imagination vs battlemat

[Evilhalfling]

See also the thread that I suspect inspired the poll for details.
:

Yes It Was The Insperation What Is The (i cant do it) was anyone actually having trouble reading this as a coherant setences ?
Anyway I didn't want to hijack that thread, is there some etiquitte involved?

To Biggusgreekus - 1st and 2nd ed backstabs were very rare without battlemaps, if logically you couldn't seek up on someone then it didn't happen.
It was just a straigt DM call.

I don't think I could make the switch back without simplifying combat as has been suggested by others. The map for battles is obviously necessary, but I think I will spend more time giving descriptions rather than drawing for most of the dungeon. That may be an answer anyway, try to create sceans with visuals first then move to the map, when necessary.

 

[teitan]

On the one hand I like battlemats but on the other it takes time away from gaiming, I hate having to draw out each room they are in when combat starts and the minis look so lonely standing in this bare room with little to no detail (I am NOT drawing every detail), it just detracts from the experience. I guess that is why I am so interested in terrain and building some modular stuff for my game so I can just take the parts and build the room on the fly with little to no prep time as far as laying it all out goes.

Jason

 

[MerricB]

I rarely use a battlegrid and miniatures/counters, but I have done so for more complicated battles.

Not using a grid, I feel, is mainly a result of how you learnt the game. Some people learn with a grid, others do not.

You can find good DMs who work with either style (although a good DM with a grid is not always a good DM without, and vice versa), and you can find bad DMs for either style.

The bastard DM who says "You get fireballed" is just a bad DM.

Cheers!

 

[Umbran]

Well, for us it is like this. We find that using a grid gets rid of a huge number of the frequent misconceptions and miscommunicatiosn that happened back when using only imagination.

However, we find that setting up the mat when the combat is very simple, or when there's no combat at all, takes up more time and effort than not using the mat.

So, we use the mat sometimes - when the fight is complicated or the details of how it progresses are highly relevant. Other times, we work by the old description method.

And, for the record, none of use started playing the game with mats. We adopted them when 3e made using them easy and effective.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I use imagination because a grid is just too much frickin' hassle. Waaaaay too much.

If I could find a computer program that would map everything to a scale and that I could trace the movements of the party on while simultaneously showing each member of the party where they were (via a TV screen or something), then I would do it. If it were free.

Otherwise, I've got better things to do with my time than map the outside.

Not begrudging those who do, of course.......it's just not as important for my campaigns.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

If I could find a computer program that would map everything to a scale and that I could trace the movements of the party on while simultaneously showing each member of the party where they were (via a TV screen or something), then I would do it. If it were free.

Ditto.

 

[dougmander]

I use a large battlemat with Dwarven Forge scenics placed over it, but only for battles, and sometimes, not even then. Often I'm content just to describe the battle, and jot down some schematics on a piece of scrap paper. I agree that using a battlemat tends to make players focus more on the rules and less on story and character, but a battlemat ensures that everyone is visualizing a complicated situation clearly -- it makes for fewer DM-player misunderstandings. As a former wargamer, I'm comfortable with the tabletop wargame aspect of D&D, and in fact, consider it to be lots of fun -- a game within a game, if you will.

 

[Deadguy]

Up until playing 3E I have never really used a battlemat, or other easily-manipulable representation of combat. The most the groups I was involved in bothered with were scrappy diagrams quickly sketched on a sheet of A4, with arrows and rubbings-out as combat progressed. Not ever having done anything else, I was happy enough with this.

Then I played a few games using counters and a homemade battlegrid. Whoa! What a difference it made! To be able to actually use the movement rules that most games include, and take real advantage of ranges and areas of effect was an eye-opener. Suddenly many more real choices opened up for characters (and the NPCs). Rather than arbitrary DM-determination of the value of actions, everyone could see what the effects of a choice were. Now I could see that I could run up to the door and drop a fireball into the midst of the badguys, rather than the DM going "err... probably too far away to do it this round, but you'll be in place for next round."

To some people this seems like it interferes with the ability of the DM to set a scene and manage it. But I rather see that it makes the DM take into account the game rules and abilities which represent the capabilities of the PCs in the physical sphere. It doesn't stop me role-playing my character; I still choose how, when and where to fight based on the PC's personality, but now I can also add in a real judgement of the PC's game-described abilities, rather than relying on the DM's guesses. In combat especially, the DM has a great deal to do; it's no wonder that when pressured they tend to underestimate the capabilities of the PCs (that he's not actually playing), and overestimate (or precisely know) the abilties of the NPCs that he has the details of in his head, or before him. It's not a matter of the DM being 'unfair', but an unconscious bias arising as a fairly inevitable consequence of him being the only person who really knows what's going on. I think Zappo put it best when he said that it's a game of shared imagination. Using a more detailed representation requires the DM to share more of his 'omniscient' perspective.

So now I always try to get some sort of battlemat used in all the games I play. Not all GMs are willing to do so, and as a consequence combat sequences in those games are always far more fraught and stressful, as I struggle to get the GM to actually describe in game terms what the situation my PC perceives is. And I notice that the players with the stronger and more forceful personalities leverage that surety into more advantageous combat situations ("but surely if he can see me, I must be able to get a bead on him!").

So, no, I really love the battlemats, and the sense of shared activity and community it helps create.

 

[RCanning]

I have found that under 3e combat is faster then it was in 1st and 2nd ed., mostly because of the battle-mat. We spend a lot of time each session role playing. Then we get into combat, I lay it out on the battle mat, put down some minis and we get to it. It works quickly, and it is fun.

I also find that the players now tend to make combat decisions in-character, rather than just trying to keep it all together in their head. They will go one way to aid someone they like, they will surreptitiously let one of the bad guys get past them. All of this happens better than it used to, and people can see it without the GM having to be blanantly obvious.

The options are expanded, and the arguments are less. Where is the downside?

 

[FireLance]

Some people are able to play chess without a chessboard (blindfold chess) because they are able to remember the exact location of every piece on the board. I can't do that, so I use a chessboard when I play chess.

Some people are able to play D&D without a battlemat because they are able to keep in mind the exact location of every terrain feature, PC, NPC, monster and trap in the game, or make good rulings on whether the PC will hit his allies with an area effect spell, how long it will take for a PC to rush to help an ally while avoiding attacks from his enemies, and so on. I can't do that, so I use a battlemat when I play D&D.