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

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I like to paint minis so I enjoy using them. But in 5e I'm using them in a different way than my 3e game, which is where mini use really took off. Instead of doing a taticle miniature game when combat starts the minis and grid is used to indicate position really and to give the players a visualization. At first I was going to add in flanking and all this tactical stuff but then I realized it didn't really add much to the game other than time. Sure for some its a key part but for me I'd rather play a wargame for that kind of combat experience. D&D is a game of adventure and exploration to me, super detailed combat is not the draw. Use the minis to help you visualize how you see the combat in your head.

 

[iserith]

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.

I don't make the claim that either method is quicker. See my post upthread that reflects this opinion. How quickly a game runs depends on the DM and players more than anything else in my view.

What makes the game more fluid is both the mitigation of the need to ask questions because clarity of spatial positioning provided by the map and a policy that if a player has a question, they can either answer it themselves by establishing a thing as fact (narrative control) and/or take an action in-game that will answer it (Player - "Red Creek Rufus squints and makes a note of the distance to the charging orc as he raises his bow..." DM - "The howling, screaming orc is well within the range of Rufus' bow...") This is as opposed to effectively stopping the storytelling while the DM and player have a confab.

But again, this last bit is somewhat off-topic.

 

[Grainger]

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.

I couldn't run a game with a "no questions" policy. I positively encourage my players to ask about things. For one thing, it's central to lateral thinking - how can they come up with something I haven't anticipated. Also, I'm always tired when I DM - as we play fairly late (after the kids are in bed) it's unavoidable. There's no way I could guarantee never to mention something, so allowing back-and-forth is key to everyone being on the same page.

Besides - while My DMing style is far from perfect - there are tons of areas I am working on to improve - but this isn't really a high priority one to fix. But in principle, I think everyone should try a variety of styles of play - so I'm not saying that no-one else should try it your way, just speaking personally.

 

[iserith]

I couldn't run a game with a "no questions" policy. I positively encourage my players to ask about things. For one thing, it's central to lateral thinking - how can they come up with something I haven't anticipated. Also, I'm always tired when I DM - as we play fairly late (after the kids are in bed) it's unavoidable. There's no way I could guarantee never to mention something, so allowing back-and-forth is key to everyone being on the same page.

While a lot of DMs don't give their players narrative control, I do. They can establish anything they like in a scene so long as it doesn't contradict previously established fiction and is used in service to achieving the goals of play.

I also encourage players to take a fictional action in the context of the scene to clarify elements of said scene. "I look over my shoulder to see if the way out is clear before sounding the retreat..." which is a thing the character does in the game world instead of "Is the way out clear?" which is a question the player asks of the DM. This makes for better storytelling in my view.

Besides - while My DMing style is far from perfect - there are tons of areas I am working on to improve - but this isn't really a high priority one to fix. But in principle, I think everyone should try a variety of styles of play - so I'm not saying that no-one else should try it your way, just speaking personally.

It was something I cottoned onto fairly late in my DMing career, 3-4 years ago, once I had smoothed out more important things.

 

[Grainger]

I also encourage players to take a fictional action in the context of the scene to clarify elements of said scene. "I look over my shoulder to see if the way out is clear before sounding the retreat..." which is a thing the character does in the game world instead of "Is the way out clear?" which is a question the player asks of the DM. This makes for better storytelling in my view.

I quite like that, and I might try it... getting my players to try it (one of whom, for example, is a fairly hardcore tactician) is another matter, but we'll see...

Edit: actually, to be fair, they do it a fair bit already (e.g. asking NPCs around town about the situation... sometimes I point out that their character would already know a particular thing that's common knowledge, or within their area of expertise, and wouldn't need to ask).

 

[Sage Genesis]

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".

(snip)

And herein lies our disagreement, I think, because we have different assumptions about what "off grid" means.

Sure. Again, as I said: "Note that I'm not saying that everybody must play the game like this, only that the game presents itself like this."

That's also why I find these conversations difficult. People talk about "theater of the mind" but there's two different playstyles going on underneath the same umbrella. You naturally gravitate towards a "vague gridless" style of play, which also explains why you may not fully appreciate how much of a time saver it can be - after all, you're already using it and consider it a default. But a lot of people really do use the measurements and distances that D&D gives them and expect them to matter. When a game says that a wood elf's speed is a viable and valuable racial trait, that informs their playstyle. When a game tells them that one spell reaches 90' and the other reaches 60', it tells them that such differences are important enough for the game to specify.

I don't think you and I really disagree about anything here. It's just a matter of getting people to see that TotM doesn't have a single meaning.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is yet another reason why I'm left wondering why 5e wasn't more rules-lite and/or gridless amenable. It seems that so many D&D players advocate for this sort of play experience, but no version of TSR or WotC D&D provides it. The only way you play gridless is with any or all of the 4 happening:

1) Hefty GM Force

2) Loss of player agency

3) Loss of tactical robustness

4) The game bogged down by 20 questions by players who don't want to lose 2 or 3 above.

Fate does a good job with gridless. Dungeon World does a fantastic job with gridless (I've run well over a hundred of extremely involved combats and I've only created a physical map a handful of times...and those times only due to an extreme number of spatial complexities and/or participants). 13th Age does a very solid job as well (but not as good as Dungeon World). Why the 5e designers didn't use those games' tech (zones, keywords, removal of tactical movement rates or making it hand-wavey but synching it with the rest of the system, neutering or removing the action economy), if even just as a module, to truly support TotM play (without any of the above 4 coming into play) is an interesting question. Alternatively, why people who want TotM play don't play Dungeon World or 13th Age (or even Fate) is another question (given how central combat is to D&D).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This thread has inspired me to try using legos in my game tonight. Score fifty bucks for Lego! Hopefully it's worth it.

Followup: it worked quite well. Way better than drawing with a marker in fact, due to the 3D aspect and the ability to move pieces around in chunks (i.e. a formation of 6 githyanki all attached to the same lego base, or a pre-built building).

 

[Grainger]

Why play D&D gridless, rather than another system? Because I always played D&D like that, and (unlike 3e and 4e, as far as I understand them), 5e is highly conducive to theatre of the mind. As I've said in this thread, I run it loosely without any issue. Sure, there is some lack of "tactical robustness", I suppose, if you compare it to a heavily tactical game, but that's never been what D&D was about for me - and anyway, 5e has got as much tactics in it as 2e and earlier (and probably quite a bit more, IMO as all classes have more interesting options than "I try to hit it" each turn). Again, as I said upthread, people seem to be making it much more complicated than it needs to be. Gridless with 5e is utterly effortless, if you just play it how we used to in 2e and earlier.

Speaking as someone who missed the 3e and 4e eras, it genuinely baffles me how D&D became so wedded to the idea of a grid. To me, that's the anomaly.

I take your point about the designers using range bands - perhaps they should have gone the whole hog and done that. But it does work as it is, as long as you don't fret about the detail.

Edit: I was replying to Manbearcat

 

[Manbearcat]

Why play D&D gridless, rather than another system? Because I always played D&D like that, and (unlike 3e and 4e, as far as I understand them), 5e is highly conducive to theatre of the mind. As I've said in this thread, I run it loosely without any issue. Sure, there is some lack of "tactical robustness", I suppose, if you compare it to a heavily tactical game, but that's never been what D&D was about for me - and anyway, 5e has got as much tactics in it as 2e and earlier (and probably quite a bit more, IMO as all classes have more interesting options than "I try to hit it" each turn). Again, as I said upthread, people seem to be making it much more complicated than it needs to be. Gridless with 5e is utterly effortless, if you just play it how we used to in 2e and earlier.

Speaking as someone who missed the 3e and 4e eras, it genuinely baffles me how D&D became so wedded to the idea of a grid. To me, that's the anomaly.

I take your point about the designers using range bands - perhaps they should have gone the whole hog and done that. But it does work as it is, as long as you don't fret about the detail.

Edit: I was replying to Manbearcat

I know where you're coming from but the problem lies with the system's granular specifications (numerical encounter distances, numerical movement rates in all dimensions, numerical increments for weapon/melee reach, numerical spell ranges, spell AoE shapes/units, specific action economy, specific triggerable melee control effects based on the interaction of multiple priors, etc). That isn't even taking into account for trying to have battlefield obstacles/terrain (that interact with the aforementioned numbers/cover designations). How all these come together with 1-4 above gets very, very, very prickly.

You can "say yes" all the time to players questions (can I move over this log that spans this bog of difficult terrain, fire off this magic missle and get to that area of cover?). However, inevitably, saying yes all the time is going to remove the tactical robustness (which is predicated upon assimilation of a fair bit of precise information and making sound tactical action declarations based on what is happening right now and what may be coming down the line) for the players. Then what happens when you say no? They aren't relying on their own ability to observe and orient to assimilate the information and decide. They're relying on you being amenable to their course of action declaration. If suddenly you aren't amenable and they can't discern why (and they can't observe and orient without you as their conduit for sensory/spatial information), then they're feeling that you're exerting Force (1) and removing their agency (2 and thus removing 3 yet again)...and they may feel it is arbitrary or adversarial.

It is very difficult. There is a lot of tension between what the D&D rules actually support (play with precise units, movements and interactions) and how TotM play procedures manifest around (eg playing with or actually "getting around") that rules infrastructure. Personally, I'd rather just play with a system that doesn't push back against me (at all), and actually supports me, when I try to realize my preferred mode of play with it.