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

[ColinChapman]

My personal approach is not to sweat details, exact locations, etc. in favour of a more freewheeling, dynamic approach. One criticism oft levelled at TotM is the issue of, "Folks have different mental images." My response is, "That doesn't matter if you are prepared to relinquish the idea that a fight scene must occur in a strictly codified area, e.g. the cave is exactly this wide, there are precisely three stalagmites of X size there, there, and there, etc."

Let me explain:

I may say that my players enter a vast cavern, its ceiling disappearing into darkness. They see the glimmer of light on several pools of water. Their torchlight flares crimson off the eyes of a band of goblins now roused and reaching for weapons!

Note the lack of precise lengths, numbers, etc. Unless someone takes the time to count (or can visually measure range accurately and quickly - almost impossible in many conditions) the vagueness adds verisimilitude. If asked (and someone isn't having a character spend a round desperately counting numbers or accurately trying to gauge distance) I'll give vague numbers, e.g. maybe 10-20 goblins, about 30-40 yards, etc.

When the action starts, my players also have the ability to extemporise their surroundings because we're not nailed to a strict map. If a player says they dive behind a large stalagmite nearby, then does it really matter that I didn't say there was one there? No, no it doesn't. They've just added to the scene and described something dynamic. They've taken action quickly and creatively. If another PC, disarmed, says they scrabble for a dagger a goblin failed to pick up when the PCs appeared, does it matter that I didn't describe such an event? No, no it doesn't. I'm fully prepared to share some of the control of the scene with my players, and keeping things vague and fluid helps immensely. It works both ways, of course, and extemporizing must make sense/be plausible and is obviously restricted to things that don't directly impact the NPCs/completely change the scene (e.g. a player could not state that an opponent trips on a rope on the floor, or that allied guards suddenly appear, etc.), but it empowers the players, keeps things moving, creates dynamic, fluid scenes, and renders worrying about minutia pointless.

How do I adjudicate how many NPCs are caught in range/by AoE? Rough estimate and roll, considering that (again) most folks could never be as precise as some folks assume, especially in the constant dynamic of combat.

The whole approach has a number of benefits:
1) Players are empowered.
2) Some adjudication burden is lifted off the DM (compared to TotM with a more detail/rigid approach).
3) It plays very quickly.
4) The reason for any arguing is massively reduced/eliminated (another problem sometimes thrown at TotM play).
5) It unfolds in a more cinematic manner (with players empowered to describe actions *and* some environmental interaction without kowtowing to a rigidly-defined map environment).
6) It has a bit more verisimilitude (the artificiality of top-down, all-seeing, accurate measuring/counting is gone).
7) It makes mapping/planning adventures a piece of cake. A dungeon map, for example can be a bunch of scribbled circles connected with lines, each with just a few key elements jotted next to each.

Now, I know this open, fluid, organic approach won't work for everyone, but for those who love or want to try TotM it can completely eliminate many of the issues some folks have with it. Just ensure folks are aware they have some control, that things will be dynamic/vague/shifting, and go from there. Stop sweating the exact details and play fast, play furious.

 

[iserith]

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.

As I said above, you create a Plan A and a Plan B off-turn. If by some chance those are both blown, you either delay your turn or ask for advice and take the first viable suggestion. That's how we do it and it moves things along very fast. In my experience, players catch on to this quick and get good with thinking quickly. I've done this with a ton of pick-up groups on Roll20 and at game stores. It benefits them to do so and encourage others to do the same since it means the spotlight is back on them that much quicker.

 

[Shasarak]

As I said above, you create a Plan A and a Plan B off-turn. If by some chance those are both blown, you either delay your turn or ask for advice and take the first viable suggestion. That's how we do it and it moves things along very fast. In my experience, players catch on to this quick and get good with thinking quickly. I've done this with a ton of pick-up groups on Roll20 and at game stores. It benefits them to do so and encourage others to do the same since it means the spotlight is back on them that much quicker.

Personally I would rather play a system where the turns move more quickly rather then missing players turns or having to play someone elses character for them.

Thats kinda missing the point of having a character.

 

[iserith]

Personally I would rather play a system where the turns move more quickly rather then missing players turns or having to play someone elses character for them.

Thats kinda missing the point of having a character.

I think you're overstating the issue. This method works with any RPG. It's just a matter of choosing to do it. I'm not saying you have to, but I'm just stating my experience even with the so-called "slow" systems.

 

[pemerton]

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 think so. The heyday of modules with illustrations to show the players seems to have been around 1980 (ToH 1978, Hidden Shrine 1980 - I can't remember which other modules had those booklets - maybe C2 which was 1980 also?).

And given all the discussion of using miniatures in Gygax's DMG it's clear that some groups were using them.

 

[Grainger]

I don't think so. The heyday of modules with illustrations to show the players seems to have been around 1980 (ToH 1978, Hidden Shrine 1980 - I can't remember which other modules had those booklets - maybe C2 which was 1980 also?).

And given all the discussion of using miniatures in Gygax's DMG it's clear that some groups were using them.

I didn't mean pictures of people playing in modules - I meant discussions of running games, etc. in gaming supplements and magazines (although 2e's Campaign Sourcebook has drawings of people playing - I can't remember if they're using minis). Equally, though, in early D&D (obviously not Chainmail) it seems that ToTM was more common (or at least in the quotes about it in Playing at the World; I wasn't there at the time). One of my current players used to play 1e back when it was current, and his group used minis some of the time. So... of course I'm aware some people used minis - I never said no-one did, just that in my experience of playing in the BECMI and 2e era, none of my groups even contemplated minis. Whereas now, it seems the reverse is true.

I hope all the grid players coming from earlier editions will give ToTM a good try with 5e, but when they do, I hope they really loosen up about ranges, distances etc., otherwise they are going to hate it, I suspect.

 

[pemerton]

in my experience of playing in the BECMI and 2e era, none of my groups even contemplated minis. Whereas now, it seems the reverse is true.

I think the last sentence is an exaggeration - this thread has plenty of people playing without maps and tokens. As well as those who do.

I think it depends heavily upon the system, though. When I played AD&D (1st ed) and B/X a lot of the action took place in dungeon contexts where maximum distances were generally well-short of maximum ranges. And in those systems there are no significant rules for in-melee positioning or movement.

Whereas in 4e (to pick the version of D&D I am currently GMing) their are intricate rues for in-melee positioning and movement, there are reach rules which both PCs and NPCs/monsters want to exploit, there are OAs triggered not just by retreating from melee altogether but by manoeuvring within it, etc. To give a couple of examples on the PC side in my 4e game: the dwarf fighter is built around exploiting his polearm reach to keep enemies at bay while cruelling them with multi-target sweeps (close bursts, in technical terms); and he synergises with the sorcerer/bard, most of whose powers allow him to teleport anyone he hits one or two squares. Classic D&D just didn't have this sort of precision movement as part of its combat resolution mechanics.

The system also supports far more tactically intricate combats (in terms of terrain and architecture, force composition etc) than did AD&D or B/X (at least as we played them), and that interacts with the above-mentioned mechanical features to make maps and tokens more useful.

When I recently ran some Burning Wheel sessions with combat in them we didn't use maps or tokens, because BW uses a "zone"-style system a little bit like that described upthread for 13th Age. The fighting took place on a ship, for which we already had a rough deck-plan, and when the fight was on we kept track of general positions in relation to the deck plan (eg "between the mast and the forecastle"; "in the galley doorway"; etc).

Different mechanical systems demand different tools for their resolution.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I didn't mean pictures of people playing in modules - I meant discussions of running games, etc. in gaming supplements and magazines (although 2e's Campaign Sourcebook has drawings of people playing - I can't remember if they're using minis). Equally, though, in early D&D (obviously not Chainmail) it seems that ToTM was more common (or at least in the quotes about it in Playing at the World; I wasn't there at the time). One of my current players used to play 1e back when it was current, and his group used minis some of the time. So... of course I'm aware some people used minis - I never said no-one did, just that in my experience of playing in the BECMI and 2e era, none of my groups even contemplated minis. Whereas now, it seems the reverse is true.

I hope all the grid players coming from earlier editions will give ToTM a good try with 5e, but when they do, I hope they really loosen up about ranges, distances etc., otherwise they are going to hate it, I suspect.

This matches my (limited) experience, but I speculate that it has a lot to do with the rule system. 5E rewards mobile play, whereas AD&D was pretty much either "I stand still and cast a spell" or "I move at half-speed toward the monster and attack it." Kiting monsters with missile weapons was less feasible because many monsters required magical weapons to damage, and magical bows with normal arrows didn't count. Spells had ranges long enough that you could just handwave the distance easily (IIRC Fireball was 100 yards + 10 yards/level).

It's true that AD&D still had options that would have rewarded clever tactical play (90% cover = -10 to be hit), but 1.) it was harder to exploit those options, and 2.) we were younger and dumber then. But speaking as someone who skipped straight from AD&D to 5E, the differences in mobility/tactics between the two systems were quite obvious to me. (AD&D rewards strategic/operational play more than 5E does though.) My game is different now, and while I still do ToTM a lot, I whiteboard and/or grid things out more frequently in 5E because the system rewards it.

In short, I think 50+% of the attraction of grid combat is system-based and not personality-based.

 

[Grainger]

Yeah, maybe. I just run 5e loosely with ToTM, and it seems to work (and my players are always surprising me with their creativity), but I do have to a fair amount of rulings and ad-libs, rather than closely following the rules as written.

 

[Grainger]

My personal approach is not to sweat details, exact locations, etc. in favour of a more freewheeling, dynamic approach. One criticism oft levelled at TotM is the issue of, "Folks have different mental images." My response is, "That doesn't matter if you are prepared to relinquish the idea that a fight scene must occur in a strictly codified area, e.g. the cave is exactly this wide, there are precisely three stalagmites of X size there, there, and there, etc."
[snip!]

Yes, and in terms of imagining a shared reality, it doesn't matter either: no-one says that novels are rubbish because every reader will imagine it in a slightly different way; in fact, many readers single out the need to imagine the action as one of the pleasures of reading.