D&D (2024) Mind Style versus Grid Style: can core support both?

Yaarel

He Mage
Theater of Mind Style has the DM and each player describe and visualize the encounter. The scene exists slightly differently in the minds of each gamer at the table. The feel is more like a novel.

Minis on Grid Style has the DM and players place and move minis on a mat to represent the positions in the encounter. The feel is more like chess.

D&D has always been both, originating from a hybrid fusion of Grid Style wargames and Mind Style fantasy literature.

5e generally leans toward Mind Style, but still has rules that are unfriendly to it, such as requiring attention to "micromeasurements". For example, lightsources have a differing specific radius of bright light followed by a specific radius of dim light − rather than a ballpark distance category that allows Mind Style DMs to conveniently handwaive the lighting effects in an encounter. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, for each gamer at the table to be certain if something is well illuminated or not, as they visualize the scene.

I enjoy Mind Style. At the same time, Grid Style has benefits such as keeping track of an encounter with many creatures, and the minis and maps can be beautiful art in their own right. Also, the Grid Style might be more familiar for those who are new to a roleplaying game, but who are familiar with videogames with fantasy themes.

The goal of this thread is to formulate a format for D&D core rules, that can easily support both styles of play. To do this, the thread explores what each style needs to flourish, and what each style finds difficult. In someways, the two styles are antithetical to each other. For example, Grid Style can employ micromeasurements as chess-like tactics, while Mind Style finds it difficult for each player to imagine the distances and locations in the same way.

What do the rules look like, if both Mind Style and Grid Style can use them well?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

leozg

DM
Just include both, the number for grid and the name for mind.

Distances/Range example:
Distance
Range
Melee (adjacent)​
~ 5 feet​
Close (one turn move action)​
~ 30 feet​
Mid (2 turns dash action)​
~ 120 feet​
Long (one minute dash action)​
~ 600 feet​
Far (2+ minutes dash action)​
1000 feet +​

Firebal: 150ft (mid)
Longbow: 150ft/600ft (mid/long)
 


tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Epic
Totm involves a lot of description & abstraction with things sliding in & out of a quantum state of relevance & irrelevance as the action shifts. Tactical grid involves precision & requires a lot of rules that can't be easily abstracted like totm. You can simplify & abstract precision on the fly relying on that sort of quantum shift but not the other way around to add rules & precision.



A lot of 5e's "totm leaning" is probably more the result of incomplete areas in the rules and excessive reliance on "ask your gm" rather than a deliberate effort to support totm. If that were not the case there would be things like universal range increments as noted above rather than a bunch of (often) one off ranges that may as well be drone warfare given the various rules for movement. I think that a lot of "but totm" service often comes down to just trying to justify rules omissions that fall into areas that totm itself has as weaknesses. With the proliferation of vtt's & mobile computing devices (ie cell phones laptops tablets etc) grid combat is easier than ever.

Edit:lighting is not an insurmountable hurdle that requires obluviating darkness & other games have managed it. If a room is such & such size it needs x & y amount of light to be partially & fully lit. You can do that with a number of smaller lights adding to x&y or one bug one else you can only enjoy the area being partially lit close to or maybe in short range of light sources.
 
Last edited:

Shiroiken

Legend
5E already does TotM and Grid perfectly fine, so 1D&D will almost certainly do the same. Distances might be a trickier part of TotM, but it's because everything's in flux. The DM will have a rough idea of how far different things are, and should convey that information to the players. If a player has a hard time visualizing it, it's often because the DM has failed to provide adequate information. Some players can't ever work out TotM, however, as they're solidly "visual learners" that need visual information to comprehend.
 


does it? I play TotM a lot in AD&D, but I've never played it that way in 5e. It's always been on a grid. And with more and more people using VTT, grid seems to be the clear majority going forward. 5e seems very much grid based to me. 5ft increments, rules for which squares are affected by which effect, etc.
We primmarily play 5e TotM. I don’t know if the rules promote that style, but it is easy for us to play that way.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
The biggest hurdle in my opinion is for those who play Theater of the Mind to get past the idea of needing precision. The precision you otherwise would get for playing with a grid.

Actual distances in TotM? Irrelevant. As the DM, you get to make up and narratively decide what the characters can see and do. Do they have light sources? If yes, then you have to arbitrarily determine where the monsters might be and which ones are in view... and should not once bother with the "ranges" of the light sources per the PHB. You know what those ranges are "supposed" to be-- torch throws weaker than hooded lantern throws weaker than bullseye lantern-- so just decide what can be seen.

Is a mage casting a ranged spell? Then as the DM you can and have to just arbitrarily decide how many creatures can get hit. You might have a visualization in your own theater of the mind of where the monsters are... but you won't have precise coordinates, neither in distance nor clumpage. So you just have to essentially make it up, while using a sense of logic and reason for yourself as to where they all might be.

Basically... if you wish to play Theater of the Mind, you should not try to play the board game without having the board. Just use reasonable determination and make calls that seem as likely as you can visualize, and leave the distance and positioning to those using the grid.
 

Horwath

Legend
I believe that rules support TotM pretty good, even if they are mostly written for grid play.

Personally, before we played a lot more of TotM, but with VTTs and most importantly cheap electronics, grid style has been more popular as all you need is a cheap laptop and cheap large screen TV to put it flat on the table.

Then you can shift maps in seconds and not draw them for hours beforehand.

View attachment 20210903_232753.jpg
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
It currently supports both but I wouldn't say it leans theater of the mind. There are a few things which make it harder to do theater, and I've felt like it leaned more grid over time.
 

Remove ads

Top