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

[Umbran]

What player, whose PC has access to fireball, DOESN'T try to maximize targets in the AoE? Minis or TotM, I'm going to try that. Whether the combat state is maintained on the table, or in the DM's head, I'm going to (try to) get that information. If it's on the table, I can do that when it's not my turn much easier. If it's in the DM's head, I have to ask him how many I can get without affecting my friends, how many I can get with affecting my friends. This is why I think TotM is inferior for all but the most trivial of combat encounters, regardless of the level of player/DM trust.

And for you, it may be inferior. But, not everyone is you.

For example: Not everyone wants to count squares as part of their roleplaying experience, even if that means a slightly more effective fireball. For another example: Not everyone even feels that such ability to find the optimum placement for a fireball is particularly plausible, as most people aren't really good at estimating distances and sizes by sight.

The trick is not to identify one or the other as overall objectively better. The trick is to find what purposes and players each tool serves best, and to adjust to your own group's needs.

 

[Grainger]

There are clearly pros and cons to each approach.

As I said upthread, too, people envisage the scene as the minis/map, and don't picture themselves within it as much (well, that's certainly how my brain works; I accept it might be different for other people).

I'm starting to wonder if this is (with exceptions; everyone is different) a generational thing, too. I grew up with game-books, text adventures, and video games with very simple graphics, where one's imagination had to fill in the blanks. Younger people have grown up with much more realistic video games, and also a greater plethora (and availability) of visual fantasy material. (I do play modern video games, but I grew up in the "imagine it yourself" era).

I'd rather describe something to my players with words (and sometimes the help of a basic map) than show them a picture. I don't have a problem picturing a tactical system in my head (up to a threshold of complexity - but certainly far more than "the most simple situation" inferred above) - but the flipside is that I find modern movies to be over-stimulating/manic. When I'm consuming information online, I'd (usually) prefer to read an article than watch it in video form.

This might also explain why my experience (with 9 different groups using TotM 100% of the time) is different from many (most?) here; my games have pretty much all been with people of my generation and maybe most of you guys are a bit younger.

Re. the comment upthread about how seeing the minis of guards might deter the players from attacking the prince... (and I know it was half in jest). This is interesting, because IMO I could convey that information much more effectively with words than I could with minis. As a player, I find minis unimpressive (except, say, en masse in a large wargame), and I'd be more intimidated by a (good) description of the guards.

Hmmm...

 

[iserith]

There are clearly pros and cons to each approach.

As I said upthread, too, people envisage the scene as the minis/map, and don't picture themselves within it as much (well, that's certainly how my brain works; I accept it might be different for other people).

Another way to look at it is that it's a tool that helps everyone at the table envisage the same thing. It can be confusing when two or more people have a different idea of what's going on. Page-setting and clarification takes time away from moving the action of the game forward.

I'm starting to wonder if this is (with exceptions; everyone is different) a generational thing, too. I grew up with game-books, text adventures, and video games with very simple graphics, where one's imagination had to fill in the blanks. Younger people have grown up with much more realistic video games, and also a greater plethora (and availability) of visual fantasy material. (I do play modern video games, but I grew up in the "imagine it yourself" era).

I'd rather describe something to my players with words (and sometimes the help of a basic map) than show them a picture. I don't have a problem picturing a tactical system in my head (up to a threshold of complexity - but certainly far more than "the most simple situation" inferred above) - but the flipside is that I find modern movies to be over-stimulating/manic. When I'm consuming information online, I'd (usually) prefer to read an article than watch it in video form.

This might also explain why my experience (with 9 different groups using TotM 100% of the time) is different from many (most?) here; my games have pretty much all been with people of my generation and maybe most of you guys are a bit younger.

I'm not sure I see any causation here. I started D&D about the same time you did when I was in my teens. I have a similar background, but I prefer to use maps and visual aids. They reinforce, rather than replace the words I use to frame the scene. As you say, they help convey information effectively. I'll give you an example from one of my upcoming games.

Description:
The floor is cracked granite, upon which sprawl four rotting, partially-consumed corpses, all apparently slain in combat. The air is thick with flies and stench. One stands with its back against the western wall, the killing spear still skewering it and holding it upright. Three wooden doors lead off from this the area. Above, a hollow tower of loose masonry reaches 30 feet, but the intervening floors and stairs are gone, except for a couple of crumbled ledges. Water seeps in along the southern wall. What do you do?

Map:
[sblock]

[/sblock]

(With apologies for the fog of war being a little jagged. I did a rush job on that just to a do a screenshot for this post.)

With the description (which is about double the length of what I'd normally describe) and this image, I will never have to repeat anything I said. Most questions are answered just by looking at the picture and the basic scope of options is clear. Recall improves as the map reinforces the description. After hearing the description and seeing the image, the players can act with full agency to explore the scene or move on without the need to engage in 20 Questions. They can use a tool to measure distances or I can turn the grid on at their request. The downside? I have to prepare this ahead of time. But I like doing it so it's no big deal - it's part of my "lonely fun" as DM.

I'll give XP to anyone who knows what adventure this scene is from.

 

[Umbran]

Another way to look at it is that it's a tool that helps everyone at the table envisage the same thing. It can be confusing when two or more people have a different idea of what's going on. Page-setting and clarification takes time away from moving the action of the game forward.

Well, map setup and shuffling minis around and pausing to count squares also takes time away from moving the action forward.

There are entire sets of rules that don't really care about which 5' square you are standing in - where you don't *need* to have the exact same image of the scene in your head to be effective. The original Marvel Superheroes RPG, for example, worked in terms of "areas", which could be as wide as a city street, and city block long, and more detailed information only served to slow down the action. In other systems, the rules may include the level of detail required, but the swinginess of the system with dice results can make attempts to exploit that level of detail worthless. Conversely, if expenditure of player resources can easily trump tactical placement, then it doesn't make sense to worry about tactical placement.

And that, I think, is important - if the scenario or rules doesn't need or cannot really use the detail, then a battlemap is apt to slow things down as compared to ToM. If the scenario does need the detail, then the battlemap will be faster.

I'm not sure I see any causation here. I started D&D about the same time you did when I was in my teens. I have a similar background, but I prefer to use maps and visual aids.

I agree that it probably isn't generational. I expect the real determiner is how much tactical detail the player wants to deal with that matters most in this.

 

[Grainger]

I'm not sure I see any causation here. I started D&D about the same time you did when I was in my teens. I have a similar background, but I prefer to use maps and visual aids. They reinforce, rather than replace the words I use to frame the scene. As you say, they help convey information effectively. I'll give you an example from one of my upcoming games.

Yes, that's why I acknowledged that it doesn't apply to everyone (with any aspect of culture, there may well be group preferences, but you can't call whether any given individual will fit within that because people are individuals). I just find it interesting that under 9 DMs, I never encountered anything but ToTM. I'm not saying it was a universal experience for my generation, or that every one of those players I encountered - given the chance to try both ways - would prefer ToTM to grid, but just that it was the norm in the 80s and early 90s, at least in my experience; maybe I just played in atypical groups, but I also never got a miniatures-y vibe from the D&D rulebooks and sourcebooks, Dragon articles or the many indie magazine articles and indie supplements I voraciously consumed.

By the way, I use maps, too, and other visual aids (much more so than the other DMs I played under), so I do understand their value. However, we seldom put any minis down on them.

 

[Grainger]

There are entire sets of rules that don't really care about which 5' square you are standing in - where you don't *need* to have the exact same image of the scene in your head to be effective.

Yes, quite; and one of these sets of rules is D&D 5e, if you choose to play it that way. To me, it's the easiest, and most natural way to play 5e. This also applies to BECMI and 2e, and probably 1e. I haven't tried 3-4e, and they're sufficiently different from the editions I've played that I reserve judgement in their cases.

For clarity: I am not saying it is the "best" way to play it, or that everyone else should do the same; just that to me, it's the intuitive way to play the game.

 

[iserith]

Well, map setup and shuffling minis around and pausing to count squares also takes time away from moving the action forward.

It depends on the tools you're using. I use Roll20, even in in-person games, and there is no appreciable time taken away from moving the action forward, unlike the Q&A that is so common with some groups. Setting up the map is done before the session and minis with attached macros are moved from layers with a click. Square counting shouldn't be occurring during a player's turn. Figuring out if you're in range of a target, bit of terrain, or the like should be figured out off-turn. It's players that disengage off-turn that are the problem with regard to time spent on such things. In my experience when they are shown how much the game experience improves when they don't do that, both in terms of content covered and how much faster their turn in the spotlight comes back around again, they're sold.

There are entire sets of rules that don't really care about which 5' square you are standing in - where you don't *need* to have the exact same image of the scene in your head to be effective. The original Marvel Superheroes RPG, for example, worked in terms of "areas", which could be as wide as a city street, and city block long, and more detailed information only served to slow down the action. In other systems, the rules may include the level of detail required, but the swinginess of the system with dice results can make attempts to exploit that level of detail worthless. Conversely, if expenditure of player resources can easily trump tactical placement, then it doesn't make sense to worry about tactical placement.

In D&D 5e, things are handled in terms of feet. If the group cares to use the rules as written with regard to range, then a grid helps more than it hurts in my experience. Players can answer their own questions with regard to whether they're in range to attack and have their actions ready to go before their turn is up.

And that, I think, is important - if the scenario or rules doesn't need or cannot really use the detail, then a battlemap is apt to slow things down as compared to ToM. If the scenario does need the detail, then the battlemap will be faster.

Above, I showed a map where there is no combat (unless something changes). The map is helping with exploration, reinforcing the description the DM offers. It would not slow anything down. I take the same position with maps during even a simple combat that might otherwise be fine without it - it's the players slowing things down, not the map. Players can choose to plan off-turn rather than disengage. Players can choose to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good with regard to tactics. It's when they choose not to do those things that the game slows down.

 

[Umbran]

It depends on the tools you're using. I use Roll20, even in in-person games, and there is no appreciable time taken away from moving the action forward, unlike the Q&A that is so common with some groups. Setting up the map is done before the session and minis with attached macros are moved from layers with a click.

But now you have more prep-work, and need computers at the table. Lots of folks do not like computers at the table.

Square counting shouldn't be occurring during a player's turn.

This is true, no matter the tool, but it happens anyway, often enough for it to be a regularly-reported issue when this topic comes up. I'd call it "common".

We need to be sure we are speaking apples and oranges, now: You are talking about an ideal case of using a map, where everyone does what they should, and doesn't do what they shouldn't. Are you sure you are comparing it to an ideal case of doing ToM? Are you even sure that, with your concentration on using maps, you even know what constitutes an ideal case of ToM?

In D&D 5e, things are handled in terms of feet.

That's not actually relevant. What matters is how many of the mechanics really need detail down to that point, or if "you are in melee/short/medium/long range" will suffice. 4e had many powers that really depended on exactly which 5' square you or targets were in, that didn't translate well into using a less precise range measure. 4e really calls for a battlemap (IMHO), but 5e seems very accommodating for ToM.

... it's the players slowing things down, not the map.

For your players, that may be the case.

I don't think you should generalize it, though. Each of us, individually, ends up selecting players that suit our personal GMing styles, and our players get trained to working with us. The way to learn what's truth is not to look at our own experience, and generalize, but instead to listen to the experiences of others to understand the full spectrum of what is out there.

 

[Shasarak]

Square counting shouldn't be occurring during a player's turn. Figuring out if you're in range of a target, bit of terrain, or the like should be figured out off-turn. It's players that disengage off-turn that are the problem with regard to time spent on such things.

What happens if the Monsters move before your turn? Do you just fire off the action that you had planned even though there is not going to be anyone in the area?

What happens if the Player before you kills the Monster that you were going to attack? Do you just fire off the action that you had planned even though the Monster is already dead?

It is all very well and good to plan your action before your turn - you just have to hope that nothing changes.

 

[Shasarak]

Yes, that's why I acknowledged that it doesn't apply to everyone (with any aspect of culture, there may well be group preferences, but you can't call whether any given individual will fit within that because people are individuals). I just find it interesting that under 9 DMs, I never encountered anything but ToTM. I'm not saying it was a universal experience for my generation, or that every one of those players I encountered - given the chance to try both ways - would prefer ToTM to grid, but just that it was the norm in the 80s and early 90s, at least in my experience; maybe I just played in atypical groups, but I also never got a miniatures-y vibe from the D&D rulebooks and sourcebooks, Dragon articles or the many indie magazine articles and indie supplements I voraciously consumed.

By the way, I use maps, too, and other visual aids (much more so than the other DMs I played under), so I do understand their value. However, we seldom put any minis down on them.

I know in my groups there were the Roleplayers and there were the Miniature players. Some Roleplayers played a bit of Minis and some Mini players did a bit of Roleplaying but no one suggested using the Minis in the Roleplaying.