D&D 5E Brainstorming TotM
BluejayJunior
Explorer
I disagree with this. A new player will more likely say, "I want to run up and stab that orc." And then as the DM, I will point out if they are in fact too far away or tell them to attack. For most combats in TotM, it should be very obvious if a character can get there in 1 move or 2. You should never have a case where the enemy is 5 feet out of reach of the characters.
Part of the point of TotM is to not have to worry about all the little fiddly stuff. If you approach it with the same highly tactical viewpoint as you can get on a grid, then you might find it a struggle. And you can still have interesting combats in interesting locations.
The new players won't have a problem if the DM is describing things well and they are letting themselves get immersed in it. TotM might not be for you, that's fine. Everyone is going to have different experiences with it. Some new players will struggle and others will totally love it. But newbies don't automatically suck at TotM. In my opinion, it should be easier for new players. They aren't worrying about learning how many squares they can move and how to count diagonals and things like that. It's less for them to learn at one time and makes it easier to understand the other rules.
Wow. Reading my posts would be a big help, and that's supposed to sound less sarcastic than it probably comes across. First, at no point did I advocate for grid maps, nor did I advocate for players being 5' out of reach - I don't use grids for precisely that reason. All your reservations about grid-based combat are valid, and personally I agree with you, they just have nothing to do with anything I posted.
My point was that once you multiply battlefield complexity past a certain point it becomes very difficult to keep the details in your head, even for the length of time it takes to recap. I suppose an unstated corollary there is that complex battlefields are more interesting and more tactical than flat open battle fields. Anyway, all I was suggesting is that TotM breaks down at a certain complexity level for a lot of people, an issue that has two solutions. One, never design a battlefield more complicated than X, were X is the level of detail retained by your average doode from an action recap, or, b, occasionally use a sketch or something to help players keep all the obstacles, movement issues, ranges and locations of foes straight.
Personally I like complex battlefields sometimes (maybe a lot), and I don't see a lot of value of being dogmatic about narrative style, so I go with the sketches when I think it's necessary.
My point was that once you multiply battlefield complexity past a certain point it becomes very difficult to keep the details in your head, even for the length of time it takes to recap. I suppose an unstated corollary there is that complex battlefields are more interesting and more tactical than flat open battle fields. Anyway, all I was suggesting is that TotM breaks down at a certain complexity level for a lot of people, an issue that has two solutions. One, never design a battlefield more complicated than X, were X is the level of detail retained by your average doode from an action recap, or, b, occasionally use a sketch or something to help players keep all the obstacles, movement issues, ranges and locations of foes straight.
Personally I like complex battlefields sometimes (maybe a lot), and I don't see a lot of value of being dogmatic about narrative style, so I go with the sketches when I think it's necessary.
EpicureanDM
Explorer
13th Age will solve all of your problems. It's got the best TotM system for D&D-based games and it's available for free through 13th Age's SRD: https://www.13thagesrd.com/combat-rules/
If you're not familiar with 13th Age, it's sort of like "D&D 4.5e". Since it's based in D&D 4e, it's also interested in transforming grid-style combat into something that's looser, faster, and fun to run. It provides a small, manageable, powerful set of rules and ideas to keep everyone on the same page and minimize confusion. But it still feels like D&D. Look in the Combat Rules section of the SRD and you'll see the basics of the system. The other piece can be found in the spells and abilities of each class. Each spell or class ability defines how many targets it can affect. For example, Fireball (see, told you it's based on D&D) hits "1d3 nearby enemies in a group". So if you group's narration says that there's a group of enemies that are Nearby the wizard, the spell will hit 1-3 of them. You can see the trade-off between the precision of the grid ("I can hit exactly two enemies in these two squares without hitting my allies.") and the looseness of TotM ("We aren't exactly sure where everyone's standing, so you might not hit all of them.").
The Roshambo guide reads to me like it could be a nearly-direct rip-off of the 13th Age TotM system. The author doesn't seem concerned with acknowledging the tremendous influence of 13th Age in their guide and that doesn't seem right to me. I'd avoid it and just use 13th Age's system.
Huh, I checked out your link and my eyes rolled back in my head with all the detail. While Volanin has admitted to being inspired by some of the approaches described there, there's nothing like the simple Roshambo core mechanic to connect the main actions. I think he's added quite a lot with that innovation. Perhaps there's some other link that makes that leap appear less revelatory?
And dude, you just got here. No need to muscle around town, guns blazing.
If you like complex battlefields and players making precise tactical choices then, yes, TotM is not going to give you the granularity you need. It's for more casual tables that want the story of exciting combat rather than the precision of tactical challenges.
EpicureanDM
Explorer
You can't claim that Volanin somehow innovated on the already-existing TotM system from 13th Age while also admitting that you don't understand the 13th Age TotM system. That makes no sense.
OK dude, you're obviously up in arms over this. Good luck on your vendetta.
Tony Vargas
Legend
When I first read the relevant bits of 13A, they didn't look particularly unique or innovative, either. I'm sure I've seen similar mechanics and techniques used long since, back to the 90s (hilariously, an RPG spoof, HoL, stands out in my memory as having some of the same TotM-facilitating tricks), if not in the early days of the hobby.
(Not to take away from 13A: it's a very well-done D&D-style FRPG.)
EpicureanDM
Explorer
I've got a copy of HoL and I know what you're aiming at.
I acknowledge that many RPG designs are built on the shoulders of predecessors, transforming and adapting them to new uses. If we grant that 13A's doing the same thing, it transformed and adapted prior techniques to a D&D-style FRPG in a way that hasn't been done before. It's difficult to argue that the Roshambo/TotM system is doing the same thing if you're familiar with both systems.
Take a look at how volanin handles themselves in this thread where they're "developing" their Roshambo TotM system: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?592401-Roshambo-Style-Theatre-of-the-Mind-Combat
There's no acknowledgement of the debt owed to 13A in the Roshambo system and suggestions that volanin is somehow taking credit for pre-existing ideas and terms in 13A's TotM system.
EDIT:
When asked late in that thread if the Roshambo TotM system was inspired by anything other than a 1992 video game, here's volanin's response:
Again, given how many similarities it shares with 13A's system, not only in design but in terminology, it stretches credibility to suggest the system grew organically from experiences at the table unless those experiences were playing 13A.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
