Imagine, no Battlemat...

[woodelf]

[discussion of ambiguity in spell placement]

The counterpoint being, of course, that use of the grid ELIMINATES this. A monster is either in a given square or it's not. That square is either within the spell area or it's not. The sorceror is either obviously avoidable by adjusting the spell placement or he isn't, and it doesn't require anything more than looking at where things are for all to see if it will work or not. A grid specifically facilitates this and that's partly why I find it incomprehensible that anyone should then complain, "The players are actually USING the grid! This MUST be discouraged!"

As one or two other people have said, i'm in the "yep, a grid eliminates those questions; that's the problem with it," camp. I find the precision of D&D3E combat jarring, and something that gets in the way of my enjoyment of the game. I want some ambiguity and fuzziness, especially in what is supposed to be a fast-moving combat. So we play without a mat or miniatures. If there's ever a question of the GM's description, i clarify the description, or grab some dice (or pennies, or whatever--but usually dice are the most at-hand) and demonstrate relative positions. IOW, i make sure the players have all the info their characters would have. But if it's a question that the character might not know the answer to--such as judging how much distance is between an opponent and an ally, at an oblique angle from 100' away--then it might require a spot check or a spellcraft check or whatever is appropriate, and the spellcaster might not get it right. I'm not trying to cheat the players--if their character should be able to tell, or tell close enough, i tell them: "you're certain you have enough room" "there's no way you can pull it off" "it might work; you really can't tell from here".

Basically, i consider the fact that a well-done battle mat, etc., gives the players more info than their characters have to be a bug, not a feature. Yes, not using a mat runs the risk of the players not having all the info their characters have. If i'm gonna err, i'd rather err in that direction--and that includes when i'm the player. Plus, too little info is easily corrected; it's too easy, IME, to unintentionally use OOC knowledge when a battle mat is present.

 

[genshou]

[discussion of ambiguity in spell placement]



As one or two other people have said, i'm in the "yep, a grid eliminates those questions; that's the problem with it," camp. I find the precision of D&D3E combat jarring, and something that gets in the way of my enjoyment of the game. I want some ambiguity and fuzziness, especially in what is supposed to be a fast-moving combat. So we play without a mat or miniatures. If there's ever a question of the GM's description, i clarify the description, or grab some dice (or pennies, or whatever--but usually dice are the most at-hand) and demonstrate relative positions. IOW, i make sure the players have all the info their characters would have. But if it's a question that the character might not know the answer to--such as judging how much distance is between an opponent and an ally, at an oblique angle from 100' away--then it might require a spot check or a spellcraft check or whatever is appropriate, and the spellcaster might not get it right. I'm not trying to cheat the players--if their character should be able to tell, or tell close enough, i tell them: "you're certain you have enough room" "there's no way you can pull it off" "it might work; you really can't tell from here".

Basically, i consider the fact that a well-done battle mat, etc., gives the players more info than their characters have to be a bug, not a feature. Yes, not using a mat runs the risk of the players not having all the info their characters have. If i'm gonna err, i'd rather err in that direction--and that includes when i'm the player. Plus, too little info is easily corrected; it's too easy, IME, to unintentionally use OOC knowledge when a battle mat is present.

woodelf, have you ever tried hunting with a bow? If you can't look at a distant deer and instantly gauge both distance and angle, you're never going to hit anything. I think that's part of the training characters receive in spellcasting: knowing how to perceive distance to foes, so they are aware of whether or not they can target that opponent with short, medium, or long spells. In some cases I might require a Spellcraft or Spot check, but not usually.

So what if a battlemat makes things easier on the players? Is that a bad thing? All the whining I'm hearing from the anti-battlemat group just sounds like bad players to me. I can imagine a foe's chunky bits flying across the battlefield whether there's a battlemat in front of me or not. The player who won't do so while using a battlemat isn't any more capable of doing so without; it's simply a matter of the capabilities of his or her imagination.

 

[Mouseferatu]

So what if a battlemat makes things easier on the players? Is that a bad thing? All the whining I'm hearing from the anti-battlemat group just sounds like bad players to me. I can imagine a foe's chunky bits flying across the battlefield whether there's a battlemat in front of me or not. The player who won't do so while using a battlemat isn't any more capable of doing so without; it's simply a matter of the capabilities of his or her imagination.

That's simply not true, Genshou. I know quite a few people who really have trouble sitting back and picturing the scene, or getting into character, with the minis and mat in front of them, but have no problem doing so when the game is purely narrative/descriptive.

They're not bad players, any more than the people who prefer the grid are bad players. It's just a difference in the way people think.

 

[genshou]

That's simply not true, Genshou. I know quite a few people who really have trouble sitting back and picturing the scene, or getting into character, with the minis and mat in front of them, but have no problem doing so when the game is purely narrative/descriptive.

They're not bad players, any more than the people who prefer the grid are bad players. It's just a difference in the way people think.

Is it? My gaming group's gone both styles and the player with an utter lack of capability to imagine things with a battlemat is... *gasp* just as utterly lacking in capability to imagine things without it. Meanwhile, the rest of us only grow frustrated because we like to take advantage of tactics and hate to have the DM repeatedly "narratively describe" every bit of cover (including foes), higher ground, good opportunities for area spell use, etc. I'm not advocating it as the right way for all groups to game, simply saying that if you work on him/her, the player who just moves their mini and says "I attack" is just as capable of imaginative, role-played combat with a grid as without. Assuming they are capable of it to begin with.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Is it? My gaming group's gone both styles and the player with an utter lack of capability to imagine things with a battlemat is... *gasp* just as utterly lacking in capability to imagine things without it.

Sure, such people exist. Not arguing that.

But they're not the only people to have problems with the battlemat. Some do, indeed, just need practice. Others really can't manage it. It's just like how some people "see" the events in their head when they're reading a book, while others don't visualize what they're reading, instead interpreting the meaning directly from the description. One's not a better reader than the other. One doesn't necessarily enjoy reading more than the other. It's just two different ways that different people's brains process information.

 

[Aaron L]

Is it? My gaming group's gone both styles and the player with an utter lack of capability to imagine things with a battlemat is... *gasp* just as utterly lacking in capability to imagine things without it. :

And some people *gasp* hate mats and see them as reducing the game to some sort of board game where you move your piece around the field and, and strip all of the roleplaying out of the game, not being able to see anything but the "monopoly boot" on the board in front of them.

Some people like me.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

As one or two other people have said, i'm in the "yep, a grid eliminates those questions; that's the problem with it," camp. I find the precision of D&D3E combat jarring, and something that gets in the way of my enjoyment of the game. I want some ambiguity and fuzziness, especially in what is supposed to be a fast-moving combat. So we play without a mat or miniatures.

Now THAT I can respect. I think you're wrong but I'm willing to let you off the hook.

 

[Clavis]

(In response to: "In a real fight you don't get the chance to decide upon tactics, or even where you will move next. You just start swinging and hope the enemy dies before you do") You take that mentality to the combat fencing I used to do and you will lose so many times it isn't funny. A good swordsman can herd an unskilled individual and usually will. I was only mediocre but even I had tactics based on the foe (height, speed, reach, chosen weapon) and could change mid-flurry.

True, and perhaps I was exaggerating a little for effect. But then, you're talking about a trained fighter, which is precisely my point. Untrained people really stand no chance against trained ones in combat. The AoO rules seem to posit that everyone is good enough to take advantage of openings in other's defences. I have entertained the notion of making the AoO a fighter feat, rather than an integral part of the combat rules. But then that would re-introduce the battlemat, to regulate the feat! The whole point of my original post was that I dislike the battlemat, and that ditching it means ditching the AoO. At least in my experience.

Many people do meta-game the battlemat. I resolve it with spot checks to see what you notice. And you can notice things beyond your particular target with practice (aka "skill ranks"). Doing 3-on-5 streetbrawl scenarios often ended up with several 1-on-1s and 2-on-1s in different places that could get you stabbed in the back if you didn't learn situational awareness. Lemme tell ya, situational awareness in a fencing mask is a total pain.

I like that Spot checks idea. People with higher Wisdom then become more effective combatants. It can ruin the day for Min-Maxers with little foresight, and that's ALWAYS a good thing!

That is training and reflexes. Watch boxing on ESPN. Ali's "Rope a Dope" is a classic example of tactics on the fly. George Foreman, the classic "take hits til you get tired" fighter, was no dummy in the ring and could get faster boxers to throw punches on his terms and in the moment they weakened, WHAM, flattened them with a meathook the size of a Yugo.

Yes, all true for trained fighters. NOT wizards, farmers, and cobblers! In D&D Ali was a very high-level fighter with at least Improved Unarmed Combat, and Weapon Focus & Weapon Specialization in his fists. Personally I think giving him multiple effective attacks per round would adaquately model they way that he could take advantage of your mistakes and hit you time after time before you knew what was happening. That how it was done in OD&D and AD&D, and it worked perfectly well.
My point was never that you can win a fight without tactics, just that the AoO is a poor modeling of real combat, and commits the unforgivable sin of being terminally un-fun!

 

[Nebulous]

My point was never that you can win a fight without tactics, just that the AoO is a poor modeling of real combat, and commits the unforgivable sin of being terminally un-fun!

I like the idea that 3.x wanted to implement another level of strategey markedly different than earlier editions, but AoO's don't completely satisfy me. I use them, yes, but not to the full extent the game suggests. It bogs it down too much.

I've noticed that in real world combat, keeping on the MOVE is as essential to survival than swinging a sword. Whether melee or boxing, combatants never never never sit in two adjacent squares and pound each other. It is a constant battle to either escape the other, or dart in for a blow. DnD has spring attack and such feats, but these are only available to high level fighters, and only after burning serious feats to get them. I would love to see a version of DnD combat as more fluid, less-chesslike, with armor as DR and Parry and Dodge rules (like Conan uses)

 

[swrushing]

So, this is all a roundabout way of speculating about the possibility of d20 without miniatures. Is anyone doing it? Do you just get rid of attacks of opportunity or what? Or can you keep AoO and still do without knowing where the 5 ft. squares end and begin? Or, more generally, do you need a slimmed down, reworked d20 system or just the same game and more imagination?

Can we live without the battlemat?

For my previous DND game, we tended to use batle mat about 3/4 of the time. With seven players, that helped. i also used ita lot when there was a fairly detailed terrain, like ruins with upper and lower levels at use simultaneously.

My stargate d20 game doesn't use 'em much at all. once in a great while.
My MnM game started using them but rapidly declined to hardly ever.

AoO are doable, but the Gm needs to keep tossing in as a matter of course how close things are in his descriptions. Not like "and the other orc is 10' away" but more descriptive.