Imagine, no Battlemat...

[ThoughtBubble]

I've played with and without the map across multiple games.

In general, the battlemap brings everyone on the same page but costs us description and creativity in our fights.

The most extreme case was in my first 3.0 game, where a player who is usually fairly good about description declared his action by moving his piece across the board and saying 'I attack'. The board beame the interface to the game, rather than a piece of equimpent to track locations and terrain.

On the other end, the Exalted game I was running tended towards confusion about what and where things were. When layouts were important, I'd take a piece of paper and draw a rough version of the area we could drop figures on. We break out a to-scale battle map sometimes, when distances are important.

What I've found is that a battlemap is very handy to have. It helps keep people on the same page as to what and where things are. It also means that the guy who isn't entirely paying attention until his turn can still keep up with the game. It does, however, tend to get people paying more attention to where they're standing, and get angry about things like being moved by a hit or dodging by being pressed back. Descriptions can also fall by the wayside.

I've been having a lot of success with a technique in my M&M sessions though. We have a bag of cheap figures we use for tracking characters. We have a battlemat. A lot of time is spent withouth the mat to encourage talking and creativity. Often times we'll break out a sheet of paper and do a quick sketch of "You're here, the wall's here". But whenever it becomes important I describe the scenario (With big hand gestures) and draw a 'mostly to scale' map. Combat happens mostly while we're talking (I tend to apply their descriptions as bonuses, special abilities and FX) and then we resolve any issues and update the board. Everyone has a good idea of what's going on, and flow is maintained.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

And as for folks who moan about fig costs, etc - feh, I say.

Spoken like a true bachelor.

 

[Clavis]

IMHO, the battlemat makes combat LESS realistic.

In a real combat, nobody has the benefit of an overhead view and several minutes to decide upon moves. Real combat is messy and chaotic, with constant, often unintended movement. The problem with the battlemat is the tactical approach to combat that it engenders. 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. No neat 6-second rounds where you can decide where you want to end up for the next round. Nor do you automatically know whats happening on teh other side of a dark room with other figures blocking your line of site.

That's why ditching the Attack of Opportunity makes the game MORE realistic. In reality, very few people have the kind of wits that it would take to take advantage of openings in somebody else's defense. For those that do have such wits , an adaquate mechanic to representy them already existed in 1st Ed., and continues to exist - multiple attacks per round.

How do I adjudicate combat tactics without the mat? If you do something that gives you an advantage, like attacking the opponant's side (on the initial round), or fighting from a higher elevation, you get a +2 circumstance bonus. If you do something that gives you a great advantage, like attacking from behind, you get a +4 circumstance bonus. Simple. I don't keep track of exact positions, because in a real combat the fighters would rarely be able to control their own positions with precision. Not even trained martial artists can (just ask an honest one.)

Now without the AoO, the major reason for using a battlemat disappears. Of course, I'm not saying that nobody should use battlemats; certainly some people have more fun playing the game with battlemats, and the ONLy reason to play the game is to have fun. I am simply proposing to those who have not yet considered it that the AoO, and the therefore the battlemat and miniatures that it requires, is not as necessary as WOTC would have you believe.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

When I play D&D, I love me some battlemaps. But that's the wargamer side of me.

Play Vampire, Call of Cthulhu, Exalted, Cyberpunk, etc...I don't USUALLY use maps,
unless the field gets littered w/ opponents. They don't lend to the minis like D&D
does.

Does that make D&D less? Does that mean you can't play w/o minis? Not at all.
Just my personal preferrences.

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

We tried them for three sessions, and all the players but one voted to ditch them. We play in a cinematic, cooperative story-telling style, and wether there's an AOO or a line of site or how much anyone moves is more based on the most dramatically appropriately answer than the rules. When there's a real dispute, we vote. Sometimes, we forget to use the dice.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

In a real combat, nobody has the benefit of an overhead view and several minutes to decide upon moves.

Which is a real problem for playing D&D at all then given that it always has been a turn-based system with no limits on the time taken by players to decide on tactics except as the DM desires to maintain pacing to combat.

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.

Which, thankfully, D&D has NEVER tried to accurately model because it would make for a hideously dull, tedious, UN-fun gaming experience for the "high fantasy" genre.

I don't keep track of exact positions, because in a real combat the fighters would rarely be able to control their own positions with precision. Not even trained martial artists can (just ask an honest one.)

Well, certainly anyone who chooses D&D as an ostensibly "realistic" model of tactical combat has no clue. D&D is not now, never has been, and (hopefully) never will be even close to "realistic" combat.

Now without the AoO, the major reason for using a battlemat disappears.

Um... AoO is hardly the major reason for using a battlemat.

I am simply proposing to those who have not yet considered it that the AoO, and the therefore the battlemat and miniatures that it requires, is not as necessary as WOTC would have you believe.

Nobody has said (or at least nobody SHOULD be saying) that the mat and minis are "necessary". 3E WAS designed with them in mind though. Even so, AoO is NOT what makes a grid "necessary". The need for a grid and rules to make direct use of it arises from the desire to eliminate AMBIGUITY and ARBITRARY decision from the process of running combats.

D&D, having been based originally on table-top wargaming miniatures rules, has always used table-top scales appropriate for the use of miniatures. So in a sense it has always had a grid. Back in the day, if your characters movement was 12" you literally moved a miniature 12" on the tabletop - if you indeed used miniatures. What the game hasn't done until 3.0 is to not just use the scale appropriate for miniatures but to require adherence to a standard grid. It now has rules to make maximum use of that grid. It can thus be used to further quantify rules regarding such issues as facing (or as of 3.5 the elimination thereof), areas of effect, line of sight, line of effect, cover, movement, and range for both spells and weapons. Where previously a fireball was a 20' radius circle with all the attendant issues of a potential target being inside, outside, or neither fully in or out of the radius, depending on PRECISE placement of miniatures as well as arbitrary decision on spell placement, now that radius is represented by a specific grid pattern rather than a circle and it affects only those squares that it covers utterly eliminating spell placement and character positions as an issue requiring DM adjudication.

Miniatures are of course the least "necessary" component, but they look cooler than fold-up cardboard, flat disks of cardboard or plastic (like poker chips and coins), Lego-people, Green/Tan Army Men, and the like.

That's why ditching the Attack of Opportunity makes the game MORE realistic. In reality, very few people have the kind of wits that it would take to take advantage of openings in somebody else's defense. For those that do have such wits , an adaquate mechanic to representy them already existed in 1st Ed., and continues to exist - multiple attacks per round.

AoO's is a rule that was instituted to make up for a failure of previous rules - the failure to model exactly what you're talking about, which is when an additional vulnerability DOES open up in someones defenses because of actions that they are taking.

Mulitple attacks, that is what are now referred to as iterative attacks, do NOT model that because iterative attacks are NOT conditional upon what an opponent does. They are strictly a reflection of YOUR skill at attack, not your opponents skill at defense. And AoO's were introduced because people DEFINITELY DO have the wits to take advantage of openings in someones defenses and that NEEDED to be addressed. Removal of AoO therefore [without simultaneously replacing it with other rules serving the same purpose, is LESS realistic.

But wait a minute. I just read your comment again and I'm now quite confused. Let me see if I have this right:

An opponent lowers his defenses below "normal" and you say mulitple attacks should be used to model it - not by granting an additional attack with AoO rules? Indeed, you're saying that simply granting an additional attack is LESS realistic, and that the situations being modeled are better dealt with through... multiple attacks. I think you'll have to explain this to me again. Especially since you also say that granting AoO attacks is mostly what makes a grid and miniatures necessary.
* * * * *

Mind you I DON'T have a particular issue with whether people want to use grids and miniatures with D&D rules or not. Heck there's a few points that have been made that I agree with as a downside to mats and minis. It's just that I'm seeing some poorly considered arguments against them as well.

 

[Clavis]

Which is a real problem for playing D&D at all then given that it always has been a turn-based system with no limits on the time taken by players to decide on tactics except as the DM desires to maintain pacing to combat.
Which, thankfully, D&D has NEVER tried to accurately model because it would make for a hideously dull, tedious, UN-fun gaming experience for the "high fantasy" genre.
Well, certainly anyone who chooses D&D as an ostensibly "realistic" model of tactical combat has no clue. D&D is not now, never has been, and (hopefully) never will be even close to "realistic" combat.

You don't make your players actually beat the sh**t out of each other with swords? What is his world coming too?
What I was trying to say was that the battelmat-centered 3.* combat system IS an attempt to model combat more realistically, and that it fails miserably. Combat, which should be exciting, becomes a board game. Better to treat the whole thing abstractly and narrate the exact moves.

Um... AoO is hardly the major reason for using a battlemat.
Nobody has said (or at least nobody SHOULD be saying) that the mat and minis are "necessary". 3E WAS designed with them in mind though. Even so, AoO is NOT what makes a grid "necessary". The need for a grid and rules to make direct use of it arises from the desire to eliminate AMBIGUITY and ARBITRARY decision from the process of running combats.

But the problem is that 3.* combat, as written, is tedious as all hell. And to play it from the book, using all the rules does require mini's (which surprise, WOTC now sells) and a battlemat. You have to simplify the rules to do without the battlemat, and get exciting combat back.

D&D, having been based originally on table-top wargaming miniatures rules, has always used table-top scales appropriate for the use of miniatures. So in a sense it has always had a grid. Back in the day, if your characters movement was 12" you literally moved a miniature 12" on the tabletop - if you indeed used miniatures. What the game hasn't done until 3.0 is to not just use the scale appropriate for miniatures but to require adherence to a standard grid. It now has rules to make maximum use of that grid. It can thus be used to further quantify rules regarding such issues as facing (or as of 3.5 the elimination thereof), areas of effect, line of sight, line of effect, cover, movement, and range for both spells and weapons. Where previously a fireball was a 20' radius circle with all the attendant issues of a potential target being inside, outside, or neither fully in or out of the radius, depending on PRECISE placement of miniatures as well as arbitrary decision on spell placement, now that radius is represented by a specific grid pattern rather than a circle and it affects only those squares that it covers utterly eliminating spell placement and character positions as an issue requiring DM adjudication.

I've played both OD&D and AD&D through every edition, and never encountered the need for mini's, or ever had spell radii be a problem. 3.* edition has made it a problem, though, by trying to make combat realistic and instead making an RPG into a board game.

Miniatures are of course the least "necessary" component, but they look cooler than fold-up cardboard, flat disks of cardboard or plastic (like poker chips and coins), Lego-people, Green/Tan Army Men, and the like.

Do not bring your cardboard prejudice here!

AoO's is a rule that was instituted to make up for a failure of previous rules - the failure to model exactly what you're talking about, which is when an additional vulnerability DOES open up in someones defenses because of actions that they are taking.

Mulitple attacks, that is what are now referred to as iterative attacks, do NOT model that because iterative attacks are NOT conditional upon what an opponent does. They are strictly a reflection of YOUR skill at attack, not your opponents skill at defense. And AoO's were introduced because people DEFINITELY DO have the wits to take advantage of openings in someones defenses and that NEEDED to be addressed. Removal of AoO therefore [without simultaneously replacing it with other rules serving the same purpose, is LESS realistic.

You wouldn't get the ability to effectively damage someone multiple times UNLESS they do something stupid, and you're are an exceptional fighter. The AoO is redundant, and slows the game down without a big payback in player excitementy and enjoyment.

But wait a minute. I just read your comment again and I'm now quite confused. Let me see if I have this right:

An opponent lowers his defenses below "normal" and you say mulitple attacks should be used to model it - not by granting an additional attack with AoO rules? Indeed, you're saying that simply granting an additional attack is LESS realistic, and that the situations being modeled are better dealt with through... multiple attacks. I think you'll have to explain this to me again. Especially since you also say that granting AoO attacks is mostly what makes a grid and miniatures necessary.
* * * * *

Yes, because only very trained fighters would be able to take effective advantage of the situation. Remember two things: 1) Hit points represent how hard it is to kill someone, NOT how much damage they can sustain in an absolute sense. They're an abstract way of showing how important a character is to the ongoing story. They represent how Conan can fight 20 men without ever taking a good sword thrust, while the avaerage evil wizard's guard gets dropped at the first blow. 2)The attack roll never represented a single thrust, but how effective your attacks are in the combat round. There are feints, blocks, and poor thrusts accounted for in that round. Multiple attack rolls really just mean that your character fights better, not that he can warp time and space to swing a sword 3 times faster than a lower-level character. More of his blows connect, because he is better able to exploit weaknesses in his opponant's defence. Therefore, I suggest that there has always been a mechanic to represent the fact that some people can effectively use other peoples' dumb moves against them in combat, and that multiple attacks per round represent that ability.

Watch, or better yet, participate in an actual fight to realize just how hard it is to think while adrenaline is pumping. A well run combat should get the player's adrenaline actually pumping, should be almost as exciting as actually wailing on a dragon woulds be. Once the battlemat comes out, however, the experience is no longer visceral, but purely intellectual. RPG combat, which should be creating mental pictures of blood and guts hitting characters in the face instead becomes an exercise in argueing about what causes an AoO and what doesn't, and whether a character can take a 5' step or not.

I guess what it all means is that I prefer a more free-form, abstract set of rules because it allows a good DM to tailor the experience to the players, and maintain excitement more easily. The battlemat is another way that 3.* attempts to castrate the DM and reduce him down to a mere rules referee.

 

[Aaron L]

I will say it again: 3.x does NOT REQUIRE a battlemat of any kind. We have never used one and always followed the strict letter of the rules QUITE succesfully, with no fudging or simplification required. I wonder, all of these people claiming that a mat is required, have you ever even tried it without one?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

That's why ditching the Attack of Opportunity makes the game MORE realistic. In reality, very few people have the kind of wits that it would take to take advantage of openings in somebody else's defense.

And here I was thinking people played DnD in the hopes of having competent heroes, instead of losers. I guess I was quite wrong.

 

[kigmatzomat]

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.

Nor do you automatically know whats happening on teh other side of a dark room with other figures blocking your line of site.

I'll give you that one. 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.

That's why ditching the Attack of Opportunity makes the game MORE realistic. In reality, very few people have the kind of wits that it would take to take advantage of openings in somebody else's defense.

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.