Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ogrork the Mighty" data-source="post: 1530796" data-attributes="member: 19042">I've played both ways and w/o a battlemap DEFINITELY adds to the role-playing experience, if for no other reason than the DM and players are required to ask more questions about the situation. Interestingly, combat ran FASTER as there weren't as many arguments over the technicalities of the rules. It's important for a DM to be flexible; a lot of people have said that players' image of the battle may be different than the DM's. That's fine, b/c it's a better representation of a REAL battlefield where people don't have the ability to look down on things to get the whole picture. However, a good DM will be flexible and allow PCs to do interesting things or react in interesting ways to situations that the DM might not have envisioned.3E has really turned D&D into a pseudo-war game where a battlemap is required to play "by the rules." I'm not saying that's bad, but it's definitely a step away from role-playing (not to say RP doesn't still exist, but it's reduced by the heavy reliance on diagrams and miniatures).After playing both ways, I don't really have a preference. Both have their advantages and disadvantages; it's just a matter of taste. In the long run, however, I believe battlemaps and the use of miniatures will stifle imagination and reduce creativity (in the same way computer/console games foster less creativity than, say, reading a book).</blockquote>