imagination vs battlemat

[milotha]

In my group, we find that the map actually aids roleplay, in two ways.

1) Given a more clear picture, the player is beter able to choose to do what his or her character would do.

2)Combats with the mat actually take less time than 1e and 2e combats of similar intensity. There's less discussion and disagreement about what's going on, fewer mismatches between what images are in everybody's heads. So, even though there are more tactical options, we get through the combat more quickly, and get back to the playing of personality outside of a tactical situation more quickly.

Using a battlemat in any edition speeds up the combat.

When we played 1e and 2e with battlemats we had similar results. I find that 3e with battlemats has slower combat than 1e and 2e with battlemats.

 

[Alzrius]

I think you should always use a battlecat. Just look at all the good it did for He-Man.

 

[Orius]

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.

Oh, I totally agree. You've got a sort of conditional positioning going on without the maps - the player has his character in the most optimal position when his turn in the initiative comes up, and then suddenly pulls him back when the DM gets his initiative. And of course, if the DM is in the mood to smack a PC around (and I've been there), he just sort of makes a rule call, throws logic out the window, and smacks the PC around. I prefer using a mat and minis, and I prefered it even in 2e, because it seems to generate more tactical thinking.

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?

Primarily AoO. They're a pain in the ass to judge without a mat, because there really isn't a crystal clear sense of where everyone is at the moment. Sure, no battle mat might keep things in the players' imagination more, but if you've got a standard sized playing group, you've got 5 different imaginations each seeing the combat from their own independant PoVs. If anything, no mats led to so many arguments and confusion over where everyone was, I simply ended up ignoring AoO rules when a map wasn't in use (primarily Internet based games).

 

[Deadguy]

I was going to agree with one specific thing a battlemat is really good at dealing with: the PC that manages to be move around 900 feet in the space of time it takes someone else to walk 10 feet! One friend had a player whose PCs clearly all used skateboards since they could move so far in one round (not to mention being multiply hasted, so that he could achieve four things at once!). By pinning him down to where the PC is now, it has made it possible to rein in his 'enthusiasm'!

 

[Nifelhein]

In 2nd edition I never used minis, battlemats or sound at all, then we started gaming with a new DM and he used battlemats and minis, it captivated us, then came 3rd edition and made it necessary or a pain not to have...

We use it for combat only and to define marching order when needed, of course. We don't use it if the situation is easily resolved or is so simple that using a battlemat wiould take us more time than needed (drawing the place with cardpaper pieces).