imagination vs battlemat

[Evilhalfling]

In second edition we almost never used a battlemap of any sort. Everything was imagined, as a result we seemed to be more in the moment than more current campaings. Do battlemats take away from the dungeon experiance?

I realize that 3rd is so wieghted to grid maps that it is nearly impossible to get by with out them. When I do a dungeon now, the entire thing is drawn out one hallway at a time.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

INHO & IME I believe that using a Battlemat DOES detract from the role-playing experience. I've found that using a Battlemat turns the game into a tabletop miniatures wargame. The players start counting squares to ensure that they aren't subjected to AoO when they move and to target their spells for maximum effect. Don't get me wrong, Miniature Wargames are fun... I played WH40K for a good long time (until I could no longer afford it) but when I play/run D&D I want a roleplaying game. Recently I've quit using my Battlemat and instead use a dry erase board to just draw a quick sketch of the area I am describing. We just use our own judgement on how far someone could get within a round on the sketch. It isn't scientific or precise but I've found that my game benefits from it.

 

[diaglo]

i used to make complete maps of the adventure to scale for the minis on paper.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

The problem I had with 2e is that there was constant misunderstanding about where everyone was. "Oh! I didn't know the orc was there! In that case I do something different from what I just said." was a common-heard phrase. And this is when players were being mature and you didn't have a guy acting like a jerk and pretending not to understand what was going on.

DMs also abused this. Bad guys went from being in melee range to basically warping out of combat and escaping. That could get unsatisfying from a players point of view.

For those who don't like battlemats, why is 3e harder to play without one? 2e and especially 1e had all the ranges, movement rates, and whatnot all listed. Why is it harder in 3e?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm very much with Calico Jack on this. I know lots of people like the mats, and I don't begrudge them that. Heck, I'm playing in a game that makes heavy use of them, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't having fun. But I prefer to do without. I've never personally seen a game where--at least to some extent--the instant the mat/grid game out, people didn't start thinking in terms of squares and metagame tactics, and stop thinking (at least as much) in character. And yes, I include myself in that; it's a tendency I try to fight, but I can't seem to help it any more than anyone else.

So, when I'm running my own games, I use a mat in exactly two circumstances, and not always even then:

1) The combat is so complex and has so many participants that it's simply impossible for me to keep track otherwise. (And even then, if the party is facing a bunch of orcs who are just charging at them, there's not always a need for the mat.)

2) The environment in which the combat is taking place is very complex, such as with lots of various ledges, outcroppings, archways, or whatnot. (And even then, if the precise location of each doesn't matter, we often handle it in abstracts and Jump/Balance checks.)

Yes, we do occasionally have a break in the action where a player and DM have differing ideas of the situation. But it doesn't happen that often--and even when it does, I find it far less disruptive than square counting or "No, I'm going to move through this square, rather than that square, to avoid the AoO" every round.

 

[just__al]

If you are going to use feats like cleave, combat reflexes, and whirlwind attack along with the AoO rules, having a battlemat keeps the arguing over whether or not certain things can happen to a minimum.

I don't map out dungeons as they go on the map. It slows down the game. I am however quite willing to let the players hand me the map they are making and tell them if they are waaaay off. If they are off 5 feet here or 10 feet there, it's not a big deal they'll be able to find their way back.

If it's important to know where people are, I'll call for the mat to be cleared and draw some stuff in. I also have those plastic railroad set trees when they are in forest and want to take cover.

I also don't always tweak if the minis for characters and monsters aren't the right mini. Hell, I use a bunch of those plastic zombies (from the bag of 100 zombies) and I've numbered the bases so I can keep track.

 

[Caspian Moon Prince]

I rarely use them. Like Calico_Jack I feel like the use of a battle map takes away from the roleplaying part of the game. People roleplaying less and rollplay more with the map. I do use a battlemap, but only rarely. Those times are mainly when I'm having a large number of opponents(like a real battle) and roleplaying in that scenario will be little to none anyways. When I decide to have a mini-fight inside this large scale battle, I'll go away from the map.

 

[Crothian]

I've used a battle mat to map out a complicated dungion once. That was it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The problem I had with 2e is that there was constant misunderstanding about where everyone was. "Oh! I didn't know the orc was there! In that case I do something different from what I just said." was a common-heard phrase. And this is when players were being mature and you didn't have a guy acting like a jerk and pretending not to understand what was going on.

DMs also abused this. Bad guys went from being in melee range to basically warping out of combat and escaping. That could get unsatisfying from a players point of view.

For those who don't like battlemats, why is 3e harder to play without one? 2e and especially 1e had all the ranges, movement rates, and whatnot all listed. Why is it harder in 3e?

It's a question of how much pressure the rules put on the players to do so. In 1E/2E, all you had to ignore was the fact that movement rates were measured in inches. In 3.5, entire aspects of the game are designed around minis. Movement-based AoOs, specific feats and powers, and some spells--as written--require you to know exactly where things are located, in terms of squares. You have to be able to flank to make full use of the rogue. Even the way things are phrased in the rules, or examples are pictured, lean in that direction.

Yes, you can play 3.5 without minis. I do so frequently. But you have to ignore/change a lot more of the game to do so than you used to, and that's what I (and many others) have a problem with. I don't mind games that allow for the use of minis--1E and 2E did that, and quite well. I object strongly, however, to games that make any sort of attempt to require them. IMNSO, the game should be (and could be) written to facilitate both playing styles with equality, not lean so heavily toward the tactical.

 

[diaglo]

some of us came to D&D from the wargaming side.

i had minis and used tactics and measurements before i ever played as a single character.