Have you ever considered doing movement in the manner of tabletop wargames? One inch can still equal 5 feet (or whatever scale you decide upon) without requiring a grid. This allows a freedom of movement which is not bound by the square (or hex) structure of a grid while still maintaining the same common scale of movement which everyone is familiar with.

 

[Stormonu]

However, it creates some problems too. I came up with BECMI and we never, ever used a grid. Even when 3E first came out, I only used the grid when it seemed necessary. Over the years though, I have made more and more use out of the grid. I'd like to pull back. At the same time, I understand that the combat part of the game is built around tactical positioning, and you have to work harder to eliminate the grid than to embrace it.

Going into "grid mode" at the outset of tactical movement and combat makes sense to me then, but as usual I am trying to preemptively figure out what the problems would be that I don't see right now. One big one is -- how do you determine where everyone is once the grid comes out and combat starts. Can I do it randomly, within reason (i.e. "You were searching the east half of the room, so we're going to roll a d4 for which N-S axis square you're in and a d3 for which E-W axis square)? Do I let the player's pick? Before or after the enemies or whatever are revealed?

What are your thoughts? Do you use a "game board" method or a "battlefield" method?

I've been using battlemats/grids since I got started back in '79 (we used our mom's sewing board which was about 6' X 3' and gridded in inches for our first games). Though I have to say my usage of minis has only increased since 3E - we generally mini everything out now, and in older games we usually had the minis out for marching order and only mapped out areas for battles. Now, the grid is used for just about everything - as if it were a board game.

However, I have been finding myself wanting to use gridless maps just to see how well/bad it works out.

 

[S'mon]

The 4e DMG example of play has the players only set down minis when combat is about to start, and they get to decide where their figures go.

It seems a good approach, but I default to 'minis always on the board'. In the context of a busy, loud pub Meetup it really helps me and the players to have something non-auditory to focus on. I often do it even for pure RP encounters, again in order to provide focus.

 

[howandwhy99]

It depends upon what your game is about and what you are tracking as the referee. Technically my players are never off the grid board, but then they do leave more common sensical Euclidean space at times.

This does not mean we are always using a battlemat. I do suggest they configure themselves in the spatial orientation they desire when together as a group. Figs help with this, basically it's called Marching Order. The spatial positioning NPCs are in to the PCs matters when they start physically interacting. This isn't the only kind of encounter, but the kind where position matters. This physical interaction is traditionally combat, but I suppose it could be used for dancing or gymnastics or whatever your includes in its scope. When this stuff isn't relevant I don't use it. If the players ask for positioning outside of when it's called for by the rules, I also use it.

It really isn't too hard. The interesting stuff comes in on how NPCs and the terrain are initially confugred. Plus all the action that goes on as time passes.

 

[the Jester]

A combination of both. Usually we're on battlefield mode, i.e. no grid, until there's either an encounter or I want to draw something for easier visualization or I just want to throw a random map in there to keep the pcs from thinking that there's going to be a combat every time I put a map on the mat.

OTOH sometimes if the party is in a dungeon or inside a building, sometimes once we're on the grid I'll draw it out for the party as they go.

I've wanted for a long time to use the drawing-it-out as a subtle clue for an old-skool type of dungeon trick that shifts the party up or down a level (via gentle slopes, secret elevators or whatever) without them being aware of it (unless they pick up on it, of course).

 

[Ahnehnois]

I vaguely describe the area. If we fight, I describe it slightly less vaguely. On rare tactically demanding occasions, the player ask for a grid and we throw some miniatures onto a blank map and I let them move around. Usually, I just figure everyone is where they say they are, within reason.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The only time I use a battle mat or grid at all is for combat, and even then it's only some of the time. We never it use it like a game-board during exploration and such. (I run OD&D and AD&D, if that matters.)

During exploration and non-combat play, the players usually arrange their figures in a marching order, just for reference, but we just play using description, and sometimes the players map on graph paper or I might draw a diagram on some scratch paper.

During combat, there's often no need for a battle map. (And the editions/rules I'm running don't require it.) If I think the situation warrants one, we'll use one, though.

When I use a battle map, I don't use a 5' square, but a 3⅓' square. Thus, a 10' dungeon corridor is 3 squares wide on the battle mat. I do that because, depending on the weapons being used, I allow up to three characters abreast in a 10' frontage. For example, three fighters with shields and short swords up front. If the fighters were wielding longswords, I'd only allow two abreast, and a fighter with a flail would require the entire width of the passage. The space required stats for weapons are a useful guideline -- I give those numbers some wiggle room, though.

(I've been using minis and a grid at the 3⅓'/inch ground scale for years -- long before 3e made the 5'/inch square standard. The 1e AD&D DMG has a passage about it: "…squares of about 1 actual inch per side are suggested. Each ground scale inch can then be used to equal 3⅓ linear feet, so a 10' wide scale corridor is 3 actual inches in width and shown as 3 separate squares. This allows for the typical array of three figures abreast…remember that ground scale differs from figure scale, and when dealing with length, two man-sized figures per square is quite possible, as the space is actually 6 scale feet with respect to length. This is meaningful when attacking a snake, dragon, etc. if the characters are able to attack the creatures body length.")

In OD&D with a battle mat, these are my preferred combat rules. When running without a battle mat, I usually use the same basic sequence, often like this.

I think AD&D 1e provides the best D&D rules for running combat without a battle mat. This surprises people because they remember the little diagrams about number of figures that could attack a single combatant, and the discussion of miniatures and such (like I quoted above). Nevertheless, the actual 1e combat rules are very abstract. You can use them without any precise positioning at all.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I started out before battlemats were invented too, but I think they are the best RPG invention since... RPGs! I can remember too many times when hardly anyone was sure where everyone else was in a fight unless it was a pile up on a single monster. But the best part is that the characters can actually see what's around them, and where everything actually is. A picture is, indeed, worth a thousand words! (And who wants to listen to the GM drone through a thousand word description of something?)

 

[Michael Silverbane]

One big one is -- how do you determine where everyone is once the grid comes out and combat starts.

In the games that I run, we use a "standard marching order" so that, for most instances, we already know how the party will be positioned when trouble starts. For situations when the party would be out of the standard marching order (such as when searching an area for loot or when they've just fallen off of a collapsing bridge, for instance), I either let them choose where to position themselves (before revealing enemy positions) or we determine randomly where everyone is positioned (using the scatter diagram). We use whichever method seems most appropriate at the time.