Playing in Person Is Just Better (for me)

[damiller]

I went through a very few VTTs. Maptools I think was one of the first ones I used. And then Roll20 appeared, and I have been a user since it started. I even remember thinking "Will this last?" and it did. While I rarely play games that require maps, now that I have jumped hard into Marvel Multiverse it has made playing it soooooo much easier. I know Roll20 has its problems, but honestly, besides a crappy voice feature, its been good for me.

 

[Retros_x]

I started playing in an in-person campaign a few weeks ago and preparing currently an open-table-sandbox-game for in-person play - super hyped after playing years online only for the reasons you all already stated.

VTTs are a trap IMO. It starts to feel more and more like a video game, everybody is looking at map only, imagination of the space gets highly limited. Theatre of the Mind is unfortunately a lot harder to do online. In person with gestures and quick small skizzes the "spatial communication" works usually quite well, online its a lot harder with words only.

Oh and rolling real dice is just more fun than clicking on virtual character sheets.

 

[Thomas Shey]

VTTs are a trap IMO. It starts to feel more and more like a video game, everybody is looking at map only, imagination of the space gets highly limited. Theatre of the Mind is unfortunately a lot harder to do online. In person with gestures and quick small skizzes the "spatial communication" works usually quite well, online its a lot harder with words only.

To make it clear, you have a right to your opinion, but purely TotM has almost always been a nonstarter for me anyway.

 

[Retros_x]

To make it clear, you have a right to your opinion, but purely TotM has almost always been a nonstarter for me anyway.

As I said I don't use purely TotM, I use small scribbles too - for example quick abstract maps of the room, especially for more complex layouts. Or just have rough positions of everybody on blank paper. Works perfectly fine in my games and I see how more imaginative players are compared to detailed dungeon maps in VTT. But online TotM doesn't work for me neither.

 

[Thomas Shey]

As I said I don't use purely TotM, I use small scribbles too - for example quick abstract maps of the room, especially for more complex layouts. Or just have rough positions of everybody on blank paper. Works perfectly fine in my games and I see how more imaginative players are compared to detailed dungeon maps in VTT. But online TotM doesn't work for me neither.

That would be better, but still probably inadequate for me. I can summarize why.

1. The majority of games I engage in from either end of the table are ones where positioning, distance and things like cover actually matter.

2. I have very poor spatial imagination and memory, so keeping track of everything in the environment that's relevant is functionally impossible.

As such, the only time I've been able to get away with that is the rare case of systems where, in practice, none of those were particularly relevant; the only one that comes immediately to mind was Scion 1e, where the combination of very high movement on everyone's part and very little in the way of area attacks made it moot.

 

[Xamnam]

Oh and rolling real dice is just more fun than clicking on virtual character sheets.

Even with my online groups, most people have still opted to roll live rather than go through the hassle of formatting online sheets.

 

[Retros_x]

Even with my online groups, most people have still opted to roll live rather than go through the hassle of formatting online sheets.

Interesting. I also allow real rolls and lot of players use it, but mostly because its for fun. In my experience the online sheets are not a hassle at all, you click on your skill, it gets automatically rolled, modifier already applied, result immediately.

1. The majority of games I engage in from either end of the table are ones where positioning, distance and things like cover actually matter.

They matter in my games too. "I get to cover behind that column [you described]", "Can I shoot XY?" etc. they all matter, they just get communicated differently. Distances I'll admit matter but only the (in my eyes) interesting parts. I don't care about having 5 feet differences. I'll abstract distances as "melee, close (within normal movement), near (within dash), far (everything else)"
These are the difference group of distances that matter IMO. 5 feet squares are also an abstraction after all for ease of use, theoretically you could be 5 inches to far away to be in reach but I think we all can agree that this would be a bonkers level of specification.

I have very poor spatial imagination and memory, so keeping track of everything in the environment that's relevant is functionally impossible.

If you try to emulate grid combat in TotM I think nobody has the functional capability of keeping track of all the spatial relations. But usually I only memorize "Aragorn and Gimli are in melee with the orks, Legolas is sniping from the cover of the trees, Merry and Pippin are hiding in the ruins at the side of the battlefield" and again I use pure TotM rarely. Usually only for simple easy encounters with small number of enemies in simple battlefield. For everything else I use tokens for the spatial relations. Sometimes draw a quick small abstract map or draw zones of the battlefield on cards ("forest, open field, ruins") where the tokens can get placed.

In my experience as someone who used all methods, this leads to less players staring on the tabletop board of a map and more roleplaying in combat. Also I can always improvise a battle and the players never know it (if its improvised or planned). Plus I don't feel tempted to railroad players in a combat situation because I put 2 hours preperation in a detailed battlemap (I experienced this multiple times as player with other DMs). I also can do dynamic battlefield with moving terrain or objects quite easy. Try to have a fight on airship that breaks apart on a grid map.

That doesn't mean I never use detailed maps btw. I like to change my tools depending on situation and context. If I know the big boss finale will happen and it is supposed to be an epic, tactical, long fight, than I will pull out the detailed grid map. But when playing online I am basically forced to do grid maps only. All other approaches don't work as well online.

(Now we only have talked about battle maps. In online play usually players get a full dungeon map which completely transforms D&D in a board game. In personal play I let them draw a map and only describe their environment.)

 

[Corinnguard]

Oh and rolling real dice is just more fun than clicking on virtual character sheets.

To each, his own. I like watching virtual dice roll across the top of my D&D Beyond character sheet. It's kind of liking watching one of those casino slot machines as the numbers roll right past you and then slow down to reveal the final result. Then you get to be either get very excited ("I rolled a Natural 20!!!!") or seriously bummed out ("I rolled a 1 again?!?!") or somewhere in between.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you try to emulate grid combat in TotM I think nobody has the functional capability of keeping track of all the spatial relations. But usually I only memorize "Aragorn and Gimli are in melee with the orks, Legolas is sniping from the cover of the trees, Merry and Pippin are hiding in the ruins at the side of the battlefield" and again I use pure TotM rarely. Usually only for simple easy encounters with small number of enemies in simple battlefield. For everything else I use tokens for the spatial relations. Sometimes draw a quick small abstract map or draw zones of the battlefield on cards ("forest, open field, ruins") where the tokens can get placed.

The problem is that that doesn't come close to telling my all the things I need in some games. When the melee moves, does Legolas still have an angle of fire on those orcs? What trees or rocks are in the way? When Gandalf throws a fireball at the group of goblin archers, how many will be in it; can he do so without hitting Boromir where he's off dueling with the orc chief?

Not only will I probably be making it up as I go, but there's no assurance anyone will have the same concept of position and layout two turns down as when I described it.

In my experience as someone who used all methods, this leads to less players staring on the tabletop board of a map and more roleplaying in combat. Also I can always improvise a battle and the players never know it (if its improvised or planned).

That--doesn't necessarily seem a virtue to me.

Plus I don't feel tempted to railroad players in a combat situation because I put 2 hours preperation in a detailed battlemap (I experienced this multiple times as player with other DMs). I also can do dynamic battlefield with moving terrain or objects quite easy. Try to have a fight on airship that breaks apart on a grid map.

To me, doing it on the fly just seems like it'd tempt me to define things on the fly to suit the opposition, in a way that should have otherwise been visible from the start.

That doesn't mean I never use detailed maps btw. I like to change my tools depending on situation and context. If I know the big boss finale will happen and it is supposed to be an epic, tactical, long fight, than I will pull out the detailed grid map. But when playing online I am basically forced to do grid maps only. All other approaches don't work as well online.

(Now we only have talked about battle maps. In online play usually players get a full dungeon map which completely transforms D&D in a board game. In personal play I let them draw a map and only describe their environment.)

Like I said, my experience is that without at least a sketch map, the chance I will have a concept of the layout that is the same as my players over the course of a battle is minimal. YMM (and obviously does)V.

 

[Retros_x]

Then you get to be either get very excited ("I rolled a Natural 20!!!!") or seriously bummed out ("I rolled a 1 again?!?!") or somewhere in between.

I agree with the feelings of that thrill, but isnt that the same for virtual and real dice?

When the melee moves, does Legolas still have an angle of fire on those orcs? What trees or rocks are in the way? When Gandalf throws a fireball at the group of goblin archers, how many will be in it; can he do so without hitting Boromir where he's off dueling with the orc chief?

Yes these are questions you clear with a talk between DM and players. Just like in every other roleplaying scene out of combat. The goal of TotM is to remove that barrier between combat and non-combat. If you like that distinct switch - cue-final-fantasy-battle-theme - between two game modes and want to have that chess-like-tactical-precision-board that has nothing to do with the rest of the game - please do it. I use them too, as I said repeatedly, I also use tactical grid maps. Different tools in my toolbox, I am not dogmatic about it.

That--doesn't necessarily seem a virtue to me.

I am assuming you mean the latter part ( I really hope). It is a virtue because I can improvise battles without my players realizing it is improvised. Why is that good? I can react to their actions. I think for non-linear games its great. Also I have not hours of time for preperation, so I try to focus my time on prep that matters and in my humble opinion fancy maps are one of the least important preperations you can do. If you have the time for it and like it - great. But please don't act like its more virtuous whatever that is supposed to mean in this context.

To me, doing it on the fly just seems like it'd tempt me to define things on the fly to suit the opposition, in a way that should have otherwise been visible from the start.

In general in TotM you try do improvise more biased towards the players.

Like I said, my experience is that without at least a sketch map, the chance I will have a concept of the layout that is the same as my players over the course of a battle is minimal. YMM (and obviously does)V.

I now say for the 3x time: I use sketch maps and rarely do pure ToTM. In general I get quite the antagonistic vibe from you, as if you want to prove that your gamestyle is better, has "more virtue" etc. ToTM and gridded tactical maps have different goals, you seem to try to push grid goals onto TotM and come (rightfully) to the conclusion that they are not good at these goals. I say they are different tools in my toolbox as DM with different design intentions and goals. And to bring it back to topic: Only playing in person lets me take full use of that toolbox, because these more abstract combat "interfaces" are harder to do in online games.

I honestly don't think there is more to add unless we go full off-topic. I've said everything I wanted to said about it and already repeated myself so if you just want to continue why TotM is baaad I won't engage further. Another thread might be suitable for a continuation. Otherwise I will mirror the friendly words you started this discussion: To make it clear, you have a right to your opinion, but purely grid has almost always been a nonstarter for me anyway.