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

[Grainger]

OK, I just watched some of a Rollplay video. They do take a long time planning an encounter, but I think most of that would happen with a grid, too. Maybe I just didn't see a good example of lots of questions.

As I said, I've played under 9 DMs (I just counted to double-check) in BECMI or 2e, and DMd several groups myself, I didn't see much variation in combat encounter speed between them, and I seldom saw many questions fielded during combat (or maybe I just have a higher tolerance for them, and don't tend to notice!). Occasionally there'd be a rules question (very rare), or looking up a spell (fairly rare), but neither of these relates to grid or gridless. I have used grids (a little) and found it to be about the same speed (for our group).

I think this might simply be a question of style. Maybe if you played with my group, you'd just find us very slow whichever method we used. Ah well... I don't think we're going to get to the bottom of this!

 

[iserith]

OK, I just watched some of a Rollplay video. They do take a long time planning an encounter, but I think most of that would happen with a grid, too. Maybe I just didn't see a good example of lots of questions.

Watch a few more if you like or just pick any actual play podcast and give it a listen. The 20 Questions thing is a very common way for people to play. Common enough that when I take on a new player, I often have to break them of the habit. They're just so used to it that it isn't obvious. (And of course, if that's how they like to roll, more power to 'em. But it does take up a lot of time.)

As I said, I've played under 9 DMs (I just counted to double-check) in BECMI or 2e, and DMd several groups myself, I didn't see much variation in combat encounter speed between them, and I seldom saw many questions fielded during combat (or maybe I just have a higher tolerance for them, and don't tend to notice!). Occasionally there'd be a rules question (very rare), or looking up a spell (fairly rare), but neither of these relates to grid or gridless. I have used grids (a little) and found it to be about the same speed (for our group).

As I've mentioned, the map takes away some of the questions. Eliminating the need for other types of questions takes additional steps.

I think this might simply be a question of style. Maybe if you played with my group, you'd just find us very slow whichever method we used.

Maybe. I have had players tell me that my D&D 4e games are the fastest games they've been in ("Like we're on crack!") and that's a system many people call "slow." In my D&D 5e text game, a couple of the players tell us that one of our two-hour sessions contains more content than most sessions they've been in that are twice as long and use voice. Speed isn't really my concern though - engagement is and maybe time just flies when you're having fun. Stopping the action and storytelling to ask questions of the DM isn't terribly engaging to me.

 

[Shasarak]

As you asked about speed and not my preference, it really depends.

Assuming predrawn maps, I'd say its a wash with most groups.

Now personally, I vastly prefer maps even if it is slower. Rushing through one of the key aspects of the game as fast as can be seems odd to me.

No one ever says "let's roleplay this meeting with the Prince as quickly as possible!"

As long as meeting with the Prince does not take an hour.


I find that square counting takes a lot of extra time on the Battlemap as well as agonizing over that perfect position, so I prefer TotM.

 

[Shasarak]

Bottom line, it's the players (it might take only one to slow things to a crawl) and DMs, more than the system or the mode of play, that are fast or slow.

^ So much this.

Having seen the same group of players using different systems, I would have to give this opinion a hearty Yeah, No.

 

[Skarsgard]

For me it depends on the DM.
A "yes" first DM is great for theatre of the mind, but if their first instinct is to say "no" then battlemaps are a better option.

 

[iserith]

Having seen the same group of players using different systems, I would have to give this opinion a hearty Yeah, No.

I've seen the same and concluded it's the players and GM, given approximately the same amount of experience with a particular game. After all, the game doesn't run and play itself. It's the slow GM and players that do!

 

[Shasarak]

I've seen the same and concluded it's the players and GM, given approximately the same amount of experience with a particular game. After all, the game doesn't run and play itself. It's the slow GM and players that do!

Some systems are just designed to be slow. If it gives more choices, more options, more reactions and interactions and more hit points then it is going to take more time.

 

[The Human Target]

As long as meeting with the Prince does not take an hour.


I find that square counting takes a lot of extra time on the Battlemap as well as agonizing over that perfect position, so I prefer TotM.

If my players were interested enough to take an hour to talk to the Prince (and it wasn't a lot of ummmmm and uhhhhhh) I'd be so happy.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Having seen the same group of players using different systems, I would have to give this opinion a hearty Yeah, No.

Indeed. If players and the DM are the root cause of slowness, then how come 4e has a reputation for long drawn-out combats? How come people favorably compare 5e to 4e when discussing the amount of time it takes them to do an encounter? If it's down to the people, then the answer would always be "it's exactly the same for us."

Then again, I imagine a truly and horrendously slow player would cause delays no matter what. A bit of a weakest chain situation, then? If isereth concludes that it's the players slowing things down and Shasarak concludes it's not... that probably says something about their respective gaming groups.

 

[Ricochet]

Edit: Should have read the whole thread before posting. Apparently many folks have done this successfully. Good to know, thanks!

Here's a question: Has anybody tried an "eyeball battlemat" approach? In other words, instead of using a gridded battlemat or a tape measure to get distances just right, you use a blank whiteboard or sheet of paper, and everyone just eyeballs it, being on their honor not to try and abuse the system.

If you've done this, how did it go? How much time, if any, did it save? Would you do it again?

We do this sometimes and but simply sketch the room, and then mark where people are and where they are heading. It works fine, but is often unnecessary because players will use the option in round 1 to position themselves and get a view of where they are in a given area, and then will just start reacting to the TotM instead in subsequent rounds.