Poll: Minis, battlemats and interpretation thereof

[Drowbane]

It's literal in that the character is mostly somewhere in that 5' sq area. It's abstract in that he doesn't take up all that space himself.

What he said.

Maybe it is the lack of coffee at this god-awful hour (its not even noon yet!!)... but I can't wrap my mind around how you can use minis and a battlemat and vote abstract.

 

[Drowbane]

Hey, this is the Internet. Misinterpretation is what we're all about.

QFT

 

[RFisher]

If you don't use the battlemat, how do you orchestrate combat efficently?

Players state their intent rather than trying to specify exact positions: "I move to flank the gnoll." or "I stay between the wizard & the orcs."

To visualize the scene, they ask questions: "Can I position myself so that Bob & I will be flanking the first orc & Tom & I will be flanking the second orc?"

The DM volunteers clarifications & warns about AoOs & such: "You can flank the gnoll, but not without one of the orcs & the gnoll possibly getting AoOs."

Does that answer your question?

I am not saying that it can't be done, or that you are doing it wrong. I am actually just interested in how you use the mat in a "less than literal" sense.

When using a mat, I have to consider it still a somewhat abstract representation. The combatants don't really act in mutually exclusive quanta. The lines draw for the walls & such were drawn in a rush, & my drawing isn't exactly precise even when I take my time. The figures (for me, typically paper minis) can't possibly represent the character's exact positioning & facing. (Heck, by the 3e rules the character is already a sort of electron cloud within its "face" square.)

Even then, my visualization of the battle is what matters. The mat & figures are just communication aids. When a detail not represented on the mat becomes important it gets mentioned. Players still ask questions to clarify their own picture of the battle.