Imagine, no Battlemat...

[Diremede]

I never used a battlemat until about 3 years ago. Before that we simply drew on a piece of paper where everyone was and as the DM and players we decided where so and so was, how long it would take to reach someone, how far a character could go etc. I think 3E really changed how we worked with D&D, AoO's on paper where much more difficult to balance out, at least as far as movement goes, and certain game elements such as the radius on a fireball and similar area of effect spells weren't all that exact. I think on the whole 3E is much more of a tactical game as far as character position, movement, and attacks are concerned more so than previous editions of the game where flanking, AoO's, and area of effect spells. I think when 3E came out I switched to graph paper drawings and maps for representation for these reasons, and actually the game worked out quite well. In 2002 I switched to a battlemat simply because the new group of folks I was gaming with were using mini' and whatnot to represent their characters and monsters.

Does it matter? No. I think the game can work just as easily on graph paper with pencil or markers, for even the most tactical of gaming groups, and that plain paper and pencil works just fine for those who just want simple representations of the layout of a building or whatnot, and don't really care about precise movement and tactics.

 

[Crothian]

So, it seems that battle mats are used to keep players and DMs honest and to help those who just can't play without one. In addition to all the other reasons to use one.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

It all depends upon how the DM sets up his or her game and the willingness of players to go along with it.

One intersting thing that I experienced that I think underlines this is an online game I got involved in with a bunch of friends who I used to play with each week, but we scattered across the country. I joined up with the game after they had already been playing for a few months. They used a web-based blackboard program to display maps and room layouts, unfortunately my computer was not compatible with the program. End result, I was playing without a battlemat, while the rest of the group had one. I managed. The DM tried his best to interpret my actions and be more descriptive.

Me: I cast fireball at the spellcaster, trying to catch as many opponents as possible in the spell.
DM: OK, you can either catch three opponents in the spell, or six if you are willing to catch Shade in the area as well.
Me: Well, Shade did tick me off when he refused to help me earlier...

Me: I move to strike the guy attacking Duragis.
DM: Are you going to move so that you avoid any AoOs? There will be one opponent who could hit you if you moved straight in.
Me: Straight in, take the AoO, he's in too much trouble to dance around them.

In the end, it can be done, but I have to admit I like using the battlemat.

 

[DrNilesCrane]

Here are some pictures of our setups:
http://www.houseoflucas.com/mike/dnd/MikesCampaign/april27/page_01.htm
http://www.houseoflucas.com/mike/dnd/MikesCampaign/dec28/page_01.htm
http://www.houseoflucas.com/mike/DnDIndex.htm

Nice set-up!

I use hand draw maps on large rolls of graph paper for battlemats. I've found that using them does encourage a tactical aspect of the game, although it hasn't overshadowed the role-playing by a longshot and my players appreciate the mix. I personally like the visual representation to make combat running quicker and without arbitrary rulings on the locations of various characters, NPCs, etc. I've only encountered one player who was anti-battlemat (claiming it "limited his imagination" - one problem of many!) and they seem to solve many more problems than they create or are typically encountered without them.

 

[Mystery Man]

I've played D&D on a battlemat or grid since Basic and 1E. Can't stand playing without them. It leads to too many arguments about "I though he was there".

And the PCs in our game are now 21st level and I have yet to have a combat that would have been sped up or more interesting if we had not used the battlemap. In 2e we had lots of battlemap battles take place with our 14-16th level characters (Retired on the switch to 3e). Level has no affect of whether or not a battlemap enhances play.

Oh I agree that it has no affect on enhancing play, that's not what I'm saying. It just becomes more of a place holder or marching order marker at higher levels since players can fly, levitate or basically move beyond the 2 dimensions represented on a flat surface. I'm certainly not knocking the battlemat, I use it all the time! Just not as much at higher levels for many things.

By the way guys, those who are saying that the battlemat hinders imagination..you realize you're implying that you have no imagination right? If something represented visually on a tabletop gets in the way of your "imagination" you're the one with the problem. Just FYI.

 

[Kuld]

I personally have never used a battle mat until recently when we started playing with the new 3-3.5E regulations. To tell you the truth, I much prefer not using one, but I do only because of the new combat system in the latest edition (which I do believe to be a little better then before). But, we all got along fine for the past 18 or so years with out one. In fact, the trick is getting us to use one correctly.

 

[Altalazar]

I've used a battlemat and minis since long before 3E because I liked minis, liked painting them, and it was just a nice way to visualize positions. When we didn't have a mat, we'd use a chalkboard or a dry-erase board. Or pencil and paper. But the mat and minis was the easiest way to go - before that, there would sometimes be disputes about where someone was standing in combat (and elsewhere) which was just annoying.

I love my minis and mat and I'd never go back.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Been playing D&D since I was 9, in 83. Never once used a mat until 3E. I still prefer not to use one, and in any game I'm running, the mat only comes out when a fight is very complex, with many, many opponents.

Been playing D&D since just prior to when AD&D (1E) was being released and have ALWAYS used some fashion of battlemat and miniatures. I only leave them unused when a fight is very simple, or when gaming away from usual locations and simply don't have access to them (can only remember a couple of times in decades of gaming when that's happened). Frankly, though I've never actually tried it, I doubt it would even seem like D&D without them. Given that I (and everyone I game with as well) consider the mat and minis to be part and parcel of the game since Day 1, I dont WANT to try to game without them.

As always, YMMV.

I respect your gaming style... and believe that you play incorrectly and make jokes about it to reassure myself.

 

[Zander]

The games often have a Laurel and Hardy who's on first conversation.

Abbott and Costello?

 

[Odhanan]

Is that a difference in game systems or what?

Clearly, IMO. d20, through its design of combat rules, the feats and skills that affect it, assumes you use markers, squares etc. I.e. some type of spacial representation. Can we live without the battlemat? Sure. But that requires some interpretations on the fly when it gets to flanking, threatened areas and the like.

In other words, consistency and fairness comes with zero effort.

Zero effort with minis? For some DMs no doubt, but that depends on the DM's style - if you include painting minis, setting the table elements, drawing/building the map, designing the adventure as to fit whatever you're using as representation, then playing out the combats themselves, it can be time and money consuming.

As opposed to trusting your DM which is much cheaper, I think, but less common.