To grid or not to grid. New staff blog . April 11

[Mattachine]

I remember using a 1" square chessboard (or a couple of them, pushed together) back in AD&D. I had an extensive minis collection, too, and used the DMG rules for minis, and understood the "scale inches" idea. Still, I used TotM much of the time, paper and pencil about the same amount of time, and used minis for important/tough fights only.

These days, I use minis for all important fights, but I am going back to paper or TotM for simple fights/encounters, even in 4e. I know some other folks that primarily use TotM in 4e, with no difficulties.

I hope that 5e does not assume tactical grids, but supports their use for interested players.

 

[Incenjucar]

Having watched some wargaming lately, I'd really love to be able to drop the grid and just go with a nice 3D map, but it adds a bit of complexity in that you have to constantly measure things, which can be a real pain with odd-shaped minis and bases, and you can't as easily plan things out in your mind, which is vital when you need to do things extra fast (like when the game store is closing D: ). As such, I stick to the grid. Grid and gridless can be pretty much interchangeable though, overall, if you have the tools for quick measurements.

Mapless combats... I've tried them, and I can't stand them. I enjoy precision far too much to have to instead just try and talk the DM into things. I freaking hate position negotiations. It's as bad as winning or losing a fight in a video game because of lag.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I love the grid for tactical combats, but there are certainly times that I skip it.

 

[Griego]

Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

For me it depends. The 4 hit point mooks in room 5? Just use TotM.

If we are talking about Thar the orc warchief and his 2 dire wolves who are the set piece encounter for the adventure ? Then yes use the grid.

"Guys? When Gund whips out the battle mat, everybody go nova, because you know it's going to be a tough/important encounter. Otherwise, ease up and save the good stuff for when we need it."

 

[I'm A Banana]

Precision?

For me personally, if you need to know exactly what imaginary 5-foot box your imaginary character is pretending to stand in, you've already lost me. Not to mention the extra cost and time and complexity and space. It's all far too wargamey, far too fiddly, far too unrealistic, far too formal.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Give me evocative descriptions over plastic. Give me freedom of imagination over a measuring tape and square-counting. Give me fluidity and adaptability over precision and exactitude.

For combat, I want much less of an attempt at simulation. Combat is not an end in and of itself for me. It should not take up 90% of my brainspace when DMing. If it does, I don't have fun DMing. It is part of a grand mosaic of adventure and action. It needs to do its job, and get the heck out of the way.

It can't do it's job if it's tethered to plodding chunks of plastic and overly concerned with something as minor as positioning.

I don't care. I can't bring myself to care. It doesn't matter. Give me the unlimited possibilities of the theater of the mind. Take your little dolls and go home, they cannot compare to what exists in my head.

I will absolutely accept not knowing exactly where a character is standing as a trade-off for that, just as I accept not knowing exactly how a character is injured when we're measuring HP.

For me, I must be unrestrained.

Others want other things, so it's key to have some capacity for that, but I cannot abide.

 

[Ratskinner]

I actually want a middle ground on this. A "zone" system, where players are just considered to be in zones.
* You break the battle area into zones which are linked to each other. Logical breakdown of the battle theater.
* Every participant is considered to be in a zone and zones can have multiple participants in them
* You can use a move action to move from one zone to another
* If you are in the same zone as an enemy, you can melee attack it.
* If you are in the same zone as an enemy they can AOP you (and vice-versa)
* Ranged attack ranges are measured in zones
* Area attacks target zones (for instance, fireball attacks all creature in a zone up to 3 zones away)

Its simplistic...but thats what I want, simple. It rewards placement (to a degree) and gives you something to build tactical challenge upon, at the same time doesnt do square-by-square micro-management. I have been going over iteration's of this in my mind for a while now, cant quite perfect it, but the principle of it seems to intrigue me.

You beat me to it.

I've played a couple different games using Zones, and they are an awesome mechanic. The best part about it is that its easy to write simple and interesting maneuvers, too.

 

[Gundark]

We did a group analysis of what was taking combats to be so drawn out. Grids werent the number 1 item, but they were acknowledged as one of the contributers. When players micro-position where they stand, where that fireball lands, the best "tactical" positioning, its all takes time. This is the trade off (which was eloquently pointed out) between hyper-accurate positioning and speed.

The other thing Im not so hot on with grids is that they arent the theater of the mind. Its great when your mind constructs the image of what is going on. The more the grid is in place, the less I find this happens (for me).

I actually want a middle ground on this. A "zone" system, where players are just considered to be in zones.
* You break the battle area into zones which are linked to each other. Logical breakdown of the battle theater.
* Every participant is considered to be in a zone and zones can have multiple participants in them
* You can use a move action to move from one zone to another
* If you are in the same zone as an enemy, you can melee attack it.
* If you are in the same zone as an enemy they can AOP you (and vice-versa)
* Ranged attack ranges are measured in zones
* Area attacks target zones (for instance, fireball attacks all creature in a zone up to 3 zones away)

Its simplistic...but thats what I want, simple. It rewards placement (to a degree) and gives you something to build tactical challenge upon, at the same time doesnt do square-by-square micro-management. I have been going over iteration's of this in my mind for a while now, cant quite perfect it, but the principle of it seems to intrigue me.

I am on my tablet so I can't grant xp. But as far as TotM stuff goes I would rather see some kind of zone system as opposed to laying it out in terms of feet and meters .

 

[Dragoslav]

"Guys? When Gund whips out the battle mat, everybody go nova, because you know it's going to be a tough/important encounter. Otherwise, ease up and save the good stuff for when we need it."

Not sure if you intended it as such, but this is a valid issue.

I also have a completely sincere question that came to me as I was reading the "whatever works for the situation" proposal. If you're using TotM for the battles that don't require much precision or thought and grids for more complex ones, then presumably these TotM battles are ones that the DM is sure the players are going to win. So, my question is, why have such battles that amount to minor speed bumps at all? Isn't it just a way of drawing out the inevitable "Orcs charge you from around the corner, but you kill them easily. What do you do now?" If all that stands between "orcs attack" and "you kill them" is a few dice rolls, while other battles require significantly more time and effort, why have the simpler ones at all? Why not make every combat encounter equally complex (if not equally difficult)?

Or is the suggestion instead: All combat should be difficult, but some is straightforward (e.g. orcs charge you from the other end of a long hallway) while some is complex (necromancer down below, skeleton archers swinging from the chandeliers up top, difficult terrain + environmental hazards around)?

 

[CM]

D&D to me has always and will always be miniatures-based. It's a roleplaying addon to a wargame, for crying out loud. Miniatures attract interest. You can tell at a glance what's going on, which side is winning, what combatants are in trouble. Seeing 20 or 30 zombies set out on the table breaks people out into a cold sweat much better than mere words.

The grid helps eliminate DM favoritism (whether conscious or unconscious) toward those players who are able to more eloquently lobby for favorable rulings. It does away with the need for constant adjudication of the players' actions. Players can help each other out with reminders of positioning and tactics rather than having to channel every action through the DM.

Yes, I can make do without, but I find that any time saved on not mapping everything out is consumed by people asking for clarification or reminders on the current situation when their turn comes up. Maybe they could pay closer attention, but players are human. They go for snacks, use the restroom, answer the phone/door, and chat about life.

Edit:
That said, I voted for method appropriate to the encounter. Sometimes we use a more abstract map to visualize where people are in location to one another, especially in chase, aerial/aquatic, or urban situations.

 

[Incenjucar]

Precision?

For me personally, if you need to know exactly what imaginary 5-foot box your imaginary character is pretending to stand in, you've already lost me. Not to mention the extra cost and time and complexity and space. It's all far too wargamey, far too fiddly, far too unrealistic, far too formal.

Thanks, but no thanks.

For me, precision helps, rather than detriments, my creativity, and makes everything run much faster and more fluidly, and makes for a much more interesting mental picture. It's one of those things that varies heavily between individuals. All the more reason for options, I suppose.