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

[Ricochet]

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.

That's actually really interesting. I'll ask the two players in my long campaign about it when next we play.

On that topic (and this isn't an attempt to be confrontational or anything), but don't you and the DM get a rapport over time, so you see the same "scene" that is taking place? That would in theory gradually lessen the time cost the more you play together.

 

[iserith]

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.

Thanks!

 

[houser2112]

On that topic (and this isn't an attempt to be confrontational or anything), but don't you and the DM get a rapport over time, so you see the same "scene" that is taking place? That would in theory gradually lessen the time cost the more you play together.

I suppose it would. It's been a long time (over 10 years) since I've played TotM. That DM was a control freak (standing over your shoulder during your turn, insisting on keeping character sheets between sessions, etc), which has probably poisoned my view of TotM. Going to minis and a more relaxed DM was a breath of fresh air.

 

[Ricochet]

I suppose it would. It's been a long time (over 10 years) since I've played TotM. That DM was a control freak (standing over your shoulder during your turn, insisting on keeping character sheets between sessions, etc), which has probably poisoned my view of TotM. Going to minis and a more relaxed DM was a breath of fresh air.

Yikes. Yeah, that doesn't sound nice.

I've had one or two DMs where they used minis and maps well, but most often every combat came down to who had the better tactical mindset, and things quickly become a game-within-the-game between the DM and the one or two players who really loves wargaming D&D. Those can be fun of course, but in case the DM is bad at tactics, every combat then becomes boring. More importantly, this - for me - is where the game loses a lot of its charm. Some DMs are better left to their imagination because once they see the minis they can't help but try and be adversarial towards the players. I might as well play Warhammer or Heroquest/Drizzt etc. then.

On the other hand, some DMs are really good at playing their pawns/monsters on a battle-map and making decisions that would make sense for their pawns/monsters, and then it doesn't feel as adversarial. They are just refereeing the game, and doing what makes sense for the participants in play.

I've tried both. Thankfully, it is a wide spectrum of players and DMs out there, and most players can adapt to either battlemaps or TotM in the right group. Both require a cohesiveness around the table to be enjoyable, after all.

 

[DMZ2112]

If the players trust the dungeon master, theater of the mind is lightning fast. If they don't take the dungeon master at his word, it gets bogged down in unnecessary discussion. It's not all on the players, though; properly managing theater of the mind requires a dungeon master who is good at verbally presenting visual cues. A lack of ability in that regard leads to a lack of trust and therefore combat delays.

Battlemat combat relies less on trust but adds a lot of time for visuals management, most notably miniature movement and map redrawing. Predrawn maps are not always proof; I had a Shatter spell collapse a portion of a mine a few sessions ago, and I've often had combats exceed their expected map boundaries. The time requirement for visuals management should not be understated -- it takes longer than you think, and when coupled with the increased need for tactical thinking on a five-foot grid, both player /and/ dungeon master turns can lengthen out of control.

I personally find that a battlemat is only ever worth the effort in two scenarios: large-scale combats featuring dozens of enemies or terrain with a lot of impact on the flow of combat, and groups containing at least one player who insists on having one. The reason for the former is obvious; the reason for the latter is because with a certain type of player every combat will become an argument. Better to just put up with the extra prep.

 

[Grainger]

I'm still very confused by this thread. Like I said upthread, every 2e and BECMI game I played was lightning fast... and never a battle map in sight. We're talking 8 or 9 DMs here... they can't all have been masters of verbal description. I still don't understand how combat has got so convoluted in the two iterations since 2e. You go in, you roll dice, you hit things, it's over. I can't see how it could possibly be faster, with or without a battle map. What exactly is slow? It seems to be me that everyone must be making an incredibly simple process very complicated, but I can't believe that everyone is making the same mistake, so there must be some facet of modern RPG combat that I don't understand. Can anyone give me an example of a typical "slow" ToTM fight?

 

[iserith]

I'm still very confused by this thread. Like I said upthread, every 2e and BECMI game I played was lightning fast... and never a battle map in sight. We're talking 8 or 9 DMs here... they can't all have been masters of verbal description. I still don't understand how combat has got so convoluted in the two iterations since 2e. You go in, you roll dice, you hit things, it's over. I can't see how it could possibly be faster, with or without a battle map. What exactly is slow? What is so complicated about it? Can anyone give me an example of a typical "slow" ToTM fight?

I cut my teeth on AD&D 2e back in the late 80s, early 90s. Even back then we had a three-tiered battle map setup with erasable markers. We built it ourselves and it was the envy of many a gamer at the time. So even back then we were using grids. It served the same purpose as it does now - it made spatial positioning more clear.

Listen to some actual play podcasts and you will no doubt see relatively slow TotM fights. Typically it's slow because there is a lot of asking for permission and clarification of the DM before the player actually does something.

Me personally? I don't care how long a scene lasts so long as it's fun. And I can create some pretty complex set-piece affairs that can take a little while to resolve. But the questions and clarifications would make it not fun for me, so a map and a policy of avoiding questions solves the problem.

 

[Grainger]

I'll try to find an example in a podcast or video, but usually these are online games, which are inherently slow anyway - there's usually a massive gap between any two people saying anything. But I'll try to find a round-the-table example.

I find it hard to see what's so slow about occasionally asking the DM if you can do a certain thing, but hey ho. Does everyone else ask about a million questions each turn or something? I just don't know where all this information/uncertainty is coming from that needs to be constantly clarified by the DM. You're in a room, you choose an opponent, you go up to them, and you hit at each other until one of you falls down*. Sometimes, someone might do a fancy manoeuvre, but you're not running all over the place, or setting up Scooby Doo style traps 90% of the time.




*I'm being a little facetious here, of course, but really... D&D is not complicated!

 

[iserith]

I'll try to find an example in a podcast or video, but usually these are online games, which are inherently slow anyway - there's usually a massive gap between any two people saying anything. But I'll try to find a round-the-table example.

I've been watching the Rollplay West Marches lately as I'm playing in something of a West Marches game myself and considering running a hexcrawl for my next campaign. These are available on YouTube. While the players and DM seem like nice people who are having fun, nobody does anything without asking a gang of questions first. Check it out.

Having played online games in addition to in-person ones for four years or so, I don't find online games inherently slow. In many ways, they are faster when properly set up.

I find it hard to see what's so slow about occasionally asking the DM if you can do a certain thing, but hey ho. Does everyone else ask about a million questions each turn or something? I just don't know where all this information/uncertainty is coming from that needs to be constantly clarified by the DM. You're in a room, you choose an opponent, you go up to them, and you hit at each other until one of you falls down*. Sometimes, someone might do a fancy manoeuvre, but you're not running all over the place, or setting up Scooby Doo style traps 90% of the time.

*I'm being a little facetious here, of course, but really... D&D is not complicated!

Every question asked or clarification sought is a little hit to the pacing and the storytelling. It adds up over time and if you're paying attention to it, you will start to really pick up on it and its effect on the game. Some of the questions are no doubt unrelated to the lack of a map or other visual aid - they're rules/process questions or risk mitigation or the like. But enough of them are about who's next to who and whether so-and-so can get to this or that in a move - even with fair description by the DM - and it gets very old very fast.

 

[Dausuul]

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?