I don't understand Gridless combat. HELP!

[Mattachine]

I started DMing in 1982, and I did no-grid, small hand-drawn maps, minis with no grid, and grid (using minis and chessboards, 10' squares).

Use whatever system you and your players like best, and feel free to mix and match.

 

[Dedekind]

Once again, thanks for all the really helpful input each of you have offered. Don't think I cannot see the non-mini side of the argument... I want to embrace it and I want to like it, and it tears at me that I don't seem to enjoy it. I already run my games with all kinds of fudging for the sake of keeping things fun and interesting... it's just keeping the entire scene in my head that is so daunting for me. I'm so forgetful and distractable... and without the mat and minis, the entire group is relying on me to inform them of what is going on. That's a terrifying load of responsibility for someone like me.

I guess I'm just anguishing needlesly. I don't expect anyone here to solve my problem, but I really do appreciate being heard and understood.

...

Great thread topic. I agree with everything Kamikazi said. I'll add few things.

1) Gridless need not equal mapless.

Describe the location, be evocative, and mention some details. But, if there is going to be a lot of movement, we always drew the room and gave rough indications of where things are and its size. This helps everybody visualize and keeps people from asking the same questions over and over. It need not be a big drawing and we usually just used a quarter sheet of paper. You could draw each room on a notecard and give it to the players as necessary.

2) As a DM, be fair. As a player, trust the DM.

Since many things are judgement calls for the DM, it is really important that everybody trusts these judgments. Like an umpire in baseball, you won't always get it right, but you have to be do your best for both teams. In high school, I admit I was vindictive towards a player I didn't really like and always called borderline cases against him. Petty and it ruined the campaign.

So, if the halfling rogue wants to duck under a table and tumble into a flank position, make a reasonable call. Is it too far? How much does the table and tumble slow her down? There isn't a right answer, but don't let the monsters get a different answer than the PCs.

It sounds like you have a good group, so this shouldn't be a big problem.

3) Tactics require action and details.

A tactical player will hate gridless combat unless there are lots of possible actions and/or detailed terrain features. This gives them (and you!) the ability to create meaningful strategies without having clear movement rules. For example, a bunkroom for hobgoblins is boring. A bunkroom featuring a stack of ale casks to be toppled and a cooking pit to be pushed into is interesting.

It isn't anything you probably don't already have on your grid... you just have to be a little more explicit since it is mainly verbal.

4) Do the things you can't do on a grid!

Big battles, a chase through a forest, a slide down a mountain, etc. You could probably make each of these work on a grid... but the time commitment for drawing can be big. Use this extra time to flesh out details of these places, describe it, and move on.


Seems like you are a fun DM, so don't let gridless spoil your fun. Go back to the grid if you have to. But it can be fun without it.

 

[jsaving]

What's so bad about the grid? Why not use the tools we have to allow freedom to focus on other aspects of play? Am I a poor DM for preferring clear rules and aids for running a game?

Depends on what you mean by "running a game." There are certainly lots of Diablo-type campaigns that focus primarily on tactical combat and can't readily function without a battle mat. But there are also a lot of campaigns that focus primarily on role-playing and are happy to resolve combat at a slightly more abstract level than the battle mat, because they just don't care about exact tactical placement and don't want to get bogged down in those details.

Preferring the first style doesn't make you a bad DM by any means, and you should use a battle mat whenever it helps you and your players to have more fun around the gaming table. But those who don't want or need a battle mat are also not bad DMs/players, and I think the hope is that 5e will provide more support for their playstyle than 4e did.

 

[Agamon]

DUDE. There is only one wrong way to play D&D and this is TO NOT HAVE FUN. Anything else is doing it right. You're doing it right. Play on, Sir. PLAY ON.

WizarDru beat me to it. This is what this is all about. Making the game fun, regardless of how you play or what tools you use. Don't think you suck or are not cool if you use minis. It's just the other side of a coin. If you and your players having fun using a grid, you shouldn't worry about not using one.

 

[Balesir]

I always played Feng Shui without a map & the fun there was cool descriptions of the players actions. Mooks would take cover not to get +4 defence but so the players could perform a cool stunt to mitigate it.
The problems with this are that it works best when you surrender some narrative control & that it is not tactical - you can feel as though you are perpetually depending on the whim of the DM.

This is crucial, I think. If you are going to go "gridless", you need the players to be focussing on something other than how their character's position relative to the other combatants helps or hinders them. There needs to be something specific and commonly understood for them to actually do. The playtest rules so far (and, in fact, everything I have seen about D&DNext) have really failed to say anything about this at all. The (unsurprising) result is that many are confused as to what it is that they are supposed to be doing...

 

[whearp]

You really hit it there, Balesir... I feel like it would have been really helpful for the playtest to have included a little more information on how to run a game within the style the test is in right now. Many DMs and players have come up in the last ten years or so, and we simply don't have the skillset for it. This is a major change for those of us who have embraced setpiece encounters on a grid.

I think it is important to stress that my style is nothing like 'Diablo' or anything close. My groups are very much story heavy, and combats tend to serve as punctuation to long stretches of player-driven exploration and interaction. I only bring up this point because Diablo is very much like how the playtest went for me. The players went into caves, and then proceeded to fairly blandly and effortlessly slash through waves of monsters... and collected loot. I expect that might be more the fault of the adventure choice, but it still struck me.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I saw all the movement in feet and immediately translated (as did my players) it into 5" squares.

Man. Talk about taking baby steps.

This is crucial, I think. If you are going to go "gridless", you need the players to be focussing on something other than how their character's position relative to the other combatants helps or hinders them. There needs to be something specific and commonly understood for them to actually do. The playtest rules so far (and, in fact, everything I have seen about D&DNext) have really failed to say anything about this at all. The (unsurprising) result is that many are confused as to what it is that they are supposed to be doing...

In a game where what you do is decided by the individiual and his/her imagination what should the rules say you should be doing? The less codified the process for this is, the less time will be spent perusing menus of pre-defined choices and the more time there is for just doing whatever seems most appropriate for the character and the situation.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If you want to ease into gridless, I second this as critical:

1) Gridless need not equal mapless.

Describe the location, be evocative, and mention some details. But, if there is going to be a lot of movement, we always drew the room and gave rough indications of where things are and its size. This helps everybody visualize and keeps people from asking the same questions over and over. It need not be a big drawing and we usually just used a quarter sheet of paper. You could draw each room on a notecard and give it to the players as necessary.

You can run something entirely in the mind, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with using tools, the grid being just one example. If you want to dabble in gridless and don't have the experience to pull it off, try to use more abstract tools. Instead of a grid, miniatures for everything, drawings to scale, etc. use some dice or coins or other markers for monsters (or groups of monsters like rats), plop down some pencils or popsicle sticks for walls (roughly), and so forth.

"The rats are here, the goblins are there, you stepped through this door, there is water dripping over here, and that wall there has a dark doorway in it. Distance thuds come from a hallway over there. The whole room is about 30 by 50 feet." Then adjudicate from that and the players' actions, instead of trying to hold it all in your head.

 

[OnlineDM]

Is there any chance you can participate in a game as a player with a DM who's running gridless combat? If it's something you want to learn to enjoy, it might help to see someone who's comfortable doing it.

I personally have always run games with grids and minis (I really got into D&D with 4e), but when I ran the D&D Next playtest this past weekend I ran 4 out of 5 fights without the grid and minis, and 1 fight with them. I just kind of went with it, and luckily it worked fine for me.

Seeing it in action once or twice might help you "get it" so that you can try it yourself.

But in the end, there is absolutely nothing wrong with running D&D Next using the map and minis if that's what you and your players enjoy!

 

[Libramarian]

The idea is to develop a sense for when using the grid (or other visual representation) would actually be useful, and when it would just be out of habit.

It's not some fundamental clash of ideologies, grid vs. theater of the mind. Use both.

Same thing with larger area maps. I wouldn't give the players a map of a cave interior, because we're able to navigate that by verbal description. But I would give them a map of the valley, because that's too big and complex to describe.