Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yaarel" data-source="post: 8814064" data-attributes="member: 58172">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&amp;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 &quot;micromeasurements&quot;. 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&amp;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?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yaarel, post: 8814064, member: 58172"] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification