D&D 5E Theatre of the Mind or Miniatures?

[Grainger]

TotM is too hard. I have a hard enough time understanding positioning with minis. Without them, I would be totally clueless as a player. As a DM, I'm too busy for TotM. Multitasking and remembering is getting harder to do the older I get.

[snip!]

I think the reason you're running into difficulties is because (from your example) it sounds like you're trying to run minis-like combat with ToTM. You don't need to worry about exact positioning and movement distances with ToTM. For example:

DM: With your last strike, the Ogre's down!
Player: You said the enemies were pretty spread out? In that case, I'll move towards the Orc, so I can be in range for an attack next round.
DM: [deciding that the player and Orc are within 15 feet of each other] You can probably reach the Orc this round, but of course you'll have to wait until next round to attack. However, if you do that, you'll run past the Troll, who's fighting Biff, and the Troll will be able to hit you as you pass. You can take a wider route, but it will take a couple of turns to reach the Orc.
Player: In that case, I'll run up to the troll so I can help Biff next turn.

All very easy in ToTM. I have pretty much never used minis in all my years of DMing (and playing in several other BECMI and 2e games). We never found it hard because we'd never got into the "tactical wargame" mode that minis encourage (and allow). If you want to try ToTM, you really need to drop the tactical wargaming mind-set. When you're reading Lord of the Rings, you can picture the fights, but Tolkein doesn't give you the distances in feet between the characters, neither does he say "Aragorn attacked the Troll from the front, while Frodo stood to its right, gaining a flanking bonus". But yet... you know who's fighting whom, and what they're doing.

If you like the tactical minis aspect, that's fine, but ToTM really isn't difficult, unless you try to do tactical minis without a grid and minis. Honestly, I find using a grid hard because there's so much extra information to keep track of - it's much, much easier to run ToTM! And trust me, as a middle-aged parent, I too find it hard to remember stuff and keep track of information these days!

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the reason you're running into difficulties is because (from your example) it sounds like you're trying to run minis-like combat with ToTM. You don't need to worry about exact positioning and movement distances with ToTM. For example:

DM: With your last strike, the Ogre's down!
Player: You said the enemies were pretty spread out? In that case, I'll move towards the Orc, so I can be in range for an attack next round.
DM: [deciding that the player and Orc are within 15 feet of each other] You can probably reach the Orc this round, but of course you'll have to wait until next round to attack. However, if you do that, you'll run past the Troll, who's fighting Biff, and the Troll will be able to hit you as you pass. You can take a wider route, but it will take a couple of turns to reach the Orc.
Player: In that case, I'll run up to the troll so I can help Biff next turn.

All very easy in ToTM. I have pretty much never used minis in all my years of DMing (and playing in several other BECMI and 2e games). We never found it hard because we'd never got into the "tactical wargame" mode that minis encourage (and allow). If you want to try ToTM, you really need to drop the tactical wargaming mind-set. When you're reading Lord of the Rings, you can picture the fights, but Tolkein doesn't give you the distances in feet between the characters, neither does he say "Aragorn attacked the Troll from the front, while Frodo stood to its right, gaining a flanking bonus". But yet... you know who's fighting whom, and what they're doing.

If you like the tactical minis aspect, that's fine, but ToTM really isn't difficult, unless you try to do tactical minis without a grid and minis. Honestly, I find using a grid hard because there's so much extra information to keep track of - it's much, much easier to run ToTM! And trust me, as a middle-aged parent, I too find it hard to remember stuff and keep track of information these days!

Yeah, I kind of got that when I went off and listened to the Mearls ToEE Part 2 podcast.

DaveDash said how it ran so smooth. I listened to it and say, "Wait, what?". A few things were totally unclear and I was not the only one, the players had to keep asking questions about distance. I went back and listened to the combat portion twice and finally had to write it all down a third time.

My OCD tactical mindset picked up on a) Mike moved the far away guys 20 feet closer mid-round 3 seamlessly. They had been 100 feet away after their turn on round 2 and they all moved closer, but now they were 80. b) This change allowed the Bard to cast Vicious Mockery on round 3. c) The player of the Bard did not state that he was moving closer, nor did Mearls pick up on it, so he cast the 60 foot range VM from 80 feet away. Granted, he could have moved up, but neither he nor the DM knew that he needed to. d) There suddenly was this forest that the first two players never knew about, but an NPC was able to run into and get cover bonus and attacks against him had disadvantage. They could clearly see him, but he had disadvantage presumably because the sun was just starting to set 4 rounds earlier in combat and it was getting dark. Huh?

This was, in my mindset, a bit jarring. The whole "bird foreshadowing" thing was weird to me as well, but that's a playstyle issue, not necessarily a rules issue (unless a given DM like myself doesn't allow Druids to use Animal Handling to communicate with birds). I did find it amusing that Mearls could not get his bird communication idea across and finally just had to tell the players what he meant.

Not quite as smooth as DD indicated in my mind. I get it that the players were having fun, but it just jarred the heck out of me. I was a bit clueless most of the time as to what the heck was going on and had to re-listen to the podcast several times to pick up on some things I had missed.

 

[DaveDash]

Yeah, I kind of got that when I went off and listened to the Mearls ToEE Part 2 podcast.

DaveDash said how it ran so smooth. I listened to it and say, "Wait, what?". A few things were totally unclear and I was not the only one, the players had to keep asking questions about distance. I went back and listened to the combat portion twice and finally had to write it all down a third time.

My OCD tactical mindset picked up on a) Mike moved the far away guys 20 feet closer mid-round 3 seamlessly. They had been 100 feet away after their turn on round 2 and they all moved closer, but now they were 80. b) This change allowed the Bard to cast Vicious Mockery on round 3. c) The player of the Bard did not state that he was moving closer, nor did Mearls pick up on it, so he cast the 60 foot range VM from 80 feet away. Granted, he could have moved up, but neither he nor the DM knew that he needed to. d) There suddenly was this forest that the first two players never knew about, but an NPC was able to run into and get cover bonus and attacks against him had disadvantage. They could clearly see him, but he had disadvantage presumably because the sun was just starting to set 4 rounds earlier in combat and it was getting dark. Huh?

This was, in my mindset, a bit jarring. The whole "bird foreshadowing" thing was weird to me as well, but that's a playstyle issue, not necessarily a rules issue (unless a given DM like myself doesn't allow Druids to use Animal Handling to communicate with birds). I did find it amusing that Mearls could not get his bird communication idea across and finally just had to tell the players what he meant.

Not quite as smooth as DD indicated in my mind. I get it that the players were having fun, but it just jarred the heck out of me. I was a bit clueless most of the time as to what the heck was going on and had to re-listen to the podcast several times to pick up on some things I had missed.

I'm sorry I gave you the wrong impression on that.

It felt pretty smooth to me, because in our combats there are a hell of a lot of grid measuring for spell attacks/ranged attacks, positioning, measuring out movement distances, discussing where to throw the next fireball so it catches the optimal number of creatures, etc.
Not to mention a lot of workload on my part setting everything up in roll20.

THoM combats literally require nothing in the way of prep like that. There were a few questions, but I felt it ran pretty smoothly. YMMV of course.

As a side note, the whole Bird thing had me in stitches, especially when that guy actually attempted to do a bird call. Again, YMMV, but that kind of stuff is classic D&D to me!

 

[Yaarel]

In mind, it is easy to handwave distances:

Melee 1 yard
Close 10 yards (dagger)
Distant 100 yards (arrow)

Notice, Close = Standard Move

 

[KarinsDad]

I think the reason you're running into difficulties is because (from your example) it sounds like you're trying to run minis-like combat with ToTM. You don't need to worry about exact positioning and movement distances with ToTM.

I was thinking about this on the drive in to work today.

We all use TotM. All of us.

The difference is which other props, tools, and techniques that we use to make communication easier and/or the game run more smoothly.

Grids and miniatures are just tools, like pencils, the init board Mearl uses, even his DM scsreen.

As an example, in our game, we have a magnetic init board that one player controls. Most of the 8 players (including myself) can see that board from a distance, so we pretty much know when our init is coming up. Since a player controls it, that is one less thing as DM that I have to handle, so it makes the game run a little bit more smoothly for me.

But, this is not a necessary tool. We could play the game that the highest init wins and we go clockwise around the room from there (I once did this with a GURPS group). Alternatively, we could use the best init to go first and the second best to determine if we go clockwise or counterclockwise (which rewards the best init player most, but also rewards the second best init player). What this does is remove an unnecessary tool from the game and some stuff from the PHB that we just handwave away (like normal TotM handwaves positioning and distances). It's all good.

We don't need a ton of dice around the table. The DM could roll everything and just tell the players what happens. Players rolling is just a technique. Alternatively, no dice rules are needed. The DM could just decide.


The point of this is that which tools we use allow us to better use, or alternatively handwave away, certain rules. Miniatures and grids allow for a more exact placement and an easier time for the players and DM to understand how far certain objects or creatures are from a given PC or NPC in order to determine whether or not they can do a certain set of actions and movement this next round. Without this, the player might have to ask questions of the DM to determine this information. TotM allows for a more fluid situation where the DM does not necessarily have to prep a map and the DM or players do not have to move miniatures, or draw a map, etc. By doing this, the DM is potentially handwaving away some rules, PCs and NPCs might not be in the same location from round to round. Effectively, how much the encounter sticks to certain rules is totally dependent on how much the DM can juggle in his head with regard to where PCs and NPCs are located. If the DM fails to do this, then those rules might be ignored.

Using miniatures without a grid makes distances a bit more fluid than with a grid, but still on a rough scale where most of the players are accurate on distances most of the time. A string or other tool can be used to improve upon this accuracy without using a grid.


But all of this boils down to which tools and techniques a given table wants to use and for what purpose. I have seen electronic dice used, dice towers, etc. I've seen techniques like rolling both to hit and damage at the same time to speed up combat.

Interestingly enough, TotM vs. Miniatures appears to be a larger gulf than many other tool/technique gulfs. TotM players call using miniatures and grids a tactical wargame. It really isn't. It's just a tool to help the players and DM be on the same page and following some of the rules. Yes, distances and positioning might become a little more important (and the DM often has to set up an initial "map" of the area), but even in TotM, distances and/or directions are often stated by DMs or asked by players. It just be an area of the rules where mistakes are made (and often ignored), or miscommunications can more easily occur in TotM, but that might not be important for a given table.

Distance, direction, and even orientation ("the guard has his back to you") can all be important parts of TotM. They just have differing amounts of importance depending on situation, but they are still pieces of information that players might need or want to have.


Grids vs. strings for measuring distance appears to be a more minor gulf, but again, this is just a different technique to pretty much determine the same information.

 

[Mallus]

Let's see...

...for our 3e campaign we almost always used a battle mat & minis.

... for our 4e campaign we always used battle mat & minis.

... for our AD&D campaign, we almost always used TotM.

... for our 5e campaign, it's been all TotM, so far. Might break out the map for epic battles.

 

[wedgeski]

As a side note, the whole Bird thing had me in stitches, especially when that guy actually attempted to do a bird call. Again, YMMV, but that kind of stuff is classic D&D to me!

That had me guffawing as well.

 

[Grainger]

Yeah, I kind of got that when I went off and listened to the Mearls ToEE Part 2 podcast.

DaveDash said how it ran so smooth. I listened to it and say, "Wait, what?". A few things were totally unclear and I was not the only one, the players had to keep asking questions about distance. I went back and listened to the combat portion twice and finally had to write it all down a third time.

My OCD tactical mindset picked up on a) Mike moved the far away guys 20 feet closer mid-round 3 seamlessly. They had been 100 feet away after their turn on round 2 and they all moved closer, but now they were 80. b) This change allowed the Bard to cast Vicious Mockery on round 3. c) The player of the Bard did not state that he was moving closer, nor did Mearls pick up on it, so he cast the 60 foot range VM from 80 feet away. Granted, he could have moved up, but neither he nor the DM knew that he needed to. d) There suddenly was this forest that the first two players never knew about, but an NPC was able to run into and get cover bonus and attacks against him had disadvantage. They could clearly see him, but he had disadvantage presumably because the sun was just starting to set 4 rounds earlier in combat and it was getting dark. Huh?

Well, I wouldn't make a forest appear mid-combat(!), and it would be rare for me to forget mentioning it up-front. That said, I do let players "create" room dressing in the middle of a fight, within reason. If a player says "is there a chair nearby - if so, I'll kick it at the Orc" then I'll allow that, if it's reasonable for there to be a chair in the room (e.g. if it's a guardroom or main room in a house).

In terms of distances, I am a bit fast and loose, but I generally know how big the area is, and roughly know where the various adversaries are - so I have a good idea whether someone can reach an enemy in a given round. In most cases, I have pretty small rooms anyway - I don't go in for vast, cavernous spaces - so I suppose distance is rarely an issue for me, and when it is, it's generally very easy to keep track of. If every PC wandered off to different areas of a large room, then that might be different, but I'd just make a quick note on my map. Generally, where I have the monster hit points, I make a note of which PC is fighting them (if toe-to-toe). The party mage is "near" (so within 10 feet) one or more party members, unless the player specifies otherwise.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm sorry I gave you the wrong impression on that.

It felt pretty smooth to me, because in our combats there are a hell of a lot of grid measuring for spell attacks/ranged attacks, positioning, measuring out movement distances, discussing where to throw the next fireball so it catches the optimal number of creatures, etc.
Not to mention a lot of workload on my part setting everything up in roll20.

THoM combats literally require nothing in the way of prep like that. There were a few questions, but I felt it ran pretty smoothly. YMMV of course.

I get what you are saying. I actually thought that the encounter ran about the same as ours do. Some players there asked distance questions which would not happen with grid and miniatures, but we waste a little time moving miniatures.

Since we do not allow a lot of table discussion in combat, we might not have the same grid measuring, tactics discussions and such that you have that do waste time. Effectiveness often comes at a cost, in this case, time.

I would have a 1 minute delay drawing the road, hill, bandit tree, forest on the other side, etc., but such a simple area would take very little time to draw.

As a side note, the whole Bird thing had me in stitches, especially when that guy actually attempted to do a bird call. Again, YMMV, but that kind of stuff is classic D&D to me!

In some ways, it is classic D&D, but I didn't find it that funny, just a bit dumb. I do admit, however, that I have no emotional attachment to those players and I watched it alone, so the exact same thing at my table would probably have me laughing hard. The same thing happens if I watch a comedian on TV. A few of them are funny even on TV, but most are not to me, especially if I am by myself watching them. If I'm in a comedy club with friends or watching them on TV with a room full of family, those same non-funny comedians become hilarious, presumably since everyone else around me is having a blast.

 

[trentonjoe]

Well, I wouldn't make a forest appear mid-combat(!), and it would be rare for me to forget mentioning it up-front. That said, I do let players "create" room dressing in the middle of a fight, within reason. If a player says "is there a chair nearby - if so, I'll kick it at the Orc" then I'll allow that, if it's reasonable for there to be a chair in the room (e.g. if it's a guardroom or main room in a house).

In terms of distances, I am a bit fast and loose, but I generally know how big the area is, and roughly know where the various adversaries are - so I have a good idea whether someone can reach an enemy in a given round. In most cases, I have pretty small rooms anyway - I don't go in for vast, cavernous spaces - so I suppose distance is rarely an issue for me, and when it is, it's generally very easy to keep track of. If every PC wandered off to different areas of a large room, then that might be different, but I'd just make a quick note on my map. Generally, where I have the monster hit points, I make a note of which PC is fighting them (if toe-to-toe). The party mage is "near" (so within 10 feet) one or more party members, unless the player specifies otherwise.

I use your chair example a lot when running with minis. We use terrain a lot but sometimes I just will draw a big room and say its filled with crap feel free to add stuff ( and we sometimes draw it in). I usually include skill checks to manipulate the chandelier, table, bed, pot of soup that people add.