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

[Grainger]

If I was running an encounter in TotM mode, I wouldn't have individual terrain items, per se, but a general description of the area. So "can I move around the logs to get a clear shot?" - "yes" would be more of a general question, not one that had to be resolved every turn. If an environment is going to restrict tactical options, or present others, I'd say so up front "the pillars are very close together - it's going to be tricky using area of effect spells here without harming your allies" or "there's a balcony overlooking the hall". Players can improvise tactical moves quite easily "I'll fall back to the doorway" because they know the general situation. No-one knows or cares (including me) if there's a pillar three squares into the room.

It's how every D&D game I played in used to do it... BECMI, 1e, 2e, and... it just works. We don't go into the sort of tactical detail you seem to use (personally, I don't find moving around individual obstacles very interesting - probably why I find dungeon crawl boardgames like Descent 2e so boring). It's a matter of taste, I suppose.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't like anymore the style of playing on a grid as in 3e/4e, I found it to be somewhat detrimental to suspension of disbelief, frequently sacrificing narrative to the rules of geometry, increasing the artificial rift between "combat" and "non-combat" moments of the game, and eventually not even decreasing much the amount of discussions and arguments at table.*

OTOH a visual "sketch" of the scene is a great aid to memory, and helps making good tactical choices. The larger and more tactical-oriented the gaming group, the longer it takes between your turns, the higher the chance of forgetting where is everybody if you are using pure TotM.

Because of this, my favourite choice is nowadays a gridless battlemap. I just want to put a small mat on the table with visual props for characters, enemies, obstacles and other important terrain features. I choose Lego bricks and minifigures because they are much more flexible/reusable than traditional RPG minis and stuff, and a lot more adorable. I don't need a detailed rendition of the environment (it can be awesome but also incredibly time-consuming to prepare), just enough visual clues. But no squares at all, free movement in all directions with distances measured with a ruler.

(*Similar problems are caused by turn-based combat. It's pretty much a matter of switching between the space/time continuity of narration and the space/time discreteness of rules. However the "time version" of this problem has never bothered me nearly as much as the "space version" of it)

 

[GX.Sigma]

I prefer battlemaps as a player if they're done well, but TotM is lovely for a lazy DM like me. My current players are so acclimated to TotM that even when I do bust out the Dwarven Forge or Tact-Tiles, they say things like "I run after him and hit him" without even moving their minis.

 

[The Human Target]

Mapz 4 life!

 

[Ricochet]

Depends on the players too. For the people who tend to enter "Analysis paralysis" a battle map will bog your game down. I also personally feel that the battle map makes everyone too tactical, which brings about two problems off the top of my head:
1) Characters with low int and wis are suddenly tactical geniuses because players tend to stack advantages for themselves when presented with a top-down all-inclusive view of a situation.
2) Someone who loves to strategize will invariably start suggesting/telling the other players how to optimize their turns and it often bogs down into "if you do this, then I can get X advantage and then player 3 will..."

Again, this is just from my personal experience, so it might just be some of the gamers I play with. All that said, TotM all the way for me whenever I have the option. It is faster and - unlike the majority it seems - I dislike getting to know every minute detail of a combat. I'd much rather paint with broad strokes.

 

[halfling rogue]

I've seen a hybrid method like this work very well. IMHO, it encourages more improvised, heroic actions than a straight grid does. Grids tend to lend themselves to using 'standard' movements and actions. Providing a drawn example of the scene and scale lends itself to the DM and players all getting a common impression of the situation, which helps remove the 20-Questions effect and speed up play.

Exactly. I didn't approach it to do that, but once I started doing it that way I automatically noticed the benefits. For an example, the first time we had a 'gridless' battle was the opening fight in Lost Mine. I was explaining that they were all on a wagon, etc, they had all positioned themselves, and when I said they saw dead horses at a distance they asked for a visual reference. I drew up a horrible, but understandable depiction on graph paper and we went from there. We had a new guy playing with us who had never played before. He asked if he could hide beneath the wagon before they came upon the horses (they really weren't surprised that there would be an ambush). And at one point during the battle, as a goblin approached, he dropped to his belly and struck his foe dead with an arrow. At that moment I realized that such a scenario would never have happened if I would have drawn up a battle mat with minis.

 

[iserith]

1) Characters with low int and wis are suddenly tactical geniuses because players tend to stack advantages for themselves when presented with a top-down all-inclusive view of a situation.

There is no particular way a "low int and wis" character is required to behave except as the player of such a character has previously chosen to establish. In addition, even if the character has been established as a dumb brute, the skill in battle can be explained in other ways with a little imagination, if it needs to be explained at all.

2) Someone who loves to strategize will invariably start suggesting/telling the other players how to optimize their turns and it often bogs down into "if you do this, then I can get X advantage and then player 3 will..."

This is as dysfunctional form of play I refer to as "table captaining." It's a social problem, not a game problem, and can happen even in D&D 5e. It also happens in cooperative board games.

Not saying you're wrong to prefer TotM, but these are points to consider.

 

[GlassJaw]

All the Dwarven Forge!!!

 

[Ricochet]

There is no particular way a "low int and wis" character is required to behave except as the player of such a character has previously chosen to establish. In addition, even if the character has been established as a dumb brute, the skill in battle can be explained in other ways with a little imagination, if it needs to be explained at all.

This is as dysfunctional form of play I refer to as "table captaining." It's a social problem, not a game problem, and can happen even in D&D 5e. It also happens in cooperative board games.

Not saying you're wrong to prefer TotM, but these are points to consider.

You are right on both counts. I've rarely seen these tactical geniuses explained by players though. With the battlemap, it becomes the players in charge rather than their characters (if that makes any sense) And boardgames tend to produce the same behavior from some of the same players I am playing D&D with, yep. It's funny though, in TotM these same people tend to loosen up considerably. I'm guessing it's in some ways a subliminal weight off their shoulders that they don't have to have all the answers and maximize their rounds.

I've had some good times both as player and DM when using maps to display a combat scene, but once we get bogged down in squares and counting movement like a boardgame rather than using them for conceptualizing, things usually turn south for my enjoyment.

You've made some nice ones btw - and yes TotM players can readily be inspired by battlemaps and "scenes in them" even if we don't use them with miniatures.

 

[houser2112]

It's funny though, in TotM these same people tend to loosen up considerably. I'm guessing it's in some ways a subliminal weight off their shoulders that they don't have to have all the answers and maximize their rounds.

As one of "those people", I'd say that any loosening up on my part can be directly attributed to having to verbally communicate with the DM for everything during my turn, which has non-negligible time costs compared with doing it all in my head when it's not my turn.

The weight never comes off my shoulders to maximize my round, it's just that that desire must be weighed against the time it takes to achieve that maximization.